PDA

View Full Version : Open disscusion 1/28 scale rules


yasuji
2009.03.19, 03:04 PM
There has been alot of buzz going on in 1/28th scale racing
the goal here is for all clubs to adopt a standard set of rules to use as a guideline
these rules, originally submitted to roar ,were modified by me and i did consult with CT and a few others on the 1/28th scale committee
i believe this is the way to start a national series where all manufactures will be able to compete against one another at the highest level of 1/28th scale
PLEASE HAVE AN OPEN MIND AND CONSIDER THIS... CUPS ALL HAVE RESTRICTIONS.... I WANT HEAD TO HEAD RACING:D

yasuji
2009.03.19, 03:09 PM
1/28 Scale Touring 4WD/2WD STOCK Rules and Regulations

Open 1/28th chassis Stock

Dimensional Specifications:
Item: Limit: Specification:

Length (B): max 180 mm

Width: max 80 mm

Height (C): min 35 mm

Wheelbase (A): max 102 mm
min 86 mm

Weight: min 2wd 175 g 4wd 175 g

Wheels: Diameter max 21.5 mm
Width max 12 mm rear 9 mm front
min 8.5 mm front or rear

Tires: Diameter max 27 mm
Width max 12 mm rear 9.5mm front
min 8.5 mm front or rear
Rear Wing (see below): Chord max 15 mm
Width max 80 mm

Tire type:

* Rubber Type only
* Capped tires are not allowed.

Traction compound: not allowed



Transmission: Single speed only.

suspension and drive:

* Single, one-piece drive axle allowed.(2wd)
* Independent suspension allowed.(2wd)
* Belt or Shaft Drive system is allowed(2wd/4wd)
* 4 Wheel independent suspension is allowed(4wd)

Body rules:

* Bodies must be modeled after real 2 or 4 door cars.
* No windows may be cut out except for small holes for clearance issues. Excessive material removal is not allowed.
* Only hard Plastic-Type Bodies allowed (i.e. Kyosho Autoscale, TRP Scale, Iwaver)

Wing rules:

* All rear wing that come with the body may be used and installed as per manufactures placement
*Custom wings allowed to use on the body
The rear edge of the wing or side dams may not extend beyond the rear of the body more than 10 mm AS IT MUST BE WITHIN MAXIMUM LENGTH
* No part of the wing may extend above the roofline of the body.

Battery cells:

* 4 cells maximum.
* Only AAA size NiMH rechargeable batteries rated at 1.25 volts or less may be used.

Electric motor rules:
*HANDOUT 70T MOTOR


Electronic Equipment Rules:


* Any combination of electronics, whether integrated (i.e. Kyosho type PCB) or independent is allowed.
* No limit for number of external or internal FET modifications to the electronic boards.
.

Racing Regulations:

* Race length will be 8 minutes for qualifiers
* Race length will be 10 minutes for mains
* 1 position will bump up to the next main
* Qualifying order can be decide by qual points or “rocket-run”, but must be announced by the race director prior to the start of the event.
* All 1/28th scale national events must use qual points and will be decided with the typical “Triple A-main” Format, unless otherwise discussed

yasuji
2009.03.19, 03:10 PM
1/28 Scale Combined Touring 2wd/4WD MOD Rules and Regulations

1/28th Combined 2wd/4WD OPEN chassis Mod


Dimensional Specifications:
Item: Limit: Specification:
Length (B): max 180 mm
Width: max 80 mm
Height (C): min 35 mm
Wheelbase (A): max 102 mm
min 90 mm
Weight: min 2wd 175 g 4wd 175 g
Wheels: Diameter max 21.5 mm
min 18.5 mm
Width max 12 mm rear 9 mm front
min 8.5 mm front or rear
Tires: Diameter max 27 mm
Width max 12 mm rear 9.5mm front
min 8.5 mm front or rear
Rear Wing (see below): Chord max 15 mm
Width max 80 mm

Tire type:

* Rubber Type only
* Capped tires are not allowed.

Traction compound:not allowed





Transmission: Single speed only.

Suspension and drive:

* Single, one-piece drive axle allowed.(2wd)
* Independent suspension allowed.(2wd)
* Belt or Shaft Drive system is allowed(2wd/4wd)
* 4 Wheel independent suspension is allowed(4wd)

Body rules:

* Bodies must be modeled after real 2 or 4 door cars.
* No windows may be cut out except for small holes for clearance issues. Excessive material removal is not allowed.
* Only hard Plastic-Type Bodies allowed (i.e. Kyosho Autoscale, TRP Scale, Iwaver)

Wing rules:

* All rear wing that come with the body may be used and installed as per manufactures placement
*Custom wings allow to use on the body
The rear edge of the wing or side dams may not extend beyond the rear of the body more than 10 mm.
* No part of the wing may extend above the roofline of the body.

Battery cells:

* 4 cells maximum.
* Only AAA size NiMH rechargeable batteries rated at 1.25 volts or less may be used.

Electric motor rules:

* Only industry standard “130” size motors may be used.
* Overall maximum diameter: 20 mm measured at whatever point yields the maximum dimension.
* Maximum length: 28.5 mm measured from the mounting face of the motor to the furthest most point of the end bell, not including solder tabs or lead wires.

* Shaft diameter: 2 mm.
* Only three pole armatures are permitted.


* Modified motor rules:

o Use of Neo Magnets is permitted
o Motors may be hand wound in any pattern
o Bearings may be outfitted on the end-bell and can to race the motor shaft
o No brushless or core-less motors allowed

Electronic Equipment Rules:

* Any combination of electronics, whether integrated (i.e. Kyosho type PCB) or independent is allowed.
* No limit for number of external or internal FET modifications to the electronic boards.


Racing Regulations:

* Race length will be 8 minutes for qualifiers
* Race length will be 10 minutes for mains
* 1 position will bump up to the next main
* Qualifying order can be decide by qual points or “rocket-run”, but must be announced by the race director prior to the start of the event.
* All 1/28th scale national events must use qual points and will be decided with the typical “Triple A-main” Format, unless otherwise discussed

yasuji
2009.03.19, 03:11 PM
1/28 Scale Open Pan Car 2WD/4WD Rules and Regulations
Open 1/28th 2WD/4WD chassis Stock/Mod

Dimensional Specifications:
Item: Limit: Specification:
Length (B): max 180 mm
Width: max 80 mm
Height (C): min 38 mm
Wheelbase (A): max 106 mm
min 94 mm
Weight: min 2wd 165 g 4wd 165 g

Wheels: Diameter max 22 mm
min 18.5 mm
Width max 16 mm rear 12 mm front
min 8.5 mm front or rear
Tires: Diameter max 28 mm
Width max 16 mm rear 12 mm front
min 8.5 mm front or rear
Rear Wing (see below): Chord max 15 mm
Width max 80 mm

Tire type:

* Rubber Type only
* Capped tires are not allowed.

Traction compound:
not allowed

Transmission: Single speed only.

Suspension and drive:

* Single, one-piece drive axle allowed.(2wd)
* Independent suspension allowed.(2wd)
* Belt or Shaft Drive system is allowed(2wd/4wd)
* 4 Wheel independent suspension is allowed (2wd/4wd)

Body rules:

* PANCAR/LEMANS STYLE BODIES ONLY
(i.e atomic,kyosho,pn racing or other hard plastic or lexan style bodies)
* No windows may be cut out
* Excessive material removal is not allowed.
* Lexan (polycarbonate) bodies or hard plastic “pan-car” bodies only

Wing rules:

* Only one wing is allowed per manufacture , fixed in the same location as produced
* The rear edge of the wing or side dams may not extend beyond the rear of the body more than 10 mm.

Battery cells:

* 4 cells maximum.
* Only AAA size NiMH rechargeable batteries rated at 1.25 volts or less may be used.

Electric motor rules:

* Only industry standard “130” size motors may be used.
* Overall maximum diameter: 20 mm measured at whatever point yields the maximum dimension.
* Maximum length: 28.5 mm measured from the mounting face of the motor to the furthest most point of the end bell, not including solder tabs or lead wires.
* Shaft diameter: 2 mm.
* Only three pole armatures are permitted.



* Stock motor rules:

HANDOUT MOTOR



* Modified motor rules:
ONLY INDUSTRY STANDARD "130" SIZE MOTORS
o Modified motors must conform to the general technical specifications for electric motors outlined above with the exception of:
o Use of Neo Magnets is permitted
o Motors may be hand wound in any pattern
o Bearings may be outfitted on the end-bell and can to race the motor shaft
o No brushless or core-less motors allowed

Electronic Equipment Rules:

* Any combination of electronics, whether integrated (i.e. Kyosho type PCB) or independent is allowed.
* No limit for number of external or internal FET modifications to the electronic boards.
* Only frequencies approved by Roar will be allowed.

