R/C Tech Forums

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

Like Tree6Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-30-2016, 05:58 PM   #7321
Tech Master
 
b20btec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Sugar Land
Posts: 1,079
Trader Rating: 11 (100%+)
Default

96-99 is what I use with a 47-51 pinion. Top deck comes off for pinion change.
__________________
Soap



REFLEXRACING.NET * TEXASEOS.NET * YOKOMO
b20btec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2016, 08:24 PM   #7322
Tech Master
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,004
Trader Rating: 11 (100%+)
Default

Ok thanks guys for the spur gear info.
__________________
Yokomo BD8 x 2 , BD7 2016, YRX-12, Tamiya TRF419, Associated B6, B6D, B5M Factory Lite, B64D, B44.3, RC8B3, RC8B3e

My Outdated R/C Car collection:
Associated B44, Associated NTC3, Tamiya TRF415, TRF415 MSX MRE, TRF416X
190mph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2016, 09:14 PM   #7323
Tech Regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 398
Trader Rating: 6 (100%+)
Default

Anyone running a 2015 in USGT ? Just getting into onroad and looking for gearing advice for a medium sized grey crc carpet track.
__________________
KW Raceway https://m.facebook.com/kwraceway

Mugen Seiki/Yokomo Usa/Protek/Amain/R1 Wurks/Flashpoint/KW Raceway
robbie_gtc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2016, 07:31 AM   #7324
Tech Regular
 
Andy63's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 398
Default

Hello everyone! i see that many people requesting good setups for the BD7 for indoor as there are not many out there. so i wanted to provide a setup for you guys. also have a clip you can look at the car how it looks like

SETUP: https://andrefossto.wordpress.com/20...-indoor-setup/

VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkSe5YOeDeA
__________________
www.andrefossto.wordpress.com|HOBBYWING |YOKOMO |HBracing |MIBOSPORT.COM |Reservdelsrc.com |Jockeli-Painting |
Andy63 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2016, 07:17 PM   #7325
OVA
Tech Champion
 
OVA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: WASHINGTON
Posts: 8,795
Trader Rating: 77 (100%+)
Default Samix block

H
__________________
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work

Last edited by OVA; 11-15-2016 at 08:03 PM.
OVA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2016, 06:27 AM   #7326
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Beneath a rock down by the river. Don't have money for van
Posts: 3,043
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedBullFiXX View Post
Updated Spring chart with SLF type II springs

Greetings Yokomo camp. Who's in for technical mumbo jumbo jargon?
You might not know that I like to reverse engineer suspension designs and learn the dynamics behind, this has been going for a few years but enough with the chit chat. Let's cut the chase, what brought me here is the BD7'16. Perfect example of what's going on with TC cars right now.
A suspension has two components, geometry (CG and roll centre heights, arm length and angle - roll stiffness) and mechanical (springs and roll bars* - ride frequency). A balance of the two is needed to have a well performing car. The problem is tires and the entire car like a certain ride frequency (lower frequencies equal softer suspension and vice versa). The lower CG height brought with this iteration of the BD7 raised roll stiffness a fair amount, while itself a good change people didn't know how to react to it. That's why people claim the '16 is bad, it isn't, quite the contrary! The change it needs is to rebalance both suspension components back to what the tires like. This will sound outlandish but I tested this theory over and over, our cars are too stiffly sprung because the roll stiffness is too low. What all cars benefit is softer springs and higher roll centres (or in the '16 case nothing as the CG height is lower). I see most are using pink-blue springs which have 260-280gr.cm which provide ride frequencies of around 2Hz having a big toll on the tires (the ring of death will be on the next episode), my experiments have produced better results the ride frequency is bellow 1.5Hz, which according to my calculations would be something around black springs being a necessity but worth it. Applicable in all grip levels and surface types.

TL: DR; the '16 is too stiff by geometry, use of softer springs is a necessity to have a car better than any of the predecessors.

BTW, this is applicable to all cars in the since the TRF415, Awesomatix included. I wanted the Yokomo camp to have an advantage because I have good friends here
__________________
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) https://www.facebook.com/becomeasetupguru/
30Tooth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2016, 11:32 AM   #7327
Tech Apprentice
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 79
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 30Tooth View Post
Greetings Yokomo camp. Who's in for technical mumbo jumbo jargon?
You might not know that I like to reverse engineer suspension designs and learn the dynamics behind, this has been going for a few years but enough with the chit chat. Let's cut the chase, what brought me here is the BD7'16. Perfect example of what's going on with TC cars right now.
A suspension has two components, geometry (CG and roll centre heights, arm length and angle - roll stiffness) and mechanical (springs and roll bars* - ride frequency). A balance of the two is needed to have a well performing car. The problem is tires and the entire car like a certain ride frequency (lower frequencies equal softer suspension and vice versa). The lower CG height brought with this iteration of the BD7 raised roll stiffness a fair amount, while itself a good change people didn't know how to react to it. That's why people claim the '16 is bad, it isn't, quite the contrary! The change it needs is to rebalance both suspension components back to what the tires like. This will sound outlandish but I tested this theory over and over, our cars are too stiffly sprung because the roll stiffness is too low. What all cars benefit is softer springs and higher roll centres (or in the '16 case nothing as the CG height is lower). I see most are using pink-blue springs which have 260-280gr.cm which provide ride frequencies of around 2Hz having a big toll on the tires (the ring of death will be on the next episode), my experiments have produced better results the ride frequency is bellow 1.5Hz, which according to my calculations would be something around black springs being a necessity but worth it. Applicable in all grip levels and surface types.

