Radio Active

iTrader: (2)

Ok, fair enough. But I'm not seeing the same issues you are. I'm seeing only solutions to issues.

If it were legalised it's not something that has to be used if you believe your set up is fine, it just provides an option that would make life easier for a large group of people.

ta04evah

iTrader: (2)

The main issues that I perceive are:

As Bishop stated, yet another firmware/profile that either needs to be selected, downloaded and/or updated which often now requires the use of a pc and a interface device.

Mechanical vs Electronic timing adjustment. Twisting the endbell on a motor is a mechanical adjustment, and as you stated before that some may perceive fixed electronic timing is the thin edge of the wedge to bring back boost/turbo.
The reasoning behind that is because you're using an electronic means to increase the revs of a motor, couldn't the same argument be said about boost is it's electronically increasing the revs of the motor too?

Over complicating things. There's aspects of the hobby that are already complicated enough to some new comers, that's what led to the creation of fixed 0 timing esc's. Sure you can change things like "punch" drag brake, fwd/reverse mode, max braking etc. They are simple units which are the closest to "plug & play" of today's esc's and they are the least expensive.

I'm also aware of some people testing even more basic esc's where you can turn down the power output to set levels, but not increase the power. The benefits of this system would be good for beginners to get used to the control of the car while lowering the speed to minimise damage when an accident happens.

Whether we see these points as negatives or not, is something we both see differently, and until I can be convinced otherwise those are the concerns I have with the proposal.

Cheers
Rob.

Radio Active

iTrader: (2)

The timing boards employed by Speed Passion are already an electronic means of adjusting timing, albeit hardware rather than software. I can see them possibly developing a board that you program rather than going to the same endbell design as everyone else in order to keep the advantage they have with the wire orientation.

If that happens that would be legal as the rules currently stand, and the only difference between that and what I am suggesting is where you plug in to.

-----

Really, I can't see the difference between learning to twist the endbell, and learning to program timing through a menu. The current generation are far more used to the latter, they would surely find that easier.

In the very first post I made on the thread I outlined how you would change the technical specification to define what fixed timing actually is. That would make it clear the distinction between the two. In a way twisting the endbell already gets around the ESC rules. Given that, it doesn't make any sense to ban the same adjustment made in a different way.

-----

What you describe sounds like a step forward, but it's a whole new specification. One of your arguments against this idea is that everyone is happy with the current system... This idea would change the spec of the cars, mine doesn't. Change isn't necessarily bad, but I don't see this point as consistent with your argument.

Radio Active

iTrader: (2)

The timing boards employed by Speed Passion are already an electronic means of adjusting timing, albeit hardware rather than software. I can see them possibly developing a board that you program rather than going to the same endbell design as everyone else in order to keep the advantage they have with the wire orientation.

If that happens that would be legal as the rules currently stand, and the only difference between that and what I am suggesting is where you plug in to.

-----

Really, I can't see the difference between learning to twist the endbell, and learning to program timing through a menu. The current generation are far more used to the latter, they would surely find that easier.

In the very first post I made on the thread I outlined how you would change the technical specification to define what fixed timing actually is. That would make it clear the distinction between the two. In a way twisting the endbell already gets around the ESC rules. Given that, it doesn't make any sense to ban the same adjustment made in a different way.

-----

What you describe sounds like a step forward, but it's a whole new specification. One of your arguments against this idea is that everyone is happy with the current system... This idea would change the spec of the cars, mine doesn't. Change isn't necessarily bad, but I don't see this point as consistent with your argument.

NolanP

iTrader: (8)

I'm pretty sure that in a given year based on the success of all the adjustable timing motors that all companies that produce a motor for competition will eventually have adjustable timing on the endbell.

grippgoat

iTrader: (8)

Are you absolutely sure about that? I'd be surprised if the different boards do anything other than move the position of the hall-effect sensors that detect the rotor position. That is a mechanical change, and is exactly what you accomplish by twisting the end end-bell on an adjustable motor.

I'm not sure you fully appreciate the amount of work, and thus money, that would have to go into actually implementing your proposal.

Consider this statement: "All ESC manufacturers should invest thousands of dollars into developing, testing, and releasing new firmware, so that motor manufacturers will sell fewer motors. Also, all racers happily using non-updateable 0-timing speed controls should be forced to buy new speed controls to stay competetive against those who can now go past the endbell. Also, rookies who don't know what they're doing should frequently try and run 90 (40 motor + 50 ESC) degrees of fixed timing and melt their motor, because melted motors build character."

