R/C Tech Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-02-2012, 02:57 AM   #271
Tech Apprentice
 
Reese Bobby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: RSA
Posts: 97
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiddins View Post
No, you don't, but people still buy them.

I do have the ECS driveshafts already and I'm currently trying the graphite arms.
None of these things is essential, they are 'tuning options'
If you didnt need them, why do you have them?
__________________
VBC Wildfires
Orca - Revolectrix - Sanwa - SMC
Reese Bobby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 03:06 AM   #272
Tech Fanatic
 
daleburr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Posts: 778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiddins View Post
If it is as simple as that, why doesn't everyone just raise their roll center's right up so the car doesn't roll at all in the corners?
Because preventing body-roll doesn't prevent weight transfer. The only things that have any significant effect on the total weight transferred are the CoG, the track width (for cornering), the wheelbase (for acceleration/braking) and the speed you're going. This is why all racing cars run as low a CoG as possible and as wide as possible within the regulations. Wheelbase has to be comprimised because going too long has other downsides.

Everything else just changes how/when/where the weight is transferred (either at the front or rear of the car, and either via the springs/dampers or via the links themselves).

I know it goes against a lot of the made-up stuff posted on here, but it's true nonetheless.
__________________
Team Xray
RC-Timing Software - http://www.rc-timing.com
Mercedes AMG F1 - http://www.mercedes-amg-f1.com/
daleburr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 04:16 AM   #273
Tech Elite
 
Skiddins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Windsor, UK
Posts: 4,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reese Bobby View Post
If you didnt need them, why do you have them?
To try them in various conditions and on different tracks.

The graphite arms make the car very twitchy on carpet so it can be very difficult to drive.

The ECS driveshafts are great at preventing the vibration from full lock with a spool, but a lot of people still use the standard driveshafts as the extra drag can help pitch the car into a corner, again, it depends on the track, the type and number of corners etc.

Steel outdrives sound great, and are less likely to break, but they transmit the damage to the driveshafts instead and bend them.

Skiddins
__________________
Xray T4'16, T4'14 (Wet Car)
Xray X12 2016
Xray X1'16
wlrc.co.uk (West London Racing Centre)
RD Disco
Skiddins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 04:55 AM   #274
Tech Apprentice
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: London
Posts: 83
Default

Some people go way to deep and subsequently mind f**k themselves out of all proportion.
RSCosworth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 06:06 AM   #275
Tech Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by daleburr View Post

I know it goes against a lot of the made-up stuff posted on here, but it's true nonetheless.
Dale, I know you are well positioned to talk about this stuff, do you think it all translates directly to RC?

As far as I know race car theory is to make the chassis as stiff as possible to make suspension tuning more effective, but now a lot of RC companies seem to be playing with chassis stiffness as a tuning option. Are full size motorsport outfits designing flex into chassis?

I know myself that when I've played with road car shocks, it's done the exact opposite of what I'm expecting with regard to my RC experience.

Would any of us buy an Impreza or Evo, lock the front diff solid and expect it to "work" on the road, or racetrack?


This isn't a dig, or argument. I'm genuinely interested in why RC cars seem to work completely differently with different theories to full size cars.
cyclonetog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 06:12 AM   #276
Tech Elite
 
sosidge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 3,811
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by daleburr View Post
LOL at the made-up physics in this post.

Lower CoG = less weight transfer = more overall grip, due to tyre load curves being non-linear. As you transfer weight to the outside tyre it gains a small amount of grip, but the inside tyre loses a larger amount of grip, so you have less grip overall.

This is why every racing car designer in the world tries as hard as possible to lower the CoG.
Glad you spotted that one Dale. I was going to comment but decided to bite my tongue. Possibly the dumbest bit of bad science to be posted in this forum in 10 years of my membership.
sosidge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 06:36 AM   #277
Tech Fanatic
 
daleburr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Posts: 778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyclonetog View Post
Dale, I know you are well positioned to talk about this stuff, do you think it all translates directly to RC?

As far as I know race car theory is to make the chassis as stiff as possible to make suspension tuning more effective, but now a lot of RC companies seem to be playing with chassis stiffness as a tuning option. Are full size motorsport outfits designing flex into chassis?

I know myself that when I've played with road car shocks, it's done the exact opposite of what I'm expecting with regard to my RC experience.

Would any of us buy an Impreza or Evo, lock the front diff solid and expect it to "work" on the road, or racetrack?


This isn't a dig, or argument. I'm genuinely interested in why RC cars seem to work completely differently with different theories to full size cars.
Chassis flex isn't totally unique to RC, I have heard moto GP teams talking about it, but it does go against traditional race-car design. In real F1 we make the chassis as stiff as possible, but then we have very sophisticated suspension to get the car to roll, pitch and ride bumps/curbs. Our RC cars are quite primative, so chassis flex helps us out.

A flexible chassis allows you to run the shock springs fairly stiff to limit body pitch/roll, but means when you hit a curb or a single-wheel bump, the chassis can flex to absorb it. On our bumpy UK tracks with big curbs this is a massive benefit.

It also seems to give a wider operating window. Not 100% sure why, but I suspect it helps keep the front and rear weight transfer fairly equal while cornering, limiting the impact of the springs/RCs have been chosen.
__________________
Team Xray
RC-Timing Software - http://www.rc-timing.com
Mercedes AMG F1 - http://www.mercedes-amg-f1.com/
daleburr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 06:38 AM   #278
Tech Apprentice
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: London
Posts: 83
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyclonetog View Post
Dale, I know you are well positioned to talk about this stuff, do you think it all translates directly to RC?

