Has anybody brought up the 4.24V rule yet?

IMHO it needs to be changed to 4.22V

Who cares about what ROAR set it at!

If it stays to 4.24V, you'll see guys overcharging their 1s Lipo in NiMh mode so they ramp it up near 4.24V ... do we really want that?

Most software I know cuts off at 4.20 ... some others at 4.22 ... will we see charger of the month for that sweet software that charge up to 4.24V?

Just my 2 cents.

Steve.

Steve-

It has been talked about on one of the threads. It is there just like the 2C packs. It is there because different chargers peak at diff voltage. I know most will look at it like the norm instead of variance. I know with my pulsar 3 I can set it to "over charge" and get it to 4.24 on the dot every time. The built in variance is .04 for 2 cell, so I think it should be the same for 1 cell. I will get flamed for that because people will bring math and cell numbers in, but that is the simple reason.

Joel White

FYI...I am like everyone else though, if the limit is 4.24 that is where I am going to charge to. That may be a problem, but that is part of this hobby.

Steve-

It has been talked about on one of the threads. It is there just like the 2C packs. It is there because different chargers peak at diff voltage. I know most will look at it like the norm instead of variance. I know with my pulsar 3 I can set it to "over charge" and get it to 4.24 on the dot every time. The built in variance is .04 for 2 cell, so I think it should be the same for 1 cell. I will get flamed for that because people will bring math and cell numbers in, but that is the simple reason.

Joel White

FYI...I am like everyone else though, if the limit is 4.24 that is where I am going to charge to. That may be a problem, but that is part of this hobby.

8.40V + 0.04 tolerance (for 2 cells)
4.20V + 0.02 tolerance (for 1cell)

Will anybody stand up and correct this in the rule package??? IMHO 4.44V is a mistake (period). The way I understand it, we're lucky ROAR didn't set the voltage at 9.44V 'cause it'd be the TOUR rule.

Steve.

Steve, last year if I my charger is measuring Voltage and reading .04V lower than actual, it will peak my 2cell pack at 8.44V. That same charger will peak my 1cell pack this season at 4.24V.
I understand figuring the tolerance on a per cell basis, and sure it has merit, especially if you were balance charging all the time. But my GFX, Pulsar, and others are simply reading the Voltage out of the pack as a whole, so halving the tolerance only increases the risks of showing up at tech with a pack thats over the limit.

Both ways have merit, it just so happens that TOUR chose +.04. It also coincides with ROAR's rules, which isn't a naughty thing (despite your attitude).

I see your point Steve. I just think it is a number that still falls well within the "safe zone" for charging these packs, so I think it is really a non issue. Again this is just my opinion. If they change it to 4.22, then I will just set the pulsar 3 to that and be done with it. Not difference to me.

Better limit it for the TOUR, Moffre's probably got something in the works to charge em to 4.31817v, lol better yet, he's already got cycle graphs showing 4.36524 avg voltage.

It's just a number! as long as its the same for everyone it doesnt matter what it is! If this is all there is to discuss within the rule package TOUR is off to an awesome start!!! Cant wait for carpet season!! :thumbsup:

Who keeps bringing this little crap up!!! Frank is correct the tour is off to a great start. Leave it up the the boys from the mexico of Canada otherwise known as Quebec to keep stirring the stew. Lets let it simmer and see what happens. And yes the stew thing is a redneck thing.:thumbsup: Thats a joke Steve we love the Rock...............

...

whatever :-)

Steve.

Hi guys,

I figured it was time to jump in here again before we had an international incident. Steve your point is well taken, so I’ll do my best to answer your concerns, respectfully.

What is the right peak voltage for a lipo? Answer: None of the above!!

