|
Post by lesbaldry on Oct 2, 2009 12:27:17 GMT
It looks like the BRCA may well adopt the 1350grm chassis weight for next year,personally I think this is too light and will cause balance problems with some current chassis's for the club man.One manufacture is already developing a new chassis to cope with the possible new weight. Its inevitable that the SLCC and perhaps the STCC will lower the weight limit next year (final weight to be debated)...I think 1400/1425 has been discussed?? Would it be possible for our club to relax the current 1500 grm rule asap to say 1400 grms to allow us all to get ahead of the game with handling/set up's,besides there are many advantages to a lower weight...it would certainly pep up the 17.5 class Whats your thoughts chaps?
|
|
|
Post by yellowshark on Oct 2, 2009 13:17:16 GMT
It looks like the BRCA may well adopt the 1350grm chassis weight for next year,personally I think this is too light and will cause balance problems with some current chassis's for the club man.One manufacture is already developing a new chassis to cope with the possible new weight. Its inevitable that the SLCC and perhaps the STCC will lower the weight limit next year (final weight to be debated)...I think 1400/1425 has been discussed?? Would it be possible for our club to relax the current 1500 grm rule asap to say 1400 grms to allow us all to get ahead of the game with handling/set up's,besides there are many advantages to a lower weight...it would certainly pep up the 17.5 class Whats your thoughts chaps? Flabbergasted at 1350 Les. I have always felt on the 009 that in terms of getting a reasonable balance 1450 was probably about the limit - I confess no trials to back that statement up. On your point though it must be almost certain that the weight will change so personally I have no problem with people playing around with whatever weight they want to during the winter; Arguable perhaps not once the AGM has decided on the 2010 club weight. Good job Team Campbell is planning on a minimum season next year; giving away 100 grams is not a good start
|
|
|
Post by Reuben on Oct 2, 2009 13:47:53 GMT
This is a massive weight change . Is it going to be a choice of balanced and heavy or fast and unbalanced?? If this is true and there is a good possibility of the weight dropping, then I would agree that I would also want to try this at club meetings.
|
|
|
Post by Simon Crabb on Oct 2, 2009 14:56:22 GMT
I was talking to Ed about this the other day. He's been doing some faffing, and a simple moving of an unweighted LiPo further out on the chassis (to position the bumps undernear outside the chassis) resulted in a near-balanced car, and under 1350g.
So perhaps it's not a big deal?
It'll certainly make all classes even faster, which means 10.5 ('the new mod') will be ridiculously quick, and even 17.5 will be way quicker than 27T stock used to be.
21.5 stock class anyone?
|
|
|
Post by lesbaldry on Oct 2, 2009 15:44:33 GMT
I was talking to Ed about this the other day. He's been doing some faffing, and a simple moving of an unweighted LiPo further out on the chassis (to position the bumps undernear outside the chassis) resulted in a near-balanced car, and under 1350g. So perhaps it's not a big deal? It'll certainly make all classes even faster, which means 10.5 ('the new mod') will be ridiculously quick, and even 17.5 will be way quicker than 27T stock used to be. 21.5 stock class anyone? At 1350 10.5 WILL be a missile,13.5 will probably be quite close to 10.5/1500 grm and the same said for 17.5 V 13.5.....And theres me thinking of dropping 10.5 for a slower class next year (13.5) . Ive tried balancing my chassis at 1400,its tricky!! 1350 I still think is impractical on some of todays chassis for us clubies???.....hmmmmm there may be a few heavy metal geared servos,GM speedos and large motor cooling units on Ebay in the near future ;D 1400 to me is practical,1350 may make some racers buy very expensive powerfull low profile servos and light weight ESCs'
|
|
|
Post by yellowshark on Oct 2, 2009 18:40:05 GMT
This is a massive weight change . Is it going to be a choice of balanced and heavy or fast and unbalanced?? No contest Reuben. Craig ran 13.5 (first time ever) at STCC Eastbourne with a heavy but balanced car and made the A final. Mind you that was 50gm overweight not 150. Why doesn't the BRCA mandate a minimum Lipo weight to manufacturers and keep it at 1500 then we don t all have to go out and spend hundreds of pounds to be competitive having already taken out a mortgage to go brushless?
