EDITORIAL: ROAR's controversial new chassis rule

0 Nov. 20, 2011, 6:04 p.m.

11/20/2011

By Brandon Rohde

LiveRC.com

In case you haven't been following all the drama in the R/C industry, let me introduce you to the latest topic of Internet bitching: ROAR has created a new rule requiring all future chassis designs in electric off-road to fit a full size battery. This essentially disallows vehicles or hop-ups to be designed specifically for the new 'shorty' packs. Let me be the first to say, when I read this rule I vomited in my mouth a little bit. Like many people, my first thought was that this stifles innovation. But after a lot of thought and a lengthy phone conversation with current ROAR President Steve Pond to voice my opinion, I'll be the first to admit that my initial reaction was a bit premature, and I am now in full support of ROAR with this decision. Before I explain why, let's take a look at the official rule that has been posted by ROAR:

Rule 8.2.3
All chassis in all electric classes (except those specifically noted)MUST accept batteries up to the maximum dimensions allowed for itsapplication. The legality of a chassis will be determined as presentedto technical inspection. Chassis that require a configuration change,and/or a modification to fit a battery of maximum dimensions will not beconsidered legal, and the racer will be disqualified. Foamblocks/spacers are permitted to secure any size battery in its position,but the aforementioned spacers may never be attached to the chassis.The only exception is 1/8 off-road where it’s common to use two batterypacks to achieve the maximum 4S configuration, or to use a single 4Sbattery, which has a different specification. Only under thesecircumstances will the fitting of either configuration be consideredlegal, but the production chassis must still conform to batteries of themaximum allowable dimensions.

At first glance, it seems like this rule is designed to prevent radical new changes in chassis designs. As a hard core racer myself, I was bummed about this. I like innovation. However, there is a lot more behind the rule than this. Bear with me as this may get a bit lengthy. But hopefully by the time you get to the end of this article, you will see the light on why ROAR has made this bold decision.

First off, let me state the obvious. This rule sounds simple, but the wording of it leaves some room for interpretation by the reader. To clarify my questions, I went right to the top and talked to the ROAR President, Steve Pond. I don't know if there are plans to further explain the rule, or if it will stand as written. But for any obvious questions, I asked, and he answered.

The first thing Mr. Pond wanted to point out is that ALL current platforms are legal. This rule affects nobody at this time. It is a preventative measure as our industry moves forward. The purpose of this rule is not to stifle innovation. It is to prevent electric off-road from experiencing a decline in popularity due to increased expenses because of a lack of standards. As it stands right now, electric off-road is seeing huge growth with the advent of brushless/LiPo and new manufacturers hitting the market. Without a standardized set of rules regarding battery technology, manufacturer's have the option of designing cars or modifications specifically for battery sizes that they offer and sell. I'm not going to call out any companies as having plans to do this. But let's look at this hypothetically. TLR owns Xcelorin, Kyosho owns Orion, and Team Associated owns Reedy. This leaves the three biggest chassis designers with the option of designing a chassis that will only fit their specific battery specs. Other battery manufacturers may jump on board by releasing batteries to fit the specs for each individual chassis, but this ultimately leaves us with multiple different battery options that fit only one specific chassis. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why this is an absolutely horrible scenario. First, hobby shops will have to stock way too many different batteries. Second, it will be extremely expensive for someone to switch brands. No longer can you switch chassis for $250 and keep the same electronics. Now you need to tack on an additional $200+ to get yourself two new LiPo packs for racing. The reasons go on and on. But the bottom line is that without a standardized set of specifications for battery sizes, the industry will inevitably shoot itself in the foot as we have seen time and time again and kill a class that is currently thriving (insert your rip on how foam tires killed the touring car class in the USA here).

