R/C Tech Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-14-2015, 09:08 PM   #46
Tech Master
 
RCBuddha's Avatar
R/C Tech Elite Subscriber
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,853
Trader Rating: 33 (100%+)
Default

Hm. Interesting rear pod design
RCBuddha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2015, 12:55 AM   #47
Tech Apprentice
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 82
Default

Wow... it looks like it will take all Tamiya bars. Not looking forward to the tweak without helper springs, but more grip makes up for it. I can see with a few well placed Tamiya parts you could have a Street Jam rear set up.
jujubean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2015, 10:44 PM   #48
Tech Master
 
malcnz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: DUNEDIN, NewZealand
Posts: 1,299
Default

I see the battery is higher now due to the floating mount by the looks but they have the damper lower which sort of rules the lower centre of gravity thing out and would rather have the battery lower than the damper.
__________________
SCHUMACHER MI5 EVO/TEAM POWERS/SANWA/DX4R PRO.

SERPENT F110/TEAMPOWERS 21.5.

LOSI 22 2.0/TEAM POWERS 8.5
malcnz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2015, 12:38 AM   #49
Tech Initiate
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 24
Default

a similar design was introduced by yeah racing on F103 a few years ago.
Attached Thumbnails
Tamiya TRF102-010604lnxpnt69m4n4z2h4.jpg  
Alan.Chow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2015, 06:37 AM   #50
Tech Champion
 
robk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Macho Business Donkey Wrestler
Posts: 7,508
Trader Rating: 22 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by malcnz View Post
I see the battery is higher now due to the floating mount by the looks but they have the damper lower which sort of rules the lower centre of gravity thing out and would rather have the battery lower than the damper.
Looking at the center picture it appears the t bar could be lowered to even with the chassis. The f104 is even with the bottom of the chassis and the battery sits on the chassis. There is no interference with the t bar motion.

Raising up the t bar probably helps with grip since it should be similar to raising the hinge pins on a sedan.
__________________
A mutually re-enforcing cascade of failure

"Failior [sic] crowns enterprise." Robert Goddard

I-Lap Scoring Systems http://www.rclapcounter.com/
robk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2015, 10:21 AM   #51
Tech Champion
 
TryHard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sydney, NSW
Posts: 5,241
Trader Rating: 4 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robk View Post
Looking at the center picture it appears the t bar could be lowered to even with the chassis. The f104 is even with the bottom of the chassis and the battery sits on the chassis. There is no interference with the t bar motion.

Raising up the t bar probably helps with grip since it should be similar to raising the hinge pins on a sedan.
It's interesting to see the foam pads for holding the battery up in this picture.
http://data9.blog.de/media/186/85591...3349dfc_o.jpeg

Certainly looks like the tbar is flush with the top face of the chassis.. maybe to make changing tbars easier? no influence on the stuff mounted on the chassis?
__________________
| THard.co.uk | Xray | Hobbywing |
TryHard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2015, 02:41 PM   #52
Tech Champion
 
robk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Macho Business Donkey Wrestler
Posts: 7,508
Trader Rating: 22 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TryHard View Post
It's interesting to see the foam pads for holding the battery up in this picture.
http://data9.blog.de/media/186/85591...3349dfc_o.jpeg

Certainly looks like the tbar is flush with the top face of the chassis.. maybe to make changing tbars easier? no influence on the stuff mounted on the chassis?
I'd say what they want is similar to the kyosho sedan with the suspended battery. As you said no influence on the chassis. Then the t bar is up to get a quicker roll response.

If you want to lower the battery it looks like you could. I personally think there may be a method to the madness here. The car again will roll more with the battery higher. That actually may be a good thing vis a vis the xray car with the transverse battery. Or you can take the TCS champ from a few years ago Austin Brumblay. He added multiple ounces of lead on either side of his car cantilevered out like a transverse battery would be. He stomped everybody at the Tamiya nationals. I slapped as much lead as I had with me on my car in a similar fashion. I got a lot more stability but what surprised me was how much better the tires wore since they were gripping instead of sliding. It may be these cars need more weight transfer especially with short packs and a weight floating at 1100g or less.
__________________
A mutually re-enforcing cascade of failure

"Failior [sic] crowns enterprise." Robert Goddard

I-Lap Scoring Systems http://www.rclapcounter.com/
robk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2015, 09:38 PM   #53
Tech Champion
 
TryHard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sydney, NSW
Posts: 5,241
Trader Rating: 4 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robk View Post
I'd say what they want is similar to the kyosho sedan with the suspended battery. As you said no influence on the chassis. Then the t bar is up to get a quicker roll response.

