Mini-Z, Kyosho Mini-Z Racer, MR-03, MR-02, MA-010, Forums, News, Pictures, Parts, and Shop - Mini-ZRacer.com
Forums, Mini-Z, MiniZ, Kyosho Mini-Z, Kyosho MiniZ, Kyosho Mini-Z Racer
Mini-Z Hop-Ups, Mini-Z Parts, MiniZ Hop-Ups, MiniZ Parts, Kyosho Mini-Z Hop-Ups, Kyosho Mini-Z Parts, Kyosho MiniZ Hop-Ups, Kyosho MiniZ Parts, Kyosho Mini-Z Racer Hop-Ups, Racer Kyosho Mini-Z Parts
Old 2019.05.05, 08:40 PM   #1
briankstan
SLMZ / HFAY
 
briankstan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: West Jordan, Utah
Posts: 6,826
HFAY Season 28 Rules Adjustments

I wanted to post this about some of the clarifications that will be introduced in Season 28th. Lets get things going with a few that have been brought up over the last season. Feel free to discuss any of the current rules or proposed rules here. Some things to discuss are listed below.

1. Minimum Weight. 170gr.
2. Motors: PN 70T, Brushless 3500KV (Any Brand).
3. Added Chassis: Open for discussion. GL Racing, Atomic, Jomurema? Lets's discuss pro's and con's.
4. ESC's what ones should be legal?
5. Batteries: Stick with 4 AAA, Ni-MH only?

Do we allow some and create different classes?

With so many new cars, and varieations where should be take it? or Keep it where it is and tighen thinks up to keep it related to Mini-Z 70T class.

I'd like to hear all your opinions. some of these may make the rules for season 29 and some won't but as the 1/28th scene expands we'll have to consider all options.

thanks.
__________________
--Salt Lake Mini-Z---HFAY---MZR Gallery--
briankstan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019.05.06, 01:36 AM   #2
art4242
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 94
Thanks for starting the discussion Brian.

A couple of thoughts:

2. Motors: It would be good to keep the 5500kV option as a separate class. It provides more of a challenge for those of us used to higher speeds and can make use of it, as well as being easier on batteries and not having to extract every ounce of speed from the 3500kV/70T combo. (and not have Grant complain about "snail speed" .

3. Added chassis: All of the other chassis run lithium batteries, probably not going to be able to match well speed wise with 3500kV/70T on NiMH. They could be their own open class. Another idea would be to throw them in with the 5500kV motors, make that an entirely open class (battery, motor, and chassis). That could nicely self limit itself to a manageable 3500kV lithium or 5500kV NiMh combo just based on the small track sizes.

4. ESC: I'm thinking this should just be open and all inclusive. I've driven cars with an ASF (brushed), PN Spektrum (brushed), VE-PRO, EVO, the PN separate ESC, a separate HobbyWing ESC, and none of them have any significant advantage especially with the open FET rule.

5. Even with a 3500kV motor, lithium is going to be significantly faster than a 70T/3500kV NiMH. One possibility for lithium would be to include 3500kV lithium as part of the 5500kV NiMH class. On a larger track with open gearing the 3500kV/lithium is going to be faster, but on a smaller HFAY track with reduced gearing they could be pretty close (I can experiment with this on the next HFAY layout).

Something mentioned previously by Blaine in having different metadata available that I think would be great would be to have a few separate classes, but be able to post and rank results sorted in various combinations.

For example one set of rankings would be everyone in all classes. Another ranking would be 3500kV/70T NiMH only. Another ranking could be 5500kV/50T NiMH only. Another could lithium only...etc. That way most could run what they want, still feel like they are competing with others, but be able to separate out their particular "class" ranking.

Last edited by art4242; 2019.05.06 at 02:18 PM.
art4242 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019.05.06, 07:03 AM   #3
arch2b
Moderator
 
arch2b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,684
Send a message via AIM to arch2b
1. No reason to complain or suggest changes to min. Weight. Iíve not had any issues with teaching weight in the past as easy to add weight when needed.
2. Iím sure everyone knows my position on this. I am all for limiting brushless to 3500/brushed 70t.
3. If it can be adapted or run AAA, i donít see why anyone would care what chassis it is. Otherwise, your looking at more complicated systems to control as noted by art.
4. Anything that meets all other parameters.
5. I believe it should remain AAA format with voltage max. This addresses the various types of AAA available without having to get an extensive list of approved types.

Iím with art on the idea of multiple classes that allows for 5500+ speeds and alternative power sources that have a specified leveling equivalency restrictions. In order for HFAY to be inclusive, it needs to adapt to the now plethora of 3rd party platforms that are mass produced and sold meaning they are no longer limited productions sold by users (Pro-Z as an example). If someone can do the leg work to show alternate power sources can be restricted to maintain equivalency to 3500/70t, it wouldnít bother me to see that allowed in the base class either. As art points out, 3500 on lithium is leaps and bounds above 3500 on ni-mh.

