R/C Tech Forums

Go Back   R/C Tech Forums > General Forums > Electric On-Road

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-20-2005, 09:23 AM   #61
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 185
Default Part 2

In my opinion ROAR finally had a good set of battery rules where both leaders (GP and IB) were conforming to. There was no reason to go against this....you did not have the ability to announce new cells every week....the customer had less choices for "his hard earned money" and it made things simple at the races
Tech inspectors did not have to measure cells EVERY heat...etc etc.

Now to throw that away and a allow a cell in that DOES NOT CONFORM to the rules.......with less than a month and half before the new year and was supposed to by ROAR....I think is terrible. It sets a bad prescedent and could force legal action against a battery company (with major money) who feels their company has been slighted and they want to release a cell when they feel like it or when it is ready like ROAR did for IP......not a great idea....in my opinion

How many people voted? 10? Did ROAR supply any information to these people on the potential issues (good or bad) before the vote.......

Its like asking people if they no longer want to follow the rules and pay taxes....and dont tell them that in 8 months their taxes will probably double due to all the harm the "original vote caused"
ErnieP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 09:28 AM   #62
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 185
Thumbs down #3

As far as Danny and Eddie not starting a thread about the rule change and the information etc.....I can bet they knew nothing about it. ROAR does not reach out to any manufacturers (it would have been nice to do what we are doing now) and getting different viewpoints.........from SMC, Orion, Brood, Trinity etc etc

But that just does not happen.....the "naysayers" will say I dont get the infomration....because I am not a ROAR member...and I would respond.....why should I? For decisions made like this.....

ROAR should have decided what to do.....with their board. Not just throw this out to the membership with no information......they didnt let the membership vote on brushless which fit "NO standard IFMAR OR ROAR Rules.

I think all these organizations are sending a message...if you get in their face......and start complaining they will change the rules for you...whether your products fit or not...."noisy wheel affect"......hell maybe I should join
ErnieP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 09:34 AM   #63
Tech Elite
 
ChrisP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Shelby Twp, MI
Posts: 2,046
Trader Rating: 8 (100%+)
Default

I kep asking the question and no-one has answered..but...does anyone know how or why ROAR found it acceptable to change the submission standards 2 months AFTER the cell submission approval deadline?????

Cells were submitted with the rules set in September...with this new change, according to the ROAR approval process, should submissions under the new standard now not be allowable until 2007?

Will ROAR have another submission deadline so that the other manufacturers (GP and IB) can fairly compete and have time to modify their processes and submit updated cells?

Will GP launch legal action against ROAR for money lost due to having to retool their GP3300 because it was too long, while ROAR allows its rules to be modified for other manufacturers?

They have opened up a huge can of worms here...I wouldhope that they would handle the situation correctly...but I have my doubts...
ChrisP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 09:38 AM   #64
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chandler, Arizona
Posts: 3,273
Send a message via AIM to Dawn Sanchez
Default

the vote was an 'advisory' vote, guys.....

please, reread the wording of the what the membership was asked. Its an opinion that was asked by the membership before a rule change is made. People complain ROAR makes rule changes without asking.. so we do and now you condemn??

IFMAR has adopted and changed the 43mm rule and they did this without consideration of any manufacturer which leaves ROAR holding an empty basket for its membership.

EVERY SINGLE BATTERY MANUFACTURER NEEDS TO REACH ROAR OFFICIALS AND STATE THEIR BELIEFS, THOUGHTS, AND REQUESTS. ROAR DOES NOT WANT TO CHANGE THE RULE FROM 43 TO 44 AS SUB-C IS AN INTERNATIONAL REQUIREMENT OF SIZE. Only one battery manufacturer has been in contact with ROAR regarding this and they provided PROOF that cells out there are not legal....... so now what??

Personally, I want what the membership wants. But, if this in any way hurts a manufacturer and/or gives undue advantages to anybody, I'm against this. I need more information before I use my vote on the Excomm....

wierd, this is the first I've heard of anybody having issues with the advice being requested by the membership.


