[tamar.nelwan]

As per version 8.3 the DiSCA GT3 tech rules allows race organizers to choose a spec motor for their events from the following 3 options.
1 Scaleauto SC-0027B Sprinter Junior rated at 18.000rpm
2 NSR 3024 Baby King rated at 17.000rpm
3 Sideways Baby Raptor rated at 17.000rpm

A new "local " Belgium/Dutch DiSCA GT3 spin off would like to use both the NSR Baby King and the Sideways Baby Raptor simultaneously in their series, assuming that since both motors were equal as both are advertised as 17K motors.
But preliminary testing indicated that some motors were more equal than others.

This topic will report on the tests and quest to see if the Oxigen RMS can be used as a tool to create a B.o.P (Balance of Performance) between different Motors.

Some post on this topic have been made in recent days. I will (re)post them here as Quotes.

With kind regards
Tamar

 

[GRUNZ]

Nice one Tamar.

 

[tamar.nelwan]

So here's what has been posted before

Last but not least..Motors.
As per version 8.3 DiSCA GT3 tech rules allows race organizers to choose a spec motor from the following 3 options.
1 Scaleauto SC-0027B Sprinter Junior rated at 18.000rpm
2 NSR 3024 Baby King rated at 17.000rpm
3 Sideways Baby Raptor rated at 17.000rpm

For the bigger (international) events like the Suzuka Double Digital GT3 races that choice has been and will most likely remain to be the Scaleauto SC-0027B.
For the new to be started more local (Belgium/Dutch) GT3 Interseries (tech rules derived from DiSCA GT3) we are investigating the combined use of both NSR and Sideways motors.
Investigating as in that it has already become clear that one should not take the rpm rating as advertised by the manufacturer...for granted.
Out of the box the Scaleauto motors can range between 17.500 and 19.500, and its a directional rotation sensitive motor. There's a good 1K difference between running it clockwise or anti clock.
The so called "less powerful" Sideways 17k might be that out of the box, but I've run in two of them and both easily tipped +18k.
To be honest, the sole exception in what I've tested so far is the NSR 3024 BabyKing. No matter what you do with it, regardless of what direction you run it or how long you've run it....its performance can be trusted to be on or about the advertised 17K rpm. (even my 6 year old Baby king that I raced in the DCSA 10 hrs at Mechelen still turns at a respectable 16.780 rpm)

Testing, testing, testing.
Ok so agreed, four motors isn't a big enough number to make fact based decisions on. Which is why we will continue to test more and more Sideways and NSR motors to collect a representative number of test data.
And here's a bit of info that may interest you (Henri van Ravenstein)...
When we have collected and compiled the data on the NSR and Sideways motors, your H&B Test bench might play a key role in creating a B.o.P for both of them.
As some of you may know the O2 RMS has a function where you can set/adjust the max power available (actually the max percentage of available PWD pulses) for each individual car ID#
The only problem is, if you want to match cars with different motor specs it is very hard to tell what the required adjustment should be...with the only reference being a car's laptime. Way to many variables to make fine adjustments.
But...plug in your SCP controller in the H&B test bench and fine adjustments in the RMS max power settings are easily measured and translated to a single figure. Place the car on the test bench and read out it's top speed at a given voltage.
As long as you keep the gearing and wheel diameter the same you could easily pair the top speed of both motors via the RMS and read out the results via the H&B test bench.
Well in theory at least...again...the same motto applies" testing testing testing.

With kind regards
Tamar

Tamar I would not use the max power setting in chrono or any other RMS for oXigen: this change will affect the amount of power at the trigger meaning that top end of the trigger will not be used.
For instance, if you set the max power to 80%, once you press the trigger over the 80 mark nothing will change.

Good point but my educated guess would be that I don't think we would/should ever go that far as 80% or even 90%
Clearly if the measured difference between two motors adverstised at exactly the same rpm/torque rating... is beyond 10-20%...
...someone is not being totally honest in their claim...and no organization should consider them to be "equal" in competition use.

