R/C Tech Forums

Go Back   R/C Tech Forums > General Forums > Electric On-Road

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-07-2012, 06:07 PM   #4156
Tech Addict
 
Toughbeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Istanbul, Turkey
Posts: 508
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TimPotter View Post
Just thought I would share a pic of the new tower/body support.
works great
__________________
Serdar Aytemiz

Racing since the 20th century
Toughbeard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2012, 06:46 PM   #4157
Tech Fanatic
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 972
Trader Rating: 5 (100%+)
Default

I like the cwoods solution a lot. In my opinion the important thing is that it will be symmetrical in terms of flex. The overall flex is tunable with other methods anyway.
Steve S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2012, 10:57 PM   #4158
Tech Master
 
cwoods34's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Indy-freakin'-ana
Posts: 1,152
Trader Rating: 9 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Wishbone View Post
After thinking about this for a while, seeing cwoods setup, and reading the lack of love for the one that xray has. Especially the problem with the servo moving from the torque of the servo itself. Cwoods multi-mount seems to address the moving problem, but may induce a little less flex due to the steering post mount, but thats still to be determined. It just makes me wonder if using the stock setup is as good as all these alternatives, when I use mine the servo is about 1mm off the chassis, just using the thickness of the servo tape as a cushion.

Now another thing came to mind, seeing all these complex over the top systems, I started thinking, why not just float a plate on the bottom of the servo. You could use the existing holes and servo mounts, but use a 1mm spacer on the center mount screws. The plate would cover the entire width of the servo and use the outside mount as well. To keep the unit from twisting a second existing hole down the center line of the chassis could be used to secure the bottom plate. The thickness of the plate itself would keep the up/down flex to a minimum, but you could probably put a small spacer at the outer most point to keep the flex down as well. The thing about this mount is it keeps all the hardware down low on the chassis.

Sure wish there was a way to measure the twist of the chassis pre and post doing these mods.

Just something to think about any discussion?

Thanks
The servo would sit a little higher with a plate under it as opposed to how mine is mounted. My servo sits just under 1mm above the chassis.... if you had a plate and shims, it'd be 2-3mm above, at least if I am visualizing it correctly. As you mentioned though it would keep more hardware lower on the car. My goal was just to use stock mounting locations.... if you found a way to do this with a lower plate, I believe it would work just as well! Regardless how it is done, NOT using the outer mount makes a difference.... it's only a matter of securing the servo so that you aren't relying on tape or only one mount.

An easy way to offset any flex that could be reduced in the chassis is to just slot the upper deck, or "fork" it, in about an inch or more. Ironically enough I've wound up doing this to every TC I've owned..... it just seems to smooth the steering out a hair everywhere without sacrificing traction.

The layout at the already small local track was incredibly tight..... just big enough to make passes in some turns. I had the Snake out for a bit after racing was over...... even with numerous hits against traffic and the boards (and the accompanying bricks that hold them) the steering stayed exactly where I set it in the pits. Previously, with either the stock plate or one mount and tape, a hard enough hit would require resetting the steering trim.

Although the setup I had thrown on the car was too stiff, the steering stayed consistent. I typically set my full-lock as the front wheels being about 1.5mm from rubbing the front shocks while turning.... I ended up with the steering rate at 85% and still had enough to navigate the turns.

If you noticed in my pics, I drilled out a hole in the middle of the steering rack between the ackerman screws, and attached the steering link there..... making it MUCH shorter than stock. I noticed a big difference as compared to the feel previously..... it seems like my setup now uses a bit more steering throw, but it is more responsive throughout. When a more forgiving layout is down I'll be able to actually burn some packs up, but so far so good!
__________________
Stop holding bitterness deep in your bum soul.
cwoods34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2012, 11:13 AM   #4159
Tech Adept
 
StevenOlsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Denmark
Posts: 176
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cwoods34 View Post
The servo would sit a little higher with a plate under it as opposed to how mine is mounted. My servo sits just under 1mm above the chassis.... if you had a plate and shims, it'd be 2-3mm above, at least if I am visualizing it correctly. As you mentioned though it would keep more hardware lower on the car. My goal was just to use stock mounting locations.... if you found a way to do this with a lower plate, I believe it would work just as well! Regardless how it is done, NOT using the outer mount makes a difference.... it's only a matter of securing the servo so that you aren't relying on tape or only one mount.