I’m an electrical engineer by trade and have dealt primarily with power circuits. Lithium Polymer is relatively new to us all, so I did some professional industry research. I, personally, did some work with Delphi Automotive Systems back in the early 1990’s and, though I don’t know these 2 gentlemen by name, I respect this group’s analysis on charging methodology. Here’s the link:

http://www.americansolarchallenge.org/tech/resources/SAE_2001-01-0959.pdf (http://www.americansolarchallenge.org/tech/resources/SAE_2001-01-0959.pdf)

For those of you who just want the bottom line, it is this…….these cells are 3.7V nominal resting voltage. They don’t “peak” (reverse delta V) like NIMH. Therefore all industry lipo chargers act first as a current source (constant current like our old NiMH) then switch to a voltage source (lock the voltage and wait till the current flow trickles to nothing). The LIPO INDUSTRY provides the range of acceptable end-of-charge voltage as 4.1V to 4.3V per cell. Notice………..it is a 20/100ths range………….not 2/100ths. Our industry picked 4.2V as a happy medium, knowing that they had PLENTY OF ROOM TO WORK WITH!! So, could we have 4.1V and 8.2V be the MAGIC numbers……sure!! As well as 4.3V and 8.6V………no problem, no safety issues, nothing!! (I’m sorry, let me be more clear……4.30000000000V and 8.6000000000V.) LOL

The only relevant decision here, is that there is a general consistency in OUR industry. Therefore, with ROAR being consistent with IFMAR, the whole R/C worlds has settled on these voltages and these tolerances: 8.44V and 4.24V. Right or wrong, even or odd numbers, its well within range and perfectly acceptable. Anything in the 2nd decimal position is virtually irrelevant to discuss.

So let’s have some fun. If we were the first to the dance, and everyone was to follow us, what should we pick? Steve, you recommend 8.40V with a .04V tolerance. That voltage is fine, but, Steve, I don’t understand the tolerance number. .04V represents .4762% of 8.4V. Why such a strange percentage? Where did you come up with that number? OH NO….you didn’t…………..you couldn’t……………did you?? Did you glance at the ROAR website and follow the current trend???? What a lack of vision and leadership!! I’m surprised at you. :):)

LOL All in fun pal…..right? Ya got let me have a little fun too after all of the jabs from you about “how little there is for leadership on the rug side of r/c racing” or “Will anybody stand up and correct this in the rule package???” or “we're lucky ROAR didn't set the voltage at 9.44V 'cause it'd be the TOUR rule.” I’m joking with you just like you were joking with me…..right? That is of course, unless you meant all of those things, in which case, I will take them all with the intent that they were meant and have a chat with you personally at your convenience, as I would not litter this fine forum by disrespecting your views the way you would have apparently disrespected my efforts to provide the leadership you say is so desperately needed in carpet oval racing. I know you far too well, so, I would never expect that from a respected veteran in the oval racing community as it would only serve to hurt the enthusiasm and momentum we have started to gain though hundreds of hours of cumulative efforts. You are better than that. So, unless otherwise notified, I will take this all in fun as I am sure it was intended.

Looking forward to your endorsement. Here’s the link:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=257678 (http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=257678)


Steve P.

STEVE (the godfather) of the tour. You the man......:thumbsup:

Hi guys,

I figured it was time to jump in here again before we had an international incident. Steve your point is well taken, so I’ll do my best to answer your concerns, respectfully.

What is the right peak voltage for a lipo? Answer: None of the above!!

I’m an electrical engineer by trade and have dealt primarily with power circuits. Lithium Polymer is relatively new to us all, so I did some professional industry research. I, personally, did some work with Delphi Automotive Systems back in the early 1990’s and, though I don’t know these 2 gentlemen by name, I respect this group’s analysis on charging methodology. Here’s the link:

http://www.americansolarchallenge.org/tech/resources/SAE_2001-01-0959.pdf (http://www.americansolarchallenge.org/tech/resources/SAE_2001-01-0959.pdf)

