[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

 

[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.

 

[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

 

[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

 

[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

 

[tamar.nelwan]

Ok job done, now its time to play.
First of all, it might be interesting for those contributing to this discussion to refresh their memory, or get (re) informed on the goal(s) Gary and I set, when we started the DiSCA GT3 formula back in 2016. See this post and read about the first tests we did to achieve them. I might get hung up on a idea in the creative spur of the moment, but when it comes down to rules and specs I won't go over one night's ice. Testing and Data is what I try to base my decisions on.

Secondly, a lot has changed in the six years that have past since its conception. The rather unique "mixed brands, based on of the shelf parts" formula has expanded in range and variety and has to some extend been used as a template by other race organizers for their "own" GT(3) races, in both digital and analoge form.
Current version 8.3 of the DiSCA GT3 Tech Rules reflects and incorporates some of those changes and the expanded range & variety now available to the digital slotracing community.

Third: Please do not mix or discus rules for DiSCA GT3 and DiSCA WEC in one go, they are 2 completely different formula with a different target competitor/community and the competition events follow a totally different time frame and schedule. This is also reflected in the way the Tech & Sporting rules are constructed for both formula's.

Fourth and final: Although there has been a lot of reference posted to DiSCA GT3 and DiSCA rules...this research into the possible use of Oxigen RMS as a B.o.P. tool...is not a DiSCA initiative.
Should my finding's come to a comprehensive conclusion and should they be accepted for implementation by the clubs that plan to run their GT3 interseries...
...than maybe at some point in time, using RMS as a B.o.P tool could be considered by DiSCA should te need arise for such a thing.
But going by Gary's post..I don't expect to see that happening soon
Which is perfectly ok, cause if it ain't broke...no need to fix it.

That said....I will now try to reply to some of the comments posted

To be continued

With kind regards
Tamar

 

[tamar.nelwan]

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

John I could not agree more, and on top of that, it should be transparant and verifiable for the competitor what that power setting is. Even more important in Digital racing where the RMS has capabilities to adjust power settings for individual car ID#'s.
But...even when the RMS would be used as a B.o.P tool.....the track power would still be the same for all competitors. Advised to be set between 11-12v with plenty of Amps to ensure stable current and voltage for the length of track and number of cars competing.

In simplified form all that the RMS would limit is the amount of 100% PWM available to the restricted car(s). But it will still have the same max voltage and amps for each PWM cycle as the unrestricted car(s).
Should a B.o.P via the max power setting be applied, the setting should be equally transparant and verifiable for the competitor(s)

What would help is for one of the more tech savvy SF members with a good scope to show what happens to a motor when a RMS limits its full PWM percentage.


With kind regards
Tamar

 

[tamar.nelwan]

I think we are saying the same thing here. I like to equalize as much as possible.
The DiSCA Euro spec was designed to be based on a single motor (the baby sprinter).
But it turned out that not all the baby sprinters are made equal: there is a huge variance in RPMs.
Plus they are sensitive to rotation direction: NSR AW pods are mirrored compared to other AW pods allowed in the series which means if you are using one of these pods your baby sprinter will not pull the same RPMs as one installed in a slot.it AW pod.

I think some of the people that are running this inter club series, believe that:
a) the baby sprinter is an extra motor one has to buy to participate in this series (while Sideways already provides in their cars the baby raptor)
b) many have the baby king and baby raptor motors already available
c) both the baby king and baby raptor are the same motor

Not all of the above points are completely true...Hence Tamar's approach to try to introduce a Software BoP.

Almost correct, and yes we are all saying more or less the same thing...but lets keep the facts and data clear.
DiSCA GT3 first spec motor was and still is the Scaleauto Junior Sprinter. Over the years we discovered by trail and error that the advertised 18k spec was not totally correct (often measured well above 18k) and that it was a timed motor (running faster in one direction) We solved that problem by developing and allowing aftermarket 3DP chassis which allowed the motor to be mounted in its most performant rotation direction. As the time frame for DiSCA GT3 races is shorter (and installing handout motors would consume to much of that time) we dropped the use of Hand out motors for DiSCA GT3 and left it up to the competitor to sort out a good one. As in most things in Slotracing and organizing slotrace events...a compromise.

