R/C Tech Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-20-2011, 12:18 PM   #76
Tech Elite
 
Chickentrader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Landsborough, Queensland, Australia.
Posts: 2,142
Trader Rating: 13 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop View Post
Things like carbon to replace alloy is one of the few ways you can drop weight, but like everything just because you can do it, does not mean you should.

Every time I seem to see a weight change, it's either still too heavy or now too light, somewhere along the line they ignore the middle ground almost every time.

I actually read some of the EFRA AGM notes, someone suggested a more sensible weight, then for some reason it was withdrawn and then the overly light limit was proposed and then passed, no real incite into the whys.

I used a carbon chassis plate in one MTX4 years ago; it certainly lightens up the car, and you'll never experience chassis tweak with it. But like many experienced drivers told me; cars and engines are apparently designed with the chassis plates meant to help dissipating heat, and carbon chassis also lifts CG by reducing weight at the wrong end.

The advice that I've been given is ideally to use magnesium screws etc. for top decks, and heavier steel screws though the chassis plate, lightweight bodies and generally light stuff for anything at or above top deck level, and then weigh the car down with heavier engine mounts and weights to the chassis to bring it back up to weight. Engine manufacturers are also recognising the importance of lower CG now, and are trying to reduce height of cooling heads. I do not think that carbon chassis plates are the best way to get the car down to weight although they would.

No need to heavier components at chassis level from 2013 in Europe however, but the weight rules are better left alone without changes. They did not put too much pressure on manufacturers to produce lighter cars that are likely to be more expensive and weaker, while still awarded excellence in design (not mentioning any names here) the advantage of lowering CG significantly.

Kindest regards,
Lars.
__________________
Support your local RC stores - they support our sport!
Social media The empowerment of the small individual to enforce democratic process at the expense of dishonesty.
Chickentrader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2011, 12:23 PM   #77
Tech Elite
 
Chickentrader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Landsborough, Queensland, Australia.
Posts: 2,142
Trader Rating: 13 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop View Post
Things like carbon to replace alloy is one of the few ways you can drop weight, but like everything just because you can do it, does not mean you should.

Every time I seem to see a weight change, it's either still too heavy or now too light, somewhere along the line they ignore the middle ground almost every time.

I actually read some of the EFRA AGM notes, someone suggested a more sensible weight, then for some reason it was withdrawn and then the overly light limit was proposed and then passed, no real incite into the whys.

I used a carbon chassis plate in one MTX4 years ago; it certainly lightens up the car, and you'll never experience chassis tweak with it. But like many experienced drivers told me; cars and engines are apparently designed with the chassis plates meant to help dissipating heat, and carbon chassis also lifts CG by reducing weight at the wrong end.

The advice that I've been given is ideally to use magnesium screws etc. for top decks, and heavier steel screws though the chassis plate, lightweight bodies and generally light stuff for anything at or above top deck level, and then weigh the car down with heavier engine mounts and weights to the chassis to bring it back up to weight. Engine manufacturers are also recognising the importance of lower CG now, and are trying to reduce height of cooling heads. I do not think that carbon chassis plates are the best way to get the car down to weight although they would.

No need to heavier components at chassis level from 2013 in Europe however, but the weight rules are better left alone without changes. They did not put too much pressure on manufacturers to produce lighter cars that are likely to be more expensive and weaker, while still awarded excellence in design (not mentioning any names here) the advantage of lowering CG significantly.

Kindest regards,
Lars.
__________________
Support your local RC stores - they support our sport!
Social media The empowerment of the small individual to enforce democratic process at the expense of dishonesty.
Chickentrader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2011, 12:30 PM   #78
Tech Champion
 
Roelof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Holland
Posts: 6,282
Send a message via ICQ to Roelof
Default

Indeed, the chassis height is no issue for the body height because of the direct mounting of the body mount on the uprights.

The EFRA wants to lower the body height and has set it to 160mm maximum. The simple explenation to me is that messuring height is basicly with the tires on the ground. Setting the car on a 20mm spacer and messuring a maximum of 170mm from the ground and you have set the downstops that much that the tires are touching the ground then the body will stay at 170mm without the spacer....
__________________
The quality of an answer comes with the quality of the question.
Roelof is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 04:15 PM   #79
Tech Regular
 
djiewie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 440
Default

ive measured the nt1 weight and its 1446 without ordered life 700mah battery.
so with the life approx 55 grams it will be 1500 about. thats still without the body.

