R/C Tech Forums

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

Like Tree1Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-22-2017, 08:06 PM   #691
Tech Champion
 
nexxus's Avatar
R/C Tech Elite Subscriber
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 8,013
Trader Rating: 301 (100%+)
Default

Wanting to create a profile for my A800X my understanding is that the bulkheads are 0.5mm higher than the A800 and that it uses an AM06WL Hub which is 0.75mm higher than the A800 using AM06W. To account for that do I need to change the values for Y2 (+0.5 to 35mm) and LKing (+0.75 to 30.75mm)

When running the +0.5 width front balls for front arm sweep what do I need to change, my guess was X1 by 0.5mm?

Would appreciate your feedback, have a very dialled in A800 next to an A800X which I am about to throw at a wall! The changes to the car are probably great for carpet, high traction asphalt etc but for no traction, it sucks!
__________________
A800 / A800X Awesomatix

Fry crack corn and I don't care,
Leela crack corn, I still don't care,
Bender crack corn and he is great!
Take that you stupid corn!

nexxus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2017, 10:57 PM   #692
Tech Champion
 
nexxus's Avatar
R/C Tech Elite Subscriber
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 8,013
Trader Rating: 301 (100%+)
Default

Also the settings show a V Offset of -0.7 going from the AM06 to AM06M (which on the awesomatix info the AM06M is 13.58 vs 14.35 so around -0.7mm narrower but how do you account for the height difference, the AM06M is also shorter. I recall awesomatix saying to maintain the same roll centre you had to remove 2.5mm from the inner camber link. The A800 later ones had a AM06W Hub which was same height as the AM06 but 0.65mm wider again, and the A800X has a AM06WL hub which is the same width as the AM06W but 0.75mm higher.
__________________
A800 / A800X Awesomatix

Fry crack corn and I don't care,
Leela crack corn, I still don't care,
Bender crack corn and he is great!
Take that you stupid corn!

nexxus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2017, 06:34 AM   #693
Tech Adept
 
roosterreagan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: music city
Posts: 200
Trader Rating: 15 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeXray View Post
Unfourtunately rubber tire TC's have proven flex to be an integral, and in some cases essential to a well performing car. If you look at many of the changes the top cars are making these days they revolve around flex. I can say that running 4 screws vs 6 in the rear part of the top deck of my T3 yeilds a different change than what can be achieved with a spring, link or droop change.
This whole idea has bothered me since day 1 of learning about rc racing. Millions, perhaps billions, of dollars is spent in the search for torsional rigidity, both on track and the street. I've asked high level rc drivers why do we purposely "add" or account for chassis flex? They don't know, like a lot of other things in rc they "just do it, it's how it's been forever". My opinion is its lazy. Something kind of works for someone so that's it, no discussion just follow everyone else, cuz that's how it is. Period. Bull, make the chassis stiff, and tune your suspension, why else have all this great suspension technology? Why not just make it a 1/10 pan car if you're going to negate a complicated and infinitely adjustable chassis system?! I feel similar regarding gluing the outer sidewall of tires to "cure" traction roll but that's another discussion. Just my 2 cents. Btw, thanks Bob for all your hard work, your program has been the funnest (most fun) thing I've purchased related to rc cars in a while.

Last edited by roosterreagan; 04-26-2017 at 09:50 AM.
roosterreagan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2017, 07:19 AM   #694
Tech Elite
 
Skiddins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Windsor, UK
Posts: 4,667
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wingracer View Post
Chassis flex only seems to be desirable when grip is at a premium. Looking at real world race cars, F1 cars with tons of grip run super stiff chassis while a dirt oval car is intentionally much more flexible. When TC ran on foam, they had fairly stiff chassis but with rubber, softer seems to be better.