And yes amongst the clubs that will run their Interseries there was the assumption/believe that as both the NSR Baby King and the Sideways Baby Raptor were advertised as 17k. they were equal. And as such could be used equally. So with previous experience in mind my first step was to initiate a proper test program to verify if this was indeed the case.
So far testing indicates that they are not equal...which initiated my research in finding ways to restore equality.

The most simple solution would be to allow only one of the motors for their series, since they deemed the Scaleauto to be too aggressive the NSR (being the most consistent of the other two options) would have been the most likely candidate.
But the goals the clubs have set for their GT3 interseries were not to cater for the high end, experienced competitor alone. Quite the contrary. They hope to use the series to provide an easier transition for their local analoge members to enter the realm of digital racing. Hence the request to allow and adapt the rules for both motors (NSR and Sideways) currently used in their analoge club races. An initiative that I and DiSCA can only applaud .....even though it brings some challenges to do so.

With kind regards
Tamar

 

[tamar.nelwan]

Hello Wayne, wondered when you would chip in. Have selected a few lines from your post as others have been addressed in my previous replies.
"In my experience the use of a device to measure no load maximum wheel rpm will not provide the definitive way to balance the performance of different motor types...."

"...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.)..."

"...A more useful tool in the attempt to truly come up with a bop would be a Fantom Facts DC motor Dyno which (for anyone not familiar) is a flywheel based device capable of outputting graphs displaying torque and power curves over the time taken to spin up the heavy disc which functions as the load. Even in possession of those graphs it would still not be obvious what % to hobble the higher performing motor with."
Again could not agree more and I've already mentioned to Henri and Bart that a version with a balanced set of rollers with a total mass of ≠ 85 gr would improve the representativeness of the H&B test results. Cost of production would however boost the price beyond the desired range.
And I would certainly welcome the use of such a fine device such as a Fantom Facts DC dyne...if I had one available. but for the initial tests the H&B Bench is all that I have available.
The motor tests collecting data from a representative number of Sideways and NSR motor will be done with a more sophisticated device. This not only tests rpm at a given voltage but also shows amp use and watts produced.

"...However, if you take away the voltage to reduce it's top speed the motor will still have it's current draw and magnetic advantage which can be utilized by a gearing change to regain most of the lost speed."
Ah yes also correct, but as I explained earlier, that's not what a max (PWM) power setting does. It doesn't take down the voltage and/or the amps. It "just" limits the use of the full 100% bandwidth of PWM cycles to a set percentage.

So I'm not a tech guy, I'm more into developing concepts, and the proof of concept test I did with my Scaleauto motored Scalex AMR GT3 last Wednesday did nothing more than proof the concept works. In as that with means of the power and brake settings you can influence the motor characteristics and have a nice drivable car.
Further testing will show whether or not this could be turned into a reliable, transparent and within limits an accurate B.o.p tool.

With kind regards
Tamar

 

[tamar.nelwan]

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.

Hello Marcel, I fully agree and have mentioned above that if such a B.o.P were to be used...its settings would have to be transparent, public and equal for all.
As for your remark of introducing a variable that brings down performance in an unexpected way...I would have to disagree. As if such a B.o.P were to be used...for the series...
...it would make sense for the clubs to use it in their local digital clubraces as well...and in all practice sessions preceding club and interclub events.
Heck with the settings for a motor published anyone running Oxigen at home with Chrono would be able to replicate those exact conditions.

Which brings me to an other item you posted, That such a B.o.P would work better on smaller home tracks other than bigger club tracks. I would tend to disagree with your conclusion, actually even without much home track experience my interpretation would be the opposite.
As i.m.o its on home tracks with more and tighter corners with shorter straights between them, that most of the trigger use will be in the lower region. Its my experience that on the club tracks with longer straights and more open corners that the trigger will be more at the top 100% range than on home tracks.