An easy way to offset any flex that could be reduced in the chassis is to just slot the upper deck, or "fork" it, in about an inch or more. Ironically enough I've wound up doing this to every TC I've owned..... it just seems to smooth the steering out a hair everywhere without sacrificing traction.

The layout at the already small local track was incredibly tight..... just big enough to make passes in some turns. I had the Snake out for a bit after racing was over...... even with numerous hits against traffic and the boards (and the accompanying bricks that hold them) the steering stayed exactly where I set it in the pits. Previously, with either the stock plate or one mount and tape, a hard enough hit would require resetting the steering trim.

Although the setup I had thrown on the car was too stiff, the steering stayed consistent. I typically set my full-lock as the front wheels being about 1.5mm from rubbing the front shocks while turning.... I ended up with the steering rate at 85% and still had enough to navigate the turns.

If you noticed in my pics, I drilled out a hole in the middle of the steering rack between the ackerman screws, and attached the steering link there..... making it MUCH shorter than stock. I noticed a big difference as compared to the feel previously..... it seems like my setup now uses a bit more steering throw, but it is more responsive throughout. When a more forgiving layout is down I'll be able to actually burn some packs up, but so far so good!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Wishbone View Post
After thinking about this for a while, seeing cwoods setup, and reading the lack of love for the one that xray has. Especially the problem with the servo moving from the torque of the servo itself. Cwoods multi-mount seems to address the moving problem, but may induce a little less flex due to the steering post mount, but thats still to be determined. It just makes me wonder if using the stock setup is as good as all these alternatives, when I use mine the servo is about 1mm off the chassis, just using the thickness of the servo tape as a cushion.

Now another thing came to mind, seeing all these complex over the top systems, I started thinking, why not just float a plate on the bottom of the servo. You could use the existing holes and servo mounts, but use a 1mm spacer on the center mount screws. The plate would cover the entire width of the servo and use the outside mount as well. To keep the unit from twisting a second existing hole down the center line of the chassis could be used to secure the bottom plate. The thickness of the plate itself would keep the up/down flex to a minimum, but you could probably put a small spacer at the outer most point to keep the flex down as well. The thing about this mount is it keeps all the hardware down low on the chassis.

Sure wish there was a way to measure the twist of the chassis pre and post doing these mods.

Just something to think about any discussion?

Thanks
hey johnny.

thinking of something like this? used the 2 most center holes from an old chassis. i glued the servo to the chassis and cut it out with a dremel. currently it is bolted streight on the chassis without a 0,5 shim between the servo plate and the chassis.
Attached Thumbnails
Serpent S411-image-1-.jpg   Serpent S411-image-2-.jpg   Serpent S411-image-3-.jpg   Serpent S411-image.jpg  
__________________
Steven Olsen
CAR: Awsomatix A700L.
Nosram 7000 Batteries.
Nosram Comet HD ESC.
Nosram Pure 2 evolution Motor.
StevenOlsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2012, 06:29 PM   #4160
Tech Elite
 
Johnny Wishbone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,287
Trader Rating: 6 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenOlsen View Post
hey johnny.

thinking of something like this? used the 2 most center holes from an old chassis. i glued the servo to the chassis and cut it out with a dremel. currently it is bolted streight on the chassis without a 0,5 shim between the servo plate and the chassis.
That's really close to what I ended up with. The only things different on mine is, my bottom plate is extended out enough so that I use the outside servo post and I use the original inside servo post. The material I used is exceptionally thin, it is actually the end plate from a carbon fiber wing for 1/12th that Trinity used to make in the late 80's early 90's, probably 1.0mm thick. Then I used the 1mm spacers between the chassis and the modded servo plate. I measured this after it was totally assembled and so far it manages to keep the 1mm spacing consistent across the entire servo and has virtually no deflection when the steering is moved back and forth, so I feel like its a pretty solid mount. I will be putting it thru race conditions tomorrow, and the way I've been driving lately, this will be a true torture test, lol.
__________________
Gary Lanzer
Team VBC HK
Team R1WURKS
Johnny Wishbone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2012, 01:16 PM   #4161
Tech Regular
 
