posted
In the Street Division there is a rule (2-5) that states ...
· Each subwoofer amplifier is limited to a maximum of 4 “non-bridged” output channels or 2 “bridged” output channels.
Can you guys give me a list of amplifiers that have internally bridged outputs. (For example, a 4 channel amplifier that actually has 8 internal channels and cannot be bridged further. Or, a 2 channel amplifier that actually has 4 internal channels and cannot be bridged further.)
Thanks in advance.
-------------------- "Keep it Loud and Make me Proud!"
posted
I have seen (in Europe) some 2 chanel amplifiers in the range 75-150W RMS per chanel that can't be bridged, but I haven't seen any 4 chanel. But this is in lower end price clas so this shouldn't be big problem.
Posts: 1820 | From: Ljubljana, Slovenia | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
It is basically 2 2-channel conventional stereo amps (9.0s) in the same chassis. There are 4 unbridged channels, and everyone I know bridges them into 2 bridged channels (one per "amp").
Amps that I think that could be a problem would be a manufacturer "piggybacking" 2 amps like Zapco did, but they are internally bridged.
Example : 2 D2s in one chassis. There are 2 channels of output but those channels are not bridgeable into 1 channel. So basically it is an internally bridged 4 channel amp.
That should be legal by my interpretation of the way the current rules read.
Now if you put 4 D2s in one chassis, so that you had a 4 channel amp that was internally bridged so that you couldn't take it down to 2 channels, then under the current rules I feel that would be illegal.
I would like to point out that by the current definitions, I know of no high power (edit) amps that are illegal (more than 2 bridged channels, or 4 unbridged channels) currently available. Just because they are legal by this rules does not mean that they are within the spirit of the "one subwoofer amp" rule. Multiple amps in a single chassis, not sharing power or ground or signal connections should be looked at as anyone could take 2 amps, some metal tubing, bolt them together and have one amp.
posted
shedluv got a good point on the two amps in one casing
--------------------
2006 Street A - 152.7 Certified 2007 Street C - 154.8 Certified 2007 Street A - 154.4 Certified 2008 Street C - 156.3 Certified 2008 Street B - 156.6 Certified
posted
you guys are correct. 2 amps within 1 case is certainly NOT within the spirit of dB Drag Racing.
I am not sure why this hasn't been addressed in the last 2 years.
-------------------- Andrew Harper
2002 STREET 3-4 6th Place World Finals 2003 Street B 2nd Place Spring Break Nationals Posts: 1702 | From: Vero Beach, FL | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by QuadCam: you guys are correct. 2 amps within 1 case is certainly NOT within the spirit of dB Drag Racing.
I am not sure why this hasn't been addressed in the last 2 years.
This needs to be addressed....as does the US 6000x, JBL/Crown 6000.1, EQ D4, D6, D8 and the Harrison Labs 4800.1 & 9600.1.......none of those amps are withing the spirit of the street classes.....IMO going by the number of chanels just does not work.....but there needs to be some sort of list that effectivly banns the use of amps that are not truely streetable....
-------------------- Team TAZM Team Gates Exotic Dreamz Car Club Team Cartunes
Can we have a discussion regarding the "spirit" of the one (or 2 for 3-4) subwoofer amp rule regarding the street class?
Maybe we can define what consistutes one amp vs. two amps.
Example: RF bd1500s can be bolted into one chassis using a punch link (very similar to Zapco, but side to side instead of top to bottom). When you link them, they even have a ribbon cable connection to link the 2 circuit boards, this is more of an electrical connection between the boards than the 4KW, so is this one amp?
Example: If someone purchases 2 9.0s and the endplates from Zapco and makes their own 4KW, is this considered a single amp? How is this different from the above?
To my knowledge, many of the 2000 watt amps that are based on pairs of 1000 watt amps actually are completely new amps, sharing the same circuit board, input stage, and power supply. Examples: Memphis Mojo, Crossfire VR2000d, Directed 2400, Viper 2500. To me these are ok as the circuit board is common, as well as the input stage.
Power levels are not an issue here as there is no effective way to put a power cap on the street class. Companies will continue to make larger and more powerful amps until we see cars having to change batteries between runs because the amp sucked the battery dry. This needs to be discussed, just like the quad coils (and banning of anything more than quad) was earlier. Right now the 4KW is fine and several people have spent a lot of money on them. Before we have SEVERAL amps on the market that are of a similar design, we should rule on whether they follow the intent of the rules. The USAmps 6000X, and Earthquake D4 have just been released and appear to be of a similar design (2 amps in one chassis), so we should make a ruling.
I personally do not care one way or the other, but I feel that a decision needs to be made. To me these appear to be the 3 options:
Leave it alone, those amps are legal cause they come from the factory that way
All amps must share circuit boards, power supplies and input stages (meaning they have to put it all on one main board).
Any amp that is "one piece" and uses commericially available methods of attachment from the manufacturer is allowed to count as one amp (things like the bd1500 above with link) provided they don't break any other rules.
Thank you for reading, I think I've said enough for a while.