Dawn Sanchez
ROAR Promotions
Member, Excomm and one of SEVEN votes that needs some advice on which way to go.......
Dawn Sanchez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 09:39 AM   #65
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chandler, Arizona
Posts: 3,273
Send a message via AIM to Dawn Sanchez
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Windsorguy99
I kep asking the question and no-one has answered..but...does anyone know how or why ROAR found it acceptable to change the submission standards 2 months AFTER the cell submission approval deadline?????

that they would handle the situation correctly...but I have my doubts...

Windsor - the ballot came out with the advisory vote for November 14th deadline. No decision has been made. The deadline for submitting batteries will be adjusted based on the decision that must be made for 2006 competition.

Why don't you ask why these cells were not approved for 2005 competition. Better to ask that.......
Dawn Sanchez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 09:44 AM   #66
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chandler, Arizona
Posts: 3,273
Send a message via AIM to Dawn Sanchez
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErnieP
As far as Danny and Eddie not starting a thread about the rule change and the information etc.....I can bet they knew nothing about it. ROAR does not reach out to any manufacturers (it would have been nice to do what we are doing now) and getting different viewpoints.........from SMC, Orion, Brood, Trinity etc etc
Ernie - I was under the belief that Randy Holst and David Lee both contacted you to inquire about this advisory vote during the same time we requested from you a 19T motor on the approval list.

I am sorry you didn't know about this... you do now and you must now realize this is not a decision that has been made... hence the term 'advisory' vote to the membership...

asking for advice from the membership. Its your time NOW to get ahold of Rick, Mike, Bob, Kenny, David, Randy and Me to state your beliefs and get done what needs to be done.

Please, this needs to be settled. IFMAR has made their change. The cells out there are not legal in size... now what??
Dawn Sanchez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 09:45 AM   #67
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 185
Default Question

Why over the past 20 or so years....were we (ROAR) never in a position to have to comply or do whatever EFRA or IFMAR said.....I dont think any organization could run smoothly if ONE GROUP is telling the others what and when to do it......

Why should ROAR change it's rules to help at this moment one company who REFUSES TO COMPLY TO THE ROAR measurements. Do you or the Exec board have ANY IDEA how many CHINESE COMPANIES are ready to or could submit batteries for approval......how does this help electric racing?

Unstable sources with price-points that are going to go up and down at a whim etc....is not going to help the credibility of electric racing in the eyes of the wholesalers and hobby shops in this country......
ErnieP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 09:45 AM   #68
Tech Legend
 
Wild Cherry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: TRCR Modified Driver
Posts: 22,595
Default

Why even buy these new 3800`s,3700`s IB`s & Gp`s ?

I`m buying the Li-po anyway.....


I have already checked with my local track , as long as I`m running the Li-po in mod only , its all good.....

So sorry , not gona play who`s got a little more punch and we added another 1000 mili amps games...

Gona buy the superior product...


After all , If I was going to conformed to Roar rules for one, maybe two races out of the year.
It would only cost me more money...

And ...
We all know everyone is not gona buy the legal cells if there`s something a bit better available...
Thats why most racer`s have already stuff their pit box`s with 3800`s, even though they are not even legal yet....

Club`s have allowed the 3700`s , 3800`s, ect. already
Racer`s who purchase only 3300`s last year had to purchase the illegal cells just to keep up....

So I`m just going to do the same thing with these new Li-po`s


Best of luck keeping up with me......
__________________
Any driver can copy a great set up, a Champion however will steal it .
If Jesus returned as a Rc car he be a Rc10 B5M
George W. Cherry
Wild Cherry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 09:47 AM   #69
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 185
Default OK

Dawn I did not know this was not passed until you just said so....lol
No we have heard nothing from ROAR and actually the only person that ever contacts us is you and David Lee....these are only contacts

When will the VOTE be taken in ROAR to allow or disallow this size change?
ErnieP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 09:48 AM   #70
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chandler, Arizona
Posts: 3,273
Send a message via AIM to Dawn Sanchez
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErnieP
Why over the past 20 or so years....were we (ROAR) never in a position to have to comply or do whatever EFRA or IFMAR said.....I dont think any organization could run smoothly if ONE GROUP is telling the others what and when to do it......

Why should ROAR change it's rules to help at this moment one company who REFUSES TO COMPLY TO THE ROAR measurements. Do you or the Exec board have ANY IDEA how many CHINESE COMPANIES are ready to or could submit batteries for approval......how does this help electric racing?

