[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[MrFlippant]

Same point, different words. You have two different motors and one is clearly superior to the other. I cannot imagine that many people would knowingly choose a slower motor for any serious competition. Tweaking the controller to manage a faster motor, yes, but I'd rather be the one pulling feet on a car down the straight than the one lagging behind. There would be no point to allowing motors that have such a significant difference, more so than the expected variance of motors of the same make and brand and specs, to compete in the same class at the same event. Everyone (yeah, there are exceptions to everything, but MOST everyone) would choose the faster motor, and you end up back where you started, limiting the class to a single make/model/spec of motor.

But hey, I'm the guy, apparently in a minority, that would rather as much be equalized as possible. I bring my H&B Test Bench to every EMSA meeting, and lots of the guys love checking the top speed of various cars. Some of them used it to help them pick which car they'll race for the series, myself included. I'd love it if we were able to get the group to agree on a top speed limit as part of our rules/specs, but I really don't see that happening.

I look forward to Tamar's future findings and information. It seems some of us have been misunderstanding the point of this thread... possibly me.

 

[MrFlippant]

That is not to take away from the usefulness of the H&B. It's very good at back to back comparison, the effects of lubrication of the bushes or change of spur gear manufacturer (not tooth count) and similar. (With a variable voltage knob and volts readout I think it could be a useful run in tool tool too. One for Henri and Brian to pursue to further improve a future variant I hope.)

I don't know which model you had access to, but the one I got came with a variable voltage power supply that functions down to 3v. The computer/display comes to life at 5v, so you can still use it as a run in tool if those minimums are OK with you. If you needed something that goes lower, you'd need a more expensive power supply, but it can still be used with the HBTB (hehe) because the power input goes straight to the rails through the switch. If you want to see the voltage and speeds at less than 5v, then a modification would need to be made to split the power that goes to the computer versus the rails while still allowing the computer to measure the voltage at the rails. I'm sure if this option were deemed important enough, it would not take much to implement, though it might increase the cost of the device a little bit, if only to add a second power input.

 

[MrFlippant]

Tamar, I understand the initial thought and idea, but I think the thread shows it is not the best option to be accepted widely.

Based on the, what? Five whole people in this conversation, one of whom (me) will probably never participate? I wouldn't call that widely.

This is exactly what I was thinking. Like, do the analogue races run less voltage on their lanes for the Raptor? I’m guessing that’s a big fat NO!

Maybe? I know a lot of clubs with uneven lanes will adjust their lane voltage to try to even out the times. I would expect those clubs to also have regulated classes with only one allowable motor. But, if they do that for lane parity, it wouldn't be a stretch to do that for motor parity.
Then there are clubs that have racing rules that allow literally ANY car to be raced, and they are handicapped in some other way, such as being required to have longer fuel stops, or having to wait for their start for the slower cars to go ahead so that they all finish at the same time based on qualifying laps and a breakout (to prevent people from sandbagging during qually and then racing faster during the race).

I see this as a convenient option for clubs using oXigen, to achieve parity with a variety of cars. It's clear, however, that this will not likely ever enter DiSCA specs, and that there are a lot of people/groups/clubs that would never consider such a handicapping method (nor handicapping of ANY kind EVER). No big surprise there. ;-)