What constitutes a ROAR legal stock arm?
03-20-2007, 08:58 PM
#1
What constitutes a ROAR legal stock arm?
continuation from another thread. Where the debate rages, can you run a balanced arm in stock, can you balance it yourself.
Originally Posted by YoKoMo-MX4
OK, sorry to everyone for making this go on one more post longer. I'll be short and sweet and if there are further questions or discussion, I suggest that we start a separate thread about it.
I have been in contact with David Lee, the ROAR Technical Director. A condensed version of our conversation is that, "ROAR wants the motor raced as it was received."
We discussed the rules surrounding ROAR Stock Motors and the various ways they can be interpreted. I was pleased to learn that members of the ExCom are working to revise and clarify the rules in question.
My dispute resolution proposal is as follows: Should there be a significant disagreement about a ROAR Stock Motor armature in the future, the simple and 'safe' solution is to replace the armature in question with a 'trusted source' armature. I would define 'trusted source' armature as being from a brand new in-the-package ROAR Stock Motor obtained from a non-conflicting third party. The replacement armature is allowed to be an OEM drill balanced armature. The racer using the replacement armature would be allowed to true the commutator to whatever size they wished. Of course, this replacement armature must be from the same manufacturer and motor line as the original motor, since hybrid ROAR Stock Motors are not allowed. Race organizers should see to it that adequate supplies of ‘trusted source’ replacement armatures are available during the event.
This proposal is in no way a supplement or replacement for the '5.15 Protests' section of the ROAR Rulebook. I am posting this simply in an attempt to address this issue in our part of Region 7.
I know this is not exactly a bulletproof solution to the situation. Please remember that we have to work within the rules and at the current time there are multiple ways to interpret said rules.
As has been said many times on this thread, we are racing toy cars for fun. Let us all try to keep it that way to the best of our abilities.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thanks for reading,
Jason Mosser
Region 7 Director
I have been in contact with David Lee, the ROAR Technical Director. A condensed version of our conversation is that, "ROAR wants the motor raced as it was received."
We discussed the rules surrounding ROAR Stock Motors and the various ways they can be interpreted. I was pleased to learn that members of the ExCom are working to revise and clarify the rules in question.
My dispute resolution proposal is as follows: Should there be a significant disagreement about a ROAR Stock Motor armature in the future, the simple and 'safe' solution is to replace the armature in question with a 'trusted source' armature. I would define 'trusted source' armature as being from a brand new in-the-package ROAR Stock Motor obtained from a non-conflicting third party. The replacement armature is allowed to be an OEM drill balanced armature. The racer using the replacement armature would be allowed to true the commutator to whatever size they wished. Of course, this replacement armature must be from the same manufacturer and motor line as the original motor, since hybrid ROAR Stock Motors are not allowed. Race organizers should see to it that adequate supplies of ‘trusted source’ replacement armatures are available during the event.
This proposal is in no way a supplement or replacement for the '5.15 Protests' section of the ROAR Rulebook. I am posting this simply in an attempt to address this issue in our part of Region 7.
I know this is not exactly a bulletproof solution to the situation. Please remember that we have to work within the rules and at the current time there are multiple ways to interpret said rules.
As has been said many times on this thread, we are racing toy cars for fun. Let us all try to keep it that way to the best of our abilities.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thanks for reading,
Jason Mosser
Region 7 Director
Last edited by Bob-Stormer; 03-20-2007 at 09:39 PM.
03-20-2007, 09:23 PM
#2
Couple quick questions. I know this is likely to be "kill the messenger" stuff, but I'm curious and have a few questions. Not picking on you, I know your just relaying the information.
I'm not being contrary on purpose, I really just want to know a finite rule.
Fair enough, that's what ROAR wants to have happen, what is actually allowed? Not what he is interested in having happen, what is actually the rule? This isn't what David wants, it's allowed or it's not.
ALSO, They would like it raced as recieved? As RECEIVED from who?
"trusted source"... what the heck is that? That's not in the rulebook either. A third party? Like I gave it to Bill? That's third party. And the "replacement" is allowed to be OEM drill balanced...(also not in the rulebook).
