Finally broke 40mph!!!

[Paradox]

in my TC3.. whee! that was cool... the things me and my friend do for fun..
got some wierd looks from people going down the opposite side of the road
though.

[Zach]

"Paradox" <l33ta0lhax0r@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<at6v1a$10rdhu$1@ID-109635.news.dfncis.de>...
> in my TC3.. whee! that was cool... the things me and my friend do for fun..
> got some wierd looks from people going down the opposite side of the road
> though.

Not to brag, but I got my RC12L3 well above 60 mph!! This is verified
by following it in a car with my friend driving. Mabey this should be
insperation for you.

[TempestNightmare]

Want to race???:)...I Have an HPI Super Nitro, clocked by a nice Phila.
officer at a local parking lot bash at just over 80 MPH.Took a ton of work
and too much money, but it is FAST!
Jon

"Zach" <zachw@onlymooo.com> wrote in message
news:fb393a36.0212111631.2c4df2fc@posting.google.c om...
> "Paradox" <l33ta0lhax0r@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:<at6v1a$10rdhu$1@ID-109635.news.dfncis.de>...
> > in my TC3.. whee! that was cool... the things me and my friend do for
fun..
> > got some wierd looks from people going down the opposite side of the
road
> > though.
>
> Not to brag, but I got my RC12L3 well above 60 mph!! This is verified
> by following it in a car with my friend driving. Mabey this should be
> insperation for you.

[Paradox]

"Zach" <zachw@onlymooo.com> wrote in message
news:fb393a36.0212111631.2c4df2fc@posting.google.c om...
> "Paradox" <l33ta0lhax0r@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:<at6v1a$10rdhu$1@ID-109635.news.dfncis.de>...
> > in my TC3.. whee! that was cool... the things me and my friend do for
fun..
> > got some wierd looks from people going down the opposite side of the
road
> > though.
>
> Not to brag, but I got my RC12L3 well above 60 mph!! This is verified
> by following it in a car with my friend driving. Mabey this should be
> insperation for you.

what kinda motor and gearing did ya have?

[Zach]

How did you get the radar gun to pick up the car? I tried to have and
officer clock mine, but when we tried, the gun didn't pick it up. He
said it wasn't big enough, and the body needed to be more reflective
(or something like that)
-Zach

Speed is an addiction, not a want, but a necessity

[Paradox]

"Zach" <zachw@onlymooo.com> wrote in message
news:fb393a36.0212120848.425536ab@posting.google.c om...
> How did you get the radar gun to pick up the car? I tried to have and
> officer clock mine, but when we tried, the gun didn't pick it up. He
> said it wasn't big enough, and the body needed to be more reflective
> (or something like that)

tape aluminum foil on it? I'm sure that'll bounce back a big enough
reflection for the gun to pick up.

> -Zach
>
> Speed is an addiction, not a want, but a necessity

[TempestNightmare]

By reflective, he may have have refered to all of the composite graphite in
your car. Mine is all Aluminum, and radar bounces nice! Plus the Super Nitro
is 100 mm longer than most 1/10th cars. The Body is a C5 Coevette painted
Pearl Yellow.
Jon

"Zach" <zachw@onlymooo.com> wrote in message
news:fb393a36.0212120848.425536ab@posting.google.c om...
> How did you get the radar gun to pick up the car? I tried to have and
> officer clock mine, but when we tried, the gun didn't pick it up. He
> said it wasn't big enough, and the body needed to be more reflective
> (or something like that)
> -Zach
>
> Speed is an addiction, not a want, but a necessity

[Stan Marsh]

We've had no problems with 1:10 touring cars at my local track. El Cheapo
speed gun worked fine.
Pete

[Zach]

I have a speed gems 10 turn, and I have an 18tooth pinion and stock
spur gear (65 I think). This is also running 10 cells through a Tekin
Rebel esc.
I am supprised that the speed control hasn't blown yet.
-Zach

[Paradox]

"Zach" <zachw@onlymooo.com> wrote in message
news:fb393a36.0212130851.7d13771a@posting.google.c om...
> I have a speed gems 10 turn, and I have an 18tooth pinion and stock
> spur gear (65 I think). This is also running 10 cells through a Tekin
> Rebel esc.

ahh 10 cells, I'm just using a normal 3300 Trinity 6 cell pack.

> I am supprised that the speed control hasn't blown yet.
> -Zach

[Kerry Garrison]

We use a cheap QuickSilver Radar Gun we bought on eBay for $79. It works
well since it was designed for things like baseballs. Its a little sensitive
to the angle on vehicles with almost no metal but still returns good
results. It is accurate to +/- 1mph at 100mph which is as good as guns
selling for quite a bit more.
--
Kerry Garrison
WildHobbies.com - The #1 On-Line Hobby Magazine
http://www.wildhobbies.com


"Paradox" <l33ta0lhax0r@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:atdshk$12nph3$1@ID-109635.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Zach" <zachw@onlymooo.com> wrote in message
> news:fb393a36.0212130851.7d13771a@posting.google.c om...
> > I have a speed gems 10 turn, and I have an 18tooth pinion and stock
> > spur gear (65 I think). This is also running 10 cells through a Tekin
> > Rebel esc.
>
> ahh 10 cells, I'm just using a normal 3300 Trinity 6 cell pack.
>
> > I am supprised that the speed control hasn't blown yet.
> > -Zach
>
>

[Zach]

Kerry-
I was just wondering what brand your gun is, and where i couldpick one
up. Is the brand name QuickSilver? I cant find these on the
internet.
Thanks
-Zach

[Beau Schwabe]

On 16 Dec 2002 08:21:01 -0800, zachw@onlymooo.com (Zach) wrote:

>Kerry-
>I was just wondering what brand your gun is, and where i couldpick one
>up. Is the brand name QuickSilver? I cant find these on the
>internet.
>Thanks
>-Zach

You could always go with the low-tech method.... Set two cones 1000ft
appart and have a buddy with a stop watch. Multiply the number of
seconds determined on the stop watch by 5.28 and you will have your
speed in MPH with about a plus or minus 1 MPH accuracy assuming you
can hit the stop watch button within 0.18 seconds.


