4LikesMiborg Rzeppa-style driveshafts
07-23-2019, 11:38 AM
#16
This is a pretty cool idea, I think there would be a few main concerns when scaling it down for RC applications.
What is the actual advantage to any of the above ideas? DO they weigh less, are they more efficient? Why not make some similar parts for a DJC and see if we can improve upon them?
The first is the angle in which we need to work at speed, do any of the above allow for the same "angles" as a DJC or similar?
The production costs at least initially are probably going to be much much higher than a typical DJC.
What is the actual advantage to any of the above ideas? DO they weigh less, are they more efficient? Why not make some similar parts for a DJC and see if we can improve upon them?
The first is the angle in which we need to work at speed, do any of the above allow for the same "angles" as a DJC or similar?
The production costs at least initially are probably going to be much much higher than a typical DJC.
What do you mean make some similar parts for DCJs? Rzeppa joints are fundamentally different - they just achieve the same goal of equal rotating speed all the way around.
07-23-2019, 11:45 AM
#17
These are already in production (it seems) but priced at €100 a pair! Is anyone brave enough to get some to review?
What do you mean make some similar parts for DCJs? Rzeppa joints are fundamentally different - they just achieve the same goal of equal rotating speed all the way around.
What do you mean make some similar parts for DCJs? Rzeppa joints are fundamentally different - they just achieve the same goal of equal rotating speed all the way around.
https://www.amainhobbies.com/xray-52...305332/p417728
07-23-2019, 11:56 AM
#18
In full size cars, DCJs seem to be a popular upgrade for heavy duty, high articulation off-roaders.
Almost all road cars have Rzeppa joints. They are probably smoother with less vibration & slack. They are more compact so probably lighter.
Almost all road cars have Rzeppa joints. They are probably smoother with less vibration & slack. They are more compact so probably lighter.
07-23-2019, 12:21 PM
#19
Saddest part is to forget to adopt a better hexagon design... As they have already re-designed the rest of the CVJ, it would have been a great idea also...
07-23-2019, 12:45 PM
#20
They have used a different hex design, in that it's not a clamp-type. Whether that's better or not, who knows? What would your idea be for best hex design? I was a fan of the old x-ray t1 style!
07-25-2019, 12:27 PM
#21
From my POV, what you want to have is a perfectly guided wheel, so it means that the hexagon must go through the bearing, and it is perfectly guided. 
With the common design, that's the wheel axle which is guided by bearing, then you have the hexagon floating around, taking it position (more or less perpendicular) when the wheel is screwed... That's not an optimal way to assemble the components. And even after that, you can "clamp" the hexagon around the wheel axle, "fixing" it but taking the risk of a deformation...
Here you can see the assembly by Destiny
That's the same as the Xray T1, but in a more reasonable size :-) Mechanically, it is a way better coupling, even if it is a little bit too thin :-)
With the common design, that's the wheel axle which is guided by bearing, then you have the hexagon floating around, taking it position (more or less perpendicular) when the wheel is screwed... That's not an optimal way to assemble the components. And even after that, you can "clamp" the hexagon around the wheel axle, "fixing" it but taking the risk of a deformation...
Here you can see the assembly by Destiny
That's the same as the Xray T1, but in a more reasonable size :-) Mechanically, it is a way better coupling, even if it is a little bit too thin :-)
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