But if we can create a balance of performance between the NSR and Sideways motors within a workable & drivable power setting range...
...with cars from these two brands now forming the backbone of the GT3 grid...
...the advantage for the competitor would be that they could use the motor that comes with the car.

One of the requests aired by the participating clubs was to reduce the entry cost of building a digital GT3 car
But nothing is set in stone at the moment for the next months we'll be testing, testing, testing.

With kind regards
Tamar

Have anyone tested BoP with real 'ballast'? Because indeed, limiting the power, especially only the last 10%, I doubt will have much effect. And I don't know what the effect of curve settings is, but I can imagine the effect is different compared to linear setting. Testing will show you I guess, but as long as you don't use fuel simualtions or damage points, I think the most ' honest' BoP will be real weight or less powerful motors.

BoP is an interesting topic and maybe we might have to start another thread.
But I would like to mention that:

• 80% was just an example
• To be wary that adding a BoP might introduce other variables that might prove to be an unfair advantage (such as adding real ballast).
• NSR and Sideways baby motors are not cheap!

 

[tamar.nelwan]

Comparing the NSR Baby King and Sideways Baby Raptor has been discussed earlier this year see this post.

 

[GRUNZ]

Comparing the NSR Baby King and Sideways Baby Raptor has been discussed earlier this year see this post.

that thread would require a nice clean up.

 

[LMP]

I don’t think that you’ll get anywhere with the current version of Chrono.

When next gen RCS is released I think you’ll have some usable options, but whether that was in the frame for consideration as a timing system or not I don’t know..

I suggest you focus on determining if, and by how much, the motors need to be balanced at all before you look at how to balance them. My guess would be that they don’t need any balancing in the first place, and Chrono can definitely handle that 😉

 

[tamar.nelwan]

I don’t think that you’ll get anywhere with the current version of Chrono.

When next gen RCS is released I think you’ll have some usable options, but whether that was in the frame for consideration as a timing system or not I don’t know..

I suggest you focus on determining if, and by how much, the motors need to be balanced at all before you look at how to balance them. My guess would be that they don’t need any balancing in the first place, and Chrono can definitely handle that 😉

Well last night I visited the DCSA in Mechelen, partially to discuss some rule and organization details for the GT3 Interseries with the DSCA guys, partially to do some testing for the Rockingham 6hrs with my AMR Vantage GT3
But also used the opportunity to check if my ideas to use Chrono as a B.o.P tool were applicable... as post here on SF there had aired some doubts about driving feel and throttle response for O2 cars with RMS reduced max power settings.

So here's the procedure I followed, not completely scientific, future test will be more exact...but for a proof of concept...good enough.

1. To set a base reference I took Tom v Leekwijck's Nissan GT-R GT3 with an NSR Baby King Motor and placed it on the H&B test bench. Set the voltage to 11,5v (as the car wasn't chipped) and did a 30 sec test run. Got a test value of 32,58 km p/h.
2. Plugged in my SCP controller in the test bench and did a similar test run but now with my Scaleauto Junior motorized AMR Vantage GT3 and the voltage set at 12v (you loose 0,5 volt with an O2 chip) Got a test value of 37,82 km p/h.
3. Opened the fuel page in Chrono and enabled the max speed and max brake settings for the Aston's ID (#17)
4. Did a next test run on the bench with the SCP controller at full trigger and RMS max speed at 100% gradually reducing this percentage until the H& B test bench showed a top speed of 32,5 km p/h. As you can see in the pic below I ended up with a 25% reduction in Max speed setting to bring the Scaleauto motored AMR down to the same value as the NSR Baby King motored Nissan.
   

The proof of the pudding....
The most important test..how would it drive? As I mentioned earlier, concerns had been aired that it would feel unnatural, that a reduced power setting would create a "dead zone" on your trigger with the top end of your trigger travel not doing anything anymore. That a motor not running at 100% PWM would run hotter. (concern aired in much earlier different topic)
So I placed the Aston on the track and drove it...to see if I could have my cake...and eat it. And guess what....