How the website is developed and design will inform on the ability to manage data as art suggests but is a good suggestion in that you can filter down and still maintain rankings, standings based on categories within and overall framework. Depending on how stringent we are as a group in providing meta data on each driver, you could really start filtering this down into the weeds, FWD, AWD, RWD, in-mh, lithium, chassis type, etc. the list of possibility is endless, really just boils down to what is practical for judges to collect in a reasonable manner. You could make it such that any driver without the breakdown on data, simply excluded from filtered ranking/standing as motivation to get their s$%^ together. As a judge, lots of meta data is tedious and onerous for a judge to collect on top of results. I want to see more, i don'tí want to collect more so itís a struggle for me as i always want more data but it also means much more work for an already burdened job to manage.
arch2b is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019.05.06, 01:27 PM   #4
bobbyz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 396
I'd like to see the base 70/3500 class remain nimh AAA, while allowing for other current or future commercially available chassis that fit this standard to be included.

Open ESC I think is fine, again as long as commercially available items.

I think a second class would open participation for those who have lipo/li-ion based cars, and also to those who want to develop their skill to the next level at 50t/5500kv+nimh. Like Arts idea of an Open class: motor, battery, and chassis are all open. Whether this class is single car time trial based or 3car timed race, I'm not sure the best route to go.

The base 70t/3500/AAA nimh class has proven to be a great format for new participants to join in. Based on how many new groups/clubs joined in for Season27 alone, I don't think any major changes need made for this class. I think the main decisions are defining a possible second class, and creating a similar feel that is: fun, challenging, easy to understand, (aka not overly complicated) commercially available parts. Perhaps season 28 can be a testing ground to develop a potential 2nd class, that could then be fine tuned for Season29 in 2020.
bobbyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019.05.06, 01:45 PM   #5
briankstan
SLMZ / HFAY
 
briankstan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: West Jordan, Utah
Posts: 6,826
I'm with most of you on the suggestion that we limit the Stock Class to the 3500kv/70T with AAA power and a miniumum weight of 170 grams. open the ESC and the chassis as long as it meets the lined out specs.

I'll have to talk with Blaine and see what can be done to track multiple classes. I think it would be great to have and open class and just let the best of the best sort it out based on the smaller track and see what's really possible on the small track with a finely tuned faster car.

I wouldn't mind jumping in with an open car as well as competing in both classes, just for fun.
__________________
--Salt Lake Mini-Z---HFAY---MZR Gallery--
briankstan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019.05.06, 02:47 PM   #6
EMU
EMUracing
 
EMU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: NYC
Posts: 7,352
Send a message via AIM to EMU
Is there a current weight limit set? I couldnt see one in the rules.

My opinion is that the stock class should be AAA NiMh, 70t/3500kv. Open commercially available chassis and electronics. The largest constraint here is that there are few chassis that have AAA compatibility. It would allow competition in the class for any possible new entries into the AAA chassis market (although most if not all develop new cars for lithium now).

I would be in favor of a second class (Group B), which would permit brushed motors down to 43t and brushless to 5600kv on AAA NiMh, and restrict Lithium 8.4v limit to 3500kv motors. With the weight limit in place, it should close the gap significantly that the lithium based cars have over the AAA based cars and allow the newer chassis designed around lithium to compete. A third sub class (Group C) of fully open could run with this second class but possibly be scored separately. For the track size, there would be less of a jump between stock and group B than there would be in group B to C which should allow them to race together on the same track more easily if a 3 car race would be kept rather than switching to a time trial format. I think that there would be more interest in a power restricted 2nd class than there would be in a full open class as it would allow AAA based cars to compete more easily. The weight limit would be key for balance of power as the lithium based cars are considerably lighter by default.
__________________
EMUracing
Micro RC Syndicate /DG Designs /GSR /Reflex Racing /Fast By Faqish /MurderTown Racing
EMU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019.05.06, 03:57 PM   #7
briankstan
SLMZ / HFAY
 
briankstan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: West Jordan, Utah
Posts: 6,826
the weight has always been at 170gr. but that somehow got missed when the rules were revised. it will be back in there for Season 28.

