Go Back  R/C Tech Forums > General Forums > Racing Forum
Tamiya Championship Series >

Tamiya Championship Series

Like Tree829Likes

Tamiya Championship Series

Old 03-03-2015, 07:13 PM
  #19666  
Tech Regular
iTrader: (16)
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Marcos, Ca
Posts: 364
Trader Rating: 16 (100%+)
Default

3. Any Tamiya Hop-Up Option and spare part is allowed and legal as long as it is used in the way it was designed, and installed on the vehicle it was designed for.
4. It is strictly forbidden to re-engineer or modify the car in any way other than with Tamiya Hop-Ups or kit supplied accessories. (This applies to all classes)
I think this is well said. And Tamiya can make money on upgrade part with newer release part. But I'm not sure about this: installed on vehicle it was designed for. Tamiya part usually are interchangeable for multi platform.

Last edited by TamiyaW1688; 03-03-2015 at 09:03 PM.
TamiyaW1688 is offline  
Old 03-03-2015, 09:32 PM
  #19667  
Tech Master
iTrader: (1)
 
maxepower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Aliso Viejo, Calif.
Posts: 1,641
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Angry STOP with the fricken" RULEshit"

[QUOTE=OSherman;13876280]unfortunate... and a sticky situation. while i watched everyone jump to the 418-sus on their TB0-this and TA0-that i patiently waited. until there is a kit (non-418) released with said suspension i know its not allowed, or until officially deemed legal by Fred.. like in the past.

i didnt pay much attention last year as i was racing mini..



Compatible with Tamiya 1/10 scale touring car chassis; TB-03, TA-05 Version II, TA-06, TRF416, 417

Orlando you guys are taking the rules way to seriously, rules are rules that rules the rules...............come on get with the program, TCS is all about hop ups so any hop up should be allowed as long as it fits on your particular car and is used for what it was intended. Period!!!!!!!

The 418 arms, shocks, springs,DCJ's etc. etc. etc. all can and should be used on any 1/10 scale touring car. Period!!!!!
The paragraph above is right out of the Tamiyausa website! There doesn't need to be a kit saying TRF TA05 , TRF TB03, and so on and so on! are you guys on drugs or what and if you are then you better have enough for everybody!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just my fricken 2$
maxepower is offline  
Old 03-03-2015, 09:52 PM
  #19668  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (3)
 
OSherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: o0O In the FishBowl O0o
Posts: 3,602
Trader Rating: 3 (100%+)
Default

believe it or not you and i are saying the exact same thing in the end...

the issue is when new suspension (or diff) parts are released on a new kit people automatically assume that its ok to put them on their 'older' kits rite away just because they are both sedans or just because they are both shaft drive. my only point is thats not always the case because like the GearDiff snafoo there are some particulars to get them to work across platforms.

DCJs are a good example.. To get them to work with some of the older cars you have to dremel (modify) the c-hubs.


people will do what they will in the end, im just trying to shed some ligt and my own rationale to aleviate some of the headache.

Last edited by OSherman; 03-03-2015 at 10:08 PM.
OSherman is offline  
Old 03-03-2015, 09:55 PM
  #19669  
Tech Regular
iTrader: (16)
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Marcos, Ca
Posts: 364
Trader Rating: 16 (100%+)
Default

These suspension arms are made from the same carbon fiber-reinforced material as those found in the exciting new TRF418 chassis kit, providing an enticing blend of rigidity and soft response.
Compatible with Tamiya 1/10 scale touring car chassis; TB-03, TA-05 Version II, TA-06, TRF416, 417
that is what is said on Tamiya websit about 418 arm.
TamiyaW1688 is offline  
Old 03-03-2015, 11:39 PM
  #19670  
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (12)
 
silden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 982
Trader Rating: 12 (100%+)
Default

I'm very sorry that I steered the pot with my question about the rules,
I haven't question any of the rules, I was only looking for some background information.

