should the brca abandon the electric board homologation list?

[Si Coe]

I think some people forget where we sit in this relationship. For any large RC business racers are a tiny, tiny market. We are surrounded by microscopic companies that rely desperately on us racers and forget that actually the vast majority of RC's never see a track.

Hobbyking won't submit Turnigy lipos because they don't want to be the official importers. Whilst they are the main source for them they aren't exclusive and most other sources aren't in the UK. Technically they aren't liable for anything not sold through their UK warehouse (even their own overseas stuff doesn't count) but proving where it came from could be hard. Since they sell plenty of packs as it is, going for approval will probably cost them more money than they make in extra sales.
After all racing is a tiny part of their business. Hell lipos for cars (racing or not) is a very small fraction full stop!

[JCJC]

Originally Posted by RC Kev

Check them on the EBHL on BRCA website, do your due diligence, then you'll know the answer

Another quick reply without thinking, if the lipo's are ROAR or EFRA approved (and I don't know if they have the same system) then they won't be on the EBHL list - my question was and still is if they are ROAR or EFRA stickered can they be used at BRCA sanctioned meetings or would a visiting racer need UK stickered batteries. (I think earlier in the thread it was suggested the Turnigy lipo's were ROAR approved, "interesting to know how their products were roar approved" was the line.)

And as stated above, just like most posts in this thread that are just 'a guess' or 'I would think' I cannot be bothered to try and look it up myself. (sorry if this reads like I am having a go at you RC Kev, I am not, just half this thread seems to be conjecture at best).

[Si Coe]

No. To be ROAR or EFRA approved they will have had to meet about the same technical specs, but since UK availability is a key requirement they are not automatically OK.

This is actually the crux of the argument here. Nano-techs are ROAR approved, and are available in the UK. If someone was willing to act as a proper distributor for them and take the responsibility that comes with that they would pass. Hobbyking aren't going to, so they remain banned more because of red tape than any actually safety or performance issue.

[JCJC]

Cheers Si, still looking for that like button.

[Mike Haswell]

Looking at the Roar list, the last time any of the Turnigy Nano-Tech batteries was July 2012....and things have moved on since then.
Only two saddle packs - 4850 50C and 5000 30C.
Best 2S - 5.6 5600 50Cand 1S 5600 65C.

[Chris56]

Doh!, mine are 6000! I do own a colour printer - might make some "Team Orion, BRCA legal, init" labels to stick over the top

[MattW]

ROAR / EFRA approval counts for absolutely nothing in BRCA rules. The EFRA approval process is incredibly similar to the BRCA's, it's run by the same guy.

Everyone talks about RC cars / racers being a tiny part of Hobby King etc's market, bla bla bla.

Yes and No IMHO. Sure, in their overall market of "selling LiPo's" i'd agree - I'd expect flight dwarfs it by some way. However, in their market for selling hard cased LiPo's that just happen to be around the required size for racing rules, surely the racers could / should be a pretty big part of that market??? If they bothered to support it that is.

[dazp83]

Originally Posted by Chris56

Doh!, mine are 6000! I do own a colour printer - might make some "Team Orion, BRCA legal, init" labels to stick over the top

Good idea, and I'll change the colour of my esc to the absima one.

[Si Coe]

No really.
Saddles for sure, hence the very limited stock of them, shortys ditto.

But sticks will fit in any RC designed to take 6 sub-C NiMH's ie practically every model out there. Yes you could run soft cased, but when hard cased costs no more and offers extra protection its a no brainer. So they sell a lot of hardcased stick packs to bashers.
Again whilst that market isn't too fussed about C ratings overall if you don't need to pay much more for a higher C rating they'll buy it.

But you will notice stock levels for race orientated packs are much lower than some other types.

[Mike Haswell]

Originally Posted by jimmy

It's for fair competition is all, not insurance. Who says cells are safer just because a company paid £50 to have the size and voltage checked?

Actually, It is £40 (not £50) or even as little as £25 for 1S only. And these costs cover multiple numbers.