1000ft / sec = ft per second ... BTW) 88 ft per second = 60MPH

5280ft / ft per second = MPH

simplified, this works out to

sec * 5.28 = MPH


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Beau Schwabe Mask Designer II - ATL
National Semiconductor Enterprise Networking Business Unit
500 Pinnacle Court, Suite 525 Wired Communications Division
Mail Stop GA1 Norcross, GA 30071
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Beau Schwabe]

On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 18:18:30 GMT, bschwabe@atlanta.nsc.com (Beau
Schwabe) wrote:

>On 16 Dec 2002 08:21:01 -0800, zachw@onlymooo.com (Zach) wrote:
>
>>Kerry-
>>I was just wondering what brand your gun is, and where i couldpick one
>>up. Is the brand name QuickSilver? I cant find these on the
>>internet.
>>Thanks
>>-Zach
>
>You could always go with the low-tech method.... Set two cones 1000ft
>appart and have a buddy with a stop watch. Multiply the number of
>seconds determined on the stop watch by 5.28 and you will have your
>speed in MPH with about a plus or minus 1 MPH accuracy assuming you
>can hit the stop watch button within 0.18 seconds.
>
>
>1000ft / sec = ft per second ... BTW) 88 ft per second = 60MPH
>
>5280ft / ft per second = MPH
>
>simplified, this works out to
>
>sec * 5.28 = MPH
>
>
Ohhhh Dear!!!! I goofed!


Ok, so here is the correct formula for calculating MPH.... sorry


Cone Distance (in this case 1000ft) / seconds = feet per second

to get miles per hour you need to multiply feet per second by
3600/5280.

1000 / sec * 3600 / 5280 = MPH

for 1000ft this simplifies to

681.8181 / sec = MPH

If you have a different cone distance such as 500ft

500 / sec * 3600 / 5280 = MPH

or

340.90905 / sec = MPH



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Beau Schwabe Mask Designer II - ATL
National Semiconductor Enterprise Networking Business Unit
500 Pinnacle Court, Suite 525 Wired Communications Division
Mail Stop GA1 Norcross, GA 30071
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Divrdan007]

>Subject: Re: Finally broke 40mph!!!
>From: bschwabe@atlanta.nsc.com (Beau Schwabe)

Heh heh... you called yours the Low-Tech method. It may be low tech, but sure
sounds like a lot of math.
Just find a nice stretch of road, and follow (or ride next-to) the thing in a
car.
If the cones were 1000 ft apart, you couldnt see an R/C car from one end to the
other anyway... so the stopwatch would be useless.
Two extra people, some walkie talkies, some binoculars, a stopwatch, and the
R/C driver.... you may just pull it off.
Find someone with a radar gun and try that. Baseballs are speed-checked all the
time with such devices.... baseballs contain no metal, as far as I know.
I race off-road... on tracks.
None of my R/C's have ever gotten up to absolute full speed anyway.
Besides some kinda *bragging rights* there would be really no point in it
for me.

[Beau Schwabe]

On 16 Dec 2002 23:20:43 GMT, divrdan007@aol.com (Divrdan007) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Finally broke 40mph!!!
>>From: bschwabe@atlanta.nsc.com (Beau Schwabe)
>
>Heh heh... you called yours the Low-Tech method. It may be low tech, but sure
>sounds like a lot of math.
>Just find a nice stretch of road, and follow (or ride next-to) the thing in a
>car.
>If the cones were 1000 ft apart, you couldnt see an R/C car from one end to the
>other anyway... so the stopwatch would be useless.
>Two extra people, some walkie talkies, some binoculars, a stopwatch, and the
>R/C driver.... you may just pull it off.
>Find someone with a radar gun and try that. Baseballs are speed-checked all the
>time with such devices.... baseballs contain no metal, as far as I know.
>I race off-road... on tracks.
>None of my R/C's have ever gotten up to absolute full speed anyway.
> Besides some kinda *bragging rights* there would be really no point in it
>for me.

Surely your line of sight is better than 1000ft....of course a few
years ago I had the luxury of a private airport and used part of the
runway for making my RC-Speed measurements with a 1/8th scale
home-brew 20-Cell electric where I topped 63MPH.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Beau Schwabe Mask Designer II - ATL
National Semiconductor Enterprise Networking Business Unit
500 Pinnacle Court, Suite 525 Wired Communications Division
Mail Stop GA1 Norcross, GA 30071
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Divrdan007]

>Subject: Re: Finally broke 40mph!!!
>From: bschwabe@atlanta.nsc.com (Beau Schwabe)

>Surely your line of sight is better than 1000ft.