Racing Regulations:

* Race length will be 8 minutes for qualifiers
* Race length will be 10 minutes for mains
* 1 position will bump up to the next main
* Qualifying order can be decide by qual points or “rocket-run”, but must be announced by the race director prior to the start of the event.
* All 1/28th scale national events must use qual points and will be decided with the typical “Triple A-main” Format, unless otherwise discussed

imxlr8ed
2009.03.19, 03:29 PM
Pretty cool, and it all seems to work but I would hate to see the 102 wheelbase go the way of the Dodo. If anything, I think it should be allowed in the Open Pan class to go along with the prototype body theme.

Also... I wouldn't rule out an independent rear suspension for the 2WDs. I think it's bound to happen one day with the right chassis design. It would kind of be like saying only front kingpin suspensions are allowed.

This scale is constantly evolving, and I'm sure some nut will do a major re-configure of the standard chassis layouts one day soon.

Might want to address F1 Class too... they're not dead yet! :D

yasuji
2009.03.19, 03:40 PM
Pretty cool, and it all seems to work but I would hate to see the 102 wheelbase go the way of the Dodo. If anything, I think it should be allowed in the Mod class to go along with the prototype body theme.

Also... I wouldn't rule out an independent rear suspension for the 2WDs. I think it's bound to happen one day with the right chassis design. It would kind of be like saying only front kingpin suspensions are allowed.

This scale is constantly evolving, and I'm sure some nut will do a major re-configure of the standard layouts one day soon.

Might want to address F1 Class too... they're not dead yet! :D

GOOD POINTS....i will allow indepent suspension cause evolution is inevitable
as for f1 an lemans 102....they are NOT dead....the existing rules that each club has is sufficient they are NOT EXCLUDED
f1 is a f1 only class rules tbd
as well as lemans 102 class tbd by each club.....i think landons rules for thet class is good;)

EMU
2009.03.19, 06:57 PM
I feel that the weight limits are a little high. My stock AWD weighs in at 172g (fully stock with bearings, body and batteries). If I want to run it that way, I have to add over 20g of weight to comply with the rules.

Even the 2wd weights, without trying to reduce weight, my 2wd stock car that I ran at the KO race was 75g. Of course, if I were to get into a collission with a heavier car, I would get the worse of it, but that should be the choice of the driver.

I feel that people that use mainly stock cars without adding a lot of alloy hop ups are penalised with the rules to compensate for the ones that like to use all the alloy parts. It should be an option up to the driver to be able to use a car that is stock without adding weight. Body choice is critical in racing, and people that want to run larger heavier, more stable bodies should do so with a weight penalty. Instead of the person that wants to use the smaller lighter body receiving the weight penalty. Then that person really gets no advantage, and is actually at a disadvantage.

This scale covers a lot of different wheelbases and widths, the smaller cars are more nimble due to weight and size, but they are also more vulnerable... That is a risk that the driver takes when they run those cars.

I personally feel that 175g for 2wd and 180g for AWD would be more suitable. These weights can be easily attained without having to cut weight from a stock car. Option parts will add weight, but also increase durability. Every race I have attended, I have had to add weight to make weight except for the KO race, where the weight limit was 170g. Sometimes more than 10g (as in the case for the PN events). My cars are light, but that is because a lot of times I choose not to use an alloy upgrade part that I know will just add weight. I also like smaller cars, that have light bodies...

I agree with Ed, that independant rear suspension should not be restricted for 2wd.

yasuji
2009.03.19, 08:17 PM
I personally feel that 175g for 2wd and 180g for AWD would be more suitable. These weights can be easily attained without having to cut weight from a stock car. Option parts will add weight, but also increase durability. Every race I have attended, I have had to add weight to make weight except for the KO race, where the weight limit was 170g. Sometimes more than 10g (as in the case for the PN events).

i agree on the weight limits........175 for 2wd stk
185 for 4wd stk and mod

EMU
2009.03.19, 08:21 PM
I guess 185g is more reasonable... I am using a very light body :rolleyes: and do have to add some weight to balance the car. After I install the diffs and swingshafts, I should be right around 180g, then ~5g to balance the car...

yasuji
2009.03.19, 08:26 PM
I guess 185g is more reasonable... I am using a very light body :rolleyes: and do have to add some weight to balance the car. After I install the diffs and swingshafts, I should be right around 180g, then ~5g to balance the car...

i think that any lighter may become a safety issue;)
also there will be guys complaining that it is too low.....:rolleyes:

bermbuster
2009.03.19, 08:29 PM
Im digging this....

just a few questions/observations.
you say 1/28th scale the serpent pan car is 1/24 scale. does this fit in the dimensional tolerances of 1/28th???
There are a few other chassis out there as well. Are they dimensionally
1/28th scale?

I remember when they were being developed and possibly the popularity revolved around the glitching issues w the older am mini zs...and underfetted boards.
2.4 really turned our hobby around. I havent heard or seen many of the
component chassis for about a year now.

dvsstrike
2009.03.19, 08:37 PM
i like the idea of control tires for the events like 10th sedan. weight limits and ride height are also nice.

yasuji
2009.03.19, 08:46 PM
Im digging this....

just a few questions/observations.
you say 1/28th scale the serpent pan car is 1/24 scale. does this fit in the dimensional tolerances of 1/28th???
There are a few other chassis out there as well. Are they dimensionally
1/28th scale?

I remember when they were being developed and possibly the popularity revolved around the glitching issues w the older am mini zs...and underfetted boards.
2.4 really turned our hobby around. I havent heard or seen many of the
component chassis for about a year now.

i do not feel that the serpent 1/24 car will fit in to this class ......and it has lipos and brushless....
if it could be scaled down to fit the dimensions and run a std 130 motor on aaa batteries...it could lhen and only then be considered



as for the others.....i believe that MRCG SINSTER INZANE PROZ VRC All fall into the proper dimentions.....

yasuji
2009.03.19, 08:49 PM
i like the idea of control tires for the events like 10th sedan. weight limits and ride height are also nice.
if you cater to one company others will not want to come out and play....
so we will not be using a "spec"tire rule

EMU
2009.03.19, 10:26 PM
The Serpent is way too large, let alone the different motor/battery config... It is also designed for foams, and would probably run poorly with rubber tires.

I have run events where you have handout front tires... While it worked for me, since I already was using the tires, you have to change the entire setup of the car to work with the tires you are given. It will put people completely out of their element, trying to get a single type of tire to work on a track that they may not be well suited for. At events, sometimes I go through 5 different types of tires before I find something that I like on that specific track. I think that spec tires should be left for specific events, not as a national rule. You want to leave setup options for the drivers... as well as not single out one manufacturer, as the others will be hurt.

rocketman
2009.03.19, 10:40 PM
Great work on the rules. I like the gist of what you have done.

Some quick thoughts:

Do we need a min wire gauge for stock motors?
Do we need to allow for non-sealed stock motors where
brushes can be changed and inspected more readily?

Draconious
2009.03.19, 10:52 PM
I think my "I will never actually make one MiX chassis" should qualify for these rules...

I also hope there is a Ultra-Mod class one day... to allow brushless, I want to see better and smaller brushless motor and esc for this scale developed in mass.

rocketman
2009.03.19, 11:15 PM
Perhaps a 3 tier event with stock, modified and open. would be good to allow for research of products that push the envelop in the open classes and get manufacturers battling for bragging rights.

yasuji
2009.03.19, 11:19 PM
Great work on the rules. I like the gist of what you have done.

Some quick thoughts:

Do we need a min wire gauge for stock motors?
Do we need to allow for non-sealed stock motors where
brushes can be changed and inspected more readily?

i am not so in tune with motor winding so im not sure about gauge
currently the only 70 turn is made by pn racing.....so i urge atomic to make one as well
pn and atomic motor cans have quick change brushes

yasuji
2009.03.19, 11:28 PM
Perhaps a 3 tier event with stock, modified and open. would be good to allow for research of products that push the envelop in the open classes and get manufacturers battling for bragging rights.

i think as of rt now there will be no need for that ...the more options will allow for cherry picking and domination.....the less classes will make for better racing and more competition

rocketman
2009.03.20, 12:31 AM
I agree as too many classes waters things down and I think cost control, taking a look back at what ROAR did wrong in the mid 80's and learning from those lessons. Cost of operating is our biggest advantage over any other scale and whatever we can do to keep it from going crazy is good and attract more folks to try it and stay at it. Right behind the costs is the kick in the pants speed and handling these cars exhibit.
T

Ancient Artist
2009.03.20, 02:16 AM
GREAT WORK YUSJI, CT and everyone else invloved! I don't think there's much more to do, and keeping it simple and limited to the three classes is perfect. Theres certainly alays room for some niche classes locally like F1 etc. but I think as a standard to focus on those cover everything really well.