And it is more than just size and voltage that is checked.
Obviously all the measurements are done to ensure they comply with our rules and match UN certification and results supplied (which can be up to 31 pages). The weight is noted and photos taken on the relevant packs which is one the list for an easy check (something that Roar could do with adding). There is safety of construction and drop-testing, Tube retention, ensuring that the labeling is correct to comply UK requirements and air transport rules.




.

[Mike Haswell]

Originally Posted by Si Coe

But you will notice stock levels for race orientated packs are much lower than some other types.

Goes to show they know where the market is for their products

[James Pickard]

I can't help feeling that the point of this debate is being somewhat missed by the 'No' camp.

I wonder if the opinions on here and the outcome of the poll would be different if the question was rephrased to something like "Should I be able to use my perfectly fine 'non-approved' batteries, that are almost in every way identical to the batteries on the ’approved list' and have been approved for use in different parts of the world (with a sticker on them to verify this – I haven’t seen the BRCA one, btw!) at BRCA sanctioned events?"

Bit long winded, but before you all start yelling, "Because it's the rules!", let me put that more specifically as, "Should I be able to use my nanotech batteries at my regionals?" And yes I know that the rules have been decided upon for the year, and yes it's a very democratic process and all that, but the people who do turn out to vote on these decisions tend not be the people using this equipment anyway.

Unfortunately the people using nanotech are just your average club racer, and this person, by and large, isn't going to travel to the AGM. So we end up with the situation where those who are most affected by this are totally unrepresented on this matter at the AGM.

Okay, so what difference does this make? Say someone's just taken up this hobby and has some good, inexpensive equipment and has found a local club to race at. They start doing better and then find out that their club is hosting a regional event, and decide to enter to test themselves against some other racers. They go to scrutineering for the first race only to be told that these perfectly fine batteries that they've been using all this time are suddenly no good because they are not on some arbitrary list. They are told that they must buy some other, more expensive batteries or not race. So what we’ve ended up with is an unnecessary exclusion policy.

It was mentioned on someone else’s post that the first mandate of the BRCA was to promote the sport. This is done fundamentally at grass-roots level, and must not be forgotten when you reach the lofty heights of the Nationals and beyond. What everyone should be doing is encouraging new generations of racers by making this hobby as accessible as possible, not putting up artificial barriers to entry.


Rant over!

[dazp83]

Well said but I don't think anyone's going to change their opinion on this. Just go round and round.

[Mike Haswell]

The is a thread going on the GT12 FB page and this nugget came up:-

>>Regarding Turnigy homologation, the UK distributor was invited to submit speedos on the 8th January and passed the request to 'higher management' who declined. For cells, no samples have EVER been submitted and the only enquiry to come from the distributor fell flat as they could not provide a UN test report.<<

[Jaf]

Originally Posted by Neil Skull

OH Dear,
Homologation is not to stop Lipo Fires.

It's a set of rules to make sure all equipment is to a set design size and standard.
It limits the cost to you the driver, the added benifit is you have full Insurance cover by complying with BRCA rules.

Its pretty obvious the guys who don't understand this have not been racing for many years. It used to be a lot more expensive!! the EB board actually help minimise cost!!!

I use 2 lipo packs in all the classes i race, they are on the list and have not been replaced for 2 years. they work well still.

Any one who is arguing the cost is too high at less than £100 for 1 year plus of fair homologated racing does not get racing!!!!

The only reason not to get a Lipo on the list is if it does not comply with the spec. So ask yourself again why are the cheap Lipo not on the list? Because they do not comply with the industry standard that the major manufacturers adhere too! and that can be very expensive! for example, We submitted Team Orion 1s lipo for Homologation that failed due to being slightly oversize! It should not have been a big problem you may think? Well we just got thousands of lipos made that are now not approved!!!. To compensate we gave every customer who purchased one a free Homologated Lipo. I don't want to mention the cost but that's what we did to be fair!!!