Ya know, we got into this discusion a couple years ago. There were guys
claiming to be able to see their cars from 1/4 mile away. After thinking about
it for awhile, (and a short visit to Chicago)... I have come to the conclusion
that seeing a car well enough to be able to drive it from 1000 ft away would be
nearly impossible.
Standing at about 1000 ft from the ground, atop the Hancock Tower in Chicago...
full sized cars, trucks and busses looked smaller than matchbox cars. People
walking the streets were mere specs.
A 1/10th scale car at that distance would surely vanish from sight.
Looking across the horizon would only increase the problem.
SEEING the car would be one thing... being able to drive it would be yet
another matter. Additionally, being to tell exactly *when* the car passed a
"cone" would be harder still.
My eyes have gone down-hill over the years, but even when they were perfect, I
do not believe I could see an R/C car from that far away, at least see it
clearly enough to drive it.
Take a measurement, and give it a try sometime, and let us know what you found
out.

[Paul - xxx]

Divrdan007, in news:20021217124757.07145.00000334@mb-mu.aol.com scribbled ;

>> Subject: Re: Finally broke 40mph!!!
>> From: bschwabe@atlanta.nsc.com (Beau Schwabe)
>
>> Surely your line of sight is better than 1000ft.
>
> Ya know, we got into this discusion a couple years ago. There were
> guys claiming to be able to see their cars from 1/4 mile away. After
> thinking about it for awhile, (and a short visit to Chicago)... I
> have come to the conclusion that seeing a car well enough to be able
> to drive it from 1000 ft away would be nearly impossible.
> Standing at about 1000 ft from the ground, atop the Hancock Tower in
> Chicago... full sized cars, trucks and busses looked smaller than
> matchbox cars. People walking the streets were mere specs.
> A 1/10th scale car at that distance would surely vanish from sight.
> Looking across the horizon would only increase the problem.
> SEEING the car would be one thing... being able to drive it would be
> yet another matter. Additionally, being to tell exactly *when* the
> car passed a "cone" would be harder still.
> My eyes have gone down-hill over the years, but even when they were
> perfect, I do not believe I could see an R/C car from that far away,
> at least see it clearly enough to drive it.
> Take a measurement, and give it a try sometime, and let us know what
> you found out.

I've run a truck at one side of a football field from the other .. that was
hard enough to just drive it. To do anything 'exactly' would be next to
impossible ..

--
....................................Paul-xxx
Seti 1222 wu in 8243 hours

[Divrdan007]

>Subject: Re: Finally broke 40mph!!!
>From: "Paul - xxx"

>I've run a truck at one side of a football field from the other .. that was
>hard enough to just drive it. To do anything 'exactly' would be next to
>impossible ..
>
>--
>...................................Paul-xxx

Paul,
Agreed, 100%
And that is only 300 ft.
Thanks for your input.

[Beau Schwabe]

On 17 Dec 2002 19:18:35 GMT, divrdan007@aol.com (Divrdan007) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Finally broke 40mph!!!
>>From: "Paul - xxx"
>
>>I've run a truck at one side of a football field from the other .. that was
>>hard enough to just drive it. To do anything 'exactly' would be next to
>>impossible ..
>>
>>--
>>...................................Paul-xxx
>
>Paul,
>Agreed, 100%
>And that is only 300 ft.
>Thanks for your input.

Baahhh! not even 2 tenths of a mile. (1000ft) it's all in the
measuring technique...

1) Position your RC at cone #1 pre-measured at 1000ft
2)You stand at or near cone #2
3)Floor the car directly towards you and just keep it in a straight
line while starting the stopwatch. If you have problems here,
then perhaps your car has other issues that should be resolved
first.
4)Stop the stopwatch when the car passes cone #2 and take your
measurement. Also, you might want to stop the car...


Now, as I'm sure that someone will point out in Step #3, the car
will take time to get up-to-speed. Ok, so what after 1000ft, this
acceleration period is negligible. However if you repeat steps
1-4 at different known distances such as 500ft or 250ft you can
figure out the amount of time required to reach the maximum
speed. This should be a constant if other conditions remain the
same. I suspect that you would want to make a few trial runs
anyway... best out of 3, etc.

Ok, so mount a wireless camera on your car. Now take it for a drive.
:o)



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Beau Schwabe Mask Designer II - ATL
National Semiconductor Enterprise Networking Business Unit
500 Pinnacle Court, Suite 525 Wired Communications Division
Mail Stop GA1 Norcross, GA 30071
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Divrdan007]

>Subject: Re: Finally broke 40mph!!!
>From: bschwabe@atlanta.nsc.com (Beau Schwabe)

>Now, as I'm sure that someone will point out in Step #3, the car
>will take time to get up-to-speed. Ok, so what after 1000ft, this
>acceleration period is negligible.

Negligible??
No, I think it would be Critical.
Having the car pass at top speed between BOTH cones would be the only way to
get an accurate measure.
Perhaps you would at least agree that seeing the car at 1000 ft would be
*difficult* at best.
Dude, you are WAY over-thinking this.
Just follow (or drive next-to) the R/C in a 1:1 car.... or get a radar
speed-check.

You should Stick to:

Designer II - ATL
National Semiconductor Enterprise Networking Business Unit

With such an analytical mind, I'm sure are good at it.