I have another question how much is the starting weight of a TA06 pro? I've put a lot of effort in to get the car weight down to 1485 gram with a 6000mA LRP battery.
I like to know that I'm in the ballpark already.
silden is offline  
Old 03-04-2015, 09:04 AM
  #19671  
Tech Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tustin,CA,USA
Posts: 420
Default

Originally Posted by silden
I'm very sorry that I steered the pot with my question about the rules,
I haven't question any of the rules, I was only looking for some background information.

I have another question how much is the starting weight of a TA06 pro? I've put a lot of effort in to get the car weight down to 1485 gram with a 6000mA LRP battery.
I like to know that I'm in the ballpark already.

if that 1485g is with your body, then you're good. I got mine down below the weight limit but with a TP4300mA battery. Might have been better with a slightly heavier one (some cars like a little extra junk in the trunk)

My TA06 was 1454 grams at 2014 Tamiya Nationals. I was over that without a body for the 2014 regional, but running a 7000mA Reedy pack(!) (all I had at the time)

I have a little notebook where I wrote down all the savings.

Main reduction was from:
battery 7000mah reedy (340g) -> 4300mah Thunderpower battery ~250g
titanium screws ~30g savings
LW hop-ups (my diffs got 30g savings)

With regular LaFerrari body which is 129g painted
LW wing set with plastic uprights is 10g
I used alum adjustable wingmount which are 19g stock, but 17g with alum screws.

my old steel rear gearbox assembly was 79g the LW version is 62g
Plastic gears (6g)
alum cup joints (7g)
lw main shaft (2g)
lw idler shaft
lw front shaft (2g)

I used 1mill front gear diff (LW version weighed 20g, steel weighed 33g)
Spool weighted 21g with steel cups and 19g with LW steel cups.

TB03 lw bumper (3-4g savings)

alum swingshafts back (5g)
I ran DCJs in front
STD shocks in front

I used carbon battery door (10g savings) and carbon sidepods.
alum bulkheads front and rear (I never weighed these because they were always on, I have set in a bag somewhere so I can check if you care)
carbon damper stays (regular ones, not the short ones, I have them but never ran them)
418 susp arms, uprights and stabilizer

LRP flow (which is pretty heavy at 71g, tekin spec is only 48g)
Killshot 21.5 ~170g with bullet connectors


edit:

Did it change the outcome in any way shape or form? no
Did it make Tamiya money? yes
Was it fun to do? yes
Did I break the rules? NO!

(this should be my tagline)
torg is offline  
Old 03-04-2015, 10:46 AM
  #19672  
Tech Addict
iTrader: (15)
 
tobyzhang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: chino hills/Irvine
Posts: 655
Trader Rating: 15 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by torg
if that 1485g is with your body, then you're good. I got mine down below the weight limit but with a TP4300mA battery. Might have been better with a slightly heavier one (some cars like a little extra junk in the trunk)

My TA06 was 1454 grams at 2014 Tamiya Nationals. I was over that without a body for the 2014 regional, but running a 7000mA Reedy pack(!) (all I had at the time)

I have a little notebook where I wrote down all the savings.

Main reduction was from:
battery 7000mah reedy (340g) -> 4300mah Thunderpower battery ~250g
titanium screws ~30g savings
LW hop-ups (my diffs got 30g savings)

With regular LaFerrari body which is 129g painted
LW wing set with plastic uprights is 10g
I used alum adjustable wingmount which are 19g stock, but 17g with alum screws.

my old steel rear gearbox assembly was 79g the LW version is 62g
Plastic gears (6g)
alum cup joints (7g)
lw main shaft (2g)
lw idler shaft
lw front shaft (2g)

I used 1mill front gear diff (LW version weighed 20g, steel weighed 33g)
Spool weighted 21g with steel cups and 19g with LW steel cups.

