Some of us can't make the AGM. we do have other commitments. What riles me is that well before the AGM I spoke to Paul Worsley (via e-mail) about the Rule 25.1 proposal.

This was before I started to run LiPo so I think we can rule out the 'Biased Forum' nonsense which Terry seems to be hanging on to.

I pointed out that the Trakpower case is on the large side and that the rule proposal could be amended to allow current 'in circulation Lipo's to be 'legal'.

Here's Paul's reply: (I have deleted some banter between Paul and I)

HI Adam,

I have had samples of all TrackPower cells ad already have the dimensions recorded.
TrackPower can easily solve the width issue by not using the 0.2 mm thick clear shrink and bonding the case halves together.
It is likely that the EB will require this when we finalise rules (as they do in ROAR rules).

All the best,

Paul.

As far as I know TrakPower cells already confirm to ROAR rules, they have the sticker on the case. So it seems the EFRA and ROAR federations will have different rules for batteries. It makes it nice and easy for us chassis designers to have inconsistent rules to work with.

So before the AGM there was knowledge that a simple alteration to the rules would cover the simplicity of allowing existing packs.

To quote Jim Spencer:

'Because not enough of you put proposals in (which in all likelyhood would have got things kicked into line at our end) we end up waiting to see what the Europeans do to determine the dimensions we're going to run to over here '

Obviously it didn't kick you into line.

Oh, and could you please point us in the direction of dimensionally correct hard cased LiPo saddle packs?

I thought when you added protective heat shrink to a NiMh cell it was irrelevant in measurements, yet for Lipo it counts. I thought the EB/EFRA wanted equality in cell sizes? :confused:

The additional layer of clear heatshrink on a NiMh cell does nothing other than cosmetically protect the cell, where as the heatshrink on a TP LiPo actually holds the case together. So as Adam has quoted from PW, the case could be bonded together.

Personally speaking, I think this should happen on the TP LiPo's to satisfy the part of the EFRA rule that states

"1. Lithium Polymer (Li-Poly/LiPo) battery packs must have a hard, protective case that completely envelopes the cell(s). The case should be made from ABS or a similar material. The two halves of the case must be factory sealed in a way that any attempt to open the case will destroy the case. The only opening in the case that is allowed, is for the exit of wires."

Unfortunately Jim, it's the 'Animal Farm syndrome' and's not always the case.
As Mark previously stated, the BRCA members were not allowed to discuss the dimensions.
Why? Because some myopic megalomaniac took it upon himself to propose the dimensions to EFRA before the BRCA AGM!
His reasons for doing this one can only speculate, but it wasn't for the best interests of our sport/hobby!

come on please, i did ask in my original post to not bash the BRCA/EB. these guys do what they can, sometimes it may not suit our opinions.
jim may not have realised dimension discussions where prevent from happening

please no bashing of brca/eb guys

you can beat the crap out of each other:p

Hi All.
As Jim Spencer has said the time for debate really was at the AGM. Accordingly, this "one off" post is simply to clear up a misunderstanding concerning the issue of "not being allowed to discuss dimensions" at the AGM.

This is not correct.

When the draft lipo specification (available to all at the start of the meeting) was debated it was pointed out that this form of words had received Electric Board (EB) support at their meeting the previous day and was proposed to go forward for acceptance by EFRA at their AGM the following week.

Any member present who was unhappy with this way forward had the opportunity at this point to proposed a change to this specification.

An amendment proposal would have triggered a vote and a positive result would have constituted an AGM section supported change to the EB. This change would then go forward to the EB for adoption or otherwise by the other electric sections.

No amendment proposal was made, so no vote was taken, so the draft specification stood as written.

I now appreciate that this "process of making change" is not well understood, however, it can not be said that the opportunity to make change was unavailable to the membership at the AGM.

I hope this aids understanding.
Regards.

Glad you wrote that :thumbsup: I started to word a reply earlier but could make my post clear to read. :blush:

I am not sure how you can amended a EFRA proposal that had already been submitted to EFRA ?. I guess this could be done at the EFRA agm.