|
|
|
Post by Chris N on Oct 2, 2009 20:19:36 GMT
I agree with you 100% Pete Having paid out fror Lipos and Brushless.(much more expensive than Brushed/Nimh's). As for 1350g I dont think any of our chassis go under 1400 without weights! I thought it was great that older cars (that some new junior drivers were running) were now under the weight limit and making them feel that they can actually keep up (OK not win yet ..but! the thought of getting there keeps them going). Move the goal posts and you have to spend! which many of these newcomers wont/cant do...so give up. We are seriously thinking of calling it a day as it is! as it just seems a rat race of buying the latest kit!
|
|
|
Post by TryHard on Oct 2, 2009 23:34:04 GMT
Ballderdash to the lot of you... get out there and try it!
Quite simply (and matt will be my witness here) I ran my 416 at 1350g this evening up at newbury. It was 10.5 indoors on the rug... it was by no means a missle (granted, new speedo and motor so being tentative on gearing), but handled hugely better, with quicker transition and very good corner speed. Also was a lot kinder on the motor and speedo, and generally softer on the tyres.
If anything, the car was alot easier to drive, simply as it reacted better.
My car is equal left to right, both in tweak and steering... side to side balance is spot on (I have 1 full turn on the LR shock, and thats it), with the LiPo move out over the side as Simon mentioned. The 15g of lead needed to get to 1350, I've placed behind the cells, opposite the motor. PT is in front of the cells too, so more weight to the right of the car.
Electrics wise... I'm not using anything special, SP speedo (which is by no means the lightest) and motor, 5300mah Demon LiPo's, etc etc. Only real concession to weight saving has been dropping the LRP fan mount (I'm using a clamp on bracket), which is a 25g gain on the motor side... and switching from steel to Ti screws underneath... otherwise thats it.
I really do wonder sometimes...
|
|
|
Post by TryHard on Oct 3, 2009 0:01:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by yellowshark on Oct 3, 2009 10:44:45 GMT
With all due respect Ed we do not all run the same car as you. My 009, hardly an old car, will get nowhere near 1350, balanced or not. I do not know if replacement electronics, I hardly run anything old and heavy, would get me there. But lets say new speedo, receiver and servo to get there. That is minimum of £400 * 3 cars.
|
|
|
Post by lesbaldry on Oct 3, 2009 10:57:34 GMT
Just as a mater of interest my Photon can be quite easily balanced at 1350 but the MI4 is another story!!(a chassis in the pipe line for this problem)...so it seems some will balance easier than others ....10.5 a misile at 1350?!?!...I would emagin been 1/10th lighter will make it some what faster dont you ....try it on Tarmac Ed .....A little birdie who runs at Aldershot has been testing a 10.5 at 1350 "warp speed so im told"
|
|
|
Post by TryHard on Oct 3, 2009 12:47:15 GMT
I'm not sure where you get the warp speed thing from... Yes it'll be quicker in the corners and accelerate harder, but top speed will still be limited by your gearing and aero drag.
As for trying it outdoors, I already have... Ansmann GP was 1400g, and I had my car fully balanced there at 1400g, with 60g of lead on the car, and the lrp motor fan mount.
Pete, I don't know what your doing, but 009 should be able to get that low, no problem. As you say its a modern car, and I know the chassis tends to come in light. And as I've also pointed out, I'm NOT using any special lightweight electrics over what I have used all year. If anything the speedo now in the car is even heavier...
