lipo saddle packs, a poll to show feelings

[Fabs]

Are you suggesting that Core RC packs aren't safe

[mark christopher]

Originally Posted by Fabs

Are you suggesting that Core RC packs aren't safe

mate crossing the road aint safe.

[jim76]

i don;t think a seperate balancing wire is going to make a pack more unsafe than the trakpower solution.

And after speaking to Mac at the wycombe micro national it will make no difference to the saddle packs to have the wiring outside the pack. The length of the saddle is determined by the length of the actual cell plus the case. All wiring for the connectors is to the side of the pack, so moving it externally would reduce the width, not length.

[mark christopher]

Originally Posted by jim76

i don;t think a seperate balancing wire is going to make a pack more unsafe than the trakpower solution.

And after speaking to Mac at the wycombe micro national it will make no difference to the saddle packs to have the wiring outside the pack. The length of the saddle is determined by the length of the actual cell plus the case. All wiring for the connectors is to the side of the pack, so moving it externally would reduce the width, not length.

im talking main feed wires.
external wires wont shorten trakpowers pack no.

[Lee]

Just to make sure people know:

My G for chairman quote was a joke, i dont think people realise what PW (P Dub) does for the section, it is a thankless job, just like any of the roles in the brca, but its not just the job he does, he also has many connections within the industry and is a fountain of knowledge whether you agree with what is in the rule book or not.

[dave g]

on that we can all agree

[jim76]

don;t think people are disputing that Lee, we all know what a good job he does. I think people are just a little annoyed that a detailed proposal was put forward, amended by the EB, then the members weren't allowed to vote on this at the AGM, even though it is in the rules that they can.

As certain people keep ramming down our throats, it's up to us to make the rules?!?

[Ian Wall]

Having attended both the general AGM and the 1:10 Off Road Section, my understandings of the pertinent events leading to this LiPo Saddle Pack debacle are as follows.
The original proposal as submitted by Chris Long did provide specific dimensions. The original proposal is still on the BRCA website if anyone cares to check. For Saddle packs the original proposal stated - Length: 71mm, Width: 47mm and Height: 30mm.
However, at the meeting this was rapidly dismissed as not being acceptable. The many reasons provided for this included that according to 1:10 Off Road Section Rule 25, it clearly states that only Electric Board homologation batteries would be acceptable at any sanctioned event. Further comment was made that this rule could not at this stage be considered for changing. The reason provided was that for this rule to be changed it should have been within a formalised proposal and to count as such it would have had to have been submitted prior to the AGM within the designated timescale.
In my experiences in many other formal meetings of various other well run and well organised organisations and establishments, if anyone submits a formal proposal within the designated timescale that is not going to be acceptable, it is returned to the proposer before the meeting providing them with the reasons for it’s non-acceptance, thereby allowing them to make an alternative proposal. This would allow a re-draft of the proposal to a format or of a detail that would be acceptable for consideration at the AGM. I do not feel that it should be left to the actual AGM meeting itself to advise the proposer then at that late stage, that their proposal, as submitted, is not admissible, particularly on some technical ground. Is this not one of the reasons of having the prescribed lead time for proposals? This could and more than likely would have taken the format of changing or circumventing the rigours of Rule 25.
To now have one of the Section Committee quite clearly and openly state,
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.
At what stage in the proceedings did any of the Section Committee advise the floor of this? I certainly cannot recollect it.
To now also quite glibly state as well, 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.
Surely any of the Section Committee, if they clearly wished for the wishes of the rank and file to be acted on, should with their greater comprehension and understanding and interpretation of the technicalities and procedures, have directed the members that bothered to attend to achieve what the majority in attendance wanted. That is unless there was some form of unknown hidden agenda.
I can most emphatically state that at no time was there any direction, help or guidance from any of the Section Committee as to how the process of making change could be achieved. Just read on this forum from quite a few of those that attended the Section meeting, they have all clearly stated and tried to explain, that the floor were very clearly and I would go so far as to say forcibly directed by the hierarchy that the dimension issue was not debatable.

Jim Spencer so often quotes,
Lastly THE BRCA is you lot, it's all of US.
I would like to believe that . . . . . . however in this instance it has certainly not been.
Could I respectively ask Jim, as the only senior hierarchal BRCA Committee Member to post on here, to offer us now, any advice or guidance as to how this debacle can be sorted out and a rapid closure put on it before it does untold and lasting damage to our sport?