Of course, a lot of the reason for this has nothing to do with ultimate performance. In theory, a stiff chassis should always be better but in our RC world, it is virtually impossible to get everything exactly right. We just don't have the fine adjustability, hyper accurate set-up tools and proper shocks to get a setup spot on. Plus, very few RC racers have the knowledge and experience of a professional race engineer. We also don't have a butt in the seat to give precise feedback on what the car is really doing or telemetry to give us data. This is where flex comes in big. Flex disguises other set-up problems. A flexible car has a HUGE sweet spot it will work in set-up wise. It will also be less effected by changes in condition such as weather, grip level, tire type and condition, etc. So a flexible car will still work reasonably well with a sub-optimal set-up. It will NEVER work as well as a stiff car with a PERFECT set-up but with all the limitations I described, a perfect set-up is virtually impossible for us to ever attain.
A large amount of F1 suspension travel is in the sidewall of the tyres, if I recall it's a least 50%

Quote:
Originally Posted by roosterreagan View Post
This whole idea has bothered me since day 1 of learning about rc racing. Millions, perhaps billions, of dollars is spent in the search for torsional rigidity, both on track and the street. I've asked high level rc drivers why do we purposely "add" or account for chassis flex? They don't know, like a lot of other things in rc they "just do it, it's how it's been forever". My opinion is its lazy. Something kind of works for someone so that's it, no discussion just follow everyone else, cuz that's how it is. Period. Bull, make the chassis stiff, and tune your suspension, why else have all this great suspension technology? Why not just make it a 1/10 pan car if you're going to negate a complicated and infinitely adjustable chassis system?! I feel similar regarding gluing the outer sidewall of tires to "cure" traction roll but that's another discussion. Just my 2 cents. Btw, thanks Bob for all your hard work, your program has been the funnest thing I've purchased related to rc cars in a while.
'Normal' road cars have chassis flex built in as it improves the ride quality etc. For racing it's a different story.
I think part of the issue is that the laws of physics don't scale, they are the same whatever, and our tiny cars accelerate, corner and reach speeds (in comparison to scale) far greater than their full size equivalents.
It's the same when all slop etc is removed from suspension components in our cars, it makes them almost undrivable.
__________________
Xray T4'17, T4'14 (Wet Car)
Xray X12 2017
Xray X1'16
wlrc.co.uk (West London Racing Centre)
RCDisco.co.uk
Skiddins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2017, 09:58 AM   #695
Tech Adept
 
roosterreagan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: music city
Posts: 200
Trader Rating: 15 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiddins View Post
A large amount of F1 suspension travel is in the sidewall of the tyres, if I recall it's a least 50%



'Normal' road cars have chassis flex built in as it improves the ride quality etc. For racing it's a different story.
I think part of the issue is that the laws of physics don't scale, they are the same whatever, and our tiny cars accelerate, corner and reach speeds (in comparison to scale) far greater than their full size equivalents.
It's the same when all slop etc is removed from suspension components in our cars, it makes them almost undrivable.
All cars factor in sidewall stiffness, in road cars it's cheaper to use a tire for optimal ride opposed to expensive suspension tech. In racing tire flex is more in the grip column (lateral vs vertical plane).
Physics do scale, macro OR micro, nano is stuff gets weird.
roosterreagan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2017, 07:10 PM   #696
Tech Regular
 
MaxRain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 430
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

does anyone have the sakura ultimate measurements?
__________________
Gordon "slow is fast"
Stock Car - Xray T3 EU Rubber, Modified Car - Xray T4 '14; Xray X1; Tamiya M-06
My Youtube Channel: search "CARCAR videos" or follow this link https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7fp4qynjJzlXw13ocDpVAg
Facebook: CARCAR
MaxRain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2017, 01:30 AM   #697
Tech Fanatic
 
daleburr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Posts: 841
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by roosterreagan View Post
This whole idea has bothered me since day 1 of learning about rc racing. Millions, perhaps billions, of dollars is spent in the search for torsional rigidity, both on track and the street. I've asked high level rc drivers why do we purposely "add" or account for chassis flex? They don't know, like a lot of other things in rc they "just do it, it's how it's been forever". My opinion is its lazy. Something kind of works for someone so that's it, no discussion just follow everyone else, cuz that's how it is. Period. Bull, make the chassis stiff, and tune your suspension, why else have all this great suspension technology? Why not just make it a 1/10 pan car if you're going to negate a complicated and infinitely adjustable chassis system?!
I've seen similar posts on here before, but I'm yet to see a post from someone who has made a rigid chassis and gone any quicker

The cars haven't always been flexible. They started out rigid, following full-scale vehicle dynamics. Over the years they have evolved, as chassis flex gives more grip, better bump handling and a wider setup window.

Our cars are now about 500 times lighter than the lightest full-size race car. Yet they go at about one third the speed (mod TC >70mph). And they do it with much simpler suspension, tyres and aerodynamics. And they encounter curbs that come up to their axles, and bumps that would destroy a full-size car if scaled up.