So, even based on that contradicting mess, it's legal to have a drill balanced armature in your car and race it. And if it's 'REPLACED' it must be OEM drill balanced? How exactly do they propose that this kind of thing is teched? It's got balance holes... so, uh... who put them there? Is this the armature that came in the can originally? That's a pitiful explanation. Not you Jason, it's the ROAR thing. How can you tech something as possibly not legal, if it's legal to do, race, buy and own?
It's like prostitution. Why is it illegal to sell something that is perfectly legal to give away for free? "...Hi, you ladies giving it away for free tonight?" "Yes officer." "Good, don't let me catch you selling it"... (cheap ripoff from a Carlin sketch, but reminds me of what we are talking about)
It's not any kind of a solution. Is it legal or isn't it? Can I send all my motors off to Br00d and have it done? 'Trusted source', 'reputable third party'??? *ugh*...
I'm not being contrary on purpose, I really just want to know a finite rule.
Originally Posted by YoKoMo-MX4
I have been in contact with David Lee, the ROAR Technical Director. A condensed version of our conversation is that, "ROAR wants the motor raced as it was received."
ALSO, They would like it raced as recieved? As RECEIVED from who?
Originally Posted by YoKoMo-MX4
My dispute resolution proposal is as follows: Should there be a significant disagreement about a ROAR Stock Motor armature in the future, the simple and 'safe' solution is to replace the armature in question with a 'trusted source' armature. I would define 'trusted source' armature as being from a brand new in-the-package ROAR Stock Motor obtained from a non-conflicting third party. The replacement armature is allowed to be an OEM drill balanced armature. The racer using the replacement armature would be allowed to true the commutator to whatever size they wished. Of course, this replacement armature must be from the same manufacturer and motor line as the original motor, since hybrid ROAR Stock Motors are not allowed. Race organizers should see to it that adequate supplies of ‘trusted source’ replacement armatures are available during the event.
So, even based on that contradicting mess, it's legal to have a drill balanced armature in your car and race it. And if it's 'REPLACED' it must be OEM drill balanced? How exactly do they propose that this kind of thing is teched? It's got balance holes... so, uh... who put them there? Is this the armature that came in the can originally? That's a pitiful explanation. Not you Jason, it's the ROAR thing. How can you tech something as possibly not legal, if it's legal to do, race, buy and own?
It's like prostitution. Why is it illegal to sell something that is perfectly legal to give away for free? "...Hi, you ladies giving it away for free tonight?" "Yes officer." "Good, don't let me catch you selling it"... (cheap ripoff from a Carlin sketch, but reminds me of what we are talking about)
Originally Posted by YoKoMo-MX4
This proposal is in no way a supplement or replacement for the '5.15 Protests' section of the ROAR Rulebook. I am posting this simply in an attempt to address this issue in our part of Region 7.
I know this is not exactly a bulletproof solution to the situation. Please remember that we have to work within the rules and at the current time there are multiple ways to interpret said rules.
As has been said many times on this thread, we are racing toy cars for fun. Let us all try to keep it that way to the best of our abilities.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thanks for reading,
Jason Mosser
Region 7 Director
I know this is not exactly a bulletproof solution to the situation. Please remember that we have to work within the rules and at the current time there are multiple ways to interpret said rules.
As has been said many times on this thread, we are racing toy cars for fun. Let us all try to keep it that way to the best of our abilities.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thanks for reading,
Jason Mosser
Region 7 Director
It's not any kind of a solution. Is it legal or isn't it? Can I send all my motors off to Br00d and have it done? 'Trusted source', 'reputable third party'??? *ugh*...
