R/C Tech Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-13-2016, 08:44 PM   #16
Tech Master
 
IndyRC_Racer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 1,814
Trader Rating: 9 (100%+)
Default

Unfortunately since the OP used the words "COMPLETELY STUPID", I think it may have unfortunately set a negative tone to this thread. Personally I believe that there are many reasons why RC F1 racing is currently where it is, at least in the US.

- The biggest issue is ROAR rules prohibit independent suspension, which many facilities use as a blueprint for their own rules (even if they aren't a ROAR track).
- For many years, F1 racing in the US has been run on either indoor carpet or permanent and/or smooth outdoor tracks. "Pan Car" designs work well on these types of surfaces, so there isn't a need for a full suspension car.
- For many years, there were very few companies making any F1 cars (mainly Tamiya), and the few that were being produced were based on a solid axle design. As such, there were limited tire/wheel choices available which of course were all designed to be used on the existing solid axle cars.

As far as the few independent suspension cars being at a disadvantage, I think this deserves a little more explanation.
- An independent suspension car is going to need more parts (such as more shocks or extra gearbox parts), which will usually result in a heavier car. If a local track doesn't adjust the rules to help equalize the differences in weight between the "pan car" F1 and independent suspension F1, then the lighter car is going to have an advantage. Established F1 racers (those who attend big races or travel to other tracks) typically want to use national rules.
- An independent suspension car will either need a bevel gear gearbox at the rear (such as the F201) or multiple gear setup with a layshaft to rear diff setup (such as the FGX) to be able to get everything under the rear of a typical F1 body. This results in gearbox reduction on these cars which makes it more difficult to get the same final drive ratio as a direct drive car using the same spec of motor. In some cases due to chassis and/or gearbox design it might not even be possible to get the proper gearing for a specific motor. Again a local facility could allow the independent suspension car to run a different motor to equalize the speed of the cars, but we all know how these type of exceptions work in competitive racing.

As far as the durability of an independent suspension F1 1/10 scale car, I can only speak to the Tamiya F201 I owned. There were only 2 durability issues that car had (other than the normal r/c car issues).

- The original lower A-Arms were a bit fragile/prone to breaking. Tamiya updated the design of the lower A-arms which corrected that issue.
- The stock diff screw had a tendency to break which was easily fixed by upgrading to the lightweight diff.

Other than that, I don't recall breaking anything else other than the front wing due to poor driving on my part. Because the car was designed more like a 4wd touring car, you could expect to break the same type of parts (steering knuckles for example) due to poor driving but not because the F201 was inherently fragile. I would say a solid axle car is more prone to breaking axle bearings if you slide the side of the tires into a wall as compared to the F201.
__________________
I'm currently racing VTA. Check here for rules/info: http://www.usvintagetransam.com/

Last edited by IndyRC_Racer; 10-14-2016 at 06:47 AM.
IndyRC_Racer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2016, 09:01 PM   #17
Tech Master
 
IndyRC_Racer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 1,814
Trader Rating: 9 (100%+)
Default

Speaking of the Tamiya F201, I had the pleasure to race mine at 3 different Tamiya Championship Races (TCS), while the F201 was still a class. The first race I attended had about 20 F201 entries and was very competitive. I got lucky in the A-main and ended up placing 3rd overall.

As usual there were a few cars/drivers that were better than the rest of the field, but everyone else was pretty equal. This was in part due to the limited gearing choices of the stock F201. There were only 2 choices of gearing, a regular and high speed, which equalized all the cars. As such they really only could be raced in their own class.

Unfortunately Tamiya never released their own adjustable motor mount, which limited what motors you could run in the car. At the time a 19-turn brushed motor was the best option of speed without overheating the motor. I think if Tamiya had released an adjustable motor mount that the car would have been more popular. However many R/C F1 purists at the time would have never bought the car because it was 4wd.

As it was, it was a good handling car on carpet or a bumpy parking lot since it had 4 wheel independent double wishbone suspension. It also had turn buckle adjustment for the rear toe, so it was easy to dial in more or less toe depending on the situation.

If someone was looking to just have some fun with an independent suspension car on an unprepared surface, an F201 would be a good choice. However parts and bodies might be hard to find since the car is a bit old.
__________________
I'm currently racing VTA. Check here for rules/info: http://www.usvintagetransam.com/

Last edited by IndyRC_Racer; 10-13-2016 at 09:12 PM.
IndyRC_Racer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2016, 09:08 PM   #18
Tech Master
 
IndyRC_Racer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 1,814
Trader Rating: 9 (100%+)
Default

One last thought, until recently ROAR was really the only rules body for F1 R/C Racing (at least in the US). Fortunately there has been a bit of resurgence in the class at least in part to the efforts of those involved with the UF1 and also USVTA F1 class. For anyone interested in racing an F1 R/C car, check out those groups rules pages...