Holmenkollen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sweden
Posts: 425
Default

I built a new gear diff today, the one with the clear o-ring. It feels way better than the stock gear diff so I think something is done to the mold also. Super smooth.
__________________
Serpent - Hobbywing - Graupner
Holmenkollen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2012, 02:37 PM   #4162
Tech Addict
 
Toughbeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Istanbul, Turkey
Posts: 508
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holmenkollen View Post
I built a new gear diff today, the one with the clear o-ring. It feels way better than the stock gear diff so I think something is done to the mold also. Super smooth.
Oh yeah... complete new mold. much smoother. new internals updated casing all the shiny stuff and the clear oring. I say its Evil
__________________
Serdar Aytemiz

Racing since the 20th century
Toughbeard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2012, 03:42 PM   #4163
Tech Elite
 
Johnny Wishbone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,287
Trader Rating: 6 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holmenkollen View Post
I built a new gear diff today, the one with the clear o-ring. It feels way better than the stock gear diff so I think something is done to the mold also. Super smooth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toughbeard View Post
Oh yeah... complete new mold. much smoother. new internals updated casing all the shiny stuff and the clear oring. I say its Evil

Did the part number stay the same or is there a new one?

Ran the floating mount on Sunday, works very well, with no issues. I can tell you that when I get my car setup I usually put it on a tweak station. Just to see what the cars left to right transition is like and if it returns itself to center as close as possible. After the tweak is set, I, push the balance bar down on one side just till the bubble hits the end of the level, and then release it, and see how close to center it gets, then repeat for the other side. Traditionally every car I've ever checked this way, tends to be pretty good, but always has one side that is marginally less than the other side from center. Doing the same test with the floating mount, the car seems to return to center every time I simulate that movement, so I think it may have helped balance the car out just that little bit that it wouldn't do before. Its a crude way to test, but about the only thing I could think of.
__________________
Gary Lanzer
Team VBC HK
Team R1WURKS
Johnny Wishbone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2012, 07:20 AM   #4164
Tech Addict
 
Toughbeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Istanbul, Turkey
Posts: 508
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Wishbone View Post
Did the part number stay the same or is there a new one?

Ran the floating mount on Sunday, works very well, with no issues. I can tell you that when I get my car setup I usually put it on a tweak station. Just to see what the cars left to right transition is like and if it returns itself to center as close as possible. After the tweak is set, I, push the balance bar down on one side just till the bubble hits the end of the level, and then release it, and see how close to center it gets, then repeat for the other side. Traditionally every car I've ever checked this way, tends to be pretty good, but always has one side that is marginally less than the other side from center. Doing the same test with the floating mount, the car seems to return to center every time I simulate that movement, so I think it may have helped balance the car out just that little bit that it wouldn't do before. Its a crude way to test, but about the only thing I could think of.

401532 Gear diff uni 1/10 EP (basically V2 is what we call it here)
__________________
Serdar Aytemiz

Racing since the 20th century
Toughbeard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 01:19 AM   #4165
Tech Addict
 
Geberit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 744
Default

Yesterday I got my V2 motor mount and assembled it with the V1 support.

Now I noticed by just twisting the chassis it has a big influence if you take out the rear bottom screw like TryHard suggested or you take out the screw in the front! When you do it like TryHard suggests I have the feeling the flex goes towards the front and with the front screw out towards the rear. If this works on the race track it would be a nice tuning option just reposition the bottom screw and you got a different balance. This weekend I'll just try it and see what it does.

