TC design talk.
10-29-2012, 11:39 AM
#47
10-29-2012, 03:28 PM
#48
Tech Master
iTrader: (3)
Not needed. The main advantage of a pushrod suspension is aerodynamic to get the shocks inboard and out of the air on open wheeled cars. This would have no effect on a TC. There are some other interesting things you can do with pushrods but they are mostly benefits for high downforce cars, again no help for a TC. Downside is more unsprung weight and much more complexity.
10-29-2012, 03:43 PM
#49
Not with pushrods. You could do it with a pullrod set-up or some other configuration other than a typical pushrod. But you're talking a lot more complex, expensive and more unsprung weight to get a tiny gain in cg. Put aluminum screws in the top deck and you've done the same thing for a lot less.
10-29-2012, 05:51 PM
#50
All I see are the same chassis designs these days. Nothing innovative these days. It's just a matter of choosing what color anodize you want.
For any significant change, the battery shape must be altered. I'd like to see a modern design using saddle packs. That would be a new breeze for a change.
For any significant change, the battery shape must be altered. I'd like to see a modern design using saddle packs. That would be a new breeze for a change.
10-29-2012, 06:48 PM
#51
I thought about the perfect design many times and independently of any of current and past offerings I notice most people tend to wish for the same things. This is reflected somewhat in current designs and the trends they seem to follow. Right now, I think we're well underway to centralising the weight distribution and achieving perfect symmetry which is desirable for obvious reasons. The last major stumbling block is the motor. I guess whoever is going to crack this one will impose the design template for some time to come.
Perhaps a rethink of the past Losi and Xray designs isn't off the cards. I wouldn't even be surprised or upset if I had to go back to saddle packs. Perhaps best placed across the chassis Durango style. Interesting times.
Other great designs are the ECS which is only one step away from becoming a true CVD as in Xmods/real cars, and the gear diffs which are not far from perfect (I would like to see these coming down in size).
I guess the only real stumbling block is people's budget. Deep pockets can seriously push designs along.
Perhaps a rethink of the past Losi and Xray designs isn't off the cards. I wouldn't even be surprised or upset if I had to go back to saddle packs. Perhaps best placed across the chassis Durango style. Interesting times.
Other great designs are the ECS which is only one step away from becoming a true CVD as in Xmods/real cars, and the gear diffs which are not far from perfect (I would like to see these coming down in size).
I guess the only real stumbling block is people's budget. Deep pockets can seriously push designs along.
Last edited by niznai; 10-29-2012 at 07:00 PM.
10-29-2012, 07:01 PM
#52
I like it because it looks different that most and works really well.
i would like to see a shaft drive chassis similar to the TC4 but updated with carbon chassis alloy motor mount. battery should be on left side to counter the torque of the motor. cantilevered front and rear shock would allow a low profile body. maybe a lemans prototype config. this could be a great stock/ superstock chassis.
10-29-2012, 07:21 PM
#53
The Losi type R has center balance holes, (very handy), External diff adjustments (belt and ball diff tension) 5th body mound in the front of top deck, and front and rear suspension blocks that adjust toe and roll center by flipping over. Oh the spur comes off with an e-clip. But in watching cars like xray and tamiya,the Type R does not make the traction, or mechanical grip on low traction surfaces it appears.
I think Losi should revamp this design with all the new gear diffs and shocks design and CF Flex technology that have improved over the years could assist with the traction and mechanical grip issue............
10-29-2012, 07:24 PM
#54
I had a old tc3 ft back in 2001 and I put a IRS chassis in place of the tub that thing was awesome looking and stif as it could ever get I flipped my shocks over to lower the cg but that bit me in the butt, not knowing how to build a proper shock left the piston operating in the air pocket .... if I only knew then what I know now (even tho I have a lot to learn) I would have been dangerous...lol
10-29-2012, 07:36 PM
#55
It's not the motor that's a limitation. It's the shape of our batteries. These is no reason they have to take up the same space as an old 6 cell sub-c pack. Sooner or later some company will realize this, design a car and make a battery fit that car.
10-29-2012, 07:43 PM
#56
Nope roar will not let that happen but it needs 2.... my shorty set up is awesome in my T3 I balanced it with only 1 7g weight @ 1290g so I had to add 90g down the center it was difficult but end the end I love the way it drives . I'm told the shorty pack don't give the same punch as standard packs but it helps me drive a lil more consistent just my fast lap might suffer a few tenths ....
10-29-2012, 07:45 PM
#57
I think this is a great thread idea btw! 
And as i was reading through i was pleased to see the topic of shock positions come up. I very much like the idea of push rods in TCs... there would be many more body choices available!
About inverted shocks, I have done this on my TC5 and noticed that it did help. I came upon this idea to lower CG after looking at my Uncles full sized vintage race cars. Both his Formula and Sports racers had inverted shocks. They were from before push rod suspensions became popular. Guys like Collin Chapman tried to eliminate as much unsprung weight as possible, yet still had the shocks inverted, mounted out in the breeze like TCs. Im talking about this time period (60s-70s) because it is most applicable to TCs regarding shock placement positions. And even back then at the highest levels of motorsport (F1, can-am) shocks were inverted. In Can-Am the shocks were inboard, so I still dont see why it would add too much unsprung weight on TCs?
And as i was reading through i was pleased to see the topic of shock positions come up. I very much like the idea of push rods in TCs... there would be many more body choices available!
About inverted shocks, I have done this on my TC5 and noticed that it did help. I came upon this idea to lower CG after looking at my Uncles full sized vintage race cars. Both his Formula and Sports racers had inverted shocks. They were from before push rod suspensions became popular. Guys like Collin Chapman tried to eliminate as much unsprung weight as possible, yet still had the shocks inverted, mounted out in the breeze like TCs. Im talking about this time period (60s-70s) because it is most applicable to TCs regarding shock placement positions. And even back then at the highest levels of motorsport (F1, can-am) shocks were inverted. In Can-Am the shocks were inboard, so I still dont see why it would add too much unsprung weight on TCs?
10-29-2012, 07:49 PM
#59
Nope roar will not let that happen but it needs 2.... my shorty set up is awesome in my T3 I balanced it with only 1 7g weight @ 1290g so I had to add 90g down the center it was difficult but end the end I love the way it drives . I'm told the shorty pack don't give the same punch as standard packs but it helps me drive a lil more consistent just my fast lap might suffer a few tenths ....
EA
