Using Oxigen RMS to create a (motor) B.o.P

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.

Context;

The Belgian series has chosen to simultaneously use the Baby Raptor and Baby King. Ok. When I learned of this, I assumed at the time it was because they were the same motor. Apparently this is not the case.. but from reading the thread it appears that the same group of racers already have an analogue series where both motors are allowed.

But, for some reason, without ever holding a race with these specs, some suggestion has made to use Chrono to balance these motors.

Objection;

Why? If you have already proven that the motors themselves are different, why are they both allowed?
If any discrepancy is insignificant to your analogue rule set, why must it be balanced for a digital rule set?

Where's your analogue BOP eh?

Request for common sense;

Rather than re-invent the dyno-wheel, why don't you just have a bloody race. From what I know of the Belgian series plans, I understand there was to be "test" race before the series proper, began. So test. Run a race, both motors, and see if there's an advantage. If there is, the question becomes what to do about it.

Well, Idk, you could always just use the original spec. Wow!

Alternatively;
Think about it. Let's just say that the Raptor gets a software BOP nerf. Tamar can smile and be smug about his experiment and gives every Raptor a 15% reduction because "the proof is in the pudding!". What do you think happens next?

Everyone goes out and buys a King.

And now, by this single action, you have categorically subverted the intention of selecting these alternative motors in the first place, which was to save costs and prevent people from having to buy extra motors.

In conclusion;

Please use you brains.

Henri, getting in a bonus plug there. Mate, you made me laugh 😂

Gary, good point well put.

Greg, you are correct, I had forgotten about the ability to turn down the voltage. It may have been the effects of paracetamol, beer and Russian vodka! (an inside joke for those in the know.)
I keep seeing the H&B switch being thrown at the full 12v in videos etc quite honestly it makes me wince when I see it as the resulting sparks will have an adverse effect on the condition of the commutator.

Finally on a technical note and just to clarify. The effect of pwm on the DC motor is that if the applied voltage is 10v and the full voltage pulse is absent for 20% of the time then what the motor effectively sees is 8v. It is widely accepted as the most efficient way to achieve DC motor speed control despite setting up a frequency in the armature windings. What does make a performance difference is the frequency of the applied pulses. In simplistic terms higher frequencies result in smoother motor operation but are also associated with higher operating temperatures while lower frequency can illicit higher torque output from the same motor. Being able to adjust this has been one of the speed controller mapping capabilities in high end RC car racing for decades. There's more to it that's above my pay grade but what is fun is listening to the motors whistling and humming before they start moving and at low throttle inputs.

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

GRUNZ said:

What was not correct on what I wrote?

Click to expand...

"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

LMP said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 said:

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)

Click to expand...

Sorry, Tamar but adjusting the RMS isn't what I'd call as being a fair racing format as you'll be reducing the amount of available power (11-12v) to individual cars.
Is a bit like saying to Max and Charles, Sorry but because Lulu's car isn't as quick as there's. The Stewards are going to reduce the power to the RedBull and Ferrari powertrains by ?% to even it up. Never gonna happen. Same in any other racing format either 1-1 or scale!
There isn't that much difference between the 3 17-18k motors. Cost to change one to the other £13 for motor and pinion plus some time and effort to swop them over?
They could either reduce the track power or set all the RMS at a slightly lower value but all at the same setting?

Harsh but fair comment coming up IMHO, sorry if it offends anyone in advance but "man up and learn to drive the cars"

The GT3 Euro spec cars aren't exactly what I'd call super quick cars compared with what most clubs would be using on a weekly basis?.

With respect
John
PS, Have a wonderful weekend enjoying the Le Mans

Minardi said:

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

Click to expand...

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

LMP said:

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!

Click to expand...

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. ;-)

GRUNZ said:

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

Click to expand...

This was:

reflexuk said:

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

Click to expand...

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

I’m a bit unsure of what the real goal really is, but I guess it’s to have an entry-level club class where you can bring whatever-you’ve-got, keep the costs down, and try to level the field so that everyone has fun.

Having a static speed limiter per motor type may not achieve that, as there will be differences among cars and drivers anyway. At the next club event, some will have bought another motor that they thought was more competitive, and that will be seen as unfair by those who didn’t change anything.

If the goal is to level cars and drives in order to have simple fun racing, another approach could be to have dynamic speed limiting. 20-25 years ago, PC racing games (e.g. TOCA by Codemasters) had a feature called “catch-up” where drivers in the front were slowed down and/or drivers at the back got a boost when the gap got too big. OK, it becomes a bit more arcade-style than some hard-core club racers might accept, but most of us don’t start on that level.

A “catch-up” feature can be implemented by any RMS for any digital system, and is something I intend to do some distant day with my own stuff.