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, 01:43 PM   #91
Tech Master
 
Doug D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,490
Trader Rating: 54 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaintingRoly
I would take it one step further and only do battery approvals every 2 years.
Roly
WORD!....Now that is a rule change that ROAR should present to the membership to vote on!
Doug D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 02:01 PM   #92
Tech Adept
 
Twin-Kyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Puce,ONT Canada
Posts: 234
Default

Why can't we just boycott ROAR??
All they do is cause trouble with our sport.There is enough of us out there that could run a sanctioning body way better than ROAR.
Who made them God anyway.
Change is good and I think it's time for a change at the top.
Put something in place that will help our sport grow.Something or someone that will listen,and not drive what is left of our sport into the tolet!!!

Just a question...
Twin-Kyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 02:06 PM   #93
Tech Elite
 
RCknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,273
Trader Rating: 5 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJG24
Looks like I'll have to contact Losi and see if they can make me a chassis for my MF2 and BK2 that will hold longer cells. My 3800's already required some sanding of the chassis to squeeze in there. I'm all for more technology in the sport to let it grow but cost has to be considered soon too!! I remember when the IB came out one advantage was that they were as good or better and they were CHEAPER!! Well I'm starting to see IB3800's increasing in price everywhere. We have limits on motor cost (why none on cells?)
Agreed.
RCknight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 03:13 PM   #94
Tech Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: MI
Posts: 574
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

I'd like to see new battery approvals in every half year. Even at club level that is how long we use a pack for racing then we use them for practice only and start looking for something new...
So once in March then in September.
cvt01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 03:20 PM   #95
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 STLNLST
Thanks for a quick reply.
Your welcome. I hope that helped?

Dawn Sanchez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 03:23 PM   #96
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 Danny/SMC
Dawn here is what started this. Maybe BullFrog didn't understand the vote.

As the importer of IB cells into North America I tried emailing Bob Ingersoll on the email address listed on the ROAR website to discuss my point of view based on allot of good info I have from IB and other manufacturers. I have been racing for 20 years or so and I want a rule that is fair for everyone and will keep some stability.

Please tell me who I need to talk to and when can I reach them ?
Danny - not sure what Bill understands or not. I pushed very hard on the internet to get this vote out and to the membership to SEE ROAR is asking their opinion. Maybe I didn't get the word out enough. There are so many message forums and not enough hours in the day.

I would recommend you email each and every member of the Excomm with your thoughts. www.roarracing.com - click on 'directors' and then click on 'executive committee' to find each email address.
Dawn Sanchez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 03:24 PM   #97
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 Danny/SMC
While we have racers and ROARs attention on this thread. I would like to offer what I feel should be the new battery rule.

43mm without shrink. We know that this size will fit in most all the cars. I run a BK2 and they fit fine in it. For those who can't get them to fit you need to use different battery bars.

23mm without shrink as this is already the size of the IB, GP and IP cell. Sedan companies have already changed there cars to make the bigger diameter cells fit.

New Rule: There needs to be a weight limit for every specific cell submitted. This will guarantee that the cell manufacturer cannot improve capacity easily. Since the cell size is fixed and manufacturers can't work on that they can change the capacity of the cell in the while keeping the same size.

We got samples from one manufacturer and the cells weighed 66gr. The runtime was 435-455 we then got samples from them again and the cell had all the same dimensions but weighed 71gr. The runtime was 495-510. So weight should be in the rules.

When manufacturers submit cells for approval that year ROAR needs to measure and weigh them. Then they establish weight for that particular cell with a 2gr tolerance which would compensate for the fluctuation in production.


And this exactly..... this must be read by the entire Excomm and discussed. Also, contact the electric committee chairpersons. Get the manufacturers involved.
Dawn Sanchez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 03:28 PM   #98
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 Doug D
Dawn - Didn't you retire???j/k As a ROAR member, I'd hate to see this new battery size approved. Enough is enough! Who really cares what IFMAR is doing??? There needs to be some stability within the U.S. racing scene, and I don't don't see how electric racers could possibly benefit from this rule change AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME!

Doug, yes, I did... effective the end of the year. Although, nobody has been selected to replace me as of yet and with this topic so hot, I'm not sure I should walk away and leave the vote with even numbers voting on the board. But, on a personal note, I simply don't have the time any longer with the purchase of our business. Sean and I run our own company now and that's where my attention must be put forth.

Basically, IFMAR changed their ruling to 44mm and EFRA, it appears has not done so yet. The question is should ROAR change the rule to become more globally involved and not self limiting. Why should ROAR be the only ones when every other racing bloc involved has moved to 44mm? That's just the question, not my opinion.

Racers would have stability with this rule change because it now allows 36-38's legal for racing. Its not just one company coming in too large. That's already been established.