As you mentioned not only does it create a consistent set of rules for exisiting racing, it really helps to guide new groups starting out as well.
I've been involved in r/c racing at every level since I was a kid and the biggest crowd killer through the years in any type of racing was the addition of more and more classes.It would (as another person mentioned) ultimately water everything down until racers would just get bored or frustrated and ultimately disappear.
I think the biggest advantage (especially in the current economy) to this scale is the low cost/high performance value compared to 1/10th 12th etc. The initial and continued investment is so much lower then any other scale but still offers fast competitive racing.Limited classes really helps to keep that in check and allows newer drivers (which the entire hobby desperately needs) to focus and invest in what they already own and slowly build up their arsenal of cars/parts as their budget allows,and MOST IMPORTANTLY KEEPS THEM RACING!
Half the fun is of course noodling with aftermarket parts and set-up's but theres no bigger downer then investing in your car (especially if you're a kid and have a limited income) and then everyone moves onto something else.
Maybe I'm a competition junkie, but the other half of fun was (is):D gritting it out trying to becoming a better driver week by week and working your way up the mains on regular race nights against a solid core of 40-60 local drivers consistently.
I know that can be intimidating for some but if there's ever a huge gap in the caliber of drivers, I'm always an advocate of seperating them by talent/age but keeping the classes the same so they can learn/get support using similar cars/set-ups and then step up when they are ready but keeping classes controlled and minimal...

ANYWAYS enough soap box from the peanut gallery, I'm just glad to see you guys working on this. It's long over due, and a great piece in moving what I think on of the funnest types of racing (with the highest potential) I've done to date....;)

yasuji
2009.03.20, 02:36 AM
just to let everyone know....the base rules were a collaboration of the 2 of the top miniz drivers joe c aka ruf and ct....i am just a small part of the 1/28th scale comity which agreed to the initial rules.....a year has pased and now i believe that we are ready to take a step in the right direction....
i hope to see more input by all of the major clubs in america and all over the world......hoping

Ancient Artist
2009.03.20, 02:56 AM
...thats a great point Yasuji ! oh and BTW I totally apologize for hacking your name to pieces in my other post. I'd like to blame it all on the fact that I'm using my work Dell laptop keyboard instead of my personal Macbook Pro but the truth is my typing just sucks in combo with my ever diminishing brain functionality!

I also wanted to add that if you guys need any help let me know.As you mentioned you've got the core of 1:28/Mini-Z already on this thing so there probably insn't the need for much more but wanted to throw it out there none the less.
once again HATS OFF to you all -not only for the work on the ROAR Rules but for the dedication and efforts you've put into 1:28 racing in general!

hrdrvr
2009.03.20, 10:57 AM
First off Id like to say I think this is a big step for the community, sport, and scale. Ive been making a bid (along with a few other semi-locals) to push for more unity and competition in the SE. This would be a big step in doing that direction for the entire US. Im all for it, but I do have some suggeestions :D

I would like to see Formula-1 covered in the rules. I agree that the other spec classes (minis, LeMans, sportscar, etc..) that fall in ot the same platforms (MRs, MAs, MRCGs, P28s, etc..) should be left to events and special type races. However, the Formula-1 has its own platform, and Id hate to see that platform get left out of this 'rules guidline'. Our club has recently experienced a huge amount of growth (since the 2.4 revolution. Thanks Kyosho!!) and every one is interested in this platform. Ive been pushing for our LHS and to enforce the same rules our local club applies, which are as global as I can make them. They are basically built on the same concept as what CT and the gang are pushing for. Now, back to the point at hand, our club will soon have a ton of new F1 racers, and Id like a guideline to push our rules towards. Right now, I run with no limitations on anything. If this is what the "norm" is going to be, then Ill continue, but if there could be a set of rules stating thats what every one is going to do, Ill feel better about it. If its a platform that the general populous (or deciding parties) wants to limit its power plant (calling it 'stock') then Ill comply and run those rules. I just think if it gets left off of this roster, it will become a forgotten platform, and I dont want to see that happen. Also, the clubs (like mine and a few others I know of!) that are determined to run it, will have a baseline to follow just like the other platforms included in these guidlines.

The other thing I think EMU really hit on was the weight. I like that you see his points, and that you have compromised somewhat, but I sitll think the minimums are set too high. I have a 98mm AWD running a 46g body (ASC McL GTR) and Im sitting at 182g RTR with Giro-Z transponder, and while NO weight dropping techniques (stock screws, steel ball bearings, no shaving of the body or chassis, etc.). Its not fair that I (or others in my situation) still run at the disadvantage of adding weight to comply with the regulations. I also dont like that the weight limit is set so far off of the 2wds. I understand that in this format that 2wd is going to be stock, and AWD is going to be mod, so I accept this, but still dont make the guys who dont want to run alloy, have to incur a penalty. Id push for you to move the weight limits down to 170g and 180g for 2wd and AWD respectively. I know 5g isnt much, but I do think its the difference of adding weight or not adding weight, which is where I belive the line should be drawn.

Thanks for taking my comments into consideration!

Grant, it was a grat idea to open this up to the public. In saying that, Id like to say to the public, even if some of thse rules arent perfect, or fit every club ideally, we should still try and remember what it will do for the global community by conforming. I will comply and enforce whatever rules will help or club be successful at the events we attend/host, and joining into a group effort like this is a great way to make steps in that direction!

imxlr8ed
2009.03.20, 11:51 AM
I would always wonder why the minimum weights were not closer to an out-of the box RTR weight + 4 AAA cells. Would seem to make more sense, but then you'd have to find the lightest RTR body to find the true minimum weight for the class.

As far as motors and windings go... yes, it can get over-complicated fast as far as wire gauges. There is also some non-round wire available out there as well where you could possibly put a tighter wind on the armatures.

Rules are a pain... but I think anytime we all take a look at where this is all going is a good thing! Always good to see just how many real thinkers and planners there are on this site!

rocketman
2009.03.20, 01:15 PM
One idea that I have used to limit technology from entering a slower/more restricted class and upsetting the whole concept is to include a clause that states that if an item is not specifically permitted then it is not allowed. That allows all involved in that more restricted class to not have to go out and buy brand new stuff each time a new idea comes along but can be put off until the beginning of a new racing season. Keeping a racing season on a more even basis and the money/cubic dollars out of the more restricted classes.

Good thoughts from all involved and it is the involvement that is making the difference.

yasuji
2009.03.20, 01:16 PM
Its not fair that I (or others in my situation) still run at the disadvantage of adding weight to comply with the regulations. I also dont like that the weight limit is set so far off of the 2wds. I understand that in this format that 2wd is going to be stock, and AWD is going to be mod, so I accept this, but still dont make the guys who dont want to run alloy, have to incur a penalty. Id push for you to move the weight limits down to 170g and 180g for 2wd and AWD respectively. I know 5g isnt much, but I do think its the difference of adding weight or not adding weight, which is where I belive the line should be drawn.



ok.... here A SENERIO ....if YOU were to add all of the good hop ups to your rtr you would gain weight and strength.....but now you find that youe car is 20 g over weight...... now you must find a way to lower your cars weight....now you will shave the body......the chassis.....the aluminum parts....next thing you know....you are within 1 g of minimum weight....:eek:
then you get on track and it handles great....super fast.....then you snag a wall and i come barreling in there with my 190 g pancar....BAM!!!!:eek:
NOW YOUR CAR IS TWEAKED AND BENT AND BROKEN......an d the hours and hours you spent shaving and balancing your car is all for not.....your PISSED OFF.....THEN THE ARGUEMENT.......THEN A FIGHT.....THEN THE EMBARRASSING MOMENT......LOL
THIS WOULD NOT BE GOOD FOR THE SCALE!

also....a lower weight limit will encourage some drivers to stay with the stock plastic parts.....feeling no need to buy the aftermarket parts.....
it will also makes for second guessing when buying an aftermarket part
if we do not buy upgrade parts.....they may get out of our scale
its kinda like the economy.....no one is buying so there is no money going in to buisness..... and now many businesses are "going out of business"
the higher weight limit is to encourage drivers to buy the aftermarket parts without thinking...."will this make my car too heavy????"

landon....as for f1.....i think that the pn rules are the best rules for f1......
i will add it to the discuss

yasuji
2009.03.20, 01:20 PM
One idea that I have used to limit technology from entering a slower/more restricted class and upsetting the whole concept is to include a clause that states that if an item is not specifically permitted then it is not allowed. That allows all involved in that more restricted class to not have to go out and buy brand new stuff each time a new idea comes along but can be put off until the beginning of a new racing season. Keeping a racing season on a more even basis and the money/cubic dollars out of the more restricted classes.