TB03 lw bumper (3-4g savings)

alum swingshafts back (5g)
I ran DCJs in front
STD shocks in front

I used carbon battery door (10g savings) and carbon sidepods.
alum bulkheads front and rear (I never weighed these because they were always on, I have set in a bag somewhere so I can check if you care)
carbon damper stays (regular ones, not the short ones, I have them but never ran them)
418 susp arms, uprights and stabilizer

LRP flow (which is pretty heavy at 71g, tekin spec is only 48g)
Killshot 21.5 ~170g with bullet connectors


edit:

Did it change the outcome in any way shape or form? no
Did it make Tamiya money? yes
Was it fun to do? yes
Did I break the rules? NO!

(this should be my tagline)
experience says there is no need to go over board with weight saving. my car was 1512g at nationals and it did just fine. sometimes the weight makes the car more forgiving in some conditions. I think one of the best thing to look for is a light weight body. It puts the cg lower which is really helpful sometimes.
tobyzhang is offline  
Old 03-04-2015, 11:57 AM
  #19673  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (3)
 
OSherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: o0O In the FishBowl O0o
Posts: 3,602
Trader Rating: 3 (100%+)
Default

public service announcement.

TRF418 Susp Arms will not work on front of TA05 vII IFS or TB03 IFS or TB04 IFS. Yes they are Sedans, NO they wont work without clever/major modification.

...end public service announcement
OSherman is offline  
Old 03-04-2015, 01:16 PM
  #19674  
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (12)
 
silden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 982
Trader Rating: 12 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by tobyzhang
experience says there is no need to go over board with weight saving. my car was 1512g at nationals and it did just fine. sometimes the weight makes the car more forgiving in some conditions. I think one of the best thing to look for is a light weight body. It puts the cg lower which is really helpful sometimes.
Thank you guys for this Informations.
I always try to get close to the weight minimum. My son will run this car in GT3 and the 21.5 motor has already enough to carry with 1450. But anyway I'm already happy with the 1485 we achieved.

he is running the M3 light weight body, will this one work at Tamiya or should we consider getting another one.

Last edited by silden; 03-04-2015 at 04:35 PM.
silden is offline  
Old 03-04-2015, 04:05 PM
  #19675  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (32)
 
j.d.roost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,259
Trader Rating: 32 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by minidriver
Ah yes, Orlando, it seems that there is more to the story. Whether it is Venom trying to cover their tracks, or just Venom correcting an error, is left to the reader to discern.

Orlando, your post caused me to go back and see what Venom is now (as of 7/29/14) advertising their batteries as. As of 7/21/14, just 8 days ago, the 100C line of Venom batteries all had in their website TITLE and item description as "ROAR APPROVED." I did not take a screen grab of the Venom site as it existed on 7/21/14 as evidence- dang. But I do have the link from 7/21/14 that speaks for itself:
http://www.atomikrc.com/collections/...-with-uni-plug

(Sorry guys, the posting program shortens the original URL with says "roar-approved-with uni-plug.)

As of tonight, I now discover Venom no longer lists them as "ROAR APPROVED". But of course the stack of Venom 100C 2S batteries in the LHS case (Lake in the Hills IL Hobbytown for example) still bear the original packaging and stickers from Venom declaring the batteries "ROAR APPROVED." Kind of hard to cover their tracks with that packaging sticker on the package sitting in the local hobby shop, where the battery has now left Venom's "guilty" hands.

I emailed Venom on 7/21/14, pointing out to them the "ROAR APPROVED" stickers on the apparently non approved product, sent them their link to product description of "ROAR APPROVED" and asked them if it was actually ROAR APPROVED (and therefore a ROAR screw up) or Venom's screw up, and got the following email admission back from Venom:


"Hi David W.,
A new answer to your question has been received.
Q: You list this as ROAR approved, but I don't see this 100C battery on the ROAR approved battery list as yet. When was this particular battery given ROAR approval - or is it just to ROAR specs, awaiting formal approval?
2014-07-21
A: Hello David,<br /> This battery is waiting approval for ROAR use. We are expecting this approval upon receiving these batteries by the end of September.<br /><br />Thank you
2014-07-21"

Between then and now, let's see what happened.

