You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, view attachments, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us. Forgotten your password? Click here!
NOTE: Once you register and are logged in this welcome section will no longer be visible.
Ok so I think this needs to be discussed... Yesterday at horsham PA we had our season opener event... As people know we run our tech tight, follow tour rules to a tee... so here is the problem, guys come up to tech all day and their battery temp was right on the limit, some over 1 - 3 degrees... they were asked to run another pack or Dq'd... I can tell you that some of these people were not heating their batts at all, no iron out or lights or even dischargers...
here is the kicker, mains come up and the guy that tq'd got nailed for batt being over by 1 degree or so... And I stand up and say this guy wasn't playing any games at all... He was asked to start at the tail end... I feel he got screwed.
So I think the 5 degree rule might be a little hard, maybe it needs to be 10?
I was doing tech at this race and all day the batteries were within 2-3 degrees of my control pack.It got warmer as the day went on and the building got hotter.By the time the mains started,the batteries were coming up 4.5-4.7 degrees over my control pack(the pack in question was 6* over).Where I was doing tech was next to the entrance to the track and had people coming by constantly so the air flow around me was a little better than the rest of the building.I think rule should be reviewed.On another note the battery in question had less voltage than any other car in the main(it fluctuated between 4.19 and 4.20).
I was doing tech at this race and all day the batteries were within 2-3 degrees of my control pack.It got warmer as the day went on and the building got hotter.By the time the mains started,the batteries were coming up 4.5-4.7 degrees over my control pack(the pack in question was 6* over).Where I was doing tech was next to the entrance to the track and had people coming by constantly so the air flow around me was a little better than the rest of the building.I think rule should be reviewed.On another note the battery in question had less voltage than any other car in the main(it fluctuated between 4.19 and 4.20).
I'm perplexed. The rule has existed for 2 years; this will be the third. Why is it a problem this year but not previously?
I will admit that some facilities might see more than a 5 degree variation across the room. For that reason in the BRL we don't rely on a control pack at a single location, we actually monitor temps around the room as the day goes on and adjust allowable temps as we go. We make periodic announcements as the day goes on. It's pretty easy to find the hot spot in the room and check it occasionally. Our feeling is that this is preferable to going to a wider tolerance (like plus or minus 10 degrees) which could encourage folks to experiment to see how close to the edge they can come.
I was doing tech at this race and all day the batteries were within 2-3 degrees of my control pack.It got warmer as the day went on and the building got hotter.By the time the mains started,the batteries were coming up 4.5-4.7 degrees over my control pack(the pack in question was 6* over).Where I was doing tech was next to the entrance to the track and had people coming by constantly so the air flow around me was a little better than the rest of the building.I think rule should be reviewed.On another note the battery in question had less voltage than any other car in the main(it fluctuated between 4.19 and 4.20).
Please, take this the right way ...
With all the details you've given here ... wasn't it possible to throw some judgement in the call??? 4.5-4.7 ... Am I really reading it fine here ... if it's really the case you guys are splitting hairs ... ... we don't enough racers at the racetracks to penalize a racer with 1F degree over the rule ... just hold the pack in your hands long enough and it'll be deemed illegal as per your saying ... the purpose of the rule is to prevent racers from "working" the temperature of the packs in order to increase its performance ... if the racer show up with a pack at 4.19-4.20 and 1F over the "tech" pack that is likely located in high flow area vs the pits ... seems like a no brainer that the racer isn't stretching the rule ... maybe tech is losing the focus here?
For what it's worth ... when your tech is run way tighter than the most important annual oval r/c race .. you might've to rethink your priorities ...
Sound to me the problem is the Interpretation of the rule ....The rule is 5 degrees of room temp , not a battery pack at the Tech table.
The pack sat on the tech table for 5 hrs,I think it was at room temp.
Steve-The problem is where do you draw the line,is 1* Ok and 2 not,what if 3* over is OK and the guy that is 4* gets DQ'd.If you are going to let temp slide why not battery voltage,roof height or chassis height.If the rule is not going to be enforced why have it.Most of the guys that race in our area go to the Birds,Oval Masters and TOUR Nats. and like the tech tight.
I think your efforts to run tech each and every week are great. First and foremost racers know when they race at this track its on a level playing field. Keep up the good work. No one said it would be easy or always appreciated.
no one is complaining about how tech was run.... most guys were appreciative and thankful.... I brought this up because we feel 5 degrees is to close to call when trying to make a cut and dry decision at tech... and yes judgement could be used, but i'm not going to make that call... just to hear that someone, or in this case the guy that could have won, got by with a warm pack... how is that fair?
the pack was the same temp as ambient room temperature.... was used it to check against....
First off, I think I'm taking this exactly the right way. Thanks for your constructive comments.
Quote:
With all the details you've given here ... wasn't it possible to throw some judgement in the call???