-------------------- Team Shedluv Team Sweep Team Kicker Team JBL
posted
IMO...two amps in one case is not bad as long as they are not more than 3000wts....its when you get to the 4800wts of the HL and the 4400wts of the Zap that the spirit of street class is at risk....look at the JBL/crown.....it is a monoblock, one chanel...and will do more than 7000wts rms @ 12v from 1-6ohms......you can not tell me that amp should be alowed in street class......if you want the sport to keep growing and for newbies to not get turned away something has to be done about these monster amps.....this has been brought up for the past 2 yrs durring the rules discution mainly because of the zapco but now with the crown and the D8 it is just starting to get rediculous.......
-------------------- Team TAZM Team Gates Exotic Dreamz Car Club Team Cartunes
posted
these responsesmake alot of sense. I have a feeling that alot of us street competitors feel the same way.
I like the idea of being able to use a pair of bd 1500s or mmats d300hc to compete against a Zapco 4KW.
The way I see it, the zapco has been legal for 2 seasons now, and it has taken the championship in both Street 1-2 and Street 3-4 at the last 2 finals. You can't just make the amp illegal.
The way to even the playing field is to allow 4 channels of stereo amplification ( 2 brigded mono or monoblock ) in street A. double it for Street B.
the other option would be to only allow 2 channel of stereo ( 1 bridged mono) in Street A. In Street B, allow 4 stereo ( 2 mono). The only down side to this would be that the Zapo 4kw would be disallowed in street A. In street B, it would fit the rules, but the competitor could only use one 4kw since it has 4 channels.
does this sound reasonable to you other competitors????
2002 STREET 3-4 6th Place World Finals 2003 Street B 2nd Place Spring Break Nationals Posts: 1702 | From: Vero Beach, FL | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I listen to my set up every day,its everything I took to finals and its set up just like it was at finals except for the port!! The 4kw is a vary street able amp. I think Price is the real reason people don't like it witch is funny because allot of what makes the 4kw so pricy is the quality and extra features(that have nothing to do with SPL).......
-------------------- Posts: 1074 | From: Ione, CA | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A heatsink that contains 2 discrete amplifiers should definately be considered as 2 amps instead of 1.
If we impose a rule to that effect, manufacturers could simply make a single, large pcb that has both amps on-board.
We would then need another method of determining eligibility. Power, non-bridged channels, size, fuse rating, and cost are some of the suggestions that have been floated regarding making this determination.
What do you suggest?
-------------------- "Keep it Loud and Make me Proud!"
I am not doubting that the Zapco is a fantastic amp; zapco hs always made great stuff.
most peoples frustration with the 4KW comes from the fact that the 4kw was built specifically around a loophole in the db drag rules. this was done just prior to the 2001 finals. The amp fit the rules too perfectly, and it has dominated.
the problem arrises that no other company intends to make a 4000+ watt 4 channel amplifier.
I assume that when wayne put the part about allowing a 4 channel amp into Street 1-2, it was so that general consumers who happened to be using a normal 4 channel amp to push their subs could still be eligible to compete in the street classes at local events. Then, Zapco went out and exploited this phrase in the rule book; it has been 2 years of controversy ever since.
I am NOT suggesting that the 4KW be disallowed. I am suggesting that the rules be altered to so that competitors have a choice of amplifiers that are capable of winning finals, not just the zapco!
-------------------- Andrew Harper
2002 STREET 3-4 6th Place World Finals 2003 Street B 2nd Place Spring Break Nationals Posts: 1702 | From: Vero Beach, FL | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
the more and more I think about it, it seems that the best choice is for the DBDRA to publish a list of "approved" amps for use at multi-point events. This way, a manufacturer would have to become a DBDRA Manufacturer Member prior to the inclusion of that manufacturer's amps. the DBDRA would also have to decide if certain amps need restrictions, such as: being disallowed in Street A, but allowed in Street B only as a single amp (cannot run 2 of them).
putting a limit on power doesn't work well; look at all the problems that USAC has with having to regulate the amplifier manufacturers.
adding a fuse limit may work, but the DBDRA should have a "spec" fuse that all competitors must purchase from DBDRA. This fuse ( or fuses) would have to be used at multi-point events. Judges should also inspect and verify the proper use of this fuse before and after the competitor's run. If a "spec" fuse is not implemented, I can only imagine that someone figuring out a way to make "cheater" fuses.
this is all I can think of right now.
-------------------- Andrew Harper
2002 STREET 3-4 6th Place World Finals 2003 Street B 2nd Place Spring Break Nationals Posts: 1702 | From: Vero Beach, FL | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Price is not an issue....the 9.0 is expencive but vert streetable.....two amps in one case is and issue yes, but it falls into a gray area......the problem is not eather of these....now since you have asked for members to tell you what amps should be ilegal by the current rules then you could ask a different question with that...make a new street amp rule as follows....
You can use a single or two bridgable amps (amps that can be slaved together as one)in street 1-2 so long as the maximum rms of the amps or amp does not exceed 3000wts @ 14v.
You can use two or 4 bridgable amps (amps that can be slaved together as one) in street 3-4 so long as the maximum rms of the amps or amp does not exceed 6000wts @ 14v.