While that is perhaps an overly-cynical restatement of your proposal, those are clear side-effects of your proposal that you can't gloss over, and it's those huge details that will prevent anyone from taking your proposal seriously. Until you have good answers to address all of them, you're dead in the water.

Also, I think the problem you're trying to fix is way smaller than you think it is. Most new racers do one of two things:
1) Buy an RTR that comes with some over-powered brushed or sensorless system (i.e. not even in the ballpark of the correct motor)
2) Talk to racers or hobbyshop employees to find out what they should actually buy.

Maybe 1 in 50 people buys a Cirtix setup and then realizes it was a bad idea. Those people I've seen fall into one of two categories, as well; either experienced people that were curious and knew they might be buying trash, or people that are inexperienced enough, as others have mentioned, that motor power is not what's holding them back.

If people in your area are making poor motor decisions, it's because someone is failing to educate them, be it racers or hobby shop owners. It doesn't make sense to randomize the entire motor / esc / rules ecosystem for those few who've made bad decisions. It'll be much easier to just get better information out there so that people can make better decisions in the first place.

-Mike

CR0SS

iTrader: (5)

Unless they are competing in the A main of a regional or above event buying better stuff is not the solution to really becoming a better driver. It is the quick fix that does not get them far. People need to stop looking at the car as the reason they are not winning. The more "options" we give them the more they look at the car and not themselves. End bell timing is not making the difference between winning and losing for the person you are talking about.

Rick Hohwart

In my opinion it is up to the motor manufacturers to create motors that allow for the timing adjustment range that the user wants. It seems simple enough for user to purchase motors that offer the timing range that he wants/needs.

NolanP

iTrader: (8)

+1.

skypilot

iTrader: (14)

Pretty sure my esc can be used to adjust motor timing without going into boost mode now.

I do understand your point.

Radio Active

iTrader: (2)

I don't see why we should have to buy a new motor when a simple firmware update of the ESC would give us the same functionality.

I consider moving components on a circuit board to get a different effect to be an electonic adjustment. But doing it otherwise with different components shouldn't be too difficult, I wouldn't have thought.

They can already do it, they were doing it before boost came along.

The ideal is something like 30 degrees to 50 degrees. Going past that won't make you more competitive. That will be well known if a very short period of time.

When we had brushed motors their was infinite endbell adjustment in Mod. A large portion of new racers turned up to the track with Mods, I never once say any of them advance the timing to a point where they blew the motor either at the track or just bashing. I don't see any reason to believe that someone will try stupid amounts of timing now when they never did before.

I've done my best to try addressing them above.

On point 1, that is true, but they very quickly progress to a spec motor, before they have the knowledge of which one to get.

On point 2, there are no racers at our LHS. This is typical of most LHSs in Australia. It's all we can do to get them to give advice in racing terms that is consistent with the rules. Often they'll push whatever product they have stock of that month. In order to stay competitive with internet sellers most LHSs are also importers, so they are less than keen to go with what we as clubs would like them to recommend. This is a consequence of the tax system here which doesn't tax imported purchases under commercial values.

NolanP

iTrader: (8)

Please understand that adding more timing to anything isn't going to be the answer to running faster. Just putting more risk in the motor. Its designed a certain way for a reason. If you add timing through the esc its not there for it will give out the white puff of smoke not make you faster. So why adjust it beyond its capability. You are not only asking esc companies to re-change their software---(I dont care if you think it's easy) but yet at some point re-design a motor around certain points. Remember this Blinky has only been popular for what a year and a half maybe two years? Give it one more year and all the motors will have the timing due to the newer rules. One motor in three years? If you added esc timing I promise you every motor company would be out to design a motor based on the new settings then you will have to buy a new motor because your design caused a flow you didn't realize. If you don't think that motor tech is ever changing with the classes that are the biggest you are mistaken. Meaning that if boost were to come back...I hope it doesn't. The motors would change and you would be buying a new motor based on that again.

That seems to be the bigger problem than the timing. If your telling me that your LHS is selling race motors that aren't going to help racers thats the #1 problem you should address not worry about adding timing in an esc. If every racer came in with a good race motor that's legal and adjustable it wouldn't be an issue.

Keeping it blinky will make motors more prominent for a longer period. Sure one motor may be "the motor" to have but if you own one of the newer race motors from the major companies I'm sure in blinky it will be around for a while. atleast in the club race setting.

grippgoat

iTrader: (8)

But it's far more expensive for the manufacturers to produce those firmware updates, than it is for the racers to just replace the motors. It's not an investment that makes sense.