[TempestNightmare]

if you look at the math, it can be broken down to 500 ft, 250 ft....etc..it
is all proportional...1000 ft is a little far to time a car...
"Divrdan007" <divrdan007@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021217124757.07145.00000334@mb-mu.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Finally broke 40mph!!!
> >From: bschwabe@atlanta.nsc.com (Beau Schwabe)
>
> >Surely your line of sight is better than 1000ft.
>
> Ya know, we got into this discusion a couple years ago. There were guys
> claiming to be able to see their cars from 1/4 mile away. After thinking
about
> it for awhile, (and a short visit to Chicago)... I have come to the
conclusion
> that seeing a car well enough to be able to drive it from 1000 ft away
would be
> nearly impossible.
> Standing at about 1000 ft from the ground, atop the Hancock Tower in
Chicago...
> full sized cars, trucks and busses looked smaller than matchbox cars.
People
> walking the streets were mere specs.
> A 1/10th scale car at that distance would surely vanish from sight.
> Looking across the horizon would only increase the problem.
> SEEING the car would be one thing... being able to drive it would be yet
> another matter. Additionally, being to tell exactly *when* the car passed
a
> "cone" would be harder still.
> My eyes have gone down-hill over the years, but even when they were
perfect, I
> do not believe I could see an R/C car from that far away, at least see it
> clearly enough to drive it.
> Take a measurement, and give it a try sometime, and let us know what you
found
> out.
>

[TempestNightmare]

hell just add a couple hundred feet and run the full 1/4 mile!! I would love
to see the engine in your car after it ran that far at full throttle!!
TOAST!

"Beau Schwabe" <bschwabe@atlanta.nsc.com> wrote in message
news:3dff97fe.22838513@usenet.nsc.com...
> On 17 Dec 2002 19:18:35 GMT, divrdan007@aol.com (Divrdan007) wrote:
>
> >>Subject: Re: Finally broke 40mph!!!
> >>From: "Paul - xxx"
> >
> >>I've run a truck at one side of a football field from the other .. that
was
> >>hard enough to just drive it. To do anything 'exactly' would be next to
> >>impossible ..
> >>
> >>--
> >>...................................Paul-xxx
> >
> >Paul,
> >Agreed, 100%
> >And that is only 300 ft.
> >Thanks for your input.
>
> Baahhh! not even 2 tenths of a mile. (1000ft) it's all in the
> measuring technique...
>
> 1) Position your RC at cone #1 pre-measured at 1000ft
> 2)You stand at or near cone #2
> 3)Floor the car directly towards you and just keep it in a straight
> line while starting the stopwatch. If you have problems here,
> then perhaps your car has other issues that should be resolved
> first.
> 4)Stop the stopwatch when the car passes cone #2 and take your
> measurement. Also, you might want to stop the car...
>
>
> Now, as I'm sure that someone will point out in Step #3, the car
> will take time to get up-to-speed. Ok, so what after 1000ft, this
> acceleration period is negligible. However if you repeat steps
> 1-4 at different known distances such as 500ft or 250ft you can
> figure out the amount of time required to reach the maximum
> speed. This should be a constant if other conditions remain the
> same. I suspect that you would want to make a few trial runs
> anyway... best out of 3, etc.
>
> Ok, so mount a wireless camera on your car. Now take it for a drive.
> :o)
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Beau Schwabe Mask Designer II - ATL
> National Semiconductor Enterprise Networking Business Unit
> 500 Pinnacle Court, Suite 525 Wired Communications Division
> Mail Stop GA1 Norcross, GA 30071
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

[TempestNightmare]

I agree Divr...hey maybe he can network my lap top to the radar gun so I can
keep track of things!!
Jon

"Divrdan007" <divrdan007@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021217174718.07164.00000262@mb-mu.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Finally broke 40mph!!!
> >From: bschwabe@atlanta.nsc.com (Beau Schwabe)
>
> >Now, as I'm sure that someone will point out in Step #3, the car
> >will take time to get up-to-speed. Ok, so what after 1000ft, this
> >acceleration period is negligible.
>
> Negligible??
> No, I think it would be Critical.
> Having the car pass at top speed between BOTH cones would be the only way
to
> get an accurate measure.
> Perhaps you would at least agree that seeing the car at 1000 ft would be
> *difficult* at best.
> Dude, you are WAY over-thinking this.
> Just follow (or drive next-to) the R/C in a 1:1 car.... or get a radar
> speed-check.
>
> You should Stick to:
>
> Designer II - ATL
> National Semiconductor Enterprise Networking Business Unit
>
> With such an analytical mind, I'm sure are good at it.
>
>

[Paradox]

"TempestNightmare" <tempestnightmare@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:-dicndb3Vs2hdWKgXTWc3g@comcast.com...
> hell just add a couple hundred feet and run the full 1/4 mile!! I would
love
> to see the engine in your car after it ran that far at full throttle!!
> TOAST!
>

I've driven my TC3 over 3 miles at full throttle down our main street with
me and my friend in the truck tailing it, The Reedy Fury 11T-mw in the car
is still just fine, in fact it went on to win 1st 3 in the first 2 heats and
the A Main race at the RC track I frequent.