For those of you who just want the bottom line, it is this…….these cells are 3.7V nominal resting voltage. They don’t “peak” (reverse delta V) like NIMH. Therefore all industry lipo chargers act first as a current source (constant current like our old NiMH) then switch to a voltage source (lock the voltage and wait till the current flow trickles to nothing). The LIPO INDUSTRY provides the range of acceptable end-of-charge voltage as 4.1V to 4.3V per cell. Notice………..it is a 20/100ths range………….not 2/100ths. Our industry picked 4.2V as a happy medium, knowing that they had PLENTY OF ROOM TO WORK WITH!! So, could we have 4.1V and 8.2V be the MAGIC numbers……sure!! As well as 4.3V and 8.6V………no problem, no safety issues, nothing!! (I’m sorry, let me be more clear……4.30000000000V and 8.6000000000V.) LOL

The only relevant decision here, is that there is a general consistency in OUR industry. Therefore, with ROAR being consistent with IFMAR, the whole R/C worlds has settled on these voltages and these tolerances: 8.44V and 4.24V. Right or wrong, even or odd numbers, its well within range and perfectly acceptable. Anything in the 2nd decimal position is virtually irrelevant to discuss.

So let’s have some fun. If we were the first to the dance, and everyone was to follow us, what should we pick? Steve, you recommend 8.40V with a .04V tolerance. That voltage is fine, but, Steve, I don’t understand the tolerance number. .04V represents .4762% of 8.4V. Why such a strange percentage? Where did you come up with that number? OH NO….you didn’t…………..you couldn’t……………did you?? Did you glance at the ROAR website and follow the current trend???? What a lack of vision and leadership!! I’m surprised at you. :):)

LOL All in fun pal…..right? Ya got let me have a little fun too after all of the jabs from you about “how little there is for leadership on the rug side of r/c racing” or “Will anybody stand up and correct this in the rule package???” or “we're lucky ROAR didn't set the voltage at 9.44V 'cause it'd be the TOUR rule.” I’m joking with you just like you were joking with me…..right? That is of course, unless you meant all of those things, in which case, I will take them all with the intent that they were meant and have a chat with you personally at your convenience, as I would not litter this fine forum by disrespecting your views the way you would have apparently disrespected my efforts to provide the leadership you say is so desperately needed in carpet oval racing. I know you far too well, so, I would never expect that from a respected veteran in the oval racing community as it would only serve to hurt the enthusiasm and momentum we have started to gain though hundreds of hours of cumulative efforts. You are better than that. So, unless otherwise notified, I will take this all in fun as I am sure it was intended.

Looking forward to your endorsement. Here’s the link:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=257678 (http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=257678)


Steve P.

My point is this ...

I didn't pick 8.44V / 4.22V ...

MOST current chargers' built-in software is set to stop charging at 4.20V per cell.

If you know how the chargers' software work (I'm sure you do) An extra .02V per cell was established as a tolerance.

You'll see alot more average racers looking for new chargers with that 4.24V rule versus if it stays at 4.22V ...

Many racers have already complained about this to me privately, and tracks confirmed to me they would stick to 4.22V .. do we really need that?

I for one would start charging with no small clips on my CE GFX in order to get closer to 4.24V ... why would we need to start tricking chargers ... because of a rule that was set by ignoring most chargers out there currently???

Steve.

And your GFX cuts off at 8.40 for 2 cell. Do you not "over charge" to get to 8.44? I know I do.

If the rule is set to 4.22 we have to over charge to get there. I just dont understand how you can be ok with 8.44, and not ok with 4.24. It is a .04 variance either way you look at it. Again I understand that you are saying it is .02 per cell, but the chargers don't act that way. They charge 1C's to 4.2, and 2C's to 8.4. The variance is built in incase your charger charges a little over. It is there for the racers that don't understand all of the details. We are the people that screw it up by pushing the limit. I am not calling anyone out with that, as I am one of them. If my charger shuts off at the legal limit, I am over charging it to the variance limit.

Anyway......

Well, you can't please everybody

And your GFX cuts off at 8.40 for 2 cell. Do you not "over charge" to get to 8.44? I know I do.