Unstable sources with price-points that are going to go up and down at a whim etc....is not going to help the credibility of electric racing in the eyes of the wholesalers and hobby shops in this country......
Ernie - I agree with you!!!!!!!! Please.... this needs to be discussed and resolved. I don't like the idea that ROAR does everything IFMAR does... we are not international except for 30 guys who go to WC events annually. We are USA/Canada racing and we have 6,000 other members to consider.

By changing the cell size requirements, we open pandora's box in increasing tolerance levels. When does it stop? 80mm cells .. now what? Chassis manufacturers change their molds to fit batteries? Electric racing dies when that happens.... and personally, I'm an electric racer, solely.
Dawn Sanchez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 09:50 AM   #71
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chandler, Arizona
Posts: 3,273
Send a message via AIM to Dawn Sanchez
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErnieP
Dawn I did not know this was not passed until you just said so....lol
No we have heard nothing from ROAR and actually the only person that ever contacts us is you and David Lee....these are only contacts

When will the VOTE be taken in ROAR to allow or disallow this size change?

so, lets get to work...

Last edited by Dawn Sanchez; 11-20-2005 at 10:35 AM. Reason: misinformation - I needed to correct
Dawn Sanchez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 09:51 AM   #72
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 185
Default Ok

Dawn I will send the emails out to the Executive Board this week.....but I have sent emails before as you know and the only response I have ever received is "yours and Mike Queller's)

What is the actual date ROAR will vote on this....so it will not be a membership vote at this point but an Executive Committe vote...which in this case I feel is the right way to go if the Executive Board knows and will hear ALL positions.......
ErnieP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 09:52 AM   #73
Tech Elite
 
ChrisP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Shelby Twp, MI
Posts: 2,046
Trader Rating: 8 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawn Sanchez
Windsor - the ballot came out with the advisory vote for November 14th deadline. No decision has been made. The deadline for submitting batteries will be adjusted based on the decision that must be made for 2006 competition.

Why don't you ask why these cells were not approved for 2005 competition. Better to ask that.......
I didn't need to ask why the cells were not legal for 2005 competition, as the IB 3600, IB3800, and GP3700 have been on the market (some of them since January) and we have been told over and over again that there is *1* time per year that cells will be assessed as legal or not, that being the September submissions for the following year's approval.

The previously mentioned cells have been legal at club races, but not ROAR events as they were nto submitted in September 2004 and approved as meeting the approval criteria.

Those manufacturers and matchers have had to wait months until the approval deadline came up again, when they could submit their samples to you for approval, working in good faith that the posted information was what they needed to conform to as raw cells.

I suppose you ARE correct then, that maybe we should ask why these cells weren't allowed for 2005, as it seems that the deadline might not be so much of a deadline after all??????
ChrisP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 09:52 AM   #74
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chandler, Arizona
Posts: 3,273
Send a message via AIM to Dawn Sanchez
Default

WHILE WE ARE AT IT...

lets discuss pricing limits...??

I have no idea what it costs to make a motor.... are the limits fair? Does the membership benefit from price limitations? Does the MFG?

Why are no other 19T's out there but a Trinity one? Are those price limits fair and are the rules fair to all others? (no trashing on Trinity.. please understand my question)
Dawn Sanchez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 09:54 AM   #75
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chandler, Arizona
Posts: 3,273
Send a message via AIM to Dawn Sanchez
Default

Windsor - those cells were submitted prior to the deadline date in 2004. They were not legal in size.... from my basic understanding of the situation.

I was not asked anything about the decision in 2004 and only discovered the problem after the fact..... my bad, I didn't ask the question either.
Dawn Sanchez is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New ROAR rules Rfury Georgia Racing 9 01-16-2008 12:58 PM
Roar Rules rollagen Nitro On-Road 1 08-06-2007 06:04 PM
ROAR battery rules Dougg Electric Off-Road 2 01-02-2007 06:30 PM
? on ROAR rules gator Electric On-Road 2 11-23-2002 12:13 AM
ROAR rules LooseCannon Nitro On-Road 18 09-08-2002 11:03 PM



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. It is currently 04:05 PM.


Powered By: vBulletin v3.9.2.1
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Advertise Content © 2001-2011 RCTech.net