Now every time a new amp comes a few people test it and it is all over the forum as to how much power it will truly put out...so it will be very easy for this to be inforced...this is the farist thing that can be done.....as it stands, if nothing is done we will lose more newbies to the sport with the advant of the US 6000x, D4, D6, D8 and the crown.....
-------------------- Team TAZM Team Gates Exotic Dreamz Car Club Team Cartunes
thats a real good question and i see why it is such a tough issue. regulating amplifiers is gonna be a tough thing because there is most likely always a way around it. people can mod internals such as the D2, or do like zapco did. power caps don't work. I think this is gonna be a hard issue and don't know if it can ever be fixed. Hope someone has some ideas. the list thing could work but would most likely be a tedious task and like i said above, companies would most likely come up with a mod that could not be seen from the outside. maybe we're stuck
-------------------- 2007 1996 Toyota Corolla 2 Digital Designs 9515s 1 Incriminator Audio 40.1 1 Half Wall Team Droppin Hz
Posts: 2063 | From: South Bend, IN | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wayne Harris: A heatsink that contains 2 discrete amplifiers should definately be considered as 2 amps instead of 1.
I agree completely.
If we impose a rule to that effect, manufacturers could simply make a single, large pcb that has both amps on-board.
Yes, but would 2 amps on one circuit board, being completely separate (power supplies, inputs, outputs, etc.) still be considered one amp?
We would then need another method of determining eligibility. Power, non-bridged channels, size, fuse rating, and cost are some of the suggestions that have been floated regarding making this determination.
What do you suggest?
Here are the avaiable options for limiting these expensive extremely high power amplifiers:
Power: We all know that allowing manufacturers to rate the power of their amplifiers on their own will lead to grossly underrated amps. In 2000, Zapco (in another effort to skirt the rules) created the 6.0, rated at 150X2 @ 4 ohm, and 300X1 @ 8ohm, not recommended for use below 8 ohm bridged, but it was 1 ohm mono stable. Thus, this was rated as a 300 watt amp, but actually did closer to 1200 watts @1 ohm. A competitor in Street 1-2 in 2000, who was under the 600 watt limit was allowed to run 2 of these amplifiers for a total of 2400 watts in this class. That is why the power limit was deleted. The only way to effectively have a power limit is to test questionable amps for their true output power. This is time consuming and costly for the dBDRA.
Channels: This does not eliminate the large stereo or bridged mono amplifiers like the JBL/Crown, but it does eliminate manufacturers just sticking multiple boards in one chassis. If we go by a channel rating, we should elminate the number of amplifiers classification and simply go on channels. Example: Street A (formerly 1-2) would be limited to 2 channels of amplification. This would be one stereo amp, one internally bridged mono amp, or two true monoblock amps. Verification could be checked by mandating that you use only 2 speaker wires out of the amp (2 wires = at most 2 channels, or one bridged mono channel) to the subwoofers. Street B could just be double that amount.
Fuse: If we use max fuse rating as the determining factor, then we again are relying on the manufacturer to provide us with a specification. This also hurts class A/B amps as they are less efficient by nature than class D amps. If we require competitors to run a standard fuse supplied by the dBDRA in front of the amplifier, then that is an expense inposed by the dBDRA to supply fuses, and it becomes an issue on when is it illegal, when it blows, or just max power before it blows.
Cost: If we put a MSRP cap on the class, that sounds like the best option (at first). Most competitors do not have an issue with the power levels, it is the cost required to purchase such a large amplifier capable of 4000+ watts. If we put the MSRP cap down to a reasonably attainable value, like say $1500, then that could help level the field between who has a large budget and who does not. The only problem with this is what if some company, like Zapco or JBL, set the MSRP of their large amps at $1500. This does not mean that the dealer cost of the amps would change, it could still be well over $2000, however the MSRP is less than $1500. Even if they put the dealer cost at $1499 and the MSRP at $1500, there are very few dealers who would sell equipment at such a low margin. Again we are rating what is legal or not legal by something supplied arbitrarily from the manufacturer.
I think the best option would be some combination of these ideals. If there was a good way to limit it, I think cost could be the best issue. I'm sure that there would be very few people against allowing unlimited power, if they could purchase it for $1500. If any competitor could walk into a dealer and purchase a JBL/Crown, 4KW, US6000X or other similar amps for $1500, there would be less of a discussion regarding having too much power. A lot of it stems right now from cost. This entry level division to national level competition costs a lot of $$ and many people wish to compete who cannot afford to. It also becomes somewhat an issue of who has more money, not who knows what they are doing (like it is in many auto racing leagues, names like Penske, Hendrick, Ganassi are consistently good not just because of knowledge, but because of funding). After cost, I feel that the channel idea could work. If we allow 2 true mono amps to compete with larger amps, that allows more options to the consumer, and usually at a lower cost (2 small amps cheaper than one large amp). I need to step back and think a little more on this (and its lunchtime, I'm hungry), so I will post more later, but I wanted to get my opinions on this known.
-------------------- Team Shedluv Team Sweep Team Kicker Team JBL