If the rule is set to 4.22 we have to over charge to get there. I just dont understand how you can be ok with 8.44, and not ok with 4.24. It is a .04 variance either way you look at it. Again I understand that you are saying it is .02 per cell, but the chargers don't act that way. They charge 1C's to 4.2, and 2C's to 8.4. The variance is built in incase your charger charges a little over. It is there for the racers that don't understand all of the details. We are the people that screw it up by pushing the limit. I am not calling anyone out with that, as I am one of them. If my charger shuts off at the legal limit, I am over charging it to the variance limit.

Anyway......

Since most tracks had already set the voltage rule to 4.22 per cell, CE (GFX) have started offering the 4.22 per cell chip/software (1s 4.22 / 2s 8.44). So, no I'm not overcharging using my GFXs as they already have the 4.22 per cell software in it. Do I think it is ideal and preferable to have chargers out there with software calibrated to 4.20V and others at 4.22V per cell ... No!

I for one, would not be against going back to NO tolerance : 4.20V for 1cell and 8.40V for 2 cell for the sake of simplicity and equity to all the racers out there. If you show up in tech with a reasonable overcharged lipo, imho all the racers should be allowed to start the race as long as they have it down to 8.40V before the race starts (no delay in program).

Steve.

Steve P,

Do you have any updates on the 7.5 motors?

Manufacture?
Distributors?
Release Date?
Component Options?

Thanks,

Terry Zinser

Maybe ROAR set the the tolerance at .04 because the only group of racers stupid enough to think there is a quantifiable difference on the track between a pack charged to 4.22 and a pack charged to 4.24 are oval racers. So since the other 99.989856573873% of the RC world knows it doesn't matter it makes more sense to set the tolerance a little wider so that all racers can feel safe that they can just hit start on their chargers and make it through tech.

If unified rules are step 1 in getting oval attendance back up it only takes a quick skim through these threads to figure out what step 2 is........

That being said I too would rather see the voltage limit at or below where most simple chargers are calibrated i.e. 4.20, but I have totally different reasons and I don't think it's really worth arguing about since I know I won't set myself on fire by forgetting to take my GFX off NiMH mode. Every track I have ever raced at had at least one guy I'd have a whole lot less confidence in though.

Hi guys,

Happy 4th of July to everyone!! I wanted to provide an update to all that are interested in the LiPo “end-of-charge voltage” issue. I went back through my resources that were the basis for our decision, and found a few details that have changed and are changing. Let me take you through the process:

First of all, we all agree and realize that .02V or .04V is virtually a “rounding error” since it is such a small value. No one really cares what the number is, as long as it’s the same for everyone. We will all try to get as close to this value as possible.

Steve Salvas and I spoke yesterday and were on two totally opposite sides of the issue….or so it seemed. He wanted the voltage number to be set at the voltage that the largest majority of the chargers will shut off at automatically. Sounds reasonable. He went on to say that this way, people, who feel the need to push the limit, would not have to “trick” their chargers into slightly overcharging to reach the number that we set. Makes sense. So, what is that number that chargers are made to, or will be made to, shut off at?

This is where I came in. I know that the manufacturers in this hobby respond to the needs of the largest majority of racers, worldwide. If IFMAR, ROAR, BRCA, EFFRA, FAMAR, etc. have set a limit of 4.24/cell (for example)…….you can be sure that all of the chargers made in the future will be made to that spec. That is why I was so set in my position of staying in line with these major sanctioning bodies.

So, in the end, Steve and I were trying to reach the exact same conclusion. Steve was looking at the current chargers’ cutoff, and I was looking at the cutoff spec that chargers are, and would be built to. So, I went back to ROAR and asked them to confirm the numbers. Apparently, they are reviewing their numbers this fall and plan on changing them to industry standard cutoffs with no tolerances (8.400V for 2-cell and 4.200V for one cell). Needless to say, I was surprised to hear this, but it made sense when they informed me that BRCA and EFFRA are using the same cutoff numbers.