If you want to lower the battery it looks like you could. I personally think there may be a method to the madness here. The car again will roll more with the battery higher. That actually may be a good thing vis a vis the xray car with the transverse battery. Or you can take the TCS champ from a few years ago Austin Brumblay. He added multiple ounces of lead on either side of his car cantilevered out like a transverse battery would be. He stomped everybody at the Tamiya nationals. I slapped as much lead as I had with me on my car in a similar fashion. I got a lot more stability but what surprised me was how much better the tires wore since they were gripping instead of sliding. It may be these cars need more weight transfer especially with short packs and a weight floating at 1100g or less.
What you say about the weight is also, IMO, why I think the T-bar will work well. Compared to a current 12th, F1's are heavy, with big heavy tyres... so it's easier to get a t-bar to the work well at a durable and consistent thickness. Still always liked how my 104X1 and WGP worked...
__________________
| THard.co.uk | Xray | Hobbywing |
TryHard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2015, 11:22 PM   #54
Dan
Tech Elite
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,330
Trader Rating: 45 (100%+)
Default

Yeah, Brumblay caught onto something very early on that wasn't really given much attention.

I have the X-ray now and much prefer the transverse battery setup. I have plenty of rear bite and stability out of the corners but the car can steer harder. Trying to setup a car to steer hard or be snappy thru chicanes on an inline car reduced the stability quite a bit (not to say inline doesn't work but transverse just suits my driving style more). Had success on both carpet and asphalt with this setup.

Again, not only the X-ray but I swapped to a transverse battery setup on my Streetjam F1 too. It doesn't have the conventional link setup that would not allow it. Instantly the car felt much better to drive.
Dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2015, 01:29 AM   #55
Tech Apprentice
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 82
Default

But is the battery ever going to touch that foam? The Shorty pack will be placed behind the servo to get that mass "forward" on deceleration. leaving you with the space to place the ballast in the most opportune location. Do you guys think I am missing something?
JJ
jujubean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2015, 03:45 PM   #56
Tech Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 543
Default

I think the other advantage/ difference with a transverse battery is you may be able to run a shorter wheelbase and still be balanced. In my mind with the f103 it did handle better with a standard size battery however a shorty was faster due to weight. I could see how adding weight would help as long as you werent suffering too much on speed.
ixlr8nz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2015, 06:11 AM   #57
Tech Fanatic
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 898
Trader Rating: 29 (100%+)
Default

So my question is when will this bad boy be out and will it be TCS legal for the season?
__________________
Former RC fanatic just trying to keep up......
BSR Tires / Spektrum RC
Jamie Hanson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2015, 07:05 AM   #58
Tech Champion
 
robk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Macho Business Donkey Wrestler
Posts: 7,508
Trader Rating: 22 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie Hanson View Post
So my question is when will this bad boy be out and will it be TCS legal for the season?
Sounds like June and its legal from what I was told
__________________
A mutually re-enforcing cascade of failure

"Failior [sic] crowns enterprise." Robert Goddard

I-Lap Scoring Systems http://www.rclapcounter.com/
robk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2015, 03:28 AM   #59
Tech Apprentice
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 82
Default

Jamie...Rob....which side do you go with between the damper tube and the oil damper? I agree that on the face of it, the oil damper will be more consistent over a race meeting, but I still preffer the tube for the rapid changes we can make, and the better quality of synthetic oils has done a lot for consistency and duration.
jujubean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2015, 12:47 PM   #60
Tech Champion
 
robk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Macho Business Donkey Wrestler
Posts: 7,508
Trader Rating: 22 (100%+)
Default

The tube and oil damper operate differently. The oil damper will pack since it is a shock on the initial movement. The tube offers pretty linear dampening until shear.

I have tried both. I have had problems getting enough dampening into the shock sometimes. That being said, sometimes its better through chicanes or the like, probably because it packs up on quick movements.

I use the tubes all the time though. The range of dampening is much larger, it's super easy to change or rebuild, and malfunctions are usually because it's terminal (broken, usually along with the rest of your car), not because the top of the shock popped off or something dumb.
__________________
A mutually re-enforcing cascade of failure

"Failior [sic] crowns enterprise." Robert Goddard

I-Lap Scoring Systems http://www.rclapcounter.com/
robk is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



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 05:29 AM.


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