USVTA F1 Rules:
http://www.usvintagetransam.com/rules/USVTAF1rules.pdf

UF1 Rules:
http://uf1rc.com/rules-and-regulations/

ROAR Rules: (F1 rules are on page 50 - section 8.9.6)
http://www.roarracing.com/downloads/2006rulebook.pdf
__________________
I'm currently racing VTA. Check here for rules/info: http://www.usvintagetransam.com/

Last edited by IndyRC_Racer; 10-14-2016 at 06:50 AM.
IndyRC_Racer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2016, 09:10 PM   #19
Tech Rookie
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by racenut123 View Post
You start a troll thread and then call into question the designs of manufacturers you name with pancar designs that work at the highest levels? You don't think they have already thought it through? A 9 post troll.
It seems to me that Pan car chassis do have suspension. It is the foam tires that are adequate to spring the weight of the live rear axle. Maybe this is fair enough for chassis designs that are similar to slot cars. Also the cars are very light weight, so that allows them to work with the style of foam tires. Back in the 80's I used to run a AYK 12th scale pan car.

I apologise the language that was probably unnecessarily strong. I deny being a troll, because I think there is a point here that is worth discussing.
UniRacer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2016, 09:13 PM   #20
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 3,508
Trader Rating: 28 (100%+)
Default

Most run rubber tires.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UniRacer View Post
It seems to me that Pan car chassis do have suspension. It is the foam tires that are adequate to spring the weight of the live rear axle. Maybe this is fair enough for chassis designs that are similar to slot cars. Also the cars are very light weight, so that allows them to work with the style of foam tires. Back in the 80's I used to run a AYK 12th scale pan car.

I apologise the language that was probably unnecessarily strong. I deny being a troll, because I think there is a point here that is worth discussing.
__________________
Team I'm Over It
racenut123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2016, 10:00 PM   #21
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 119
Default

Full scale F1 cars are similar in that the suspensions are relatively stiff in order to maintain the ideal suspension geometry, while most of the deflection is taken up by the tire.

And they bear little resemblance to any road car suspension anymore. Pushrods and inboard shocks from even 10 years ago are now torsion bar suspensions. I'd hate to do tuning adjustments on a 1/10 scale version of that. True, it's gone away from pure scale, but you can't deny the innovation and the options we have now in this segment of the hobby.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UniRacer View Post
It seems to me that Pan car chassis do have suspension. It is the foam tires that are adequate to spring the weight of the live rear axle. Maybe this is fair enough for chassis designs that are similar to slot cars. Also the cars are very light weight, so that allows them to work with the style of foam tires. Back in the 80's I used to run a AYK 12th scale pan car.

I apologise the language that was probably unnecessarily strong. I deny being a troll, because I think there is a point here that is worth discussing.
viking44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2016, 10:57 PM   #22
Tech Rookie
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by viking44 View Post
Full scale F1 cars are similar in that the suspensions are relatively stiff in order to maintain the ideal suspension geometry, while most of the deflection is taken up by the tire.

And they bear little resemblance to any road car suspension anymore. Pushrods and inboard shocks from even 10 years ago are now torsion bar suspensions. I'd hate to do tuning adjustments on a 1/10 scale version of that. True, it's gone away from pure scale, but you can't deny the innovation and the options we have now in this segment of the hobby.
Interesting to compare to full size F1. Some differences however. The model cars will never be affected by aerodynamics to the same extreme - which is a very good thing. F1 is mostly about aerodynamics and engine tech.

Real F1 cars would be seriously compromised by running 0 degree rear camber. It makes me curious how badly a touring car chassis would be affected by running zero degree rear camber. I'd be surprised if its not a very significant difference. If touring cars are forced to run zero rear camber, would a 1.5 or 2 oz drop in minimum weight spec be enough to offset the loss in performance?

As for the implementation, its needs some good engineering to make it work on a 10th scale model. Most of the work has been done for touring car chassis already.
As I see it, the components such the shock links, sway bars, belt drive and transmission just need re-packaging to make a nice solution for the F1 chassis.

Its good to see the UF1 rules allow independent suspension systems. (looking at the link in post #18). Some of the previous IRS implementations suffer a lot of complexity because they are trying too hard to be "scale models" of real F1 cars IMO. For example we probably don't need inboard shock systems for the front suspension, as the potential gains are probably less than at the rear. I am not in favour of just adding complexity for the sake of it. Personally I'm only interested in performance gains that make the cars faster and easier to drive. From some of the comments here, it remains to be seen if there is an adequate pay-off for added weight and complexity of an IRS formula 1 chassis.
UniRacer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2016, 11:28 PM   #23
Dan
Tech Elite
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,339
Trader Rating: 45 (100%+)
Default

You and frystormer should get a room together for those that like to rant incessantly about engineering principles but don't do any racing.