[Stuvon]

This maybe a stupid question:

What would happen if Trackpower gave a set of Saddles to the EB with the heat shrink cut off and the case glued together?

Could we then all follow suit and go racing?


P.s. no body has yet to explain why the heat shrink, which appears to only be there to stop the gold rubbing off, is counted in the size of the cell! (or is it that if the gold rubs off they won't pass scrutineering?)

[jim76]

the heatshrink holds the two halves together so is integral to the safety of the pack.

Excellent post Ian. Neatly sums up what everyone has been saying.
The last sentence i think is key, as from the poll results there will be a vast number of people not running at BRCA events next year. Many may opt to run a different class for a year, and quite possibly not return.

I personally haven't purchased any 10th lipo's yet, so if some are released now that are dimension legal i will be fine. But i know a large number of people who have adopted the trakpower saddles due to them being the only available pack, and it seems unfair to punish them for a cell which is not going to offer any performance advantage.

People can argue they shouldn;t have purchased before the list is released, but that isn't really the issue. WE the members wanted them in and weren't allowed.

[mark christopher]

Originally Posted by Stuvon

This maybe a stupid question:

What would happen if Trackpower gave a set of Saddles to the EB with the heat shrink cut off and the case glued together?

Could we then all follow suit and go racing?


P.s. no body has yet to explain why the heat shrink, which appears to only be there to stop the gold rubbing off, is counted in the size of the cell! (or is it that if the gold rubs off they won't pass scrutineering?)

with the heat shrink off, thay are still over size by 1mm
it is possible to carefully cut off the the heat shrink at the ends of the packs and still retain the pack security

[SHY]

Originally Posted by Stuvon

This maybe a stupid question:

What would happen if Trackpower gave a set of Saddles to the EB with the heat shrink cut off and the case glued together?

Could we then all follow suit and go racing?


P.s. no body has yet to explain why the heat shrink, which appears to only be there to stop the gold rubbing off, is counted in the size of the cell! (or is it that if the gold rubs off they won't pass scrutineering?)

If you read the "EFRA feedback post" you will see that I've already measured that - it's still not enough. So no point in cutting off the shrinkwrap which would make it less safe.

Btw I also really like the patent with external "Corally style" plugs, so you can change the wires when worn. For NiMH you must replace worn wires after a while. And when you think about the long life of LiPos that's really an excellent idea.

Someone send PW a large bottle of whisky, get the dimensions bent slightly, put the saddles in and let's go racing!

[dave g]

team dremmel to the rescue

[mark christopher]

Originally Posted by SHY

If you read the "EFRA feedback post" you will see that I've already measured that - it's still not enough. So no point in cutting off the shrinkwrap which would make it less safe.

Btw I also really like the patent with external "Corally style" plugs, so you can change the wires when worn. For NiMH you must replace worn wires after a while. And when you think about the long life of LiPos that's really an excellent idea.

Someone send PW a large bottle of whisky, get the dimensions bent slightly, put the saddles in and let's go racing!

SHY im learning to you

Originally Posted by dave g

team dremmel to the rescue

could send pw one for his verniers with the whisky

[CharlieF]

Hi All.
Despite my previous "one off" post statement I feel the need to comment further on the post of Ian Wall.

Section rule changes are proposed by members up to 6 weeks before the AGM and are heard at the AGM and voted on (Rule 25.1 was proposed to be amended by Chris Long) if carried this becomes a section rule - It was, and it will become a rule.

No other amendments with reference to the EB in our section rules was proposed so no further debate in this regard took place (i.e. no changes to rules 25.2 & 25.3 were proposed). In short for 2009, the section committed itself to continued observation of the EB approved cell homologation list.

The other part of Chris Long's proposal related to the EB rule changes regarding dimensions (this did not form part of his section rule change proposal (25.1) although it was related, but it did require EB rule change).
In this regard I refer to EB rule 1.10 (page 16) which states that "any proposals for changes to EB rules have to come from an Electric Section" that is, not an individual BRCA member of a section. Such change needs Section support gained at an AGM before it can go forward to the EB for consideration.