Therefore, it would only make sense that the TOUR be in line with, what we have now confirmed to be, the R/C industry standards for voltage cutoff of 8.400V for 2-cell and 4.200V for one cell. Once the advisory board has weighed in on this, to make sure I haven’t missed something, then I will amend the rules.

Now that I have better information to work with, and Steve is buying a copy of Rosetta Stone – English edition, we should have no problems going forward!! LOL


Steve P.

PS.

Allan, I was going to try to include you on this call, but 1 language barrier was enough!! It would have been like a meeting at the UN with everyone’s headsets turned off!! LOL

Paul Heitz is SMILEING HUGE. with all this. lmao
If you knew Paul you know what I'm talking about.
Remember his team "GFY racing" lol :-)
Steve P you know.
Great job with the tour rules.

Paul Heitz is SMILEING HUGE. with all this. lmao
If you knew Paul you know what I'm talking about.
Remember his team "GFY racing" lol :-)
Steve P you know.
Great job with the tour rules.

i would agree with that:hat:

7.5 motors have been sent to boylan for testing ..motors will be serial numbered and stamped by boylan and sent out from there...

it is one motor manufacturer for 7.5 and boylan wants to get it right...but no timeline yet for release or sale to the public...

Actually I will not be doing it all.. Allan is working on most of it. I am sure the details will be posted once they are final. We will be doing a good test at our Minnreg race in a couple weeks and hope to have a good report on the single cell 7.5 racing.

7.5 motors have been sent to boylan for testing ..motors will be serial numbered and stamped by boylan and sent out from there...

it is one motor manufacturer for 7.5 and boylan wants to get it right...but no timeline yet for release or sale to the public...

You right about a lot of this Kat, Some Test motors have been sent out to Mike B, They will be tested at up coming race at Minnreg. Since this is a step into new ground for oval, we do want to make sure it is right before anyone runs out and buys a motor that cannot be run.

Our formost goal is to make this hobby as racer friendly as possible. I appreciate your support.

Allan , Im missing Greenville already .... See you for the ovalmasters ...SRM

Hey guys,

I dug into this issue a little deeper and found out a few more things:

There is no consistency, industry wide, world wide, for lipo voltage
ROAR may not be changing their voltages
CE has just modified their software to 4.22 and 8.44
LRP has a "calibration" feature so they can virually tune to whatever we set
People have already made accomodations to handle the 8.44 number for 2-cellTherefore, the simplest, best way to accomodate all of the manufacturers in the market is to maintain 8.44 as the 2-cell voltage maximum and to make the 1-cell volatge maximum be 4.22.

That's about as much time as I can devote to this issue and it serves to be the best comprimise overall. The rules will be updated to reflect this. Thanks for everyone's input.

Steve

4.22 it is. As long as it is the same for everyone I dont care. Good work Steve and crew!!!

Joel White

i would not wanna be you guys LOL...

i wish the tour was around when i got into pan car racing... keep up the good work fellas.

Great decision Steve! :thumbsup:

Hey Steve, may have missed this... are there any thoughts to more specialized rules for the asphalt oval tracks? Would same rules apply? Are there any variances needed?

Reason I ask is because at the track I race at they're about to open an asphalt oval (300') run line and it would be great to set the classes up in detail for TOUR rules. This track (Rosewood) also runs an indoor carpet oval and we definitely are trying to get TOUR rules established to help with consistency throughout the year.

For me it seems that on large tracks 17.5 / single cell will be real slow, and maybe there should be some concessions for larger tracks?

I really appreciate the time and effort that you guys are taking on developing oval. :thumbsup:

Bill

Bill-

Incase Steve can't get back to you, I think it was said in another thread that they will work on outdoor stuff in the future, but for now it is just carpet. I think the 13.5 1C class will be pretty slow on the super speedway at Rosewood, but it could be good for the new guys? I think 10.5 1C, and 7.5 1C are going to be the big classes for outdoor oval. I think 10.5 will be the biggest class much like 21.5 was on carpet this past season. Hope you are doing well, and talk to you soon!!