PSis the car a little bit heavy, I can't get under 1410g no special things on the car just a fan for motor cooling.
Geberit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 02:36 AM   #4166
Tech Master
 
Benzaah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,967
Trader Rating: 21 (96%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geberit View Post
PSis the car a little bit heavy, I can't get under 1410g no special things on the car just a fan for motor cooling.
This is normal. Do you really want to spend $150/200 bucks to get the car under weight? Im at 1445 with fans on the motor and speedy.

Does it really matter? I dont think so.
__________________
AERCCC - ARCR - RRCSA

Adelaide RC

Walter Rc Hobby
Benzaah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 04:02 AM   #4167
Tech Regular
 
Holmenkollen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sweden
Posts: 425
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geberit View Post
Yesterday I got my V2 motor mount and assembled it with the V1 support.

Now I noticed by just twisting the chassis it has a big influence if you take out the rear bottom screw like TryHard suggested or you take out the screw in the front! When you do it like TryHard suggests I have the feeling the flex goes towards the front and with the front screw out towards the rear. If this works on the race track it would be a nice tuning option just reposition the bottom screw and you got a different balance. This weekend I'll just try it and see what it does.

PSis the car a little bit heavy, I can't get under 1410g no special things on the car just a fan for motor cooling.
My TE weighs around 1360 and only option is alu. screws on top and steel screws under the chassi. This with premounted Sorex 36 and LW body.
__________________
Serpent - Hobbywing - Graupner
Holmenkollen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 05:18 AM   #4168
Tech Addict
 
Geberit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 744
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzaah View Post
This is normal. Do you really want to spend $150/200 bucks to get the car under weight? Im at 1445 with fans on the motor and speedy.

Does it really matter? I dont think so.
No, I was just wondering how heavy are your cars!

And even if I was willing to spend money to reduce weight I'm not sure what to invest in.

I already have the nylon spool and no battery retainers.
Geberit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 05:39 AM   #4169
Tech Addict
 
Toughbeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Istanbul, Turkey
Posts: 508
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geberit View Post
Yesterday I got my V2 motor mount and assembled it with the V1 support.

Now I noticed by just twisting the chassis it has a big influence if you take out the rear bottom screw like TryHard suggested or you take out the screw in the front! When you do it like TryHard suggests I have the feeling the flex goes towards the front and with the front screw out towards the rear. If this works on the race track it would be a nice tuning option just reposition the bottom screw and you got a different balance. This weekend I'll just try it and see what it does.

PSis the car a little bit heavy, I can't get under 1410g no special things on the car just a fan for motor cooling.
titanium / alu screws saves the most.
most people over look their cables, especially the 12awg weighs a ton.
Servo.
thin chassis
tires. (some weigh more than the other)
front plastic spool if racing stock.
motor.
ESC.
Body.... I have body that weighs 79grs and I have one thats 132gr. so check that....
Battery. I use TP 5300.

I had 10 gr. on the car to make 1354...
__________________
Serdar Aytemiz

Racing since the 20th century

Last edited by Toughbeard; 09-13-2012 at 05:41 AM. Reason: forgot to mension weight
Toughbeard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012, 06:46 AM   #4170
Tech Addict
 
Geberit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 744
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toughbeard View Post
titanium / alu screws saves the most.
most people over look their cables, especially the 12awg weighs a ton.
Servo.
thin chassis
tires. (some weigh more than the other)
front plastic spool if racing stock.
motor.
ESC.
Body.... I have body that weighs 79grs and I have one thats 132gr. so check that....
Battery. I use TP 5300.

I had 10 gr. on the car to make 1354...
Did you try the nylon spool also with modifide motors? Can it handle the power?
Geberit is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Batu Kawan Rc Track Tongga Malaysian R/C Racers 10418 06-28-2016 11:34 PM
DRCW Raceway Chesapeake, VA // Asphalt / Indoor Off Road / Outdoor Off Road stiltskin Racing Forum 10278 11-14-2014 07:39 AM



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. It is currently 04:56 AM.


Powered By: vBulletin v3.9.2.1
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Advertise Content © 2001-2011 RCTech.net

SEO by vBSEO 3.5.0