Also it was made clear at the start of the discussion about lipos, that the EB decide on the dimensions not the 1/10th section, and the only way around this was to not use a EB list, but come up with a 1/10th spec, like the touring car guys have done. But as no proposal had been submitted not to use the EB for lipos.

I think if people understood how the system worked then things may of been a little different at the agm.

so who in the EB or how does the eb decide on the specifications?

this was bought up after the brca agm but before the efra, could the eb have realized there was an issue and changed it at the efra agm.............................please dont say no as the eb's list was amended from 5000mah to 5500mah.

can any one say why that was done and who amended it?


was a representative of the EB in each of the electric sectional meetings (that use the eb list) to answer questions? i only know of two names who are in the eb, is there a full list off eb officers?

charlie

first thanks for comin on here and expalining what could have been done.

did anyone explain this to the floor before the "no amendment proposal" was moved on from. ?

from who i have spoke to they seem to feel they were told dimensions could not be discussed, if they were discussed then maybe and amendment would have been made.
like wise a comment could have been made this is what the eb are putting to efra, and without knowing it it goes through with no amendment which seems the unfortunate case

i have been to many agms and i would not have known i could have amended a EB proposal that was going to be put to effra.

Belgium

(Height was also amended from 23,5 to 25,0 mm, and chassis protrutions were allowed)

those two statements do not match:confused:

For BRCA just like EFRA the "problem" is that the EB list "overrides" any specifications as to rules in different classes. Hence you've got to skip the EB list if you want to decide on something else for a given class.

And if you think about it the difficult thing about the EB or EFRA (same) battery list is that it will also be used for touring cars. Which can exploit the extra amps by putting in an even faster motor... So for touring it might be a good idea to restrict sizes and amps to allow for level competition.

For buggy things are very different...

I have since been told the height ammendment mentioned in the minutes is a typo and the height still remains at 23.5mm (chassis protrusions are allowed)

I wasn't there, so that might very well be the case! :D Those minutes are often rewritten...

Hi Adam

I Race 1/12 circuit - those small things that race indoors..
Never even handled a LiPo pack up until the EFRA meeting, why would I have done? My class doesn't race them.

What i'm getting at is that there must be the knowledge base amongst the users of these products to get the right proposal into the meetings - up front (Though as Charlie says above it could have been amended on the day and wasn't..)

What's happened here is the classic where most folk appear to have sat back expecting somebody else to do things for them and it just doesn't work like that i'm afraid.
As your point above perfectly illustrates.

I can put a proposal into any section (as can any other member) but I would only be confident doing it in 1/12 as I understand the knock on implications of what i'm suggesting - Here we have the opposite the people who understood the implications of what was going on don't appear to have got involved in the process?

hi jim
can i ask jim,who proposed the sizes that we have now, and where did that information come from to arrive at the nominated sizing for the lipos.

cheers
dave

i was there jim and thats not how it went, Chris long and Craig Harris put forward a proposal for lipo with measurements included, it was PW that said lets put it through saying instead just 7.4volt nominal voltage,and leave it open to any cell type,the measurements must have been added buy the eb board,imho

As to EFRA let me also point out that my/our proposal was written ONLY for 1:10 OR. But the EFRA committe choose to divide it and change the paragraphs so that they could use it for all electric classes. This was done before the AGM itself.

I didn't like this very much as I knew that could compromise the 1:10 OR class due to matters for onroad. When I asked PW who did this and why this was done I did not get a clear answer.

To be honest I don't like these "behind the curtains" decisions. An open discussion, thorough proposals, and democratic votings are the right way to go!

Must admit I also find it a bit curious that two different proposals were merged. They took our "homologation bit" and merged it with BRCAs size specs etc. In my book if there's two "equal" proposals you choose one of them. (The splitting of our proposal in a way made this plausible)

@Jim: Check this out!!! http://www.rctech.net/forum/electric...-12-scale.html
http://www.rctech.net/forum/attachme...e-100_0218.jpg
(I think I must try this shit...)

Hi Dave,
No idea I'm afraid - I don't attend the EB meetings, you'll need to check with the section EB Rep.
Though as per the other poster below the proposal at the EFRA meeting, were for all electric classes (As is the EB's here) - there was a long discussion on sizes with considerable input from the trade members present.