Good thoughts from all involved and it is the involvement that is making the difference.

i have considered adding "homoligation".....but we must grow first.....:D

hrdrvr
2009.03.20, 02:10 PM
I would always wonder why the minimum weights were not closer to an out-of the box RTR weight + 4 AAA cells.

I think the decision should be made geared around this thought, and not the one that says, the guy who buys all the hop-ups has all the benefits with no penalties. This hobby is the most affordable form of racing, and most people can afford to have mutliple cars because of that. If we set the rules based around fully hop upped cars, then that will up the cost, and eliminate racers (as well as deter potential new ones) at every local track.



ok.... here A SENERIO ....if YOU were to add all of the good hop ups to your rtr you would gain weight and strength.....but now you find that youe car is 20 g over weight...... now you must find a way to lower your cars weight....now you will shave the body......the chassis.....the aluminum parts....next thing you know....you are within 1 g of minimum weight....:eek:
then you get on track and it handles great....super fast.....then you snag a wall and i come barreling in there with my 190 g pancar....BAM!!!!:eek:
NOW YOUR CAR IS TWEAKED AND BENT AND BROKEN......an d the hours and hours you spent shaving and balancing your car is all for not.....your PISSED OFF.....THEN THE ARGUEMENT.......THEN A FIGHT.....THEN THE EMBARRASSING MOMENT......LOL
THIS WOULD NOT BE GOOD FOR THE SCALE!

also....a lower weight limit will encourage some drivers to stay with the stock plastic parts.....feeling no need to buy the aftermarket parts.....
it will also makes for second guessing when buying an aftermarket part
if we do not buy upgrade parts.....they may get out of our scale
its kinda like the economy.....no one is buying so there is no money going in to buisness..... and now many businesses are "going out of business"
the higher weight limit is to encourage drivers to buy the aftermarket parts without thinking...."will this make my car too heavy????"

landon....as for f1.....i think that the pn rules are the best rules for f1......
i will add it to the discuss

I understand your train of thought, but I still think that their should be advantages and disadvantages to both sides. If the weight minimum is set high, then there is no advantage to the plastic/delin or stock parts, and with that comes the expense. I think this rule commity can do wonders for for unity, but I dont want to do anything that deters people from joining into 1/28th scale racing. That would be the worst thing for the Mini-Z economy. I still buy the neccesary parts from PN, and ATM, but I prefer to buy plastic or delrin in place of alloy, becasue of weight (performance in braking and acceleration), and price. I can afford to have an assortment of knuckels, as opposed to one set (more tuning options), and they are less expensive to replace once they brake, bend, or wear out. It does mean Im buying a cheaper product, but its still a product, and its still from aftermarket companies when it comes to everything except plastic Kyosho knuckles for my AWD, and plastic Kyosho tie rods. Every one of my cars support aftermarket companies (non-disciminatory), and has nearly every upgrade posssible, just not in alloy.

I know we could debate this point over and over, and get many followers for both sides, but I think in the end we should do whats best to make the racing interesting and affordable for every one.


I think the PN rules for Formula-1 are nearly perfect as well. The motors are fast enough, and controlled enough to have fast, exciting, open-wheeled racing. I still think the weight limit is too high, and should be lowered closer to (if not at) RTR running weight.

imxlr8ed
2009.03.20, 03:13 PM
Well... ok, I can see it from the standpoint of sturdiness and promoting the aftermarket as well. And yes, a racer who shows up to an event with a box stock RTR can always add lead to the bottom of the car to get it up to a specified minimum.

From my point of view, I never really worried about weight before... but when I had to toss some lead onto my F1 (which already had a good portion of alloy aftermarket parts on it) just to make minimum weight for the last PN Regional we had, it did seem odd to me. I guess that specific situation is what I'm trying to avoid.

rocketman
2009.03.20, 03:24 PM
HRDRVR I think your comments are valid but I think yasuji is talking about rules that are directed at regional/national or Level 3 or above events.

I don't think that any national body will ever be able to take the place of a responsible club who cares about their members and how they get them involved in the hobby but leadership at the top on how to best approach new membership is important and that is where I believe ROAR and other's have failed. Regional/National/World events are competition for sure, but for ROAR, Local tracks and manufacturers, its about $ and advertising. Nothing wrong with that, but it is true. It is the opportunity to advertise that will help the local track with expanding its participant base. Then it is back to the local track to have the rules in place to keep people interested, fair competition and inexpensive with readily available parts on cars that are as easily driven as possible. Just my .02 and as I look at the economy my two cents is worth less.

yasuji
2009.03.20, 04:30 PM
i will address the wehght limit in f1....i agree that it is way too high...

here is an option on the weight limit issue for the awd mod and pancar mod class....NO WEIGHT LIMIT.....
and for the 2wd/4wd combined stock class....175g for either 2wd or 4wd to balance the field

Tjay
2009.03.20, 04:34 PM
I like that Grant ^.

yasuji
2009.03.20, 04:35 PM
HRDRVR I think your comments are valid but I think yasuji is talking about rules that are directed at regional/national or Level 3 or above events.

I don't think that any national body will ever be able to take the place of a responsible club who cares about their members and how they get them involved in the hobby but leadership at the top on how to best approach new membership is important and that is where I believe ROAR and other's have failed. Regional/National/World events are competition for sure, but for ROAR, Local tracks and manufacturers, its about $ and advertising. Nothing wrong with that, but it is true. It is the opportunity to advertise that will help the local track with expanding its participant base. Then it is back to the local track to have the rules in place to keep people interested, fair competition and inexpensive with readily available parts on cars that are as easily driven as possible. Just my .02 and as I look at the economy my two cents is worth less.

yes you are right.....in these rules there are only 4 classes....adding f1 will be 5 THESE CLASSES WILL BE THE PREMIER 1/28 SCALE CLASSES.....the option of adding other spec classes to there venu is all on the club....

yasuji
2009.03.20, 04:37 PM
I like that Grant ^.

as a top driver in 1/28 scale do you have any other input to the rules tj?

Tjay
2009.03.20, 04:47 PM
as a top driver in 1/28 scale do you have any other input to the rules tj?

ahhh... I knew it. Well, I'm going to have to read it over tonight or tomorrow since I'm currently at work and I have a race schedule at the shop tonight... busy. I will keep you guys posted... top driver? For the most part I like what you've already posted but again, I need to go over it. Thank you.

hrdrvr
2009.03.20, 05:08 PM
HRDRVR I think your comments are valid but I think yasuji is talking about rules that are directed at regional/national or Level 3 or above events.

What classifies and event as Level 3? Id like to know, as our club is interested in hosting and competeing in all the events we can, large and small. This means if there is set of rules that is most commonly followed, we will comply with them for our local events, and club racing. I thought this was somewhat of a bid to get a lot of the clubs racing on the same set of rules also, which should in tern stimulate inter-club competition, and instill a batter idea of how we stand against each other at said competitions.


i will address the wehght limit in f1....i agree that it is way too high...

here is an option on the weight limit issue for the awd mod and pancar mod class....NO WEIGHT LIMIT.....
and for the 2wd/4wd combined stock class....175g for either 2wd or 4wd to balance the field

Thanks Grant! I hope you dont me as being a pain. Im just posting my opinion on the subject, as you stated "open discission". I hope you are taking it as just that. Also, Im glad you are willing to compromise and listen to what we all have to say!

In saying that, I really like your latest proposal. I dont like weight limits at all, especially for mod classes. Its only fair to put the AWD and 2wd at the same limit when there is a limit and they share the class, so I like it.

rocketman
2009.03.20, 11:48 PM
HRVRDR, the classification for competition levels is in the ROAR rules for 2009. It is at the bottom of page 3, Rule 1.1.11 and continues to page 4 about the levels of competition. It is in PDF form so you can go to roarracing.org.

I agree with no weight min for the mod classes will be great to see the technology boom in those areas, but I do think that restricting advances in stock classes, ie homologation, as you suggest, would be better done now as opposed to after the fact, but TJMO. I appreciate all taking the time to sound off and providing the expertise to see this is done right.

bermbuster
2009.03.21, 10:52 AM
One of the best things we can do to entice competition is to have a circurt set of layouts for the race tracks. I know that RCP has different grip in different places but if Cali guys are getting 40 laps in 5 min races on and us NY guys are doing 40....Ill want to come race. If it is a large difference before I come race I gotta figure out what is getting those laps....
This way for these events you will get a large turnout and the fastest of the fast winning the a mains...