> "Beau Schwabe" <bschwabe@atlanta.nsc.com> wrote in message
> news:3dff97fe.22838513@usenet.nsc.com...
> > On 17 Dec 2002 19:18:35 GMT, divrdan007@aol.com (Divrdan007) wrote:
> >
> > >>Subject: Re: Finally broke 40mph!!!
> > >>From: "Paul - xxx"
> > >
> > >>I've run a truck at one side of a football field from the other ..
that
> was
> > >>hard enough to just drive it. To do anything 'exactly' would be next
to
> > >>impossible ..
> > >>
> > >>--
> > >>...................................Paul-xxx
> > >
> > >Paul,
> > >Agreed, 100%
> > >And that is only 300 ft.
> > >Thanks for your input.
> >
> > Baahhh! not even 2 tenths of a mile. (1000ft) it's all in the
> > measuring technique...
> >
> > 1) Position your RC at cone #1 pre-measured at 1000ft
> > 2)You stand at or near cone #2
> > 3)Floor the car directly towards you and just keep it in a straight
> > line while starting the stopwatch. If you have problems here,
> > then perhaps your car has other issues that should be resolved
> > first.
> > 4)Stop the stopwatch when the car passes cone #2 and take your
> > measurement. Also, you might want to stop the car...
> >
> >
> > Now, as I'm sure that someone will point out in Step #3, the car
> > will take time to get up-to-speed. Ok, so what after 1000ft, this
> > acceleration period is negligible. However if you repeat steps
> > 1-4 at different known distances such as 500ft or 250ft you can
> > figure out the amount of time required to reach the maximum
> > speed. This should be a constant if other conditions remain the
> > same. I suspect that you would want to make a few trial runs
> > anyway... best out of 3, etc.
> >
> > Ok, so mount a wireless camera on your car. Now take it for a drive.
> > :o)
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Beau Schwabe Mask Designer II - ATL
> > National Semiconductor Enterprise Networking Business Unit
> > 500 Pinnacle Court, Suite 525 Wired Communications Division
> > Mail Stop GA1 Norcross, GA 30071
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

[Paul - xxx]

Divrdan007, in news:20021217174718.07164.00000262@mb-mu.aol.com scribbled ;

>> Subject: Re: Finally broke 40mph!!!
>> From: bschwabe@atlanta.nsc.com (Beau Schwabe)
>
>> Now, as I'm sure that someone will point out in Step #3, the car
>> will take time to get up-to-speed. Ok, so what after 1000ft, this
>> acceleration period is negligible.
>
> Negligible??
> No, I think it would be Critical.
> Having the car pass at top speed between BOTH cones would be the
> only way to get an accurate measure.
> Perhaps you would at least agree that seeing the car at 1000 ft would
> be *difficult* at best.
> Dude, you are WAY over-thinking this.
> Just follow (or drive next-to) the R/C in a 1:1 car.... or get a
> radar speed-check.

Agreed .. ;)

However, if you want to time and work out the speed, as in a timed run
between cones, without decently triggered timing equipment the difference
between hand-held stop-watches and what's 'really' happening can make
magnitudes of difference to the recorded speed, especially over short
distances.

When we go to races we use AMB timing equipment and BBK software. We can
use a second loop that picks up the transponders in the cars and gives an
extremely accurate speed over the length of a straight (maybe 40 feet).
This is for every car in every race, for every lap. We sometimes run 'top
speed' competitions alongside the normal racing .. ;) This is _the_ most
accurate way of monitoring a model cars speed I know of .. ;)


--
....................................Paul-xxx
Seti 1227 wu in 8277 hours

[Divrdan007]

>Subject: Re: Finally broke 40mph!!!
>From: "Paul - xxx"

>Agreed .. ;)
>
>However, if you want to time and work out the speed, as in a timed run
>between cones, without decently triggered timing equipment the difference
>between hand-held stop-watches and what's 'really' happening can make
>magnitudes of difference to the recorded speed, especially over short
>distances.
>

Paul,
Once again, I agree. As soon as you introduce a *human-element* like someone's
"reaction-time" on the stopwatch, you will inevitably skew the results.

>When we go to races we use AMB timing equipment and BBK software. We can
>use a second loop that picks up the transponders in the cars and gives an
>extremely accurate speed over the length of a straight (maybe 40 feet).

Also, after several laps, *averaging* the speeds, and lap-times would be
interesting to observe.
Sounds like you guys got it all figured out.
Thanks for that post.

[Paul - xxx]

Divrdan007, in news:20021218085447.03506.00000225@mb-mq.aol.com scribbled ;

>> Subject: Re: Finally broke 40mph!!!
>> From: "Paul - xxx"
>
>> Agreed .. ;)
>>
>> However, if you want to time and work out the speed, as in a timed
>> run between cones, without decently triggered timing equipment the
>> difference between hand-held stop-watches and what's 'really'
>> happening can make magnitudes of difference to the recorded speed,
>> especially over short distances.
>>
>
> Paul,
> Once again, I agree. As soon as you introduce a *human-element* like
> someone's "reaction-time" on the stopwatch, you will inevitably skew
> the results.
>
>> When we go to races we use AMB timing equipment and BBK software.
>> We can use a second loop that picks up the transponders in the cars
>> and gives an extremely accurate speed over the length of a straight
>> (maybe 40 feet).
>
> Also, after several laps, *averaging* the speeds, and lap-times would
> be interesting to observe.
> Sounds like you guys got it all figured out.
> Thanks for that post.

Well, this _is_ for the regional and National series ... Though a lot of UK
BRCA [1] registered clubs also have similar equipment, they don't often use
it this way though ... ;).

[1] http://www.brca.org/
--
....................................Paul-xxx
Seti 1227 wu in 8277 hours

[Jonny Hodgson]

Divrdan007 <divrdan007@aol.com> wrote in message news:20021218085447.03506.00000225@mb-mq.aol.com...

> >When we go to races we use AMB timing equipment and BBK software. We can
> >use a second loop that picks up the transponders in the cars and gives an
> >extremely accurate speed over the length of a straight (maybe 40 feet).
>
> Also, after several laps, *averaging* the speeds, and lap-times would be
> interesting to observe.

It's actually very useful to spot how many mistakes you made; how
consistently you're lapping; and whether the other guy is beating
you because he's quicker, or is just making fewer mistakes ;-)

The first thing I do after each of my heats, once I'm done marshalling
the next one of course, is to go and look at my lap times, count up
the seconds I lost to mistakes, and compare my quickest laps to the
ones in my last run.