I made the ill-fated call on this one. The problem with judgment calls is that they are by definition outside of the defined rules. For past judgement calls, I was criticized heavily when I allowed a racer with battery voltage .005 over voltage to run a race, or another person's car was .001" short on body height at the end of the day because of tire wear, or allowed someone to run when their chassis was 4.5mm off the ground and their motor was 3.9mm from the ground (but in no danger of ripping the carpet). With these criticisms at hand, I had asked Jerry to conform strictly to the rules in hopes of avoiding these problems all together. Lol, guess that didn't work.
To Jerry's comment, where do you draw the line? I think the hard part once judgement calls are made is to ensure, to everyone's satisfaction, that all judgements were made fairly and consistently throughout the event. The risk of not applying judgements fairly is the disenfranchising of the racers we have left.
I am a fan of Chuck's method of taking temp's throughout the day at multiple locations in the building (our pits are a manageable size), and use that as the baseline. In that case, the judgement is in the choice of the baseline temperature and not in the interpretation of the rule on a racer by racer basis.
We don't typically run Tech this tight, but this was opening day, and we had some people driving from 6 hours away to race here. I wanted to be sure everyone felt they had a fair shot. At weekly shows we lighten up a bit, although my definition of lightening up may still put us as more strict than the 'birds. lol
Well, live and learn. I appreciate the comments, and I hope everyone had fun at the race.
The pack sat on the tech table for 5 hrs,I think it was at room temp.
Steve-The problem is where do you draw the line,is 1* Ok and 2 not,what if 3* over is OK and the guy that is 4* gets DQ'd.If you are going to let temp slide why not battery voltage,roof height or chassis height.If the rule is not going to be enforced why have it.Most of the guys that race in our area go to the Birds,Oval Masters and TOUR Nats. and like the tech tight.
The case is simple ... dq the racer if you think he violated the purpose of the rule ... which in this case is "no heating of the battery pack" ... if you think he did, go ahead ... if you think he might've not ... verify your own allegations (is it possible the tech pack is in an area where air flow might affect its temperature versus the pit ambient temp) ... of course if comes down that the racer is using a dozen high power allogen lights as pit lights lol kick him out the door, but if it all comes down as fair circumstances let it go ... we're not racing for a million dollars ... those racers that would get upset over such a call should be the ones getting dq'ed ...
Just a question for you ... if I intentionally and for everyone to see warm my pack during charge then prior to my race control the lipo pack case down to within 5F of the "tech" pack (with the aid of freezer or whatever) ... will I go through tech fine since it is between 0-5F of the "tech" pack??? The 5F shall be used as a tool to uncover cheaters not to penalize racers victim of circumstances ...
First off, I think I'm taking this exactly the right way. Thanks for your constructive comments.
I made the ill-fated call on this one. The problem with judgment calls is that they are by definition outside of the defined rules. For past judgement calls, I was criticized heavily when I allowed a racer with battery voltage .005 over voltage to run a race, or another person's car was .001" short on body height at the end of the day because of tire wear, or allowed someone to run when their chassis was 4.5mm off the ground and their motor was 3.9mm from the ground (but in no danger of ripping the carpet). With these criticisms at hand, I had asked Jerry to conform strictly to the rules in hopes of avoiding these problems all together. Lol, guess that didn't work.
To Jerry's comment, where do you draw the line? I think the hard part once judgement calls are made is to ensure, to everyone's satisfaction, that all judgements were made fairly and consistently throughout the event. The risk of not applying judgements fairly is the disenfranchising of the racers we have left.
I am a fan of Chuck's method of taking temp's throughout the day at multiple locations in the building (our pits are a manageable size), and use that as the baseline. In that case, the judgement is in the choice of the baseline temperature and not in the interpretation of the rule on a racer by racer basis.
We don't typically run Tech this tight, but this was opening day, and we had some people driving from 6 hours away to race here. I wanted to be sure everyone felt they had a fair shot. At weekly shows we lighten up a bit, although my definition of lightening up may still put us as more strict than the 'birds. lol
Well, live and learn. I appreciate the comments, and I hope everyone had fun at the race.
Chuck
So you know, in the summer I'm the race director of Autodrome Drummond (full scale DIRT track) ... in the long run racers appreciate judgement calls WAY OVER brainless monkey calls (no offense, just comparing 2 extremes) ... yeah racers are racers and they will be upset for every call you make ... you will not please all that's a fact. I always tell my tech guys (Autodrome Drummond) to advise me of any infractions occuring at tech ... then it's up to me to make the call as the judge. As an example ... you drive on ice storm condition and lose control of your car ... freak policeman that gets to help you issue you a ticket for crossing double lines ... you file in an unguilty plea ... 6 months later you go to court and easily win your case as the road conditions were hazardous and you showed no intent in crossing the double lines.