Tjay
2009.03.21, 12:36 PM
I have been quite busy lately from work and shop... this is what I have.

1. I think for 2wd and awd pan/mod class. There shouldn't be any weight limit. However stock class should keep their weight limit to 175 2wd and 185 awd.

2. 2mm ride height. May I ask why do we want to have such limits? I know ROAR has this but why do we need this again? Is it to protect the track? In my opinion, having a ride height limit will just add to another things to do for the tech inspector during big races. As you probably already know, most of the big events we've been to don't even tech the bodies, ride height, etc... They’re more concern of the weight and transponder change. We’ll be in trouble if we have to check the ride height on each car on each qualifier and mains.

3. Spec tire. I don’t think we should exclude this… I think it is up to the Race Director/ Shop owner if he wants his event to have a spec tire or not but not coming from a manufacturer i.e., atomic tires for atomic race. Should be something like, KO race( to which it was sponsored by both big companies like atm and pn) hand out tires that the race director picked should be good.

4. No Tire Sauce. Do we really need to sauce our tires to get some traction? If we need traction especially on an AWD, then there's something we need to change. Perhaps our driving? Just a thought.

I just want to throw this out there. RCP track is good and every mini-z track here in USA uses RCP tracks but it is very inconsistent. There’s few of us working together to bring mini-z to different level and it is hard to improve if the track we are running on is very inconsistent. Our track should be open to both RCP and Carpet of one kind. Carpet makes your car feel like 10th scale, smooth and consistent.

Ok that is it. Like I said, I like the rules that these guys has been working on since last year and again. Thanks guys for helping us make this community better for everybody.

yasuji
2009.03.21, 05:37 PM
mod classes will NOT have a weight limit
2wd/4wd stk classes will have a min weight limit of 175(to possibly bring equality between 2wd/4wd)if 4wd becomes dominant over 2wd we will incerase 4wd min weight in 5g increments

2. 2mm ride height. will be removed....

3. Spec tire. bad idea.....it will exclude all but one manufacturer from a national event....if a club wishes to add a spec tire class to a 1/28scale national event then that is fine.....but as far as 1/28 scale national classes
all parties MUST be allowed to compete

4. No Tire Sauce. for rcp tracks there is no need....but if the ocasion comes up that we run an event on carpet.....it may or may not be necessary


thank you for your input tj it is well valued an i look foward to running @ your new track:D

imxlr8ed
2009.03.21, 06:01 PM
I wouldn't say RCP is inconsistent, I would say the race environment makes for different traction levels. It's the same thing I dealt with running carpet too. In the winter when we first got to the track it was tough to get bite, but once the overhead heaters turned on, the setups would start changing because traction levels would rise.

If there is going to be any traction rule, I would say just to make sure the car goes on the track with dry tires... no sauce left on tires when dropped on the track. Or... leave it out entirely. I'm sure we are bound to see something like a 4 degree tire one day... I'm pretty sure they won't need anything but to be replaced after one heat of racing.

Tjay
2009.03.21, 09:54 PM
I wouldn't say RCP is inconsistent, I would say the race environment makes for different traction levels. It's the same thing I dealt with running carpet too. In the winter when we first got to the track it was tough to get bite, but once the overhead heaters turned on, the setups would start changing because traction levels would rise.

If there is going to be any traction rule, I would say just to make sure the car goes on the track with dry tires... no sauce left on tires when dropped on the track. Or... leave it out entirely. I'm sure we are bound to see something like a 4 degree tire one day... I'm pretty sure they won't need anything but to be replaced after one heat of racing.

RCP is inconsistent. Look at the groove/ grain that this track have. Even the connection where they meet. It doesn't matter if your track is old, new and even if you have the ground leveled. It is jus not he same as carpet track with leveled surface.

yasuji
2009.03.21, 11:12 PM
RCP is inconsistent. Look at the groove/ grain that this track have. Even the connection where they meet. It doesn't matter if your track is old, new and even if you have the ground leveled. It is jus not he same as carpet track with leveled surface.

tis is not open to debates on what surface is better than the other....all clubs have different race surfaces...if fpr held a national event under the 1/28th scale rules i would attend.....as well as if dow held a polished cement 1/28th scale national....
as of right now......we all have rcp tracks.....right

Tjay
2009.03.22, 01:22 AM
tis is not open to debates on what surface is better than the other....all clubs have different race surfaces...if fpr held a national event under the 1/28th scale rules i would attend.....as well as if dow held a polished cement 1/28th scale national....
as of right now......we all have rcp tracks.....right

Word.........!

ambind
2009.03.22, 01:57 AM
tis is not open to debates on what surface is better than the other....all clubs have different race surfaces...if fpr held a national event under the 1/28th scale rules i would attend.....as well as if dow held a polished cement 1/28th scale national....
as of right now......we all have rcp tracks.....right

This is great thread. I really appreciate Grant that took his time to discuss and go over the rules with the committee. If I may say something I would like to thrown in couple things:

1. there should be no minimum on tire size. We can run as small diameter as we want because at the end it's gonna go together with the weight limit anyway, smaller tires makes the car lighter and that could be a chance to be underweight. On high traction tracks people tend to run tires as small as possible to get rid of traction rolling so i'd say go with the weight limit and get rid of min tire size. It will be a good racing because it'll affect our strategy how big the tires we're going to run without being underweight.

2. there shouldn't be hand out tires. IMO by doing this we limit other tires manufactures to get involve in this hobby and limit our freedom to play around with different brand tires. All tires are good out there just what's work with certain traction and whats not. Traction in RCP could constantly change, we could have different traction in morning, mid day and afternoon. I'm pretty sure it's not a problem for people who has a good knowledge about set up, but I'm talking about people in general, beginners and sportman who wants to run their cars and spend little time work on their cars, with that said, not having the ability to choose tires that works well with traction will take the fun out of racing and eventually will draw people off whenever there's tires hand out.

just my two cents.

LT

color01
2009.03.22, 02:42 AM
I would actually consider handout tires at large events, if they're recommended by the track owner/locals, and within a range of compounds or brands. The idea would be to narrow down a range of good tires for the newer racers/new to the track racers, but leave a window open for different drivers' preferences, and maybe car differences as well (for example, TGR Sinister and InZane P28 work better with harder front tires).

Regarding using carpet instead of RCP: I love carpet, but I think we as a community are in too deep now to make the switch. As Grant said, it's pretty much up to the track owners -- and at this point it's kinda like peer pressure, you don't want to be the odd guy out who's got the weird track that needs a whole new arsenal of tires... :rolleyes:

yasuji
2009.03.22, 03:04 AM
I would actually consider handout tires at large events, if they're recommended by the track owner/locals, and within a range of compounds or brands. The idea would be to narrow down a range of good tires for the newer racers/new to the track racers, but leave a window open for different drivers' preferences, and maybe car differences as well (for example, TGR Sinister and InZane P28 work better with harder front tires).



brian...i think you or i do not understand the term "handout tires"
as i understand the term "handout tires" , it is in essence a manufacturer dictating what brand and compound tire to use...i.e last years atomic regional

the way that you r describing it is basically supplying tires @ the event...

EMU
2009.03.22, 03:11 AM
Grant, the tires were supplied at the ATM events ;) At the NY regional, the rule was changed for the stock class to any tire. But for mod (2wd at least), we had to use the handout fronts.

One thing to bring up, is the possibility to use lexan for windows. As long as there are windows installed... and the car applies to the weight limits. As a possiblity, the front window must be stock, but sides and rear lexan (painted with a transparent smoke not to ruin the appearance)... There are many bodies where the windows themselves are much thicker than others.

color01
2009.03.22, 05:19 AM
the way that you r describing it is basically supplying tires @ the event...
I think you have the better term for it. :o

imxlr8ed
2009.03.22, 11:06 AM
as well as if dow held a polished cement 1/28th scale national.... as of right now......we all have rcp tracks.....right

Ooooh! Polished cement with barbed wire barriers! :D

hrdrvr
2009.03.22, 04:08 PM
Ive been reading over this, and thinking about it in the back of my head. I dont think this should be limited to level 3 and above events only. I dont think that is the intent either, based on the first post ;)

Also, I think we should rethink the wheelbase maximums. 3r makes a 102mm extension kit for the AWD, and the Kyoshos are coming 102 in kit form. PN and ATM both make motor mounts for the wheelbase, and some of the new lexan bodies support 102mm. I think we should up the limit to 102 atleast the mod classes. There arent really any sedans that are 102mm, so omitting them in stock, isnt a problem for me.

bermbuster
2009.03.22, 05:23 PM
Out of curiosity how many BIG events can mini z racing attract in a given timeframe? Could we oversaturate championship type events??? Or will Regional/National events be more of a local event?

rocketman
2009.03.22, 05:34 PM
Just a couple of points to bring out.