As for the Mi4, les, your right, there is a LiPo chassis on the way. Grainger ran his modifed 6.5 car at 1350 in the last national, speed was sinilar to Colin Prices full weight car, but better through the turns.
|
|
|
Post by mattsedgley on Oct 3, 2009 12:51:19 GMT
I'm not to fussed what weight is agreed, provided it's used at all championships, the worst thing would be for SLCC to do 1400 stcc 1500 and BRCA to be 1350 for example.. that'd be a nightmare, some careful thinking from the organisers of all our major series will be required before rules are set next year - I presume, the BRCA will Vote at the AGM and then rules take effect from March - the sooner rules for STCC and SLCC are released the better in my eyes.. as for 1350 - i've seen a car go at 1350 yes, and it is balanced, however the lipos are half on and half of the chassis. which concerns me purely from a damage point of view.. matt
|
|
|
Post by lesbaldry on Oct 3, 2009 14:12:11 GMT
I'm not sure where you get the warp speed thing from... Yes it'll be quicker in the corners and accelerate harder, but top speed will still be limited by your gearing and aero drag. Warp speed...Star trek old boy Star trek! Top speed will be limited by your gearing and aero drag:....Is that why at 1350grms 10.5 cars now have to brake befor the banking at Aldershot.....they must have thiner air up there then and run too bigger pinions?? ......sorry but IMHO and comments after testing from vastly experianced and respected driver a 10.5 car 150 grams (5.25 oz) lighter IS going to be somewhat quicker..for a start it can be geared taller (less weight to drag out of a corner) and will reach a faster top end quicker!!
|
|
|
Post by TryHard on Oct 3, 2009 14:23:17 GMT
Well, at 1400g I was still almost flat through the west london sweeper... No brakes needed.
And less weight equals less natural drag, you'll need to compensate with a bit o brake...
|
|
|
Post by gwesty on Oct 3, 2009 17:32:22 GMT
hey , 1350 on an xray easy ! ive tested today at a,shot @1355 ! ive had to add 4ogrammes , and the car was soooooooooooo much nicer to drive also j ran no lead on his mi4 at 1383 . by having to add 40 g you can easily balance the car cheers gw
|
|
|
Post by yellowshark on Oct 4, 2009 10:25:39 GMT
Hmn well you hotshots have clearly got it sussed. All I can say is that our 009 with 85-95 gms weight weighs in at 1502/3. Guess I will have race with unpainted shell, no gaffer tape to protect it and leave the tyre additive off shell out for some 3200 15C Lipos ;D
|
|
|
Post by mattsedgley on Oct 4, 2009 17:02:05 GMT
check out the vote in this section guys...
|
|
|
Post by oldtimeracer on Oct 5, 2009 8:05:25 GMT
I am all in favour of dropping the weight limit. If it is to be 1350 then OK we will deal with it.
I do wonder how much many "club" racers would actually notice an imbalance in weight distribution and I also wonder how many actually are running like it at the moment without significant problems.
I will admit to running in practice with the Lipos I use for off road racing which have no weights at all and to be honest there is no huge difference to me.
Just by shifting the Lipo out towards the edge of the chassis a small amount can make a very big difference to the balance so I doubt there will be a lot of changes to make. In my opinion anyway.
Running less weight should make wear on the car and transmission a lot less as well which to my mind is a significant consideration. As well as making the car pick up better on acceleration.
|
|
|
Post by lesbaldry on Oct 5, 2009 8:15:29 GMT
Just by shifting the Lipo out towards the edge of the chassis a small amount can make a very big difference to the balance so I doubt there will be a lot of changes to make. In my opinion anyway. . Hi Ian if you are refering to set up changes Im not so sure chap ....for a start slightly thiner roll bars may be needed ,perhaps a small drop in spring weight and shock oil too?...but more importantly our motors should run cooler.
|
|
|
Post by oldtimeracer on Oct 5, 2009 8:53:34 GMT
Not so sure about spring changes but it is a possibility for sure. Especially for those very good racers who are looking for tenths of a second. Unlike the majority of us old club racers! ;D
So we are all awaiting the Titanium canned motors and mini speedos then?
Nah...it will be fine.
|
|
|
Post by lesbaldry on Oct 5, 2009 10:22:47 GMT
So we are all awaiting the Titanium canned motors and mini speedos then? Nah...it will be fine. Yep I think so too in the long run,some of todays chassis with current radio gear will easily make 1400 and some may struggle at 1350 but at least be very close,no doubt someone will probably moan that thier car is slow cause its 30 grms too heavy....perhaps 1400 may be sensible and achievable for the clubman and his series??
|
|
|
Post by oldtimeracer on Oct 5, 2009 10:53:12 GMT
If 1350 is accepted by the BRCA there may be some major changes in design for new cars before too long. About time too in my opinion.