But thats with the receiver box with additional switch installed wich according to the cap. car can be removed. And i have half the plastic diff gears from cap.
and i have a wire on the exhaust side wich protects the stinger in races, thats also a bit of extra weight i guess. Could be if you don`t have these things and are willing to shorten the servowires that xray is not that far of the minimum weight limit. Ive used the capricorn rims also on the car without foam
so as to compare it with DS car. maybe the Picco torque is also not a heavy engine with a lightend cilinderhead.

with normal body it will be above 1600 grams i think, asuming a normal weight body is ca 100grams with paint on it

Last edited by djiewie; 01-10-2012 at 02:09 PM. Reason: done some measurements
djiewie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 04:39 PM   #80
Tech Master
 
DS Motorsport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 1,440
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

From what I've heard they will change the rule back to 1700 grams for 1/10.
__________________
P1-RC.com
DS Motorsport is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 08:58 PM   #81
Tech Elite
 
Chickentrader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Landsborough, Queensland, Australia.
Posts: 2,142
Trader Rating: 13 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DS Motorsport View Post
From what I've heard they will change the rule back to 1700 grams for 1/10.
That would be so much more sensible; and I hope that this is right, although the weight (1550 gr) would most certainly be an advantage to our camp. I just fear that the low weight would serve put pressure on manufacturers to make more expensive cars. And also for the manufacturers that are addicted to plastic components; to make cars that break easy, which is something the sport can do without. The sport has already been hit by extensive problems with some new cars, and I fear that it could actually be putting some participants off the sport.

Surely this has to be passed by all the EFRA delegates first though?

What is the lowest weight you could get a Capricorn 1/10 scale down to Daan?

Kindest regards,
Lars.
__________________
Support your local RC stores - they support our sport!
Social media The empowerment of the small individual to enforce democratic process at the expense of dishonesty.
Chickentrader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2012, 07:13 AM   #82
Tech Elite
 
Bishop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,223
Trader Rating: 5 (100%+)
Default

Back up to 1700 just seems a waste, surely they can come to some sort of middle ground that won't be hard to run at for most camps, I actually thought the first suggestion within the minutes was fine, yet it was withdrawn before then going to the crazy light weight.

I guess I'm just not crazy about the idea of bolting big lumps of brass onto my chassis for the titles this year, but then I guess it's AARCMCC and I don't think anything had changed with them anyway...
__________________
QRCCRA
www.qrccra.org.au
www.facebook.com/englandparkraceway
www.myrcm.ch/main?pLa=en&hId[1]=org&dId[O]=4331
Bishop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2012, 08:49 AM   #83
Tech Champion
 
Roelof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Holland
Posts: 6,282
Send a message via ICQ to Roelof
Default

As mentioned before: loosing weight is more difficult and does cost more than adding weight. Live with the guys who can not even come close to the 1550 gram without making huge investments. No one has ever asked you to use all kind of light weight equipment.....

I have heard the same that it will stay on 1700 gram for 2012 under pressure of several manufacturers. I think it is wise to do so, forcing drivers to go with the new weight rule is not the way to keep the sport healthy.
__________________
The quality of an answer comes with the quality of the question.
Roelof is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2012, 08:53 AM   #84
Tech Master
 
DS Motorsport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 1,440
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chickentrader View Post
That would be so much more sensible; and I hope that this is right, although the weight (1550 gr) would most certainly be an advantage to our camp. I just fear that the low weight would serve put pressure on manufacturers to make more expensive cars. And also for the manufacturers that are addicted to plastic components; to make cars that break easy, which is something the sport can do without. The sport has already been hit by extensive problems with some new cars, and I fear that it could actually be putting some participants off the sport.

Surely this has to be passed by all the EFRA delegates first though?

What is the lowest weight you could get a Capricorn 1/10 scale down to Daan?

Kindest regards,
Lars.
I don't think the 1550 rule will have a huge influence on the regular cars/kits. It only applied to the euros thus far. I proposed a 1600 gram weight limit for the dutch nationals but it was voted against. I don't think it will be applied to most national classes.
Since most entrants to a European championship are already spending quite a lot on the hobby I don't think it would be a problem for those drivers. Most have to add a lot of weight anyway as everyone already has a fully hopped up car to decrease the weight as much as possible.
Again I don't think a regular driver will notice a lot of difference if efra will change to a 1550 limit.

Regarding the Cap car, my 2011 car was 1540 gram with body and tires.
My 2012 car will probably be around 1500.
For the 2012 car I got the aluminum uniballs, titanium hinge pins, titanium throttle and brake linkages, aluminum clutch parts and an ultralight Orcan engine. But when efra decide to change back to 1700 all of those parts will be useless basically.
With a carbon chassis and some extreme lightweight options you can get it down to 1450.
With extreme lightweight options I'm talking about aluminum wheel axles, aluminum outdrives and such. But these are all items which wear significantly more then the normal parts.
__________________
P1-RC.com
DS Motorsport is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2012, 09:11 AM   #85
Tech Regular
 
djiewie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 440
Default

regarding the costs it would be wise to get the 1600 gram rule. Thats why the rule came up in the first place ,to reduce cost of tires en parts wich don`t have that much punishment so i understood. Staying with 1700 grams is not the future. Get a class of racing with stock rules with stock engine and stock weight and let the development continue please.

