raffaelli

iTrader: (13)

Hi Art,

Please contact Bob Ingersol to find out what has been submitted for ROAR approval. He has his finger on that much better than I do.

I like said, my response was from ROAR to IFMAR. When I reviewed the spec, I did not have a cell. However, the cell description was not ROAR compliant. Additionally, at that time, I recommended to the Committee Chair that ROAR needs to review its rules on cells. It seems that the 3600 were planned to be bigger than ROAR Allows. Additionally, the 3300 was originally too large also. So I recommend that ROAR contact each of the manufactures to find out why the cells are out of compliance - meaning are the ROAR rules antiquated.

Nothing happened after that.


Your right, I volunteered for helping. Not to baby sit. So when someone slings **** my way, expect it back.

raffaelli

iTrader: (13)

Guess you missed my response.

pops

iTrader: (1)

Well, aren't you smart...
Region one must be proud...

Orange

From what I understand is that the cells did not get to ROAR in time for approval for the 2005 ROAR season. They were out of dimension at that time, (Some of them) and probably wouldn't have passed anyway.

The Cells "Were" too big at first and from what I understand they have been re-tooled and a submittal has been made to ROAR. They will probably be approved for ROAR competitions in 2006. I have no doubt about that.

If for some reason down the road the battery manufacturers need to have the wording changed for "Larger" cells, I'm sure that it will be sent to class committees for re-wording and probably implemented at that time. It is kinda hard to just "Change" the wording as this would have an effect on chassis manufacturers as well as they would most likely need to re-tool for the batteries to fit correctly in the cars.... That wording makes more of an impact than what has been mentioned here, not being harsh or sarcastic, but it is not just that simple to "Just change the rule".... All parties involved would and should have a voice in this, not just the members of ROAR as this has MORE of an effect on Manufacturers than it does the members of ROAR. Not saying that ROAR should not consider it's members, but should also consider the manufacturers as well in this case. ROAR has and alway's will consider "New Technology" in it's racing classes.

As far as IFMAR and everyone else approving them.... Well, every bloc has it's way's of doing things.... Did you know that EFRA's version of Stock Racing only allows for 5 degree timed motors, not 24 as we have here?

American drivers will have the same usage of the cells as everyone else.... Just because ROAR has not approved them for their races does not mean that American racers cannot use the cells at the W.C. races. From what I understand most of the cells are available now and if you are attending a Worlds race, then go ahead and use whatever is legal for the race. Your perogative. When you go to a World Championship race, you are racing under the guidelines of IFMAR, not ROAR, EFRA, FEMCA, FAMAR, etc...

As far as trashing on Raffaelli.... I don't get that, I didn't see anywhere where he was being rude until someone got rude to him. directing personal attacks at someone only makes a thread topic look like it is futile to talk about. Please keep your direct responses/thrashings to someone in a private message or email. It is not needed here.

Thanks.

jpaddock

David,

I'm sure you'll well aware of the fact that battery design engineers are having a hard time increasing capacity without slightly increasing the size of the can. I have spoken with engineers from two different companies, they both basically stated that one fact, so it seems to be a pretty universal problem, and a very relevant point to the 2006 cell approval process.

I don't think GP, Intellect or any other company should have to change the size of their battery cell to conform to ROAR standard. Decreasing the size of the can is most certainly going to decrease performance from what I've been told, and performance is a big part of what the racers are after, right?

I hope both the GP3700/IB3800 cell will have their current design specs approved without incident.

Dawn Sanchez

Lets all calm down now??

The cells were submitted and they were too large. ROAR declined approval to IFMAR and will continue to do so until the cells are of legal size specifications. (my understanding is that has changed and all will be fine for 2006.)

The cells, to my knowledge, have NOT been resubmitted for 2006 approval process and when they are and they meet ROAR size specifications, they will be approved.

Maybe every other sanctioning body was fine in approving cells that would not fit in your vehicles, but ROAR was not, therefore ROAR declined to approve them for 2005.

Moving on now. I think we made the point expressed in the opening topic of this thread.

Thank you.

Dawn
Moderator

Orange

The GP3300's went through this same thing.... The cells were too big at first and they re-tooled them to fit. ROAR grandfathered in the cells that were of the same but larger in size and allowed those cells to be used as there were already some on the market. I'm sure that the same thing may happen here.

I have had both of those particular cells and have not seen any performance advantage from one to the other. As a matter of fact, it seemed as though they got better with the second generation gp3300 (Smaller in size). Just my thoughts.

Danny/SMC

iTrader: (2)

Dawn: What does having them fit the car have anything to do with them being legal ? If they are within the size specs listed in the rules then they should be legal. A 23x43 cell will not fit well in most cars but it's still within the rules.

If we can submit IB3800 right away we will do so but I thought we needed to submit the cells in September.

Orange

They can be submitted anytime before the cutoff date in order to be approved for the following year season. If it is submitted after the cutoff, they will not be approved for racing until the year after that.

tarheelquality

Sorry Raffaelli I did miss your response, I was pulled away from the computer in the middle of my post and you had posted Before I had finished. Thank you for the clear response I know it cleared up several things for me. All I wanted and I hope everyone else was the full story not just little bits and pieces we seem to get from one side or the other.

raffaelli

iTrader: (13)

Anytime.

Orange

I just measured the cell holder slot in my Associated B4, it measured 47.65 mm. and I measure the widest point of my gp3300 (Second generation) with Orion battery bars on it and it measured 47.06 mm.

First generation gp3300 with Orion Battery bars on it....48.27mm. I have to force these batteries in the car where as the other ones simply fit right in.

HarshGuy

iTrader: (6)

Yep I agreee, it "sounded like" from the original posting that 3700/3800's where just going to be SOL, but now if I'm reading this correctly the 1st set of these submitted were to big, but now if the sizes are as Danny indicated when they get resubmitted (anytimr prior to September) ...they "should be" approved (or at least will pass the size requirement).

Dawn Sanchez

Danny - forgive me as I'm not as adept on the battery technology as our technical and competition directors are. I was simply repeating what I know to be the reason for no approval as of yet.

Yes, you need to submit the batteries prior to Sept. 30 (I believe is the date, need to check the rule book) for 2006 approval status.





I received a complaint due to language on this thread.

I HAVE EDITED THIS THREAD AND MADE *** IN PLACE OF THE OFFENSIVE WORD.

This thread will close should this continue.

Advil

iTrader: (19)

Thanks Chris. It sounded like there was a "NO" on the table already for the 2006 season. You cleared it up nicely for me. Thanks.

Art