As far as I know race car theory is to make the chassis as stiff as possible to make suspension tuning more effective, but now a lot of RC companies seem to be playing with chassis stiffness as a tuning option. Are full size motorsport outfits designing flex into chassis?

I know myself that when I've played with road car shocks, it's done the exact opposite of what I'm expecting with regard to my RC experience.

Would any of us buy an Impreza or Evo, lock the front diff solid and expect it to "work" on the road, or racetrack?


This isn't a dig, or argument. I'm genuinely interested in why RC cars seem to work completely differently with different theories to full size cars.
Race car designers make their chassis as stiff as possible and to make their bodys roll as little as possible in order to make the suspension and tyres work more efficiently and effectivley. If you have chassis flex or too much body roll it takes something away from your set up, it makes your tyres and suspension work less which means an ill handeling car.
RSCosworth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 07:24 AM   #279
Tech Addict
 
smith9turbo's Avatar
R/C Tech Elite Subscriber
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Thailand
Posts: 530
Default

XRAY T4 introduce by Martin Hudy
Sep 29,2012 @ RC addict , Bangkok, Thailand
during race event Xray Challenge Asia 2012

+ YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.




the man that have a best lucky, he got Xray T4 prototype kit from hand of Martin Hudy

+ YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.
smith9turbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 07:24 AM   #280
Tech Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by daleburr View Post
Chassis flex isn't totally unique to RC, I have heard moto GP teams talking about it, but it does go against traditional race-car design. In real F1 we make the chassis as stiff as possible, but then we have very sophisticated suspension to get the car to roll, pitch and ride bumps/curbs. Our RC cars are quite primative, so chassis flex helps us out.

A flexible chassis allows you to run the shock springs fairly stiff to limit body pitch/roll, but means when you hit a curb or a single-wheel bump, the chassis can flex to absorb it. On our bumpy UK tracks with big curbs this is a massive benefit.

It also seems to give a wider operating window. Not 100% sure why, but I suspect it helps keep the front and rear weight transfer fairly equal while cornering, limiting the impact of the springs/RCs have been chosen.
So it it inconceivable that a lower CG could actually take grip away? (In model cars)

Ive had to move things higher in a pinch at a race meeting and felt the car actually has more grip.
While I agree with your theory on lower CG giving more grip and being a purist I try to keep it that way myself, it doesn't always seem to work.

I have a feeling that the car seems to behave differently because we're observing it from the outside, not feeling it from the inside but I don't really think I have a way to prove that.
cyclonetog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 08:16 AM   #281
Tech Fanatic
 
daleburr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Posts: 778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyclonetog View Post
So it it inconceivable that a lower CG could actually take grip away? (In model cars)

Ive had to move things higher in a pinch at a race meeting and felt the car actually has more grip.
While I agree with your theory on lower CG giving more grip and being a purist I try to keep it that way myself, it doesn't always seem to work.

I have a feeling that the car seems to behave differently because we're observing it from the outside, not feeling it from the inside but I don't really think I have a way to prove that.
Raising the CoG will create more body roll, which could put the cambers or roll-centres into a position that gives more grip. But it would be better achieved with softer springs or lower roll-centres, as that way you'll get whatever benefit the extra body roll provided, plus less weight transfer from the lower CoG, so more grip.
__________________
Team Xray
RC-Timing Software - http://www.rc-timing.com
Mercedes AMG F1 - http://www.mercedes-amg-f1.com/
daleburr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 10:25 AM   #282
Tech Addict
 
RevMaxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Cebu
Posts: 687
Send a message via MSN to RevMaxx
Default

dunno if this was ask prior, but just want a confirmation.
can these parts from T3 be used on the new T4?
F/R arms
C-Hub
Steering knuckle
F/R belts
gear diffs
mid pulleys

t-i-a
RevMaxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 11:42 AM   #283
Tech Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Portugal
Posts: 541
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RevMaxx View Post
dunno if this was ask prior, but just want a confirmation.
can these parts from T3 be used on the new T4?
F/R arms
C-Hub
Steering knuckle
F/R belts
gear diffs
mid pulleys

t-i-a
Yep.
__________________
Team AME/ORCA
https://www.facebook.com/strawberryrcdesigns
http://www.strawberryrcdesigns.pt/
jorgesimes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 12:56 PM   #284
Tech Elite
 
Skiddins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Windsor, UK
Posts: 4,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RevMaxx View Post
dunno if this was ask prior, but just want a confirmation.
can these parts from T3 be used on the new T4?
F/R arms
C-Hub
Steering knuckle
F/R belts
gear diffs
mid pulleys

t-i-a
Yes
__________________
Xray T4'16, T4'14 (Wet Car)
Xray X12 2016
Xray X1'16
wlrc.co.uk (West London Racing Centre)
RD Disco
Skiddins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2012, 12:59 PM   #285
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Woodinville, WA
Posts: 2,512
Trader Rating: 8 (100%+)
Default

But do R/C tires actually work like real car tires? Or does the grip to load ratio actually improve with more load?

-Mike
grippgoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Xray T3 2012 rasta_man Electric On-Road 4220 11-09-2016 02:45 PM
RC10B4/T4 Forum DerekL Electric Off-Road 14331 01-01-2016 03:18 PM
****HUGE AE T4 TRUCK TIRE SALE *** CRCDUDE R/C Items: For Sale/Trade 32 08-23-2010 09:55 AM


Tags
xray t4


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 05:11 PM.


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

SEO by vBSEO 3.5.0