We need to define what is 1/28 scale from a dimensional standpoint and we have to be clear on that. I have a number of the 102mm cars and the scale representation is, to me, similar to my 98mm car. Why not 102mm? It is longer and more stable, so there are advantages to this of course it is also longer and more stable and there are many disadvantages as well. It is a trade-off we choose to make in competition.

Nothing precludes a local or inter-city class of event from utilizing any/all of the rules put forth, but any attempt at a requirement at that level will not succeed and may not be the best for that track.

As far as ozite vs. RCP vs ?. Lets not try to regulate surfaces or try to determine what is best. Everyone has to race on the same track surface in a given event and that is racing. There will always be hometrack advantages to the local group.

Lets not exclude products, lets make it inclusive with limitations on scale representation in mind. Any motor as long as it conforms to our limits on size, magnets, etc.. Tires as long as it conforms to our limits. Lets try and get our national organization away from the handout stuff. I want to know who makes the best motors against all competitors in open competition. There will still be handout tires and other products at the various cup races but we want to line up the best that company a has against the best that company b has and see who wins.

lugnutz
2009.03.22, 05:43 PM
hey grant i'm reading this a little late but so far what i have read you and the other guys are on the right track,i would like to give a little input from my experience from racing in ROAR and were i saw it fail

1-start with a spec motor,70 turn is a great start but,i dont think cutting comms,replacing brushes,and rewinding motors with thicker wire is the way to go,motors are cheap enough that you can just buy another one that is sealed-all motors should have a factory seal so they can not be tampered with

2-surface to race on should be what ever the shops are using,rcp or carpet,why not asphalt as well

3-thats where a spec tire should be impliemented and handed out by the race promoter,which the cost of tires would be inconjunction with the entry fee,and you could buy extra sets after all entraints get thier first set

4-limit the amount of classes,to many classes thins out the class and just makes for a very long day to watch 3 or 4 guys race in one class that no one else is interested in

wieght is easy
bodies shouldn't be able to modified in any way or shape,what mm it comes in is what you should run it at

just a few ideas that i can contribute for now

bermbuster
2009.03.22, 05:59 PM
start with a spec motor,70 turn is a great start but,i dont think cutting comms,replacing brushes,and rewinding motors with thicker wire is the way to go,motors are cheap enough that you can just buy another one that is sealed-all motors should have a factory seal so they can not be tampered with

right now some guys take a stock motor and put about 5 hours of work into it. Polishing the bushings and breaking in the brushes....

this can be a make or break point with the racing

I believe tinkering w motors is what makes a lot of racers so fast and competitive. You limit racers ability to do this it will maybe even out the field or you will lose racers. Joe Chen commented on how Reflex just tries to make the fastest cars they can.....

yasuji
2009.03.23, 02:45 AM
hey grant i'm reading this a little late but so far what i have read you and the other guys are on the right track,i would like to give a little input from my experience from racing in ROAR and were i saw it fail

1-start with a spec motor,70 turn is a great start but,i dont think cutting comms,replacing brushes,and rewinding motors with thicker wire is the way to go,motors are cheap enough that you can just buy another one that is sealed-all motors should have a factory seal so they can not be tampered with

2-surface to race on should be what ever the shops are using,rcp or carpet,why not asphalt as well

3-thats where a spec tire should be impliemented and handed out by the race promoter,which the cost of tires would be inconjunction with the entry fee,and you could buy extra sets after all entraints get thier first set

4-limit the amount of classes,to many classes thins out the class and just makes for a very long day to watch 3 or 4 guys race in one class that no one else is interested in

wieght is easy
bodies shouldn't be able to modified in any way or shape,what mm it comes in is what you should run it at

just a few ideas that i can contribute for now

all great ideas.....
the 70 turn sealed idea sounds good....
i agree and dissagree with the body idea
i think you should be able to shave weight from the body but only on the inside not to change the appearance of the body
however.....i feel that you should run the body/wheelbase as it comes from the manufacturer....but if that rule was in place then inovative companys like reflex racing would not be able to run there products....

yasuji
2009.03.23, 02:50 AM
right now some guys take a stock motor and put about 5 hours of work into it. Polishing the bushings and breaking in the brushes....

this can be a make or break point with the racing

I believe tinkering w motors is what makes a lot of racers so fast and competitive. You limit racers ability to do this it will maybe even out the field or you will lose racers. Joe Chen commented on how Reflex just tries to make the fastest cars they can.....

but how to enforce this.......

yasuji
2009.03.23, 02:53 AM
Just a couple of points to bring out.

We need to define what is 1/28 scale from a dimensional standpoint and we have to be clear on that. I have a number of the 102mm cars and the scale representation is, to me, similar to my 98mm car. Why not 102mm? It is longer and more stable, so there are advantages to this of course it is also longer and more stable and there are many disadvantages as well. It is a trade-off we choose to make in competition.

Nothing precludes a local or inter-city class of event from utilizing any/all of the rules put forth, but any attempt at a requirement at that level will not succeed and may not be the best for that track.

As far as ozite vs. RCP vs ?. Lets not try to regulate surfaces or try to determine what is best. Everyone has to race on the same track surface in a given event and that is racing. There will always be hometrack advantages to the local group.

Lets not exclude products, lets make it inclusive with limitations on scale representation in mind. Any motor as long as it conforms to our limits on size, magnets, etc.. Tires as long as it conforms to our limits. Lets try and get our national organization away from the handout stuff. I want to know who makes the best motors against all competitors in open competition. There will still be handout tires and other products at the various cup races but we want to line up the best that company a has against the best that company b has and see who wins.

rocket man......i believe that you and i are on the same page;)

hrdrvr
2009.03.23, 08:01 AM
As far as the subject of motors, I think stock motors should be factory sealed. Accessing the comm for maintennace and brushes for break-in is one thing, but opening up the motor can to add thicker wire is a lttle ridiculous to let happen, and how then do you control wether its still 70t or not? I think if policing is the only reason, this should be ritten in.

Id dont really like the idea of running bodies at other wheelbases than what they are meant for. It takes the "scale" out of the performance for me. Its becoming the norm now though, so I have learned to accept it, allthough, I dont do it much myself. The more I think about it though, the more we open it up to wheelbase changes, the more I think we should let 102 be a part of stock as well. The FXX, fits well over 102mm wheelbase, as does the new Mcl GTR (which performs great at 102 BTW), so should be limit people from taking it up to 102, but allow them to take them down to 94?

mleemor60
2009.03.23, 08:27 AM
but how to enforce this.......

Enforcement would not be difficult. In as much as racers will always find a way, all that is necessary would be to collect all stock motors at the beginning of competition and have everybody draw one with the stipulation that if you draw your own or a team members you draw again. Not being able to use a motor you so lovingly created takes the edge off the time involved to do it. After all qualifiers are finished the motors are again impounded and you draw again for the mains.

Draconious
2009.03.23, 10:37 AM
Enforcement would not be difficult. In as much as racers will always find a way, all that is necessary would be to collect all stock motors at the beginning of competition and have everybody draw one with the stipulation that if you draw your own or a team members you draw again. Not being able to use a motor you so lovingly created takes the edge off the time involved to do it. After all qualifiers are finished the motors are again impounded and you draw again for the mains.

So cheaters are present, and bring a motor that they will NOT be using is the solution... OK, I see the 3 2 1 Go.. and no cars leave the line because everyone super glued the shaft in their motors lol...


As for cost control:
If the goal is to keep cost down in the stock class... then set a price value that you want racers to spend on their cars ball park, and make it mandatory that if you offer that much to buy a racers car, then they have to sell it for that much. This works in those full scale junk car races. Manufacturers will also have to keep prices down, since no one will enter/buy a $500 chassis if the sale price is $200...

yasuji
2009.03.23, 01:12 PM
So cheaters are present, and bring a motor that they will NOT be using is the solution... OK, I see the 3 2 1 Go.. and no cars leave the line because everyone super glued the shaft in their motors lol...