Jonny

[TempestNightmare]

maybe..But I was refering to a nitro...sorry....

"Paradox" <l33ta0lhax0r@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:atoqe7$19jhn$1@ID-109635.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "TempestNightmare" <tempestnightmare@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:-dicndb3Vs2hdWKgXTWc3g@comcast.com...
> > hell just add a couple hundred feet and run the full 1/4 mile!! I would
> love
> > to see the engine in your car after it ran that far at full throttle!!
> > TOAST!
> >
>
> I've driven my TC3 over 3 miles at full throttle down our main street with
> me and my friend in the truck tailing it, The Reedy Fury 11T-mw in the car
> is still just fine, in fact it went on to win 1st 3 in the first 2 heats
and
> the A Main race at the RC track I frequent.
>
>
>
> > "Beau Schwabe" <bschwabe@atlanta.nsc.com> wrote in message
> > news:3dff97fe.22838513@usenet.nsc.com...
> > > On 17 Dec 2002 19:18:35 GMT, divrdan007@aol.com (Divrdan007) wrote:
> > >
> > > >>Subject: Re: Finally broke 40mph!!!
> > > >>From: "Paul - xxx"
> > > >
> > > >>I've run a truck at one side of a football field from the other ..
> that
> > was
> > > >>hard enough to just drive it. To do anything 'exactly' would be
next
> to
> > > >>impossible ..
> > > >>
> > > >>--
> > > >>...................................Paul-xxx
> > > >
> > > >Paul,
> > > >Agreed, 100%
> > > >And that is only 300 ft.
> > > >Thanks for your input.
> > >
> > > Baahhh! not even 2 tenths of a mile. (1000ft) it's all in the
> > > measuring technique...
> > >
> > > 1) Position your RC at cone #1 pre-measured at 1000ft
> > > 2)You stand at or near cone #2
> > > 3)Floor the car directly towards you and just keep it in a straight
> > > line while starting the stopwatch. If you have problems here,
> > > then perhaps your car has other issues that should be resolved
> > > first.
> > > 4)Stop the stopwatch when the car passes cone #2 and take your
> > > measurement. Also, you might want to stop the car...
> > >
> > >
> > > Now, as I'm sure that someone will point out in Step #3, the car
> > > will take time to get up-to-speed. Ok, so what after 1000ft, this
> > > acceleration period is negligible. However if you repeat steps
> > > 1-4 at different known distances such as 500ft or 250ft you can
> > > figure out the amount of time required to reach the maximum
> > > speed. This should be a constant if other conditions remain the
> > > same. I suspect that you would want to make a few trial runs
> > > anyway... best out of 3, etc.
> > >
> > > Ok, so mount a wireless camera on your car. Now take it for a drive.
> > > :o)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Beau Schwabe Mask Designer II - ATL
> > > National Semiconductor Enterprise Networking Business Unit
> > > 500 Pinnacle Court, Suite 525 Wired Communications Division
> > > Mail Stop GA1 Norcross, GA 30071
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
>
>

[Paradox]

Oh, yeah nitro motors will eat themselves alive if you keep them spun up the
entire time like that, I think you could get it up to full speed and pump
the throttle to keep the RPM's bouncing around.

"TempestNightmare" <tempestnightmare@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2oycnf_ACdfF2ZyjXTWcoA@comcast.com...
> maybe..But I was refering to a nitro...sorry....
>
> "Paradox" <l33ta0lhax0r@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:atoqe7$19jhn$1@ID-109635.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "TempestNightmare" <tempestnightmare@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:-dicndb3Vs2hdWKgXTWc3g@comcast.com...
> > > hell just add a couple hundred feet and run the full 1/4 mile!! I
would
> > love
> > > to see the engine in your car after it ran that far at full throttle!!
> > > TOAST!
> > >
> >
> > I've driven my TC3 over 3 miles at full throttle down our main street
with
> > me and my friend in the truck tailing it, The Reedy Fury 11T-mw in the
car
> > is still just fine, in fact it went on to win 1st 3 in the first 2 heats
> and
> > the A Main race at the RC track I frequent.
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Beau Schwabe" <bschwabe@atlanta.nsc.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3dff97fe.22838513@usenet.nsc.com...
> > > > On 17 Dec 2002 19:18:35 GMT, divrdan007@aol.com (Divrdan007) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >>Subject: Re: Finally broke 40mph!!!
> > > > >>From: "Paul - xxx"
> > > > >
> > > > >>I've run a truck at one side of a football field from the other ..
> > that
> > > was
> > > > >>hard enough to just drive it. To do anything 'exactly' would be
> next
> > to
> > > > >>impossible ..
> > > > >>
> > > > >>--
> > > > >>...................................Paul-xxx
> > > > >
> > > > >Paul,
> > > > >Agreed, 100%
> > > > >And that is only 300 ft.
> > > > >Thanks for your input.
> > > >
> > > > Baahhh! not even 2 tenths of a mile. (1000ft) it's all in the
> > > > measuring technique...
> > > >
> > > > 1) Position your RC at cone #1 pre-measured at 1000ft
> > > > 2)You stand at or near cone #2
> > > > 3)Floor the car directly towards you and just keep it in a straight
> > > > line while starting the stopwatch. If you have problems here,
> > > > then perhaps your car has other issues that should be resolved
> > > > first.
> > > > 4)Stop the stopwatch when the car passes cone #2 and take your
> > > > measurement. Also, you might want to stop the car...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Now, as I'm sure that someone will point out in Step #3, the car
> > > > will take time to get up-to-speed. Ok, so what after 1000ft, this
> > > > acceleration period is negligible. However if you repeat steps
> > > > 1-4 at different known distances such as 500ft or 250ft you can
> > > > figure out the amount of time required to reach the maximum
> > > > speed. This should be a constant if other conditions remain the
> > > > same. I suspect that you would want to make a few trial runs
> > > > anyway... best out of 3, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Ok, so mount a wireless camera on your car. Now take it for a
drive.
> > > > :o)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Beau Schwabe Mask Designer II - ATL
> > > > National Semiconductor Enterprise Networking Business
Unit
> > > > 500 Pinnacle Court, Suite 525 Wired Communications Division
> > > > Mail Stop GA1 Norcross, GA 30071
> > >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Jonny Hodgson]