The main reason for the request of the clubs to run Baby Kings and Baby Raptors in the Interseries was that they deemed the Scaleauto Junior Sprinter a too hot can for novice Digital drivers.
And agreed, on Sponge tires at 12v with the tall gearing and high top speed set -up..a DiSCA GT3 car with a ScaleAuto Junior can be a real challenge to handle.
Which is exactly what it was intended to be.

But with the reduced power setting (initially I had also reduced the max brake setting by the same percentage) the Scaleauto Junior Sprinter no longer behave as a Junior brat.
Instead it responded and behaved ...like a real sweet Baby, handled like a charm. The only thing that I (re)adjusted in the RMS setting was turning the max brake setting to 90%.
75% was I bit too much....or more exact too little brake. But the brake setting could be an interesting addition as B.o.P as well.

...is in the eating
So conclusion so far....this was not an exact test, this was just a first toe in the water to see what influence using Oxigen power and brake setting would have on the drivability of a slot car.
And so far the first impressions are good. After my initial run I handed the Aston over to the more NSR Baby King experienced local drivers and they too confirmed that the wild Junior now behaved as a sweet Baby. None of them noticed a trigger delay. The "restricted" Aston responded to all controller input just like any other Digital car.
As a quick back to back test we paired the Aston to a different non restricted ID# and immediately all of the old brat behavior was back.


Balancing Performance...Testing
Note that although the test was never intended to match the Scaleauto Sprinter Junior with the NSR Baby king performance, and that the required reduction in power (25%) was beyond what I had deemed to be applicable...all previous assumptions other that that it could work proved to be false.
I will continue testing in the coming weeks/months to collect more data. I here by also invite other forum members that run these motors and Oxigen to do the same...and post their findings here.
The more data the better.

I'm confident that if we can make this work in Chrono, it can be applied/introduced in next gen Oxigen RMS software as well. Am also confident that balancing power between motors with a much smaller difference in performance will be possible.
Last remark. it is not my intend to implement a possible B.o.P on an individual car by car base. With the data collected and compiled the intent is to come to a general power restriction per type of motor and apply that percentage via the RMS to individual ID# for any car that runs said type of motor.

to be continued

With kind regards
Tamar

 

[Minardi]

While I do understand the idea behind this Tamar, I think you open a can of worms if you start using the RMS to equalize the performance of the different motors. First the maximum power, ok I understand that you can reach the same max speed between motors by adjusting the max power until it is even. But as you know, top speed is not all that counts. So indeed, brake power is also important. WIth some cars, I turn down the max brake power on my controller to have a good feeling. So when you lower the brake power via RMS, the driver can compensate that by turning the knob. And I think minimum speed is also a setting that influences the response of the car, and will be different between different motors. So that will be another setting to limit. Personally I think it is too much fiddling. One other downside I see is that when you limit the power via RMS, and in the future you want to use fuel simulation, the cars with less power may use more fuel and in any case, the discussions with the race director will be endless.
Compensation of very similar motors with a few % power limit may work, but for the rest I think it will be too difficult to 'defend' unless every driver sets his or hers signature before the race that he agrees.

PS did you also test the influence of the different curve settings, I am curious to know the effect.

 

[tamar.nelwan]

Hello Marcel, first of all thx for your input...but I do believe you are seeing bears in the woods were there are ...no trees.
For the foreseeable future Fuel Simulation will not be part of DiSCA & Interseries events.
The goal is not to equalize the performance of different motors, but of different motor types.

I did discus this idea at length with Maurizio to check for any problems in controller/car chip/dongle communications. According to him under pure O2 there were no issues.

Investigating methods for a B.o.P stems from the initial test results of two of the allowed Motors advertised as 17k. One of which appears to be let us say, less consistent than the other.
I think it's a situation that should be addressed, because i.m.o if one motor runs and keeps running at 17k while the other, after 30min run in, easily does 18k that's not equal & fair competition.