My question is also... how do these batteries fit and do the chassis manufacturers need to change as well? Now what trouble are we causing?
Dawn Sanchez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 03:31 PM   #99
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 PaintingRoly
Dawn- Thank You....Once again you are the ONLY ROAR official anserring questions. I'm glad that this was not a "final" vote. My $.02 on this would be to make the current GP3700's and IB3800's legal for next year. I would take it one step further and only do battery approvals every 2 years.

Roly

Roly - well, the cells measured out there of GP's and IB's have come in large as well.... so I understand before anybody jumps me on that.

I truly believe this MUST have much more investigation before a decision is made. I am hoping to get that part done for my own comfort with my vote.

And, I'm sure no other ROAR official has seen this thread yet.. I'm just sitting here watching my fantasy football team rack up points and get to skimming over here.

Battery approvals twice a year has been discussed several times in Excomm meetings. I sure would LOVE to hear from battery manufacturers on this one.
Dawn Sanchez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 03:32 PM   #100
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 PaintingRoly
Isn't it funny how the misleading information that started this thread was posted by a ROAR region director?????? and then after he starts it never once responds???? This you could expect from a few different guys on this site but a ROAR official?????

Roly

Be nice.... Bill is doing exactly what he should be doing.... getting the conversation going to get something positive for ROAR in action...
Dawn Sanchez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 03:39 PM   #101
Tech Elite
 
ChrisP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Shelby Twp, MI
Posts: 2,047
Trader Rating: 8 (100%+)
Default

You can say that Dawn...but read the title on the thread....

New ROAR battery rules pass

Nothing is stated about an advisory vote...that's what's so misleading...
ChrisP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 03:45 PM   #102
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
You can say that Dawn...but read the title on the thread....

New ROAR battery rules pass

Nothing is stated about an advisory vote...that's what's so misleading...
I know... but what might have been misleading was the vote itself on the ballot? I had hoped it would encourage a larger voter turnout.... I was wrong.

I'm sure once Bill checks back, he'll change the title.... or, he'll blast me for being so vocal, yet again... LOL (I won't miss this part in a month or so... LOL)
Dawn Sanchez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 04:39 PM   #103
Tech Elite
 
fjm9898's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 3,003
Trader Rating: 11 (100%+)
Default

alright i have a question just to double check if i understand something.

the rule passed to 44mm and now IB and GP will probably be looking to make cells closer to that size.

but dont they have to have those new cell approved before the new a date for the 2006 season? so that means the rule passed for 44mm cells but any 44mm cells that GP or IB come up with will be illegal? or is there a mid year date that they can submit cells so they can have some 44mm cells for teh 2nd half of the season.
__________________
Xray '007 US and a bunch of other outdated stuff
fjm9898 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 04:40 PM   #104
Tech Champion
 
Still Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 7,237
Trader Rating: 12 (100%+)
Default

Dawn,

Thank you for your insight into this issue.

Truly...From the vague description accompanying the ballot, I believed my YES vote was to make the currently offered batches of 3700/3800 packs legal for CY 2006. Wrong-oh!

My apologies to the ROAR membership for having made such an uninformed vote on my part!

Wonder how many other YES voters had similar thoughts?

Bill
__________________
Constantly evolving CRC WGT and WGT-R/T...Carpet & Asphalt...All thanks to Team CRC.

And a pair of Associated B6 buggies for turf and clay tracks.
Still Bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2005, 04:41 PM   #105
Tech Apprentice
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 90
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawn Sanchez
Doug, yes, I did... effective the end of the year. Although, nobody has been selected to replace me as of yet and with this topic so hot, I'm not sure I should walk away and leave the vote with even numbers voting on the board. But, on a personal note, I simply don't have the time any longer with the purchase of our business. Sean and I run our own company now and that's where my attention must be put forth.

Basically, IFMAR changed their ruling to 44mm and EFRA, it appears has not done so yet. The question is should ROAR change the rule to become more globally involved and not self limiting. Why should ROAR be the only ones when every other racing bloc involved has moved to 44mm? That's just the question, not my opinion.

Racers would have stability with this rule change because it now allows 36-38's legal for racing. Its not just one company coming in too large. That's already been established.

My question is also... how do these batteries fit and do the chassis manufacturers need to change as well? Now what trouble are we causing?

Dawn, PLEASE contact me.

As far as I am aware EFRA will be be staying with the 43mm size, and IFMAR will go the same way, i.e. go back to 43mm, as soon as they have their new Electric officer in place.
My understanding is that IFMAR only changed their rule because they had to! To allow the oversize cells that were in use, the early GP's! But I believe you will find that they are going back to 43mm, and adopting the same cells specs that have been put together by the BRCA and EFRA. I believe copies of these proposals have been sent to Mike Reedy but no response has been received as yet.
modeltech 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 08:42 PM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Powered By: vBulletin v3.9.2.1
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Advertise Content © 2001-2011 RCTech.net