Paradox wrote:

> Oh, yeah nitro motors will eat themselves alive if you keep them spun
> up the entire time like that, I think you could get it up to full
> speed and pump the throttle to keep the RPM's bouncing around.

In which case, you simply ain't got it geared tall enough ;-)

If you're allowing it to rev past its peak power speed in top gear, then you're not getting the cars theoretical maximum speed.

Jonny

[Justin Mahn]

You're also out of prime torque range at top RPM. I agree with Johny. Gear
that sucker up.


"Jonny Hodgson" <jp_hodgson@eRnEgMiOnVeEer.com> wrote in message
news:JUnM9.1212$0c4.257047@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> Paradox wrote:
>
> > Oh, yeah nitro motors will eat themselves alive if you keep them spun
> > up the entire time like that, I think you could get it up to full
> > speed and pump the throttle to keep the RPM's bouncing around.
>
> In which case, you simply ain't got it geared tall enough ;-)
>
> If you're allowing it to rev past its peak power speed in top gear, then
you're not getting the cars theoretical maximum speed.
>
> Jonny
>
>

[TempestNightmare]

Well...my point is..I do not need 1000 feet to reach top speed....1/10th
scale quarter mile is just fine. If I gear it up, I need to go with custom
gears..As it is already regeared for the speed I run. Much bucks!!...then it
better do over 100 MPH!!!
Jon

"Justin Mahn" <gabril-sp@m-blocker-at.tcainternet.com> wrote in message
news:v04c9if6qr7mdd@corp.supernews.com...
> You're also out of prime torque range at top RPM. I agree with Johny.
Gear
> that sucker up.
>
>
> "Jonny Hodgson" <jp_hodgson@eRnEgMiOnVeEer.com> wrote in message
> news:JUnM9.1212$0c4.257047@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> > Paradox wrote:
> >
> > > Oh, yeah nitro motors will eat themselves alive if you keep them spun
> > > up the entire time like that, I think you could get it up to full
> > > speed and pump the throttle to keep the RPM's bouncing around.
> >
> > In which case, you simply ain't got it geared tall enough ;-)
> >
> > If you're allowing it to rev past its peak power speed in top gear, then
> you're not getting the cars theoretical maximum speed.
> >
> > Jonny
> >
> >
>
>

[paul werz]

I still havent figured out why everybody gets so concerned about flatout top
speed of their car.In most race track conditions you will never achieve this
speed because of turns,track conditions,etc.If I wanted to go flatout top
speed straight line I would build a Bolink dragster.On the other hand if I
was running anything else I would be concerned with handling at the fastest
speed at which my car was running on the layout of the track or course I was
running on.
"Jonny Hodgson" <jp_hodgson@eRnEgMiOnVeEer.com> wrote in message
news:JUnM9.1212$0c4.257047@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> Paradox wrote:
>
> > Oh, yeah nitro motors will eat themselves alive if you keep them spun
> > up the entire time like that, I think you could get it up to full
> > speed and pump the throttle to keep the RPM's bouncing around.
>
> In which case, you simply ain't got it geared tall enough ;-)
>
> If you're allowing it to rev past its peak power speed in top gear, then
you're not getting the cars theoretical maximum speed.
>
> Jonny
>
>

[Jerrit Tyler]

This method is very accurate but I have never heard of anyone doing it
beyond 200 feet.
Why would you need 1000, or even 500 feet?

Jerrit



"TempestNightmare" <tempestnightmare@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:uJucnToBwJc2e2KgXTWcpw@comcast.com...
> if you look at the math, it can be broken down to 500 ft, 250
ft....etc..it
> is all proportional...1000 ft is a little far to time a car...
> "Divrdan007" <divrdan007@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20021217124757.07145.00000334@mb-mu.aol.com...
> > >Subject: Re: Finally broke 40mph!!!
> > >From: bschwabe@atlanta.nsc.com (Beau Schwabe)
> >
> > >Surely your line of sight is better than 1000ft.
> >
> > Ya know, we got into this discusion a couple years ago. There were guys
> > claiming to be able to see their cars from 1/4 mile away. After thinking
> about
> > it for awhile, (and a short visit to Chicago)... I have come to the
> conclusion
> > that seeing a car well enough to be able to drive it from 1000 ft away
> would be
> > nearly impossible.
> > Standing at about 1000 ft from the ground, atop the Hancock Tower in
> Chicago...
> > full sized cars, trucks and busses looked smaller than matchbox cars.
> People
> > walking the streets were mere specs.
> > A 1/10th scale car at that distance would surely vanish from sight.
> > Looking across the horizon would only increase the problem.
> > SEEING the car would be one thing... being able to drive it would be yet
> > another matter. Additionally, being to tell exactly *when* the car
passed
> a
> > "cone" would be harder still.
> > My eyes have gone down-hill over the years, but even when they were
> perfect, I
> > do not believe I could see an R/C car from that far away, at least see
it
> > clearly enough to drive it.
> > Take a measurement, and give it a try sometime, and let us know what you
> found
> > out.
> >
>
>
>

[Justin Mahn]

maybe he got that number from 1:1 scale speed runs?