But as I explained..we will do more testing over a prolonged period and under race conditions. Via these tests we hope to determine how big the difference in general is and by aid of a replicable and unique value (Max speed on the H&B test bench, and derived from it is calculated motor rpm) to come to a general RMS setting for each Motor type. (with the slowest type being set @100%)

I will publish the results to the organizing clubs and they can decide if they want to implement the B.o.P. for their series....or not.
But if they do, such a B.o.P will become part of the rules... and yes, if a competitor sucribes/enters an event that does imply that he is willing to abide by the the rules...like signing his name and signature on the dotted line.
But knowing slotracers...discussions with Race direction and or TC will undoubtedly follow, but will be just as futile as trying to enter discussion on why there's a max width, min weight or certain parts allowed for some cars in the homologation list and some not. That is until we will reconsider the rules for the next period.

As for your PS: Each of the slotracers at Mechelen has his own preferred controller settings, curve, min speed, brakes the lot. None of them reported "feeling" any difference in the amount of control between the restricted and unrestricted car. All I'm aiming for is to equalize max rpm at the available power. How the individual competitor wants to set his controller is of no interest to me.
No matter how he/she dails it in, they will never be able to exceed the Max speed and/or max brake % set by the RMS.

To be continued.

With kind regards
Tamar

 

[MrFlippant]

Marcel, I don't think this is so much about balancing out motors of the same maker that might vary from one to the other a little bit, but more for a club that allows a variety of motors and gearing, with a limitation of top speed. One of the reasons Henri and his friend developed the H&B Test Bench is because they race at a club like that, and the product they had been using to measure top speed was no longer readily available for a reasonable price. Using Tamar's method, if someone appears with a car that has a new motor/gearing combination that results in a top speed above the allowable, then they can easily apply a max speed setting to bring it down. Not only does this make the car legal under their rules, but also probably easier to drive. ;-)

Also, since a lot of people do very little car control at the top end of the throttle, I can easily see that shaving 25% of that control spectrum has little to no effect. All their "driving" is in the middle/bottom end. Once they're at 75% trigger motion, they're already going for top speed most of the time. The few people who do all their driving at the top end might notice a different, but I think it's safe to say that if Tamar and co don't see a problem, then it's at least worth additional testing, and maybe incorporating into their rule set.

 

[zero5]

The main reason for the request of the clubs to run Baby Kings and Baby Raptors in the Interseries was that they deemed the Scaleauto Junior Sprinter a too hot can for novice Digital drivers.
And agreed, on Sponge tires at 12v with the tall gearing and high top speed set -up..a DiSCA GT3 car with a ScaleAuto Junior can be a real challenge to handle.
Which is exactly what it was intended to be.

Tamar

Maybe it's the sponge tyres? Please try with the 1323 rubber tyre or other G25 sizes tyres instead?
The sponges don't give much slide out of the corners as they dig in and tip the car out of the slot. Whereas the rubber will give a bit of slide allowing the driver to compensate for it.

Why's it always about slowing the quicker drivers? They shouldn't have to be penalised because there are usually the better racers!
I won't be a fan or many others imho if you start adjusting the power for each individual person or team.
The track host should have good power all around the track and to all the lanes! The host determines the power level (11-12v usually for DiSCA events) the RMS should be set at 100% or whatever level Host the determines so its the same power for everyone!
Let the driver/team decide what suits their car best. Of the 3 allowed motors. My tip would be to fit the S/A sprinter and adjust the gearing and controller settings to suit the power for a said track?

BoP WEC then? flat6 20.5k verse mx16 23k, gonna be a long thread

 

[MrFlippant]

In such a situation, the host would also require all cars to have the same motor.
This is a case of different motors, thus allowing different makes of cars to be raced without forcing the racer to change the motor to meet a spec.
Or, are you saying that motor and gearing and everything should simply be wide open, with the only "limit" being the voltage at the rails?
Rules are rules, and they are almost always in place in order to balance performance of cars SO THAT the better racer/driver is the one who wins. Weight limits/mins, magnetic downforce limits, tires, clearances, etc... ALL meant to keep things even.

 

[Minardi]

Everyone has a point of course, but I am with Zero5 on this. The method proposed may work well under circumstances like home tracks, but when I think about the Disca rules and regulations, where everything can be measured (weight etc) and cars are checked before the race if they are allowed to join, than adding a power limit through the software kind of does not match in my head. As Gio said in another thread, that limitation will bring variables which can never be checked. Your car is too wide or too heavy, anyone can understand. But when limiting the power brings down performance not related to what you expect, nobody can explain that. So yes, maybe I see bears, behind one tree probably but I believe there certainly is one when the real conpetition starts. Sorry to sound negative maybe, I will always prevent to blame the software.