Joel White

Hey Bill: I appreciate your Questions. We have mainly been working on a rule package for Carpet since Cap season was already in swing. We have had some feed back from from a couple of big paved tracks. Who want to run the TOUR rule package next year. It does look like the 13.5/1c would be the sportsman class for those type tracks and 10.5 maybe COT. Of course this is all speculation right now. I would like to see some more testing done. It looks like Glenn has built one heck of a track, should be nice.

Allan, you guys may have a big task trying to get a set of rules that will work for outside racing tracks. There is a lot more variables for outside. Carpet tracks are mostly 200' or less. Speedway tracks come in different lengths (200' to velodrome size), surface types (concrete, asphalt) and not all the tracks want to run cap tires.
The 13.5/1cell and the COT would be a great sportsman class, but could be slower than what the racers running that on carpet would like on caps or long outside tracks.
Just my two cents adjusted for inflation, I think there will still be a need for some two cell lipo classes. I have run the 21.5/2400 2-cell class at Easley and would not want to go slower. The 10.5/1cell could be to fast for the COT (speeds close to 21.5/3200 lipo) You guys have done well so far and I am sure you are working with the right people on this. There is plenty of time to get the classes worked out before next season.

I see what you are saying Larry with the above post. I dont really run caps, so this may be way off, but I think the reason for TOUR is to setup rules, not really dictate what classes the track chooses from that rule set. IMO, and you cap guys can correct me...

I think 13.5 COT would work on caps and for outside tracks that could be the novice/budget class (kinda like the 17.5 1C Truck class for carpet).

Then you could have the 10.5 1C open body class (wing rules would have to be setup, but I am sure they would go with a BRP bi-level). This would be like 21.5 2C speed.

Lastly you could have the 7.5 1C open body class (same wing rules apply) and this would take over the 17.5 2C class.

Of course you could have the 13.5 or 10.5 2C class for mod at big events and they could build a rules package around that.

This type of setup would probably take care of every track (with the exceptions of velo's maybe). It would be up to the tracks to choose what classes best work at their track, but TOUR would have rules setup for the above 4 classes.

This is just my take on it, and I am sure there are going to be great things to come for you cap tire guys.

I will talk to you soon Larry,

Joel White

World GT Spec Tires?

World GT Spec Tires?

For the Sportsman Class (Carpet) Our goal was to make this class as simple and racer friendly as possible. Not having 20 different tire setups.

Is there some specific brand they are going to be, or just using certain compounds?

Thats what I was asking, sorry.......

latemodel,

There are 2 (maybe 3) brands of 'Official' World GT tires

Jaco LILACs
BSR "Team Purples"

both have a color band, and both have great prices available.

I know CRC has some available too - and I have seen them listed as legal, but someone told me they are actually BSR's being sold by CRC (No verification to that)

EDITED to Add: And it appears T/M Tires will be added to this list!!

Ok Got it, I see what everyone is talking about now, had been away for a month or so and lost all kinds of knowledge, LOL

World GT Spec Tires - P/N according to Horizon.
CRC – 2300 and 2302
Jaco – 2100 and 2110
BSR – 1033GT and 1034GT

are you all working on the sk rules?

are you all working on the sk rules?

i think you need to check with darkside on that he was going to talk with all of the parties involved and then talk to the TOUR group

are you all working on the sk rules?
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=254123&page=2
Go from about post 26 or so,and read on.I believe there's something in the worx as we type.Hope to see something sooon myself.;)

Is there a schedule yet?

i think you need to check with darkside on that he was going to talk with all of the parties involved and then talk to the TOUR group

New SK rules are here:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?p=2931279#post2931279

Will the new McAllister COT be approved for competition this winter?

Is there a Mah limit on the 25c single cell packs?