4 Cell Sedan Racing
12-28-2004, 11:02 AM
#76
Nothing ventured, nothing gained...I run a 12th scale car so I already have the batteries to try it.
12-28-2004, 11:05 AM
#77
A fixed power argument is exactely what we are looking at.
The point is to use slower motors with more cells to make a more efficient system.
12-28-2004, 11:07 AM
#78
If there is enough interest we could run an exhibition class at the On Road Nats in October. Reedy wanted to do this at the US Reedy Race but he didn't want to steal entries from guys wanting to run regular classes. They only have enough daylight and time to run 200 entries max.
Re: Europe and 220v...
They use 220v as it is more efficient for power generation and transmission. We get 220v to all our houses where it is converted to 110v for our appliances....except water heaters and stoves. We use 110v for safely reasons.
If you want all the details check out: http://www.school-for-champions.com/..._volt_freq.htm
But come one guys...we are talking about DC R/C cars not AC water heaters
!
Re: Europe and 220v...
They use 220v as it is more efficient for power generation and transmission. We get 220v to all our houses where it is converted to 110v for our appliances....except water heaters and stoves. We use 110v for safely reasons.
If you want all the details check out: http://www.school-for-champions.com/..._volt_freq.htm
But come one guys...we are talking about DC R/C cars not AC water heaters
!
12-28-2004, 11:08 AM
#79
don't believe this to be the case for stock or 19t, which is what most average racers run.
Explain with math why you believe this.
Is it the amp draw or the voltage that kills motors?
Let's think. Same size brush and we can either run 35 A through it or 15A. Which do you think will last longer?
12-28-2004, 11:26 AM
#80
without changing the motors, changing the voltage will yield an change in current and overall power produced. much like the reference to 220 volt, a motor change is necessary to keep power similar. my comments were based on not remembering that the new proposed stock class would necessitate a change in motor. however, if we are comparing 7.2v/27t to 4.8v/19t i would agree that the intent is to match power.
perhaps i should digest these ideas, instead of skimming over them.
i do like the effeciency approach, but we then have to consider how much room we have for additional cells, and the impending extinction of all the existing 6cell chassis. and the idea the it takes more overall power to make a heavier object move at the same speed....tire wear... etc. it then seems like the gains in motor maintainance get overridden by the other detriments associated with the change. though, from what i've read, li-poly will allow high voltage at light weights.
perhaps i should digest these ideas, instead of skimming over them.
i do like the effeciency approach, but we then have to consider how much room we have for additional cells, and the impending extinction of all the existing 6cell chassis. and the idea the it takes more overall power to make a heavier object move at the same speed....tire wear... etc. it then seems like the gains in motor maintainance get overridden by the other detriments associated with the change. though, from what i've read, li-poly will allow high voltage at light weights.
Last edited by seaball; 12-28-2004 at 11:33 AM.
12-28-2004, 11:31 AM
#81
Re: More cells and milder motors...
I am looking at this from a logistical standpoint. Going to more cells and milder motors requires batter matcher to buy new equipment as Turbo Matchers can only take Sub-C cells. Sub-C technology is leaps and bounds more advanced in high current applications than in other cell sizes. Running more smaller cells would be more expensive. We also have the precedent of off road switching from 7 cell to 6 cell. If more cells were better, off road would still be running 7 cells and 17 turn mods.
4 cells give you better control, lower costs, no new equipment required (all chargers and dischargers have 4 cells modes) and better motor/tire life.
Before you knock it you have to try it
I am looking at this from a logistical standpoint. Going to more cells and milder motors requires batter matcher to buy new equipment as Turbo Matchers can only take Sub-C cells. Sub-C technology is leaps and bounds more advanced in high current applications than in other cell sizes. Running more smaller cells would be more expensive. We also have the precedent of off road switching from 7 cell to 6 cell. If more cells were better, off road would still be running 7 cells and 17 turn mods.
4 cells give you better control, lower costs, no new equipment required (all chargers and dischargers have 4 cells modes) and better motor/tire life.
Before you knock it you have to try it
12-28-2004, 11:32 AM
#82
If you are going to spend so much time trying to add mathmatic and scientific justification to this argument you had better quit pretending that everything outside of your specific equations is fixed. There are way too many variables to consider here.
Like DerekB said... no one cares bout that here.