This alone is the reason why the draft lipo specification to the EB was in front of the AGM. As I have already said, if the membership present was not happy with any part of this, someone (a BRCA member) should have proposed an amendment which could have been voted upon and if successful would have become a Section supported EB Rule change proposal satisfying EB rule 1.10.

Please believe me that I have had to read the rule book in order to post this clarification. Like you I am simply a BRCA member and was not born with this knowledge.

Regards.

[jim76]

Originally Posted by CharlieF

Such change needs Section support gained at an AGM before it can go forward to the EB for consideration.

This alone is the reason why the draft lipo specification to the EB was in front of the AGM.

not sure i understand that. The members present were clearly pushing for this at the AGM, and you are saying that they needed section support to go to the EB.
Which begs the question why didn't the section support this change at the AGM then?

[Gnarly Old Dog]

Phew - just waded through the thread thus far - it was tough going but I made it - just.
Mark - Just what have you started

For my penny's worth:
1) Life without the BRCA is unimaginable (for me). Thus, for me, I'll support whatever the elected officers and volunteers who run our guiding body decide upon. I couldn't get to the AGM. I had my reasons but at the end of the day, I wasn't there and so I don't have or deserve a voice - end of. You guys who put in the hours and hours of hard work that often goes unnoticed and unthanked get my total respect and support.

2) One of the greatest ironies here is that we're all discussing the fine details of the financial risk being run by those who have purchased LiPo batteries before the rules have become established. So what! You guys have a head start on the others in terms of car set ups so you'll be faster than the others come next season to begin with - and anyway (maybe this is a bit tongue in cheek) I reckon most of these racers wouldn't bat an eyelid at having to renew their Nimhs each and every year at a far greater financial cost than the cost of 2 or 3 LiPos. So sell the 'alledgedly' illegal LiPos to club racers who won't be having their cars scrutineered every week to offset the replacement cost.

Mark's said it and so has Chris and many others but let's not knock the EB or the BRCA for their efforts. The list hasn't come out yet so everything is still speculation. I'm sure that Charlie, Jim, PW et al do have the best interests of the ENTIRE hobby/sport at heart and even though it may not be meant, it must feel at times to these guys that their efforts are largely going unnoticed and unwanted by the members and if it were me and I were in that position, I'd be saying stuff the lot of 'em and I'd walk away from the whole thing. That brings me back (eventually) to my 1st point above. No BRCA = an unimaginable future for the hobby/sport.

But I wasn't there on the 26th and so I'll sign my renewal form and agree to abide by the rules set down by the organisation and it's elected officers. Without fuss and without criticism. It is by far the best fifteen quid I spend every year.

With all of the emotions being typed out in this and other threads, this subject has the capacity to destroy rather than create. Right now, lets all get together and support / promote our hobby/sport - lets not destroy it from within.

I shall probably regret ever writing this or clicking on the submit post button - but here goes...

[Bungleaio]

Some excellent posts here guys but as I look at it there doesn't seem much of a chance that the rules will be ammended to cater for the slightly larger cells that are out there now.

So as it stands which cells that are available now fit the criteria?

[SHY]

Lots of sticks, but no saddles. SMC has made some which are the right "footprint" (not too long, see the EFRA post at http://www.oople.com/forums/showthre...t=15589&page=7), but then again too high... (also those are ROAR legal)

Note! Keep in mind that even if a commercially available battery "should" be allowed on the EB/EFRA battery list, it still has to go through the approval process. So it'll probably take a while.

Can someone link to the EB list for LiPos used for touring cars?

Personally I can't stop thinking about what Skelding pointed out: How are the manufacturers supposed to design a future chassis with two different sets of rules? EFRA, ROAR and IFMAR really should discuss this and end up with a common set of rules.

[DaveG28]

Hmm, so a saddle within dimensions needs to be produced, submitted, tested, and available in the uk? Can't see it being before Feb/March at the earliest, assuming they CAN make them to the specs.

Couple of quick questions, originally weren't the rules designed to be consistent with ROAR? But ROAR then have exceptions to allow certain saddles, so why don't the EB just match those exceptions? Or might that be covered by the list itself we keep being told to wait for? If not, why wait for the list, they won't add cells that don't meet the rules will they?

Finally, 08nimh cells are definitely still allowed aren't they? That list doesn't start from scratch? Cos I think I'm just gonna go back to nimh to not waste a whole winter setting up for Lipo weight!