03-20-2007, 09:26 PM
#3
Lets help roar
Thanks for the new thread Bob, I was just considering doing the same thing. Lets use this thread to maybe brainstorm a lot of ideas for Roar to use to try to clear up the stock motor rules. I will start with my ideas on the balancing issue. There is a simple way to state the rule about balancing, If they are going to allow motor builders to rebalance then they need to let the public as well, That is only fair. The simple solution would be to not allow more than a very small ( determined size) hole on the third stack. If you can only drill a very small hole on the third pole it doesn't matter what you do on the other two stacks. The only reason for any drilling on the third stack would be just to fine tune a small amount if the factory went to far on the other poles. This could be very easily and clearly stated in the rules. Roar can not allow the motor builders to do what the public can not. That is not a fair playing field. And as far as trying to police a no balancing rule, that as we know is impossible!!!! So please ROAR lets get it fixed.
RC-Speed
RC-Speed
03-20-2007, 09:41 PM
#4
I think ROAR has it pretty figured out in the 19 turn rules, that Reedy wrote.
5 marks total on the 3 poles. No more than that.
I look at it like this, it's legal to have, legal to race, legal to own, and legal to buy. It's also legal to replace. Bottom line, it's legal.
5 marks total on the 3 poles. No more than that.
I look at it like this, it's legal to have, legal to race, legal to own, and legal to buy. It's also legal to replace. Bottom line, it's legal.
03-20-2007, 09:51 PM
#5
stockers
I would agree, but some would say that you could lighten the arm with five holes. Which as you earlier said, Does lightening it help or hinder it? As if balancing is going to make it WAY faster anyway. Highly unlikely to even see a change on the track anyway!
rc-speed
rc-speed
03-21-2007, 05:00 AM
#6
They could spec the depth of the third hole. ie .015 max depth of the third hole. some amatures may not be brought to perfect balance. But you would have a very good rule that is like a carb rule in nitro, very exact, and very easy to tech.
Also consider this if a group purchase a balancer, then sell a balanced arm they would now be considered a motor builder.
In most states it requires very little to become a legit bussiness and any one who wished would be able to become a "pro" motor builder and would comply with rules. The exception would be if ROAR mandated a minimum quantity of motors sold from x builder which also would hard to tech/prove.
In the end it is best to create a rule that specs what can be done when balancing the motor as current factory method is next to impossible to tech.
When ever you find a hole in a rule and a possible solution it should go to the correct comm to get discussed. Excomm votes on final rules once a year, they make revision on bad or not clear rules during the year. The class comm discusses rules through out the year and is constantly evolving the rules as batts/motors/bl vrs brush etc change then forwards what they feel is best to excomm for final approval.
Also consider this if a group purchase a balancer, then sell a balanced arm they would now be considered a motor builder.
In most states it requires very little to become a legit bussiness and any one who wished would be able to become a "pro" motor builder and would comply with rules. The exception would be if ROAR mandated a minimum quantity of motors sold from x builder which also would hard to tech/prove.
In the end it is best to create a rule that specs what can be done when balancing the motor as current factory method is next to impossible to tech.
When ever you find a hole in a rule and a possible solution it should go to the correct comm to get discussed. Excomm votes on final rules once a year, they make revision on bad or not clear rules during the year. The class comm discusses rules through out the year and is constantly evolving the rules as batts/motors/bl vrs brush etc change then forwards what they feel is best to excomm for final approval.
03-21-2007, 06:22 AM
#7
This is very very simple guy's!
If you are racing at a race that uses ROAR rules, you can only run a motor how it came OEM. Simple! No rebalancing, cranking, etc.
If your racing at race that doesn't go by ROAR then drill away or order a drilled one from your favorite motor builder.
This is not hard guy's.
Keep it simple and fair for all!
Brian
If you are racing at a race that uses ROAR rules, you can only run a motor how it came OEM. Simple! No rebalancing, cranking, etc.
If your racing at race that doesn't go by ROAR then drill away or order a drilled one from your favorite motor builder.
This is not hard guy's.
Keep it simple and fair for all!
Brian
03-21-2007, 06:39 AM
#8
You cannot lighten with 5 holes. You cannot remove enough material in one hole to static or dynamically balance 4 over size holes on the two other lobes.
Mike Reedy thought up this rule and it is brilliant.
I think balancing should be legal. Lightening is not legal.