As for cost control:
If the goal is to keep cost down in the stock class... then set a price value that you want racers to spend on their cars ball park, and make it mandatory that if you offer that much to buy a racers car, then they have to sell it for that much. This works in those full scale junk car races. Manufacturers will also have to keep prices down, since no one will enter/buy a $500 chassis if the sale price is $200...


it had been brought to my attention over the weekend that the need to keep the cost down is very important esp. in the stock classes
so i will add to the stk class rules....NO PROTOTYPE PARTS !
IF IT IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC IT IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE RACED IN 2WD/4WD STOCK 70 T CLASS this includes motors ,chassis suspension,wheels, tires and/or any other components
and will be checked upon pre/post race inspection

yasuji
2009.03.23, 01:19 PM
Enforcement would not be difficult. In as much as racers will always find a way, all that is necessary would be to collect all stock motors at the beginning of competition and have everybody draw one with the stipulation that if you draw your own or a team members you draw again. Not being able to use a motor you so lovingly created takes the edge off the time involved to do it. After all qualifiers are finished the motors are again impounded and you draw again for the mains.

this is not a problem as of rt now.....only pn makes a 70 t motor good for racing....but when other companys enter 70 t motors in to the class ,it will not work so well as some drivers will be contracted to run a specific brand of motor.....
i would hope that all drivers can be honest and build cars within the spirit of the rules:rolleyes:

yasuji
2009.03.23, 01:54 PM
Updated rules

lugnutz
2009.03.23, 03:35 PM
how do you enforce motors? well factory sealed and with ball bearings is a good start
as for body trimming, yes inside to reduce weight but wheel base should not be altered and as for reflex products which are good should be mfg for the wheel bases available from the manufact. the idea here is to KEEP THE COST DOWN
its nice to have options but the more options you have the less amount of people in any class,i seen this type of stuff happen over the years and i even stopped for 7 years until i saw how cheap mini-z racing was,again just my opinion but i have the experience

rocketman
2009.03.23, 04:25 PM
Yasuji, I believe that cost containment is vital but you lose innovation. Let me play devils advocate. I understand the spirit in which you propose the no prototype rules, but now you will need to define prototype along with a definition of what a manufacturer is. I believe it is too difficult to enforce that at nearly any level. What is available retail is too difficult to enforce. Is a battery a component of the car because if you consider it such then that rule would not allow a new battery to come to market and be used in the stock class at level 3 or above events while it was being tested and developed. Take the new R1 750UHO as an example. You could easily extend that to other items more closely associated with components of a car.

Motor pools are good for club levels. I had Cam motors manufacture 20 motors for a IROC type series back in the day and they were great, but when we dyno'd them they were all close but there were valuable differences that made a difference in gearing and run time that was significant enough to cause a few problems.

yasuji
2009.03.23, 06:48 PM
Yasuji, I believe that cost containment is vital but you lose innovation. Let me play devils advocate. I understand the spirit in which you propose the no prototype rules, but now you will need to define prototype along with a definition of what a manufacturer is. I believe it is too difficult to enforce that at nearly any level. What is available retail is too difficult to enforce. Is a battery a component of the car because if you consider it such then that rule would not allow a new battery to come to market and be used in the stock class at level 3 or above events while it was being tested and developed. Take the new R1 750UHO as an example. You could easily extend that to other items more closely associated with components of a car.



proto types will be allowed in the pancar stk class.....open pancar class is where most protos will be tested
in the spirit of the sedan stk class it should only consist of products that are readily available to all competitors
as for your refrence to batteries....r1 990s were prototyped by most of us here in so cal....i did alot of testing personally however...i only race mod
now the difference here in these rules will be that in 2wd/4wd sedan stk 70t it will make it fair for everyone......
there will still be a test bed for manufactures in the pancar class

Tjay
2009.03.23, 07:05 PM
proto types will be allowed in the pancar stk class.....open pancar class is where most protos will be tested
in the spirit of the sedan stk class it should only consist of products that are readily available to all competitors
as for your refrence to batteries....r1 990s were prototyped by most of us here in so cal....i did alot of testing personally however...i only race mod
now the difference here in these rules will be that in 2wd/4wd sedan stk 70t it will make it fair for everyone......
there will still be a test bed for manufactures in the pancar class

Only on Pan Cars??? Should be tested on mod cars (kyosho body) only, not stock. Pan cars...

CristianTabush
2009.03.23, 07:31 PM
I still think there should be a weight limit. The same for both AWD and 2WD, but making part is a part of the majority of racing categories, either full scale or model scales. It is just a part of complying with rules. How hard is it to add may be at most 2 grams of lead tape to your car. Not having a weight limit really leads down a bad road of lightening and more brittle parts. It is not good for the industry in general and it makes racing worse. This is a rule that is so simple to comply with , that I honestly don't understand why people have a problem with it, it evens different chassis out and makes racing MUCH more competitive.

If you guys don't want weight rules, I can forsee a 150 gram, ready to run car in the near future, effectively making the K chassis unsuitable for racing.

yasuji
2009.03.23, 07:43 PM
Only on Pan Cars??? Should be tested on mod cars (kyosho body) only, not stock. Pan cars...
there will not be a 2wd mod class... only a 4wd mod class(you can test 4wd proto parts here).....
so if you need to test any proto parts on a 70t chassis ,i have left that open for usage in the open pancar 70 t class(you can test 2wd /4wd parts on a 70t car here as well as mod 2wd/4wd)

yasuji
2009.03.23, 08:08 PM
aside from that.....if the part is good you will produce it and put it on the market ....thus making it eligible to be used in the sedan class:p

rocketman
2009.03.23, 11:33 PM
I have reviewed CT point and I support it completely. He changed my mind.

As far as my battery issue I was thinking about the 750uho batteries that are designed for stock. When they were prototypes they would not have been allowed. If I wish to build a one off car to compete in awd stock that is graphite and magnesium and I spend my time designing it, milling its parts, etc. you will say I can't race it in stock, although that is what it was intended for. I read the majority of the ROAR rule book and found no rules in any class that precludes advancements in stock classes. How you define a manufacturer is going to be difficult if not impossible to police and how you define readily available at retail is just as difficult. I would love to have a awd vehicle sitting in my shop to work on and run on my track but one is not readily available in retail in 2.4ghz and this is from THE manufacturer. It has been out at anyplace I can look for for several weeks. So on this issue I disagree strongly with your concept. It seems to me in the past, many moons ago, that this came up with ROAR and they were sued by the manufacturer from excluding their products.

Yasuji, you have done a great job moving us along and look at the input, people are getting excited and hopefully next year will be the year of Formula 28. Thanks for letting me run my mouth a little cause it means a lot to me to see this succeed at the level I know it can.

bermbuster
2009.03.24, 01:12 AM
Here is a basic scenerio....
stock (very basic car with a hand out motor that gets no prep utilizing hand out batteries as well)
mod (hop ups from any manufacturer and a motor and batteries than can be prepped )
unlimited (anything goes)

What is the purpose of stock class??? For beginners??? For cost controlled racing??? For diehards who want to race and win every class???

What is the purpose of mod class??? For intermediate to expert racers???
Racers who like to make some mods??? Most racers fit this class...

What is the purpose of unlimited??? For expert racers who have deep pockets
who have skills at fabricating/tuning??? This is the class that seperates the men from boys...

The paradox I see is when the really good driver decides to run in a lesser class. Then is that racer using the lesser technology???

yasuji
2009.03.24, 05:50 AM
ok i think i got it this time ....spent some time talking to a few drivers and readin this tread over and over
i have removed the prototype rule and added minimum weight limits to mod
also adding 2wd mod, making it a 2wd/4wd mod class
so there we have it...5 classes,
touring car 2wd/4wd 70t
touring car 2wd/4wd mod
open pancar 2wd/4wd 70t
open pancar 2wd/4wd mod

f1 tbd
i will close this tread for comments soon
i hope this will be the last revision befor drawing up the final draft to submit to the rest of the 1/28 comity

mleemor60
2009.03.24, 07:05 AM
Thank you for taking this on. You and the rest of the group that are formulating this step into the future of the scale have my full support.

rocketman
2009.03.24, 08:33 AM
Yasuji, I think you got a set of rules. Excellent work.