Next, Mr. Pond made a refreshing remark to me. "This rule isn't forever," he said in a 'like-duh' teeny bopper dialect. This rule is in place until a new set of standards are in place, which more than likely will be established over the next year or so. Now, let me showcase my mind reading power to everyone who is reading this. You are asking, "Why didn't ROAR just establish a new minimum dimension?" Well, that too has a very simple answer. You just need to take a breath, turn off the caps lock, take a break from the "ROAR sucks" post that you are in the middle of writing on RCTech, and read on. The reason that ROAR is not creating a minimum dimension is because there has been no set of standards discussed between manufacturers at this time. At the time of writing this article, you can count on 1 hand the number of 'shorty' packs that have been approved by ROAR for competition. Before ROAR establishes a new standard, it is important to get all manufacturers involved to come up with the dimensions that will be used. Furthermore, setting a minimum dimension still leaves open the possibility of 15 different size packs from different companies. I already stated why that is bad. Also consider this; shorty packs are new and in their infancy. Chances are, some company is already working on a 'super-shorty' pack. Instead of making a minimum dimension, ROAR and the manufacturers need to sit down at the poker table with some cigars and brews (hopefully expensed back to each representatives employer), and determine a new set of fixed dimensions for smaller batteries. Once we have that standard set in stone, this chassis rule can then be removed for good. At that time, ROAR can establish fixed dimensions for batteries instead of maximum dimensions. Once that is done, there is no need for this chassis rule anymore since the chassis will obviously need to fit the new size packs. Until that time, this rule needs to be in place to prevent the cars being designed to custom battery pack dimensions.

Next, let's move on to some of the questions I had regarding this rule. These answers are right from ROAR, not someone elses interpretation of the rule. For my own vehicles, I run Team Associated. In my B4, I have recently been playing around with an inline electronics configuration. In this configuration, I have the ESC mounted flat on the chassis, then a 'shorty' battery (held in place with tabs on the battery bar), then the receiver in front of the battery, and the transponder in front of my servo. By ROAR rules, is my car legal? Technically, you can't drop a full size battery pack in the car, so I thought all my recent testing was going out the window. Much to my delight though, this is 100% legal. According to Mr. Pond, the battery tray must fit a full size pack. But if I mount my electronics in there, that is totally fine, with a few exceptions. First, ONLY electronics can be put in the battery tray. Second, they must be mounted in a 'non-fixed' form. This means that servo tape or Velcro® is OK, but gluing them in place, or mounting them on a tray that is screwed in place is not OK. This is simple enough. Let me say this again in very simple terms: electronics, and only electronics (ESC, battery, receiver, servo, transponder) may be mounted in the battery tray. No bolt-on units (queue the Pamela Anderson jokes) may be put in the battery tray. The reason that no bolt-ons are allowed is because this would allow a chassis designer to make a large tray that is ultimately designed for a completely different purpose with the use of a simple add-on piece. All they need to say then is, "The battery fits before we added this transmission right here."

Now, how about you TLR drivers? You have the option of putting your battery holder forward for full size packs, or moving it back for 'shorty' packs. Unfortunately, the battery mount is bolted to the chassis, so you cannot run the spacer in the back position. Does this suck? Yeah, kind of. But the location of the battery mount will make virtually no difference in the way your car handles if you keep it forward and use a block of foam. Yes, I know it is an inconvenience, but its a small price to pay to keep this class growing strong until a new standard is established.

Lastly, what is the rule regarding saddle packs? Well, all of the above rules apply. A saddle pack is an accepted standard size. If your car is designed for saddle packs, then you need to have space for dual cells of equal size that match ROAR's max dimension for a saddle pack. You can mount your electronics in this space if you want, but nothing else. So yes, the TLR 22 and CML C4.1 are both legal with saddle packs.

So, there you have it. My psychic powers are now telling me that you are seeing the reasoning for this rule. And if you don't, I then predict that you either used to race the foam touring car class (I admit, I was one for a brief stint), or you think that stockclass racing should still allow boost and no ESC rules. If you are oneof the latter, I digress and I'll save that rant for another day.