After getting the admission of misrepresentation from Venom, I brought the blatant misrepresentation to the attention of ROAR's technical director Rob King, also on 7/22/14. It was from Rob King I also learned by email of 7/22/14 that:

"a rash of battery manufacturers marking their batteries as ROAR approved without any approval. In fact, Trinity's square shaped battery pack for offroad cars has ROAR approved stickers, despite the fact that that shape of battery is currently illegal, let alone inspected and approved."

Hmm, I guess ROAR didn't like it either!

I in fact had suggested to ROAR (email to Rob King, ROAR technical director, 7/22/14) that maybe they ROAR tell misrepresenting manufacturers like Venom that they clean up their act on approval status/stickers or have a potential penalty of ROAR refusing to review for ROAR approval their products for a penalty period of like a year. ROAR doesn't have the money to take on full blown offensive legal battles, but ROAR can still apply no expense "self help" remedies like such a penalty to bring an offending manufacturer back in line.

And now you have Venom's website no longer misrepresenting their battery status with ROAR.

Hmmm - I guess someone might say "Mission Accomplished."

Come on manufacturers - it is just plain wrong to misrepresent your product. Stop it now.

Now, maybe their is a longer term solution to this that might help ROAR and manufacturers. The ROAR approval process takes some time I believe, and in the hyper competitive retail environment, the wait for approval may seem interminable in product marketing times. How does a manufacturer put a product to market, and only later, add "ROAR APPROVAL" to their packaging. Do they sit on their product and not market while awaiting for ROAR approval, by which time the product may be partial or fully obsolete? The product cycle is pretty short. Maybe, and maybe I'm all wrong, maybe ROAR might want to decide that certain products (batteries) are "simple" upgrades. (Clearly, brushless motors are not - witness the Trinity D3.5 issue, nor are ESC's in blinky mode.) But battery upgrades, where all that is constantly changing are, to this writer's view, capacity and C ratings. Maybe ROAR could give an "ROAR APPROVAL" designation to a LINE of batteries, with the manufacturer submitting the first in the line of batteries for approval to ROAR, and ROAR give automatic approvals for the manufacturer to give the designation "ROAR APPROVED" to that and subsequent upgrades upon the manufacturer's promise to keep the battery within specs, and manufacturer to submit all upgraded capacity/c rating versions to ROAR for inspection and possible ROAR withdrawal of approval if inspection later found that the item to violates ROAR rules. Might be a possibility that would make ROAR and manufacturers happy, and keep us consumers of the product protected.

I have the emails to back up my facts if anyone is concerned about the accuracy of the recitation of facts.

Looking forward to 2014 TCS Nationals - see ya all there!
Sorry to bring up an older post....but I just about pulled the trigger on a 100c pack today. I still see them everywhere online as being roar approved...but don't see them on the list. Anyone have insight as to if these are ok for tcs?
j.d.roost is offline  
Old 03-04-2015, 04:32 PM
  #19676  
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (12)
 
silden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 982
Trader Rating: 12 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by j.d.roost
Sorry to bring up an older post....but I just about pulled the trigger on a 100c pack today. I still see them everywhere online as being roar approved...but don't see them on the list. Anyone have insight as to if these are ok for tcs?

And what you want to tell us with your post.
BTW the shape of a battery is not part of the ROAR approval.
ROAR approved mainly the safety part of the battery, like the case design and how much force is needed to penetrate the case.
Therefor the statement of the the guys about there square packs are wrong.

The only thing where you'll have a problem with the roar approval is when the chassis is designed to only be used with one unusual type of battery. The reason for this to prevent a monopoly.
silden is offline  
Old 03-04-2015, 04:45 PM
  #19677  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (32)
 
j.d.roost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,259
Trader Rating: 32 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by silden

And what you want to tell us with your post.
BTW the shape of a battery is not part of the ROAR approval.
ROAR approved mainly the safety part of the battery, like the case design and how much force is needed to penetrate the case.
Therefor the statement of the the guys about there square packs are wrong.

The only thing where you'll have a problem with the roar approval is when the chassis is designed to only be used with one unusual type of battery. The reason for this to prevent a monopoly.