To bad that dicisions will be discarded so easily, why bother voting.(i left it years ago)
djiewie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2012, 10:49 AM   #86
Tech Champion
 
Roelof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Holland
Posts: 6,282
Send a message via ICQ to Roelof
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DS Motorsport View Post
For the 2012 car I got the aluminum uniballs, titanium hinge pins, titanium throttle and brake linkages, aluminum clutch parts and an ultralight Orcan engine. But when efra decide to change back to 1700 all of those parts will be useless basically.
Still loosing rotating mass and mass from the suspension is an advantage even when adding all the needed weight to the chassis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by djiewie View Post
regarding the costs it would be wise to get the 1600 gram rule. Thats why the rule came up in the first place ,to reduce cost of tires en parts wich don`t have that much punishment so i understood. Staying with 1700 grams is not the future. Get a class of racing with stock rules with stock engine and stock weight and let the development continue please.

To bad that dicisions will be discarded so easily, why bother voting.(i left it years ago)
There was a dutch driver with a Serpent 733 which was almost 1800 gram with a stock setup, even the 1600 gram rule would be difficult to get. Do not look to your own car but all cars. If it is possible with all current and one generation older cars then it is time to think of such a change.

A stock engine is a great idea, we do see it in electric racing a lot but then it is wise to get something like a blue printed engine so all engine brands can take part and to be sure you have equal performing engines which can be controled.

And regarding your idea on voting is stupid. Again last NOMAC meeting there were not much drivers. OK, it is your/their choice but then within my eyes you have no rights to complain if something is voted stupid.
__________________
The quality of an answer comes with the quality of the question.
Roelof is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2012, 11:14 AM   #87
Tech Master
 
DS Motorsport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 1,440
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roelof View Post
Still loosing rotating mass and mass from the suspension is an advantage even when adding all the needed weight to the chassis.

There was a dutch driver with a Serpent 733 which was almost 1800 gram with a stock setup, even the 1600 gram rule would be difficult to get. Do not look to your own car but all cars. If it is possible with all current and one generation older cars then it is time to think of such a change.
I know, but when you need to add 200grams of weight it starts to get a bit problematic.
Around 100 grams I can gain by the heavy motor mount and battery tray.
The other 100 grams will have to be gained by Tungsten and brass blocks.

Regarding the driver with the 1800 gram 733, he is driving club races and the stock class, I don't think the minimum weight will be lowered in those classes anytime soon. I've seen other 733's around the 1700 mark without any big changes to save weight.

I hope we can have a clear split in classes some day like the electric guys, a stock class fully aimed at equality and cost savings and a pro or mod class in which all the latest stuff is used and cars can be used to their full ability.
__________________
P1-RC.com
DS Motorsport is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2012, 12:04 PM   #88
Tech Regular
 
djiewie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 440
Default

Ds, i`ve didn`t read anything on the dutch NOMAC site about any rule changes, so i asume nothing will change for the next year. Only proposal was about heating the engine not done in the pits. if we will follow efra is something wich is talked about on the meeting i suppose. The 1550 weight rule came as a suprise to me since i did`nt follow it. But as it is decided in the meeting so be it.
djiewie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2012, 02:04 PM   #89
Tech Elite
 
Chickentrader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Landsborough, Queensland, Australia.
Posts: 2,142
Trader Rating: 13 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop View Post
Back up to 1700 just seems a waste, surely they can come to some sort of middle ground that won't be hard to run at for most camps, I actually thought the first suggestion within the minutes was fine, yet it was withdrawn before then going to the crazy light weight.

I guess I'm just not crazy about the idea of bolting big lumps of brass onto my chassis for the titles this year, but then I guess it's AARCMCC and I don't think anything had changed with them anyway...
We have actually gone the other way with our Capricorn; and think of it as an advantage, so we're very happy about being able to to add weights. We are gradually changing to more titanium for anything that is not already low and bolted the the chassis, putting weight exactly where we want it, and getting the CG low is making a significant improvement to handling.

Kindest regards,
Lars.
__________________
Support your local RC stores - they support our sport!
Social media The empowerment of the small individual to enforce democratic process at the expense of dishonesty.
Chickentrader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2012, 02:21 PM   #90
Tech Initiate
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 40
Default

To bring in some light:

As at the EFR AGM no date was fixed for the new technical rules, these rules will be effective 12 month after the voting (November 2012 - EFRA handbook page 51 "Technical Rule Changes"). We received the confirmation that the weight for the 2012 season will be 1700g.

There is a friendly discussion going on between Franky Noens and various manufacturer to find a compromise for the weight for the next AGM voting. Most manufacturers want to set the weight at 1650g which Franky supports so far.

On the other hand we havn't received any confirmation what happens to the other technical rules (tyre additive, 1/8 rules, ect.). I hope EFRA releases some more information on this matter soon.

Best regards
Patrick
__________________
www.team-shepherd.com - www.sonic-engines.com
Trick is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The New Werks B5 .21 Racing Engine Werks Offroad Nitro Engine Forum 9312 11-08-2017 11:45 AM
ROAR new body rules pdmustgt Nitro Off-Road 361 05-24-2011 03:25 PM
New Ener-G 4600 Ni-MH Cell Kropy Electric On-Road 507 09-15-2009 10:53 AM
New EFRA 7min Qualifying Rule Michael_T Nitro On-Road 36 03-01-2009 09:44 AM



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 05:54 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