I think the way to proceed is to see how we can be produce the different class and track them seperately while maintaining the established stock speed class but tightening the speed gaps.
__________________
--Salt Lake Mini-Z---HFAY---MZR Gallery--
briankstan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019.05.06, 04:16 PM   #8
bobbyz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 396
I like Emu's idea of possibly running a B-group and C-group together, but having them scored separately. Gives it a bit of a Lemans style.
bobbyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019.05.06, 05:04 PM   #9
EMU
EMUracing
 
EMU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: NYC
Posts: 7,352
Send a message via AIM to EMU
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyz View Post
I like Emu's idea of possibly running a B-group and C-group together, but having them scored separately. Gives it a bit of a Lemans style.
My primary reasoning, is that it gets the cars on track. There may be 2 guys that want to run Group B, and one that has a n open modified car, and wouldnt be able to fit under the group B category. So running together could get them on track and scored separately within a Group C category. Basically, all cars would be permitted to run in the second group, but only those that fall within the restrictions of the group B would be scored in it.

Take in mind that the class naming that I am using are just placeholders.
__________________
EMUracing
Micro RC Syndicate /DG Designs /GSR /Reflex Racing /Fast By Faqish /MurderTown Racing
EMU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019.05.06, 05:20 PM   #10
MTSEO
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
It sounds like everybody is close to being on the same page as far as grouping together like speeds and adding 1 or maybe even 2 classes.
If the database is setup as Art described it, where the classes are all listed together and then a sort applied to allow breakdown of individual classes, people will need to decide at the beginning of the season which class they prefer to run in and stick with it throughout in order to maximize their point total in that class.
On the other hand, if the classes are split up and listed separately then could people run multiple classes during the season or even in the same race?
Will a 3500kv AAA car be allowed to run in the B class? Or should the B class be limited to only allow 48t, 3500kv with lithium, and 5600kv with AAA?
For a small club like ours (5 people) it will be important that everybody has the same class of cars. If 1 person wants to run the B class they will not be able to unless everybody else move up with them in order to maintain the 3 driver race minimum. Unless A class and B class can race together at the same time. This is not a big deal to me, I just thought it was worth mentioning.
  Reply With Quote
Old 2019.05.06, 06:06 PM   #11
arch2b
Moderator
 
arch2b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,684
Send a message via AIM to arch2b
I also agree that you could run multiple classes together and simply submit scores assigned to appropriate classes. Again, goes to how data is formatted in submission. HFAY is geared toward the small groups, should not alienate them and or stagnant a class because 3 cars canít be found to fill out a run. Will those pose a challenge to the drivers, absolutely. Itís the price to pay for choosing to run in the class of your choice.
I also donít see a reason why someone would have to choose a class for the entire season. In my experience, so many people drop in and out that there is little point to focusing on a single class for en a entire season. Many people simply join for the fun and show up when they show up and Ďrace to the topí just isnít the motivator. It isnít for me either as itís really use a means to enjoy my time and better myself, donít really care ifí iím First or 59th. I have me personal goals set and focus on that vs. chasing a number or rank. My personal goals were to break 100 laps and land somewhere in the top 10-15. I raced with several that where routinely top 1-5 so i knew what realistic goals where
arch2b is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019.05.06, 06:50 PM   #12
MTSEO
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by arch2b View Post
I also donít see a reason why someone would have to choose a class for the entire season. In my experience, so many people drop in and out that there is little point to focusing on a single class for en a entire season. Many people simply join for the fun and show up when they show up and Ďrace to the topí just isnít the motivator. It isnít for me either as itís really use a means to enjoy my time and better myself, donít really care ifí iím First or 59th. I have me personal goals set and focus on that vs. chasing a number or rank. My personal goals were to break 100 laps and land somewhere in the top 10-15. I raced with several that where routinely top 1-5 so i knew what realistic goals where
Understood, I was not meaning that it would need to be a rule that people picked a single class and stick with it, but that would certainly be in your best interest if your goal were to accumulate the most points that you possibly can for the season. My real question is do you think 1 person should be allowed to run in more than 1 class, for instance can I run in class A and class B for race #1? That is probably a premature conversation but an interesting thought. If I could run 4 races per month hfay would be twice as fun.
  Reply With Quote
Old 2019.05.06, 07:25 PM   #13
arch2b
Moderator
 
arch2b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,684
Send a message via AIM to arch2b
why not? why arbitrarily hold someone back from greater participation? If someone had the time and inclination for example, to be ranked #1 in all classes, why stop them? it would be an extreme effort for sure but i wouldn't want to limit ones level of participation. some clubs race multiple times a week, plenty of time to run both directions for multiple classes.

Last edited by arch2b; 2019.05.06 at 07:38 PM.
arch2b is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019.05.06, 07:35 PM   #14
EMU
EMUracing
 
EMU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: NYC
Posts: 7,352
Send a message via AIM to EMU
I would prefer to have the alternate classes not have stock eligible cars run. But a racer can run all classes per event.