I wanted to buy one.
It says its roar approved "online" everywhere (including Atomik's page)

http://www.atomikrc.com/collections/...-with-uni-plug

I don't see it on roars battery page (unless I missed it).

As far I as I know tcs is not a Roar event...so I was asking if it was just not updated yet and the packs are ok to run.

Sorry for any confusion.
j.d.roost is offline  
Old 03-04-2015, 04:58 PM
  #19678  
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (12)
 
silden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 982
Trader Rating: 12 (100%+)
Default

The ESC, Motor and battery need to be ROAR approved.
silden is offline  
Old 03-04-2015, 09:55 PM
  #19679  
Tech Adept
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Brea, Ca
Posts: 149
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default Newer kits vs older

Originally Posted by tobyzhang
I think most of the rules are pretty clear but there are some key points this year that probably will be benefited from a TCS rule Q&A maybe on the Tamiya website. Things I can think of for touring cars at least are:

1. Can Tamiya new generation of suspension parts be used on older platforms mainly the new arms and new sway bars. TA06 and TB04 can use these for sure because they come in kit forms. Older cars can be fitted but will it be allowed? Same with the new rear uprights with one one holes on it for 418.

2. Can TB04, TB03, and evo 6 parts be interchanged? For example it is desirable to run TB04 short shock tower and short TRF shocks on TB03 to reduce center of gravity. Evo 6 shocks are also a great option as it's big bore and short. TB04 ring gear have a high spot and cause it to not able to achieve smoothness so running TB03 ring and sun gear is what lots of people did. Some also preferred the TB04 gear diff and use it in TB03.

3. Can we use the new C hub with bigger hole on older cars. The new one have a 6 degree version never mentioned on the setup sheets of older cars.

One of the issue tamiya faces right now is newer cars are not necessarily competitive or have some quality issues. TA06 drives great but will suffer in straight line speed. TB04 is a promising design but chassis comes warped and the ring gears are not smooth. If the newer cars are more competitive and better finished then you won't see too many issues with people adapting new parts onto older platforms and cause regulation issues.

Ultimately allowing kit bashing for parts will make Tamiya tons more money I suppose but will also raise some concerns for policing the rules. I'm not sure how the internal ratio rule can be policed to be honest.
To Toby's point, the older chassis have been the competitive rides in the race. When the TA05 was introduced, it's performance dwarfed the TA04. The TB 03 dwarfed the TB02. As for the 06 and 04 rigs, they are not seeming to be embraced. We should be able to evolve the older chassis to improve performance to a reasonable degree. Engineering newer chassis should ultimately result in a more efficient drive train, better handling characteristics, etc. I would support a reasonable mandate on a limited set of bodies, which would make the series more of a cup race. But maybe next year.

EBR
EB Racer is offline  
Old 03-05-2015, 05:28 AM
  #19680  
Tech Master
iTrader: (1)
 
maxepower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Aliso Viejo, Calif.
Posts: 1,641
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Unhappy Ease up on the rules FRED!!!!

Originally Posted by OSherman
public service announcement.

TRF418 Susp Arms will not work on front of TA05 vII IFS or TB03 IFS or TB04 IFS. Yes they are Sedans, NO they wont work without clever/major modification.

...end public service announcement
Minor modifications nothing clever about it!....... I've done it already Orlando on my TA05 VII. by using existing holes already in the arms using a hand drill, piece of cake, anybody can do it!
This is once again what I'm trying to stop is anytime you have to tweak parts a little in order to get them to work on any chassis it's deemed illegal.
Fred is constantly getting an ear full of racers who complain about someone did something to their car and assume that's what made their car faster than theirs and cry cheat and foul play instead of the fact that that person was just a better driver than them!
This is a hobby and tinkering is all part of the joy of this sport.
We spend much more time doing bench work on our cars compared to actual time on the track, and more restrictions and rules preventing us from doing what we love and enjoy will definitely kill the sport!
This isn't NASCAR, lets ease up on the rules and lets go and have some fricken fun instead!!
Just my 2$
maxepower is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.