"Jerrit Tyler" <jerrit@grnet.com> wrote in message
news:69wO9.10208$4j5.5951850@newssvr28.news.prodig y.com...
> This method is very accurate but I have never heard of anyone doing it
> beyond 200 feet.
> Why would you need 1000, or even 500 feet?
>
> Jerrit
>
>
>
> "TempestNightmare" <tempestnightmare@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:uJucnToBwJc2e2KgXTWcpw@comcast.com...
> > if you look at the math, it can be broken down to 500 ft, 250
> ft....etc..it
> > is all proportional...1000 ft is a little far to time a car...
> > "Divrdan007" <divrdan007@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20021217124757.07145.00000334@mb-mu.aol.com...
> > > >Subject: Re: Finally broke 40mph!!!
> > > >From: bschwabe@atlanta.nsc.com (Beau Schwabe)
> > >
> > > >Surely your line of sight is better than 1000ft.
> > >
> > > Ya know, we got into this discusion a couple years ago. There were
guys
> > > claiming to be able to see their cars from 1/4 mile away. After
thinking
> > about
> > > it for awhile, (and a short visit to Chicago)... I have come to the
> > conclusion
> > > that seeing a car well enough to be able to drive it from 1000 ft away
> > would be
> > > nearly impossible.
> > > Standing at about 1000 ft from the ground, atop the Hancock Tower in
> > Chicago...
> > > full sized cars, trucks and busses looked smaller than matchbox cars.
> > People
> > > walking the streets were mere specs.
> > > A 1/10th scale car at that distance would surely vanish from sight.
> > > Looking across the horizon would only increase the problem.
> > > SEEING the car would be one thing... being able to drive it would be
yet
> > > another matter. Additionally, being to tell exactly *when* the car
> passed
> > a
> > > "cone" would be harder still.
> > > My eyes have gone down-hill over the years, but even when they were
> > perfect, I
> > > do not believe I could see an R/C car from that far away, at least see
> it
> > > clearly enough to drive it.
> > > Take a measurement, and give it a try sometime, and let us know what
you
> > found
> > > out.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Paradox]

Same reason people buy 400 horsepower, 200 mph Corvettes, vipers and trans
ams, and still have to do 45mph like everyone else.

Because its cool to be able to!! :D

"paul werz" <pwerz@netcarrier.com> wrote in message
news:flhO9.1019$QS4.321504383@news.netcarrier.net. ..
> I still havent figured out why everybody gets so concerned about flatout
top
> speed of their car.In most race track conditions you will never achieve
this
> speed because of turns,track conditions,etc.If I wanted to go flatout top
> speed straight line I would build a Bolink dragster.On the other hand if I
> was running anything else I would be concerned with handling at the
fastest
> speed at which my car was running on the layout of the track or course I
was
> running on.
> "Jonny Hodgson" <jp_hodgson@eRnEgMiOnVeEer.com> wrote in message
> news:JUnM9.1212$0c4.257047@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> > Paradox wrote:
> >
> > > Oh, yeah nitro motors will eat themselves alive if you keep them spun
> > > up the entire time like that, I think you could get it up to full
> > > speed and pump the throttle to keep the RPM's bouncing around.
> >
> > In which case, you simply ain't got it geared tall enough ;-)
> >
> > If you're allowing it to rev past its peak power speed in top gear, then
> you're not getting the cars theoretical maximum speed.
> >
> > Jonny
> >
> >
>
>

[Jonny Hodgson]

paul werz wrote:

> I still havent figured out why everybody gets so concerned about
> flatout top speed of their car.In most race track conditions you will
> never achieve this speed because of turns,track conditions,etc.If I
> wanted to go flatout top speed straight line I would build a Bolink
> dragster.On the other hand if I was running anything else I would be
> concerned with handling at the fastest speed at which my car was
> running on the layout of the track or course I was running on.

Surely dragsters are optimised for ET over a (scale) quarter-mile, not top speed. I'd have thought you'd want a pan car and access
to a velodrome (think Insane Run)...

Jonny

[Doug McLaren]

In article <3dfe16ad.10357239@usenet.nsc.com>,
Beau Schwabe <bschwabe@atlanta.nsc.com> wrote:

| 1000ft / sec = ft per second ... BTW) 88 ft per second = 60MPH
|
| 5280ft / ft per second = MPH
|
| simplified, this works out to
|
| sec * 5.28 = MPH

Your idea is correct (about how you can measure speed like this), but
your train of thought here is very hard to follow, so I can't tell you
where you made the mistake, but your final answer is flat out wrong.

If you can go d ft in t seconds, that works out to an average speed of

( d / t ) * 0.6818

miles per hour.

For 1000 ft (a bit for far a R/C car, but ...) that works out to

681.8 / t

miles per hour, with t given in seconds. So if it takes you 8
seconds, that's 85 MPH.

As a sanity check, if we put in d = 5280 ft, and t = 60 seconds, we
get 60 MPH, exactly as expected.

--
Doug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com
Inform all the troops that communications have completely broken down.
--Ashleigh Brilliant