TL: DR; the '16 is too stiff by geometry, use of softer springs is a necessity to have a car better than any of the predecessors.

BTW, this is applicable to all cars in the since the TRF415, Awesomatix included. I wanted the Yokomo camp to have an advantage because I have good friends here
You got it nailed right on the dot mate, only towards the final end of the local Nationals ( TC championship ) I began to understand what the 16 needs by accident! like you said where most people would stay within the pink blue springs region I began to delve into softer springs by jumping camp across to X Ray utilizing their softer springs as well, ( never owned black for we never thought it could be used! Lol! ) and together with this combo raising also front rear roll centers , I had a car that brought me into Top 5 on the A main Super Stock boosted category and the pro level guys raising eyebrows on how I got there especially with a 16! ( Not to mention I nearly TQ'ed the last round being the only car out of 40 managing sub lap times matching slow Modified class times ) Mind you our traction levels are always Low at best whole year round on Asphalt! I'm not a pro driver by any means but I've got a car that really rocks!

Thus I told the guys over here, the 16 doesn't have a design issue, it is us that do not understand the car enough, in fact we have one hell of car that I reckon could still kick arse even with the arrival of the BD8!
BD1541 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2016, 05:06 AM   #7328
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Beneath a rock down by the river. Don't have money for van
Posts: 3,043
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Glad to hear about your success with the '16. I have one question now that you also changed roll centres, did you ran more or less droop?
__________________
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) https://www.facebook.com/becomeasetupguru/
30Tooth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2016, 08:29 AM   #7329
Tech Initiate
 
Mach1Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Rockvale, TN
Posts: 36
Trader Rating: 13 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 30Tooth View Post
The change it needs is to rebalance both suspension components back to what the tires like. This will sound outlandish but I tested this theory over and over, our cars are too stiffly sprung because the roll stiffness is too low. What all cars benefit is softer springs and higher roll centres (or in the '16 case nothing as the CG height is lower). I see most are using pink-blue springs which have 260-280gr.cm which provide ride frequencies of around 2Hz having a big toll on the tires (the ring of death will be on the next episode), my experiments have produced better results the ride frequency is bellow 1.5Hz, which according to my calculations would be something around black springs being a necessity but worth it. Applicable in all grip levels and surface types.
Very helpful info. Are you recommending Black (2.3) springs in front and rear? And, are you also suggesting that softer sway bars would also be better (front and rear)? Do we need to increase ride height and/or droop to compensate for softer springs? Thanks. PS: was wondering why the "ring of death" seems to appear much sooner on my new BD7-16. Eager to hear your theory on this.
Mach1Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2016, 09:20 AM   #7330
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 161
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mach1Man View Post
Very helpful info. Are you recommending Black (2.3) springs in front and rear? And, are you also suggesting that softer sway bars would also be better (front and rear)? Do we need to increase ride height and/or droop to compensate for softer springs? Thanks. PS: was wondering why the "ring of death" seems to appear much sooner on my new BD7-16. Eager to hear your theory on this.
Have had a lot of success running black rear and blue front springs. Using the stock sway bars. The only change done was to reduce a little rear droop. Ride height was 5.2 front and 5.6 rear.
Rodney Racer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2016, 02:16 PM   #7331
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Beneath a rock down by the river. Don't have money for van
Posts: 3,043
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mach1Man View Post
Very helpful info. Are you recommending Black (2.3) springs in front and rear? And, are you also suggesting that softer sway bars would also be better (front and rear)? Do we need to increase ride height and/or droop to compensate for softer springs? Thanks. PS: was wondering why the "ring of death" seems to appear much sooner on my new BD7-16. Eager to hear your theory on this.
Not that combo per se but staying in the soft range of the spring chart. About sway bars no change needed, at least primarily. Be aware the car will pitch and squat a little more with the softer springs, instead of using less droop try running anti dive (or anti lift depending if your car has too much corner entry or exit) and anti squat. Other than that not really much changes.
The ring depends on roll and camber gain, most cars use more camber gain in the rear because it rolls too much the problem isn't being tackled at the core. So by using higher roll centres the car will roll less and therefore need less camber gain, making the rear tires flatter without that dynamic camber motion. Your case I believe is because of the lower CG height being closer to the roll centre, the car is already rolling less because of that, keeping camber gain the same as before exacerbates that dynamic camber situation and the tire is overworked on that small area. My current tires don't have a ring of wear (they are broken in), I know they are being kept at closest to -1* of camber at most times so they wear the entire width. Let me see if I can attach a pic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodney Racer View Post
Have had a lot of success running black rear and blue front springs. Using the stock sway bars. The only change done was to reduce a little rear droop. Ride height was 5.2 front and 5.6 rear.
Great to hear! If I see correctly the BD8 went back to high diffs but closer weight to centre of the car, that will surely make the car more darty and therefore roll a bit more. While that isn't figured out the '16 can enjoy a big setup advantage.
__________________
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) https://www.facebook.com/becomeasetupguru/