When you put all that together, it's amazing the cars get round the track at all. So they need a lot of help, and flex is one of the things that helps. It keeps all 4 tyres in contact with the track, without resulting in any extra pitch or roll.

Give an old TC3 a go. The suspension geometry is similar to a modern car, but the chassis is ultra-stiff. See how it compares to a modern car.
__________________
Team Xray
RC-Timing Software - http://www.rc-timing.com
Mercedes AMG F1 - http://www.mercedes-amg-f1.com/

Last edited by daleburr; 04-27-2017 at 03:40 AM.
daleburr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2017, 02:22 AM   #698
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Beneath a rock down by the river. Don't have money for van
Posts: 2,900
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

When you don't know why flex works it's easy to make assumptions and point fingers at suspension geometry. With flex you are making the car suspension closer to a live axle, or de Dion axle. They work good but everyone knows better ways. What we need is to apply the working principle behind flex/de Dion axle to an A arm suspension, instead of wildly guessing parameters.
30Tooth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2017, 04:17 PM   #699
Tech Adept
 
roosterreagan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: music city
Posts: 200
Trader Rating: 15 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by daleburr View Post
I've seen similar posts on here before, but I'm yet to see a post from someone who has made a rigid chassis and gone any quicker

The cars haven't always been flexible. They started out rigid, following full-scale vehicle dynamics. Over the years they have evolved, as chassis flex gives more grip, better bump handling and a wider setup window.

Our cars are now about 500 times lighter than the lightest full-size race car. Yet they go at about one third the speed (mod TC >70mph). And they do it with much simpler suspension, tyres and aerodynamics. And they encounter curbs that come up to their axles, and bumps that would destroy a full-size car if scaled up.

When you put all that together, it's amazing the cars get round the track at all. So they need a lot of help, and flex is one of the things that helps. It keeps all 4 tyres in contact with the track, without resulting in any extra pitch or roll.

Give an old TC3 a go. The suspension geometry is similar to a modern car, but the chassis is ultra-stiff. See how it compares to a modern car.
^ thank you for that, that's the first time I've personally seen someone actually explain it in a thoughtful way. It makes sense when put that way, we race to have fun and just so happens winning is very much more fun than losing, why not use every means at your disposal to make driving easier. I get that, I do. Just seems, to me at least, "flex" is an unknown quantity, whereas all the components meant to do that job are of known values and predictable...
But I guess if you've done the trial and error on adding or omitting certain chassis fasteners and figured out how it effects handling on the track what's the difference, it's a tuning aid like anything else I reckon.
roosterreagan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2017, 04:29 PM   #700
Tech Master
 
YoDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lompoc, Ca.
Posts: 1,652
Trader Rating: 26 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by roosterreagan View Post
^ thank you for that, that's the first time I've personally seen someone actually explain it in a thoughtful way. It makes sense when put that way, we race to have fun and just so happens winning is very much more fun than losing, why not use every means at your disposal to make driving easier. I get that, I do. Just seems, to me at least, "flex" is an unknown quantity, whereas all the components meant to do that job are of known values and predictable...
But I guess if you've done the trial and error on adding or omitting certain chassis fasteners and figured out how it effects handling on the track what's the difference, it's a tuning aid like anything else I reckon.
Id also like to point out that most if not all pro drivers are not engineers so they likely don't fully grasp how the physics work. They just Drive well and do it a lot, typically without knowing why something works, they just figure out that it does. I really like the explanation as well. An analogy that I like to share is comparing the scale of the racing surface. Both full sized cars and scale cars typically drive on the same surface... asphalt. What is considered smooth for a full sized car is a really rough cobblestone road to a 1/10th scale car. So consider going 600mph on a cobblestone road for a minute.
__________________
R-Factor RC Products
AE- TC6.1WC, TC6.2, RSD6, B5M
CRC- GenX10 WGT & Pro10 Prototype, WTF1, Xti 1/12
R-Factor RC- TC4-R, P8 PanCar
Not as Fast as I want to be but too old to Whine about it... 8-)
YoDog is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Carpet On-Road in NYC-New Rochelle, NY Donny Lia Northeast Racing Forum 3150 08-17-2017 06:26 PM
Roll Centre. Hinge pin Vs upper arm adjustments YZFAndy Electric On-Road 18 01-25-2012 12:30 PM



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 10:58 AM.


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