My reasoning is that there is more effort to tame the higher powered motors in the faster classes. Sure, you can lower the throttle hipoint, but the mechanical power is there. At our small local track, permitting stock class cars in the pro-stock class essentially killed off the class because 90% of the people just ran the same car twice and it was seen as a class that didnt need to be there. So, now they only run stock. Requiring a minumum motor limit that is over the stock level (x-speed/60t/4500kv) would mean that it is truly a separate class rather than the same class running twice. There would be some wiggle room to find the best motor to use, but at the same time the emphasis in the cars would go away from the best batteries and "stock" class performance necessities, to being able to focus more on a pro-stock style setup where you dont need to search for power.

This is just a personal opinion, and I would love to hear others thoughts regarding the matter.
__________________
EMUracing
Micro RC Syndicate /DG Designs /GSR /Reflex Racing /Fast By Faqish /MurderTown Racing
EMU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019.05.07, 01:04 AM   #15
mugler
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 372
Great discussion and very cool to see everyone is pretty much thinking along the the same lines on the big strokes & just a matter of stitching some details together for the final product, anyway that's how it feels to me. "For me" all thoughts and ideas mentioned above added to what we've observed in season 27 so far get summarized in the following ways:

Just have two classes instead of one and score them separately as well.
This just an idea: To add some flavor & recognition maybe bonus points get awarded for any 70t/3500 cars if they do same # of laps or more than the podium finishers in the open class.

as you guessed already and some even plum said it before the only two classes IMHO for season 28 also would be:

1) 70T/3500 Nimh only & it really doesn't matter 3rd parties cant run in it either/ 170g min weight / plastic bodies only
2) Open class any motor or chassis, any battery chemistry lexan or plastic bodies. / 160g min weight or no min wight since it wont give a performance advantage anyhow if anything the opposite.


Regarding how one would run both classes if only 1 or 2 other drivers vs all at the location wanted to run a certain class then the aforementioned "you could run multiple classes together and simply submit scores assigned to appropriate classes" is a simple and fully acceptable solution.

Should there be two classes i would definitely run both. BTW since the majority of fastest drivers are not running the counter clockwise races maybe for open class only CCW should be omitted.

Last edited by mugler; 2019.05.07 at 01:08 AM.
mugler is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
HFAY Season 27 TyGminiz How Fast Are You? Online Points Series 298 2019.06.06 01:52 PM
HFAY 70-turn Season 6 Spec Motor Tests schmenzer How Fast Are You? Online Points Series 27 2009.03.09 01:49 PM
2008/2009 Winter Season Schedule, Rules, and Prizes AtlRC Atlanta Mini Scale Racing 0 2008.11.26 03:52 PM
HFAY 70-turn Motor - On Track Tests schmenzer How Fast Are You? Online Points Series 1 2008.06.04 05:31 PM
HFAY OLPS Ann Arbor Videos hobbycar How Fast Are You? Online Points Series 16 2007.11.03 08:02 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2011 Mini-ZRacer.com
Mini Inferno Sale - Up to $85 Instant Savings!
Micro-T Hop-Ups
RC18R, M18, Micro RS4, Mini-LST, TamTech-Gear, Minizilla, RC18T, RC18B, RC18MT
shop.tinyrc.com Products

more»
Tiny RC Community News
[03/22/17] MZR was on vacation, didn't... : All kidding aside, the host experienced a bit of a server meltdown last week and efforts to restore the site to a new server took longer than anticipated. The current server is temporary until - more»
[11/25/15] Did You Hear? Our Black... : Hey Racers,
We're getting started a bit early with our Black Friday sale this year.  Generally we're not supporters of retailers opening early on Thanksgiving, but in our case, we're - more»
[06/30/15] shop.tinyrc.com: Have You... : Hey All! Just a quick reminder to everyone that we post all of our shop.tinyrc.com Newletters here on the MZR Forum. If for some reason you miss them in your email inbox, you can always see the - more»
Mini-Z, Mini-Z Racer, MR-02, MA-010
M18, M18T, RC18T, Mini-LST, Mini-T, Micro RS4, XRay, 1/18, 18th scale
XMODS, XMOD, Micro Flight, ZipZaps, ZipZaps SE, Bit Char-G, MicroSizers, TTTT, Plantraco Desktop Rover, SuperSlicks, Digi Q
Mini Inferno, Mini Inferno ST, half EIGHT, 1/16, 16th scale
Epoch, Indoor Racer, 1/43, 43rd scale
E-Savage, eSavage, eZilla, e-Zilla, HPI
Robots, Bots, Bipeds, Wheeled, Manoi, Roomba, NXT, Lego, Hacking
Crawling, Crawlers, Micro, RC, Losi Mini-Rock Crawler, Duratrax Cliff Climber
Kyosho Minium, Caliber 120, Minium Forums
Mini-Z Hop-Ups, Mini-Z Parts, Mini Inferno Hop-Ups, Mini Inferno Parts, M18 Hop-Ups, M18 Parts