What you consider and what you wouldn't have thought isn't necessarily reality. Maybe ping Randy Pike of Tekin, and just ask him the simple question, "What would it take to develop this ESC feature, and how much would that cost?" Just the number of aspects of the overall Tekin user experience that I can think of are pretty daunting from both a development, testing, and documentation / user education point-of-view.


They were doing it, because people wanted to run boost, and the manufacturers wanted to be competitive. They are still doing it to refine their products. But that's because there is demand for those improvements.

If there were really enough demand for what you're suggesting, then they could do it, too. But first you'd have to do some data collection and provide hard numbers of people that would benefit, vs people that wouldn't, then get the sanctioning body on board, etc... You haven't even taken the first step yet. Poll your local club, find out how many people have non- or inadequately-adjustable motors, find out how many people have updateable ESCs. Do some math based on motor and ESC prices to figure out dollars that would have to be spent by racers (to get new ESCs) vs. dollars that would be saved by the racers.

The only indication of demand so far is you in favor, and a whole slew of people against.


Well known by who? If that's well known, then why wouldn't it be well known which motor they should buy? What if a raw noob has a revtech or reedy with 40* built in, and then without really understanding that, they dial in what they think is a conservative 30* on their ESC. There goes the motor, possibly taking the ESC with it, and any savings they ever would have gotten. The mistake is even easier to make with a motor that's labelled in relative degrees instead of absolute degrees, or not even labelled at all.

Just because you don't see a reason to believe it, doesn't mean it's not true. That simply doesn't cut it. Start by talking to all those racers with bad motors and ask them, "How much timing is in your motor?", and report back here with the answers. Most probably don't even know.

With the infinite can timing, it was all right there in front of you. That's much easier for someone to grok. With electronics, adjustable end-bell timing, and motors with unknown amounts of timing already built in, it's way easier for someone to make a mistake. If mistakes are possible, they will be made.


Which amounts to pretty much "I don't think so." It's going to take a lot more than that to convince people.


When do you see them progressing to an ESC with adjustable electronic timing? Will they do that before they've learned how much they should be trying to add? Will they even know how much timing is in their motor at that point? Do have anything to back that up, like the path(s) followed by specific racer(s) in your club(s)?

I can't help you with that. Perhaps your club(s) could have a "recommended products" web page or forum thread to help out the noobs?

-Mike

wollow86

iTrader: (7)

Radio Active. If I understand you correctly, your suggesting that a new racer, who is miss informed enough to buy a blinky combo (which is usually where non advance-able motors come from) like the speed passion citrix, hobbywing justock or novak club racer combo, would also be informed enough to purchase a new esc that has a *timing shift* or *motor endbell emulation* option? Or make sure they buy an esc that is firmware update-able?

I'm sure if esc's existed that could do the function your talking about, there would still be the slightly cheaper option that is blinky only without the feature. Why would the manufacturers do that? Because they can. It happens all the time in consumer electronics, TVs that have software features turned off (even when the hardware ability is there) and are sold at the lower price is common practice.

Even if bought separately, why would someone buy the right esc but not the "right" motor? When in reality with a little fiddling with the gearing would get close enough for club meetings, even with no adjustable timing on the motor.

Who is this mythical new racer who understands escs properly but not motors?

Gripgoat, the club Radio Active is from will not allow links, outside of the sponsor's website, that show any kind of competitive pricing. On top of that the sponsors carry only Speedpassion and LRP. Both of which use inserts to adjust timing as we all know. The reality is the same racers being discussed don't usually know where to go to get alternative options even when you tell them what the brand and model is. The only way to inform someone is via PM. Otherwise, great idea.

Radio Active

iTrader: (2)

The thought is that it would be so cheap and easy for the ESC manufacturers to add this functionality that it would become ubiquitous. I believe it would be far cheaper than building the complicated endbells the motor manufacturers now are having to. Firmware updates should be fairly straight forward for most current models too, but even if not, long term I would expect ESC fixed timing to be more readily available on low end equipment than the new style endbells just on cost reasoning alone. So the new racers wouldn't have to be any more informed. After a few months when they are investigating set-up further they'll learn how to adjust the timing on the ESC, this is usually when they start leaning about endbell timing.

If I'm wrong about that then perhaps there is no advantage to this, I still don't see the disadvantages others see, but there wouldn't be as much benefit if I'm wrong about the cost.