With kind regards
Tamar

 

[tamar.nelwan]

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.

As its way past midnight and with my preparations for the Le Mans trip starting early tomorrow...even though its not totally on topic.... a last reply.
Test I did at Mechelen was with both PT1323 and PT1171 G25 rubber tires as that was one of the other request from the clubs.
Very similar motivation as why Rockingham chose G25 rubber as their control tire over the Procomp sponge for the upcoming 6 hrs GT3 endurance. Costs
So for me an opportunity to kill two flies in one go 😇 Test for both Interseries and R'ham.

And yes the tendency for Sponge tires to generate grip under load can lead to the car dig in and tip the car out of the slot.
When we started GT3 6 years ago..most of the chassis were pretty stiff so not such a big problem.
As mentioned in the first DiSCA "Open" GT3 test post the choice for Sponge was to give the cars more grip in the corners, specifically on the lane changers.
But over the years through a competition driven search for more grip (even on sponge) chassis have become more and more flexible and the cars with better set-up become more performant.
Which is exactly why we asked Scaleauto to produce their harder Procomp4 compound also for 1/32nd wheels...and to do separate donuts for them.

The first and so far only DiSCA GT3 race that ran them was last May at Suzuka. Guess what some racers complained about...lack of grip
Cars sliding when too much power was applied. (but offering the racer the possibility to correct /catch the slide.
It now took some racers/teams 90min of racing (and a bit of practice and Qualy) to wear down the 20,7mm wheels below GC required forth start of the next race (as prior to the 60min raced before)
Funny enough it were the same racers that previously burned through a set of Procomp3 in one hour that now wore down a set of Procomp4 in 90 minutes.
Nothing to do with level of competition as some of the top finishers managed to do both 90 minute races on one set.

Ok that's it for now.. more posts have been made while I was writing my last reply.... but signing off now. See you guys again...after Le Mans. I do wish everybody a very good weekend.

With kind regards
Tamar

 

[tamar.nelwan]

oh no...I mean I really really should go

 

[tamar.nelwan]

What was not correct on what I wrote?

"The DiSCA Euro spec was designed to be based on a single motor (the baby sprinter)."
The Scaleauto SC 027B isn't a Baby...its a Junior As in Scaleauto SC 027B Sprinter Junior.

But while we're on the subject of calling names... I would prefer to see DiSCA rules develop into a direction where we no longer use brand names and list parts...but only use Specs. Allowed brands and parts to be listed in a homologation sheet.

As in ISRA racing every body knows what specs a GR 20 motor should have, an so do the manufacturers.

So for example for DISCA GT3 we would specify any 17k motor (with a certain tolerance ) and G25 tires (with dimensions)
Any manufacturer that produces parts that comply with such specs could offer them for homologation. And if said parts were found to be within tolerance be automatically accepted. By intermittent and ad random sampling of said parts we would keep check of them staying within tolerance...and if found to be outside...so would said manufacturer be 😇

Again...a lot of water may pass under the bridge before we've reached that stage.
But independent testing in representative numbers of parts and their tolerances and documenting them....is a start.

New its time to head of to Le Mans

With kind regards
Tamar

 

[tamar.nelwan]

I'm trying to keep out of this thread but I feel I must offer some clarifications, and objections, at this point. Not only has the HB Test Bench been mentioned numerous times, but so has DiSCA and it's rulesets and several of the comments are erroneous.

Clarification;
The Baby King and Baby Raptor, along with the 1325 G25 tyre and the NSR 5214/5 have been added as options for independent race organisers who prefer so. Any DiSCA competitions will use either the ProComp3 or 4 tyre, and ONE of the motor options.

Yes Gary your respons is...just as I expected. Which is why I specifically wrote:

Fourth and final: Although there has been a lot of reference posted to DiSCA GT3 and DiSCA rules...this research into the possible use of Oxigen RMS as a B.o.P. tool...is not a DiSCA initiative.
Should my finding's come to a comprehensive conclusion and should they be accepted for implementation by the clubs that plan to run their GT3 interseries...
...than maybe at some point in time, using RMS as a B.o.P tool could be considered by DiSCA should the need arise for such a thing.
But going by Gary's post..I don't expect to see that happening soon
Which is perfectly ok, cause if it ain't broke...no need to fix it.