As far as tweaking...just about every top stock racer at least checks his comm timing and most tweak it to the max side of the tolerance.
Mike Reedy thought up this rule and it is brilliant.
I think balancing should be legal. Lightening is not legal.
As far as tweaking...just about every top stock racer at least checks his comm timing and most tweak it to the max side of the tolerance.
03-21-2007, 08:30 AM
#9
Tech Regular
How about a minimum weight of the armature? With windings of course.
This is something that would require some testing by ROAR to come with a respectable min. but this would be very easy to tech. This way guys could have them balanced by an OEM or outside source if they wanted but if it went below the min weight them, bamm throw it away. fairly simple. Like now when we cut our arms the min is when they flake and are useless. Fairly simple. And it appears the smaller they are the better they are until, boom!
Just an idea! Just pull the arm and weight it! KISS
I realized that then it would open up the now I need to have my arm lighten to the min. to be competitive. But the point being if this is what we are going to say it is OK to do, then at least we would have a way of easily tecking it. Not saying I want to be able to do the balancing! But if this happens then we need a way to tech it... I would rather tech with a scale than a micrometer.
Bill N.
This is something that would require some testing by ROAR to come with a respectable min. but this would be very easy to tech. This way guys could have them balanced by an OEM or outside source if they wanted but if it went below the min weight them, bamm throw it away. fairly simple. Like now when we cut our arms the min is when they flake and are useless. Fairly simple. And it appears the smaller they are the better they are until, boom!
Just an idea! Just pull the arm and weight it! KISS
I realized that then it would open up the now I need to have my arm lighten to the min. to be competitive. But the point being if this is what we are going to say it is OK to do, then at least we would have a way of easily tecking it. Not saying I want to be able to do the balancing! But if this happens then we need a way to tech it... I would rather tech with a scale than a micrometer.
Bill N.
03-21-2007, 08:49 AM
#10
Weight limits are impossible. Most tracks do not have scales that are accurate enough. The ones that are out there usually are not certified or properly calibrated. They usually get thrown in the bottom of a milk crate with a rack of transponders and decoder box after every race.
The green Hysol insulation on the armtures vary greatly in thickness and thus weight from batch to batch of armatures.
KISS is implementing the 19T balancing rule and then you have nothing to worry about becuase they cant be lightened.
The green Hysol insulation on the armtures vary greatly in thickness and thus weight from batch to batch of armatures.
KISS is implementing the 19T balancing rule and then you have nothing to worry about becuase they cant be lightened.
03-21-2007, 09:22 AM
#11
Once again.. all you in favor of the no balancing rule.. HOW DO YOU TECH IT... Say its a rule until you are blue in the face.. but until it is something you can enforce, WITH PROOF OF AN OFFENCE, You are just whining and wasting everyones time with this arguement.
Next point.. the hosting track sets the rule set to be used. So the final decision is in the hands of the PRP and WWNH guys. It is their decision to make and their decision is final. PERIOD!!!!!!
Next point.. the hosting track sets the rule set to be used. So the final decision is in the hands of the PRP and WWNH guys. It is their decision to make and their decision is final. PERIOD!!!!!!
03-21-2007, 09:30 AM
#12
If the objective here is to truly take the motor/batttery part out of the Racing equation. I believe there is only one possible solution, not practical of course. That is for the sponsoring group/track to provide independently tested batteries and motors. They would have to be within a small % of each other, and impounded after each race. If you want my honest opinion the average race program's pecking order, wouldn't change a lick if we did this.
Now having met and teched motors with Mike Reedy, he is a pretty smart guy. So his take on the balancing issue is probably golden. Why the people at Roar don't talk and listen to the leaders in the trench, more often is beyond me.
I know Scotty also had some sort of device made to tech stock motors at his Novak race. But I also understand it also was a spendy proposition, and controversial in its own right. If we the race directors have to spend more time and money, to tech motors. Than a racer or group of racers would to build these motors whats the point ? If we keep the current stock as is make it simple, and open it up to the same rules we use for mods. All modifications are legal, and the only tech we should have to do is verify that there are 27 winds.