If the EB board did not exist our lipo would have been used, next month another manufacturer would bring out one 1mm bigger to squeeze more MH
and so and so on till the lipo became oversize and starts not to fit the cars they was designed for.
Then what do the Car manufacturers do? they start to make different cars to fit bigger or different shaped Lipos. and so on and so on. This means to be competitive you have to keep buying new Lipos and cars just because there is no control!!!
And if anyone thinks this is stupid then think again as this is actually what happend for many years! Nimh became very dangerous and cost to keep updating your cells with latest just to keep up with the quick guy at the club was £500 to £2000 per year! It did happen and we remember it! It is our JOB to let The uneducated know that and accept it!!!!
So we better apologise as we failed!

And that's my first Post not making fun of the guys who do not know! for that i apologise.

Neil, please can you clarify this a bit as I'm a little confused/concerned.

Are you talking about the Team Orion Carbon Pro 7200 100C 1S?

If so, the original announcement said that it wasn't approved due to an admin error (wasn't submitted in time) and that you were supplying an nVision battery of exactly the same specification to people and would resubmit it for use in 2015.

As it said it was exactly the same specification as the approved nVision battery, I have recently purchased some on the understanding that although not approved for BRCA events now, that they would be approved for 2015. Is this not the case? If they have actually failed, how does it effect the nVision battery (assuming it is exactly the same specification as previously said)? Is that no longer approved?

Many thanks

[terry.sc]

Originally Posted by Mike Haswell

The is a thread going on the GT12 FB page and this nugget came up:-

>>Regarding Turnigy homologation, the UK distributor was invited to submit speedos on the 8th January and passed the request to 'higher management' who declined. For cells, no samples have EVER been submitted and the only enquiry to come from the distributor fell flat as they could not provide a UN test report.<<

It looks like we've got an answer to why their lipos won't be on the homologation list.

This doesn't mean the cells have not been tested, nor does it mean they failed the tests. They should have passed those tests so they can be allowed to go by air.

So the cost to Hobbyking isn't the £40 for homologation, it's the UN test report they will have to provide for every pack they want to submit.

[mark christopher]

Originally Posted by JCJC

If HobbyKing/Turnigy have ROAR approved lipo's can these be used at UK BRCA sanctioned meetings (regionals/nationals) ?

( I am assuming Regionals are BRCA sanctioned meetings, but I get the feeling the clubs/regions can/do pick)

Are there special rules for visiting international drivers ?

Sorry I don't know the nittygritty and cannot be bothered to try and look it up myself.

no

assuming and carnt be bothered to look it up! good effort!

Originally Posted by dazp83

Well it doesn't seem they're interested as I messaged them and they replied with some sponsorship nonsense. They have stands at the big model shows so I'll ask someone at one of those if nothing before.

they can not provide the required un test paper work which to me is a bit dubious

Originally Posted by JCJC

Another quick reply without thinking, if the lipo's are ROAR or EFRA approved (and I don't know if they have the same system) then they won't be on the EBHL list - my question was and still is if they are ROAR or EFRA stickered can they be used at BRCA sanctioned meetings or would a visiting racer need UK stickered batteries. (I think earlier in the thread it was suggested the Turnigy lipo's were ROAR approved, "interesting to know how their products were roar approved" was the line.)

And as stated above, just like most posts in this thread that are just 'a guess' or 'I would think' I cannot be bothered to try and look it up myself. (sorry if this reads like I am having a go at you RC Kev, I am not, just half this thread seems to be conjecture at best).

no
the new packs are not roar approved either only the older ones
another good effort!

[JCJC]

Thanks Mark, long time since I was given a good effort, gold star next,

You know how it is, don't want too many facts to muddle this thread, what's the fun in that.

[SlowOne]

Originally Posted by JCJC

Thanks Mark, long time since I was given a good effort, gold star next,

You know how it is, don't want too many facts to muddle this thread, what's the fun in that.

OK, now I DO need a like button!!

[Mike Haswell]

And it has never been an EFRA, IFMAR or BRCA requirement to have their 'Approved' stickers on them. Even ROAR has dropped that requirement from their rules.