But should I manage to get a good B.o.P. working for the Interseries slotracers it would actually mean that they won't have to buy a replacement motor to remain competitive.

😇 Ok so now I'll be 15 minutes late for Le Mans...what else is new. I'll see if I can still do "the Wave"

With kind regards
Tamar

 

[tamar.nelwan]

PS: what is the "wave"? - Edit, I should have read all the posts before Tamar's

This was:

Tamar, you have 48hrs to get on the telly and give us a wave 👋 I swear I'll get there one of these days.

Ok so Friday night some 60 clicks from Paris, 140 clicks from Le Mans. It's been less then 48hrs since I started this post, and we're on page 3 already...so apparently I've stirred up something...and a lot more than was the intended purpose of this topic. Some of the replies posted do seem to me like the B.o.P option I'm starting to investigate...is already a done deal.

All I did was post my intentions, shared the idea and gave you guys an indication on how I would set about verifying the data and test the feasibility of this possible option.

@ Marcel: Why would a set, fixed and public power setting confuse and or distract people from entering digital...when the same technology is used for all the simulations that are used in RCS64 digital ?

@ John: what would be more unfair: Using a power restriction equalize the max rpm of a set of motors, or letting a motor advertised as 17k but in reality running 18k compete against motors that do really 17k?
And enforcing rule specs is day to day business for FIA and other race organizers. Be it a B.o.P for GT3 or any other class. This is not a case of handicapping good cars, drivers or motors, this is about pegging back an 18k motor running in a 17k class.

@ Gary, Sorry dude, but your remark is a clear case of all motors are equal, but some are more equal than others.
And unfair as I've clearly indicated that more testing of both motors is required until a representative number of data has been collected.

@ Gio, thx mate, you do seem to get the picture. The main problem in most 1/32nd slot racing rules is that they are not based on (test) data. They are often based on assumptions...like taking for granted what a manufacturer advertises is correct.

@All, this was the intent of my post, report a possible disparity, investigate and test to see if this was true, and investigate to see what could be done to resolve set disparity if proven to be true via the Oxigen RMS.

So I will not post anymore until I have done more testing.

With kind regards
Tamar

 

[tamar.nelwan]

Tamar
do not be put off by our comments. I think we are all trying to help here.
My main concern (as I told you in person on our chat) is that Chrono max power setting might be too crude as a BoP solution.
To me it feels like implementing BoP in 1:1 scale by putting a brick behind the throttle pedal so that the driver cannot press it fully and the car will not get full power.
In RCS64, I can build profiles to limit the full power but in RCS64 I can use all the 64 positions/values of throttle information to achieve this not just the first X%.

Hello Gio
In 25 years of slotracing and race organization...I've developed a thick skin....so don't worry. a few posts won't put me off my track.
But I must admit I'm a bit put off by comments on how people feel, think, imagine... how bad such an idea would be...
...while at least some of them could have started up their Chrono, do a run with car at max speed 100%, do a second run at 80% and post their findings. At least then their opinions would be backed up by first hand experience.

Now that would help not only me...but also this discussion.

Ok time to check out (the Hotel) and head for Le Mans.

With kind regards
Tamar

 

[tamar.nelwan]

Dear Slotfriends
Just returned from my 14th? visit to the Le Mans 24hrs race, one by the way in which the performance of every car in every class (with a total of 62 cars) was governed by some sort of B.o.P. Some of which worked....some producing more equal cars than others

As I mentioned earlier, won't post here until I've collected sufficient data on the motors under investigation and with a list of tools and testing procedures to substantiate the presented data and my conclusions.

So in the mean while I have a question for you all. How would "sufficient" data translate for you guys ..in numbers?
Test 10 motors each, 20?,30? 50?...100?

with kind regards
Tamar