My opinion is a whole new deffinition needs to be developed for the "stock class". I'm plagerizing this from someone, I forgot where I read it. But a new stock motor with no timing would be the answer. Then make the rules simple, no modifications period. No balancing no "pro" motors and force any would be motor guru to conform to the class rules. Add to that making the class 4 or 5 cells and you have what a "Stock class" is meant to be. Slow and for the entry level of drivers.
Now having met and teched motors with Mike Reedy, he is a pretty smart guy. So his take on the balancing issue is probably golden. Why the people at Roar don't talk and listen to the leaders in the trench, more often is beyond me.
I know Scotty also had some sort of device made to tech stock motors at his Novak race. But I also understand it also was a spendy proposition, and controversial in its own right. If we the race directors have to spend more time and money, to tech motors. Than a racer or group of racers would to build these motors whats the point ? If we keep the current stock as is make it simple, and open it up to the same rules we use for mods. All modifications are legal, and the only tech we should have to do is verify that there are 27 winds.
My opinion is a whole new deffinition needs to be developed for the "stock class". I'm plagerizing this from someone, I forgot where I read it. But a new stock motor with no timing would be the answer. Then make the rules simple, no modifications period. No balancing no "pro" motors and force any would be motor guru to conform to the class rules. Add to that making the class 4 or 5 cells and you have what a "Stock class" is meant to be. Slow and for the entry level of drivers.
03-21-2007, 09:50 AM
#13
Tech Regular
I'm not hear saying I agree that we should allow this to occur!
But after just spending the past three years helping my son with his pinewood derby car (we won districts) and the fact that they can't weight over 5 oz. Buying a scale that is accurate enough for this is not that expensive. +/- .01 of an oz is more than accurate enough for out armatures. A lot cheaper than an accurate caliper! (Though most of us have one now)
Again just an idea. I agree with Mark in saying this shouldn't be legal! But it wouldn't cost much to tech it if it was. That is up to the powers to be.
Bill
This thread should stay as a constructive sugestions area and not flame area!
But after just spending the past three years helping my son with his pinewood derby car (we won districts) and the fact that they can't weight over 5 oz. Buying a scale that is accurate enough for this is not that expensive. +/- .01 of an oz is more than accurate enough for out armatures. A lot cheaper than an accurate caliper! (Though most of us have one now)
Again just an idea. I agree with Mark in saying this shouldn't be legal! But it wouldn't cost much to tech it if it was. That is up to the powers to be.
Bill
This thread should stay as a constructive sugestions area and not flame area!
03-21-2007, 10:31 AM
#14
Trying to follow the discussion over the various threads, and I was curious to this. This is just a suggestion. If there is really no sure fire way to nail down what is legal and what is not, maybe just pile all the motors up, label a number on them from 1 to whatever, get a hat, and draw. After each heat, pull the motors back together again, and do the same.
I know there are some issues with this, namely motor work and all, probably just have the owner "work" on there motor between the heats, and then when its ready to go again, do the pile up and then draw for the motor. have those who had the best time in the last heat draw last, worst, first.
Again, this is just a suggestion. There probably is a much better solution that ROAR has that will work, but after reading most of this its just a shame to see this amount of tension over something that is supposed to be fun. When you take that out of the equation, not really worth doing then.
I really hope this can get sorted out to everyone's satisfaction.
I know there are some issues with this, namely motor work and all, probably just have the owner "work" on there motor between the heats, and then when its ready to go again, do the pile up and then draw for the motor. have those who had the best time in the last heat draw last, worst, first.
Again, this is just a suggestion. There probably is a much better solution that ROAR has that will work, but after reading most of this its just a shame to see this amount of tension over something that is supposed to be fun. When you take that out of the equation, not really worth doing then.
I really hope this can get sorted out to everyone's satisfaction.
03-21-2007, 12:16 PM
#15
There is WAY more weight removed to true a comm way down than there is by taking a tiny bit of steel off an arm to finely balance one. The whole weight thing cant work IMO..