 

[zero5]

Greg

GT3 Euro spec motor and transmission V8.3
Motor must be of one of the following only, per race event;
3.1.1. Scaleauto 0027b 18,000rpm "Junior Sprinter”
3.1.2. NSR 3024 17,000rpm “Baby King”
3.1.3. Racer Sideways 17,000rpm “Baby Raptor”
3.2. Motor cans must be insulated from the circuit rails
3.3. Motor shafts may be shortened under the supervision of a race official
3.4. Any other motor modification is illegal
3.5. Maximum number of teeth on the pinion gear is 14 teeth
3.6. Spur gear is free
3.7. AWD systems are illegal

The only limit is the power in the rails usually 11-12volts

 

[MrFlippant]

I think people are ignoring the content of the original post and focusing on DiSCA rules.
Is there a DiSCA spec or race event that would allow two completely different spec motors to compete in the same class?

 

[MrFlippant]

Greg

GT3 Euro spec motor and transmission V8.3
Motor must be of one of the following only, per race event;
3.1.1. Scaleauto 0027b 18,000rpm "Junior Sprinter”
3.1.2. NSR 3024 17,000rpm “Baby King”
3.1.3. Racer Sideways 17,000rpm “Baby Raptor”
3.2. Motor cans must be insulated from the circuit rails
3.3. Motor shafts may be shortened under the supervision of a race official
3.4. Any other motor modification is illegal
3.5. Maximum number of teeth on the pinion gear is 14 teeth
3.6. Spur gear is free
3.7. AWD systems are illegal

The only limit is the power in the rails usually 11-12volts

Thank you. You are saying that this spec allows all three of those motors to compete in the same class at the same event, yes?
I read Tamar's OP and thought that those were the motors that meet the requirements of the GT3 Euro spec, but the host of the event would decide which of the three were allowed at the event, not that all three were always allowed at all events.

 

[zero5]

GT3 euro spec allow 3 motors as listed above

WEC allows 2 motors either 20.5k flat6 at 20500k or mx16 at 23k
Free gearing also

 

[MrFlippant]

GT3 Euro spec motor and transmission V8.3
Motor must be of one of the following only, per race event;
3.1.1. Scaleauto 0027b 18,000rpm "Junior Sprinter”
3.1.2. NSR 3024 17,000rpm “Baby King”
3.1.3. Racer Sideways 17,000rpm “Baby Raptor”

I believe your interpretation might be outside the intended spec.

In the above it says must be ONE of the following ONLY. If it said "can be any of the following" then your point is solid.

Following that spec, an event would have a class with only one of those motors allowed, not any or all of them in the same class at the same event. It is because the motors are not equal in torque and speed that only one is allowed. DiSCA has decided that all three are close enough to fall within the spirit of the class, though, so if a club has a lot of members with cars using one of those motors, they might set up their event to specify that motor for all cars in that class.

Tamar is investigating the feasibility of allowing more than one of those motors in the same class at the same event. Again, because they are not the same, rather than forcing people to replace their motor, they may be able to achieve parity with a simple change to the max power of those cars. I see this as being effectively the same as requiring a specific motor.

Now, if you want to run a race that allows all three, that's up to you. Neither your race, nor Tamar's, would be strictly following the DiSCA spec, however.

 

[tamar.nelwan]

Gents, first of all, thx again for all the post, wow, its turned into an actual good discussion. Maybe not in the direction I thought this topic would develop but considering the good points and remarks posted...I'll ride with it. And I do love it when other people start writing about what my and/or DiSCA's intentions may or may not be
But have to finish some work first...can't wait to respond...and will do so...before leaving for Le Mans tomorrow morning.

To be continued

Tamar

 

[zero5]

Greg,
Irrespective of which motor is used at an event the track power available should be the same for everyone!

Tamar,
Looking forward to your comments later