Cars have been designed around Nimhs for a long time and now is the time to look again at the whole package and come up with something new. Maybe like the off road scene has done. Either centre located cells or saddle packs again.
I am surprised that manufacturers are being quite so slow in changing but maybe tooling charges are the problem.
|
|
|
Post by TryHard on Oct 5, 2009 14:12:03 GMT
Just as a slight aside, on the subject of noticeing a slight imbalance, I have on my phone a text message from our current national champion in which he states "I tend to find front to back weight more important than side to side. So wanted more at the front so it was more like the 5 cell car" And followed with; "Yeah, I think you can have side to side way out and not notice it, but too much weight to rear and car is proper bad" I agree that chassis design will change... saddles will be the more obvious optin, as having cells down the centre is not so good for touring. The JRXS is, umm.... not so good
|
|
|
Post by mattsedgley on Oct 5, 2009 14:17:24 GMT
E4rs anyone??
|
|
|
Post by oldtimeracer on Oct 5, 2009 14:33:52 GMT
From what people have told me the E4RS had issues other than just running the battery pack in the centre.
In my opinion it would be easy to convince yourself that your car is handling badly if the the left to right balance is not perfect if you KNOW that it is not set right. What I mean is that if someone took all the weights out of your car without telling you would you immediately know the difference? Might sound stupid but with all these things I do feel we talk ourselves into things that really are not that important.
Maybe we should all go two wheel drive with battery across the chassis a bit like 1/12?
|
|
|
Post by gwesty on Oct 5, 2009 16:15:04 GMT
hi guys , we ran a heat of 10.5 @ 1350 grammes seperate from the std 1500 g 10.5s , the difference was unreal ! my motor was 122 f after a 5 min run . the pick up outta corners was super smooth and very fast . my tyres had minimal wear ( 3 runs and they looked like a set would after 1 run @ 1500 !) the speed difference was good 2 , 1500g was 21.307 (tq) mine @ 1350 was 22.309 ! lap times were .6 faster ! so all in all the motor and running parts are taking less punishment cheers gw
|
|
|
Post by yellowshark on Oct 5, 2009 18:15:47 GMT
The XRAY 008 generation (carried forward to the 009 generation) saw a design change to bring the motor further inboard. To quote...
"New centrally-positioned layshaft split bulkheads give improved balance due to better weight distribution of the centered motor position for faster left-right transitions"
(bold is mine)
The less discerning motorist may think that XRAY don't know what they are talking about but for me I accept that they know more than I do.
THis concept of hanging the LIPO out further to balance the car seems contrary to the XRAY philosophy. ??
|
|
|
Post by yellowshark on Oct 5, 2009 18:26:12 GMT
Well digging deeper, the number 1 objective for the 008!
With the next development of the T2 platform we set our main goals as follows:
1. Improve side-to-side balance 2. Improve front-to-rear balance and weight distribution 3. Improve forward traction 4. Increase cornering speed 5. Make the car easier to drive 6. Decrease the overall weight 7. Decrease the weight of rotating parts 8. Optimize the drivetrain 9. Multi-Flex™ – setting chassis stiffness 10. Optimize the kits for specific foam & rubber tire conditions
Task #1 – Improving the side-to-side balance To improve the balance with 5 cells we moved the battery’s counterweight (namely the motor) to as close to the centerline of the chassis as possible which helped the balance and weight distribution. To be able to move the motor toward the centerline required changes to the position of the middle pulleys, and then also the main large spur gear was placed symmetrically in between the pulleys which transfers power to the front and rear drivetrains. With this new position it also allowed us to position the servo saver exactly in the centerline of the chassis. While testing on asphalt and carpet tracks, this configuration has proven to be a dramatic improvement especially in chicanes and in direction changes.
|
|
|
Post by yellowshark on Oct 5, 2009 18:30:24 GMT
So reading the last point. Is that bringing weight inboard is irrelevant but getting the balalance, whether everything is located on the centre-line or stuck 4 inches outside of the chassis, is the holy grail?
|
|