I still say we be done with the evil stock motor class and instead run all mods, but have class separation by the number of cells. 4cell Mod becomes the stock class and 6 cell Mod remains. 19T is a bad idea all around lol and a subject of debate for another thread on another day! lol
Like DerekB said... no one cares bout that here.
I still say we be done with the evil stock motor class and instead run all mods, but have class separation by the number of cells. 4cell Mod becomes the stock class and 6 cell Mod remains. 19T is a bad idea all around lol and a subject of debate for another thread on another day! lol
12-28-2004, 11:33 AM
#83
seaball-on a TC3-if you reduce by 2-cells on the left, but add the Transponder-do you think a milled chassis TC3 will balance out left to right better than with a 6-cell pack-and also-how about cross weight?
I am curious to try this Thursday night at the Gate with a C2 19t/4-cells. See if it produces equal laprimes as the car with a Monster and 6-cells.
I am curious to try this Thursday night at the Gate with a C2 19t/4-cells. See if it produces equal laprimes as the car with a Monster and 6-cells.
12-28-2004, 11:34 AM
#85
Tech Adept
Instead of reducing energy in the package, why not make the race time longer: heats of 8 or 10 minutes?
I believe this sorts out all of the problems, easy to implement and longer fun!
I believe this sorts out all of the problems, easy to implement and longer fun!
12-28-2004, 11:44 AM
#86
I did propose that 19T would become the stock class. 27T 4 cell in a sedan is pretty slow. Its exciting enough for novices but boring for experienced racers.
Keep in mind that I am a 6 cell mod racer so 6 cell 27T, to me, is really slow. However, I see a lot of novices at my local track struggle with the speed of a 27T 6 cell car.
Erik - Longer races create a new battery war. I spoke with a few Japanese racers at the Worlds and they all though 8 min racing was dumb. Most said that 8 min racing gauranteed wins for racers with (unlimited) resorces like Masami and was completely hopeless for privateers. Racers will always run as much motor as they can.
Keep in mind that I am a 6 cell mod racer so 6 cell 27T, to me, is really slow. However, I see a lot of novices at my local track struggle with the speed of a 27T 6 cell car.
Erik - Longer races create a new battery war. I spoke with a few Japanese racers at the Worlds and they all though 8 min racing was dumb. Most said that 8 min racing gauranteed wins for racers with (unlimited) resorces like Masami and was completely hopeless for privateers. Racers will always run as much motor as they can.
12-28-2004, 11:46 AM
#87
Heres a plus and a minus from what I have observed at our local track. Most of our novices cars are TOO fast and some even run modified. The mentality is more about speed and fun than getting good it seems. Also-many came from bashing on the street where speed is king-right? For them-its NOT a good idea to propose they chuck there 6-cell stick packs to run Novice class at the track. I thk it would be perceived as an insult. So theres thenegatives-need for speed, cost (to buy new batteries for some), pride.
ON the plus side-if theres one thing novices need-its a slower-easier to drive and harder to break car!!! Its easy to see a car traveling slower that weighs less will hit the wall with less force.
Its a good idea-just so hard to implement.
ON the plus side-if theres one thing novices need-its a slower-easier to drive and harder to break car!!! Its easy to see a car traveling slower that weighs less will hit the wall with less force.
Its a good idea-just so hard to implement.
12-28-2004, 11:49 AM
#88
ray, you should. i am all for experimenting.
fair enough. the numbers aren't important, but that they illustrate a general trend or occurrence. that comforts some and annoys others. the real point is that this will not change who is winning or who isn't, so the whole premise is based is how or why it is beneficial. without numbers to associate with savings, statistics etc., it just becomes a thread of opinions.
Like DerekB said... no one cares bout that here.
12-28-2004, 11:52 AM
#89
Longer races will also create more wear on tires and motors as well as more wear on the cars and draw out race days. When we run outdoor parking lot racing, we have trouble fitting a race day in before sun down as it is. Try adding 3 minutes to each race. Never happen.
12-28-2004, 11:57 AM
#90
Originally posted by Jon Kerr
Try adding 3 minutes to each race. Never happen.
Try adding 3 minutes to each race. Never happen.
I was going to insert a name there-but wont now. But I supose if Sedan trails 12th scale soon-this is the exact situation that will occur.