Caution on the way you write F1 due to scale difference from other mini-z.

yasuji
2009.03.24, 12:53 PM
now the last thing......70t motor......i feel at this point there is only one raceable 70t motor on the market


Performance – no load
Speed = 22850 RPM +/- 1500
Current = 0.475 AMP
this will be the spec for the 70t motor

hrdrvr
2009.03.24, 01:20 PM
The Kyosho stock motor is also a 70t motor. How does its specs fall into the ones you posted?

rocketman
2009.03.24, 02:41 PM
I think you already have it, you have documented the dimensions and the technical aspects of the motor. I would not try to get into anything more technical than what you already have in the rules. I would, however, try to ascertain the awg size of the winding wire which again is keeping with existing ROAR stock rules for other classes and is an important part of the rpm/torque/speed equation. have sent emails and called Kyosho and PN to see if I can get the info. If they respond to me I will forward it onto you.

yasuji
2009.03.24, 02:54 PM
I think you already have it, you have documented the dimensions and the technical aspects of the motor. I would not try to get into anything more technical than what you already have in the rules. I would, however, try to ascertain the awg size of the winding wire which again is keeping with existing ROAR stock rules for other classes and is an important part of the rpm/torque/speed equation. have sent emails and called Kyosho and PN to see if I can get the info. If they respond to me I will forward it onto you.

thank you ...i will also take a stock motor to test on the same machine that pn racing conducts his tests on

rocketman
2009.03.24, 03:29 PM
FYI the Mabuchi Motor that comes with the kits are FC130RA-2270 is 70turns using .22mm wire.

bermbuster
2009.03.24, 03:54 PM
now the last thing......70t motor......i feel at this point there is only one raceable 70t motor on the market


Performance – no load
Speed = 22850 RPM +/- 1500
Current = 0.475 AMP
this will be the spec for the 70t motor

At an event will the motors be tested for amp draw???

yasuji
2009.03.24, 04:02 PM
At an event will the motors be tested for amp draw???

still not decided on implementation of this....this spec is for the pnwc offical 70t motor
there will be a +/- tolerance for for all aspects....

EMU
2009.03.24, 04:12 PM
I dont think that we should limit to the PNWC 70t motor. What if a different company comes out with a different 70t motor. Then you would have to ammend the rules. Make a limit for turns, and leave it at that. Claiming one manufacturer as the 'stock' motor will only lead to problems as more companies want to enter the stock market. If these rules are put into effect, it is only a matter of time before we see more stock motors. And the stock Kyosho motor has to be permitted. You cannot disallow that...

yasuji
2009.03.24, 04:37 PM
I dont think that we should limit to the PNWC 70t motor. What if a different company comes out with a different 70t motor. Then you would have to ammend the rules. Make a limit for turns, and leave it at that. Claiming one manufacturer as the 'stock' motor will only lead to problems as more companies want to enter the stock market. If these rules are put into effect, it is only a matter of time before we see more stock motors. And the stock Kyosho motor has to be permitted. You cannot disallow that...
i am not saying that others cant come and play...ie...the numbers are a base for pn70t....if the end bell is opened,armature is modified it can be tested on a motor checker to determine if it is a cheater motor or not
the pn 70t motor must tech within the specifications of the manufacturer

as of rt now "other manufactures " do not have such motors....there fore they now have a base line to go by....i urge all other motor producers to build a 70 t motor to compete.....
and when these motors are released they too will have a base line spec
to go by....

rocketman
2009.03.24, 04:41 PM
You should not be able to have access to the interior of the motor for stock class unless we want to go with rebuildable stock motor rules as per present ROAR rules for other classes. Any signs of tampering should mean disqualification. Our stock motors are so much less expensive than other classes I think we should not allow rebuildable stock motors but JMO.

yasuji
2009.03.24, 04:43 PM
Electric motor rules:
*PRODUCTION 70T MOTORS ONLY NO PROTOTYPES OR HAND WOUND
* Only industry standard “130” size motors may be used.
* Overall maximum diameter: 20 mm measured at whatever point yields the maximum dimension.
* Maximum length: 38 mm measured from the mounting face of the motor to the furthest most point of the end bell, not including solder tabs or lead wires.
* Shaft diameter: 2 mm.
* Only three pole armatures are permitted.
* Stock motor rules:
o Armatures must be machine wound using a “Mabuchi” cross wrap technique, resulting in no less than 70 continuous turns of wire on each pole.
o Only two single-piece ceramic magnets are allowed. Rare earth magnets are specifically prohibited.
o The armature shafts of stock motors must turn in bushings only. The use of any device or attachment that allows the output shaft of the stock motor to ride in a ball bearing is strictly prohibited.
o A hole may be drilled in the endbell for inspection of the commutator and brushes or the application of comm drops.
o No brushless or core-less motors allowed


now ^^....however this said motor is produced^^....it will be tested in "as is conditions...to create a baseline for that specific motor
and @ a the event each motor used by said manufacturer must fall within the +/- of the baseline

yasuji
2009.03.24, 04:47 PM
Remember the intent is to open this class up to manufacturers who meet the min specs so if Kyosho or anyone meets the min and max specs then they should be allowed. It is your choice what motor you choose as long as it meets the standard. If you get into amp draw and rpm as part of the designation then you get into problems with enforcement so I suggest, we stay away from that completely.

each manufacturer will have its own baseline
so in the case of a pn motor....

Performance – no load
Speed = 22850 RPM +/- 1500
Current = 0.475 AMP
this will be the spec for the 70t motor
if my motor that i souped up produces

Performance – no load
Speed = 25850 RPM
Current = 0.875 AMP

it will be deemed illegal for that event and i must come foward with a motor that meets the outlined specs

rocketman
2009.03.24, 05:27 PM
Then we will need a dyno at each event that produces the same readings as the one used by PN or whatever manufacturer is making the motors so we have readings that are consistent. That is something that can be done but it is cumbersome. PN is saying in their testing that their motor goes x rpm's with a variable of y. If TB motors produces a motor for stock racing that is 21000 rpm with a variation of 3350rpm is that ok. If it is a 3351 variation then it is disqualified that is tough and perhaps not the fault of the person entering the race. I guess then that person would not race TB motors any more?

yasuji
2009.03.24, 05:45 PM
Then we will need a dyno at each event that produces the same readings as the one used by PN or whatever manufacturer is making the motors so we have readings that are consistent. That is something that can be done but it is cumbersome. PN is saying in their testing that their motor goes x rpm's with a variable of y. If TB motors produces a motor for stock racing that is 21000 rpm with a variation of 3350rpm is that ok. If it is a 3351 variation then it is disqualified that is tough and perhaps not the fault of the person entering the race. I guess then that person would not race TB motors any more?
It would not be a dq on pre tech....as you said motors are cheap... i carry 4-6 motors with me at all times....it is east to open a 130 motor can and leave no marking what so ever upon re assembly there for the need for a specification to go by....it could be as simple as having a motor checker and a baseline sealed in a bag motor from each manufacturer to use as your base line then adding the variation +/- and if the motor has not been tampered with it should fall within the variance supplied by the manufacturer

rocketman
2009.03.24, 10:36 PM
OK just a few more items on the motor issue. Do you have any concerns about timing and we should only allow single stack armatures for stock motors.

As far as technical inspection goes with respect to a benchmark for a specific motor with a degree of variance being motorchecked at a track I guess that is the best way to go but in the future we need to get motors that you can't jack with in stock and if they were rebuildable, I guess that would be easier to tech out and get the rule benders.

yasuji
2009.03.26, 03:05 AM
OK just a few more items on the motor issue. Do you have any concerns about timing and we should only allow single stack armatures for stock motors.

As far as technical inspection goes with respect to a benchmark for a specific motor with a degree of variance being motorchecked at a track I guess that is the best way to go but in the future we need to get motors that you can't jack with in stock and if they were rebuildable, I guess that would be easier to tech out and get the rule benders.

i do not know what a single stack armature is...... and i believe that timing will affect the rpm ...so long as it will stay in the limit
as for the future....with all respect for the guys who drive 70t cars to its full potential i believe that in the stock class there needs to be equality....
the fast guys will always be the fast guys if it isto become a mod 70t class nothing will change....the fast guys will still be the fast guys.....even if there motors were slowr that the rest......it would only make it easier for the fast guys to be flawless.....70t is 70t....theh reason for the 70 t class is to try and separate the 2.....rt now @ my track the fast 70 t lap record is within 6 tenths of my mod pancar lap record....i actually think that we need a 90 t stock class motor and a gearing limit.....lol;)
j/k lukas....hehehe inside joke

bermbuster
2009.03.26, 04:09 AM
I know fast guys will drive almost anything faster....
the fast guy at your track did he prep his 70t or just toss one in straight from the package???

rocketman
2009.03.26, 09:23 AM
I had seen similar comments in ROAR and other ruling bodies rules. I don't think it is a worry in our class and if it is ROAR will let us know when they look at this stuff.

yasuji
2009.03.26, 11:41 AM
I know fast guys will drive almost anything faster....
the fast guy at your track did he prep his 70t or just toss one in straight from the package???

handout motor from my points series....but every one breaks in there motors...

rocketman
2009.03.26, 02:31 PM
Yasuji, here is the KyoshoUSA response to my questions about details on there stock motor. Maybe an inquiry from you would get a better response.

Unfortunately we don't have any supper detailed info on our mini z stock
motors, but yes they are maid and comparable to Mabuchi motors.