Last edited by 30Tooth; 11-22-2016 at 03:29 PM.
30Tooth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2016, 03:13 PM   #7332
Tech Master
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,004
Trader Rating: 11 (100%+)
Default

Anyone running Xray Progressive springs both front and back?


2.5-2.8 for the front


2.3-2.6 for the rear




I ordered some, hope they can be useful for carpet surface.
__________________
Yokomo BD8 x 2 , BD7 2016, YRX-12, Tamiya TRF419, Associated B6, B6D, B5M Factory Lite, B64D, B44.3, RC8B3, RC8B3e

My Outdated R/C Car collection:
Associated B44, Associated NTC3, Tamiya TRF415, TRF415 MSX MRE, TRF416X
190mph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2016, 03:28 PM   #7333
OVA
Tech Champion
 
OVA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: WASHINGTON
Posts: 8,795
Trader Rating: 77 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 190mph View Post
Anyone running Xray Progressive springs both front and back?


2.5-2.8 for the front


2.3-2.6 for the rear




I ordered some, hope they can be useful for carpet surface.
Hi
Just passed weekend races ,I ran yokomo pink and blue
tonite I going to give a try 2.5 front and rear....see how it does night
__________________
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work
OVA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2016, 03:01 AM   #7334
Tech Regular
 
Andy63's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 398
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 30Tooth View Post
Greetings Yokomo camp. Who's in for technical mumbo jumbo jargon?
You might not know that I like to reverse engineer suspension designs and learn the dynamics behind, this has been going for a few years but enough with the chit chat. Let's cut the chase, what brought me here is the BD7'16. Perfect example of what's going on with TC cars right now.
A suspension has two components, geometry (CG and roll centre heights, arm length and angle - roll stiffness) and mechanical (springs and roll bars* - ride frequency). A balance of the two is needed to have a well performing car. The problem is tires and the entire car like a certain ride frequency (lower frequencies equal softer suspension and vice versa). The lower CG height brought with this iteration of the BD7 raised roll stiffness a fair amount, while itself a good change people didn't know how to react to it. That's why people claim the '16 is bad, it isn't, quite the contrary! The change it needs is to rebalance both suspension components back to what the tires like. This will sound outlandish but I tested this theory over and over, our cars are too stiffly sprung because the roll stiffness is too low. What all cars benefit is softer springs and higher roll centres (or in the '16 case nothing as the CG height is lower). I see most are using pink-blue springs which have 260-280gr.cm which provide ride frequencies of around 2Hz having a big toll on the tires (the ring of death will be on the next episode), my experiments have produced better results the ride frequency is bellow 1.5Hz, which according to my calculations would be something around black springs being a necessity but worth it. Applicable in all grip levels and surface types.

TL: DR; the '16 is too stiff by geometry, use of softer springs is a necessity to have a car better than any of the predecessors.

BTW, this is applicable to all cars in the since the TRF415, Awesomatix included. I wanted the Yokomo camp to have an advantage because I have good friends here

This sounds great! Care to share a setup we can try out? would be great to see how the car could work!
__________________
www.andrefossto.wordpress.com|HOBBYWING |YOKOMO |HBracing |MIBOSPORT.COM |Reservdelsrc.com |Jockeli-Painting |
Andy63 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2016, 07:27 AM   #7335
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Beneath a rock down by the river. Don't have money for van
Posts: 3,043
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy63 View Post
This sounds great! Care to share a setup we can try out? would be great to see how the car could work!
It's easy, as Rodney Racer said: blue front springs, black rear springs. Then if the car rolls that much increase by 0.5mm or 1mm the shims used under the front and rear suspension blocks.
If the car becomes too sensitive subtract the height of shims used under the suspension blocks from under the outer ball stud on the hub.
__________________
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) https://www.facebook.com/becomeasetupguru/
30Tooth is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"TITC" THAILAND INTERNATIONAL TOURING CAR CHAMPIONSHIP 2006 John Doucakis Electric On-Road 233 03-20-2016 02:30 PM
Revolution Touring Car Championship 2005 (RTCC) SuPerDraGon Singapore R/C Racers 639 10-01-2005 03:25 AM
LRP Touring Car Masters 2005 V12 Electric On-Road 337 09-02-2005 12:43 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 04:46 AM.


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