0 rear camber doesn't matter for RC F1 because the rear tires already have a large enough contact patch. People have pushed the limits of the FGX with a lighter custom belt drive, cutting weight down dramatically, a lot of other custom mods, and its still slow. I've experimented with a Streetjam SJF01 with Exotek IFS front end with moderate success.

Been there, done that. Went back to an Xray X1 for carpet/asphalt and its still way faster. With new motor rules slowing down F1 (25.5), all the more reason the simpler = the faster.
Dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2016, 11:35 PM   #24
Dan
Tech Elite
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,339
Trader Rating: 45 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chensleyrc1 View Post
Didn't Kyosho make a 4wd full suspension as well. With the shocks all mounted inboard with cantilevers?
Kyosho made a 2WD F1 way back in the day that was super realistic with inboard shocks.

In the late 90s, Kyosho made a 4WD F1 that had F1 style arms but not inboard shocks. It was called the F-Ten and I actually have one as a shelf queen.

Kyosho partnered with De-Agostini and made a super scale replica nitro car (expensive subscription service). Looks awesome but bet it handles like crap.

Dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2016, 03:39 AM   #25
Tech Rookie
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 19
Default

Kyosho F-ten looks cool. IMO its over-complicated, and not designed for Electric power.

I've been looking at the FGX. I'm not convinced about the front suspension setup. Also the weight distribution looks like its too far forward. They went for a complicated inboard shock setup on the rear end, and ended up with a flattened transmission layout that appears to put the motor too far forward. I think the lay-shaft need to be higher. The rear shock position should be like a 10th scale gas car as its a proven setup. They should have used a belt drive with a suitably low ratio. I think they could have made it fit if they use very short drive shafts and widely spaced rear transmission bulkheads. I guess there would be a fair amount of new design work and not many off the shelf parts.
UniRacer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2016, 04:41 AM   #26
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

I'll bite.

I see too many assumptions (and you know what they say about assuming). A good idea isn't one that's good on paper, it has to work better than the current idea and design in practical conditions, and that's why the live axle rear suspension (you sounded like you didn't know live axle is a suspension design, BTW 1:1 F1 cars run 0* of camber in the rear too) absolutely spanks the independent suspension cars on track.

The wheel movement is so small that the limits of the live axle (also valid for the front suspension which is an inverted MacPherson strut, who knew?) are never reached. The setup sweet spot of the current designs is small but that doesn't matter, the cars have neither the speed or the grip to actually require anything else made differently.

A well designed suspension would just add complexity and a price increase compared to the current design. Folks barely know how to tune a pan car let alone an independent suspension (no offense guys). You can't always think in hypothetical scenarios, that's why we have the word negligible.

No one's is keeping you from acquiring an independent suspension F1 and modding it to perfection or what perfection is to you. If you want to learn more search Ron Sutton posts on pro-touring.com, he explains things in terms easy to a regular car guy to understand (there's also the Tune to Win book, among others, but they are more involved).
__________________
( ͡ ͜ʖ ͡)
30Tooth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2016, 09:51 AM   #27
Tech Champion
 
robk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Macho Business Donkey Wrestler
Posts: 7,546
Trader Rating: 22 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UniRacer View Post
Kyosho F-ten looks cool. IMO its over-complicated, and not designed for Electric power.

I've been looking at the FGX. I'm not convinced about the front suspension setup. Also the weight distribution looks like its too far forward. They went for a complicated inboard shock setup on the rear end, and ended up with a flattened transmission layout that appears to put the motor too far forward. I think the lay-shaft need to be higher. The rear shock position should be like a 10th scale gas car as its a proven setup. They should have used a belt drive with a suitably low ratio. I think they could have made it fit if they use very short drive shafts and widely spaced rear transmission bulkheads. I guess there would be a fair amount of new design work and not many off the shelf parts.
You mean a belt drive like this?


http://www.tqrcracing.com/forum/view...no=21&bbs_no=8


Or perhaps this?






There was a lot of development with independent suspension cars within the UF1 group in SoCal ( I even saw pictures of a car with the back half of a Tamiya TB03) , but outside of really low traction tracks, the pan cars were faster on the whole. I'm sure if the class was independent suspension/gearbox only, there would be plenty of cars. I would imagine that a lot of people wanted to avoid $500 F1 cars, so the straight axle type remained the standard. I think that these types of cars are really cool, but cost and complexity might have worked against the class which is a bit of a niche in the first place.
__________________
A mutually re-enforcing cascade of failure

"Failior [sic] crowns enterprise." Robert Goddard

I-Lap Scoring Systems http://www.rclapcounter.com/
robk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2016, 02:21 PM   #28
Tech Champion
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,080
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

It is nearly impossible to make weight(1050gram) with the fgx without using the lightest parts, battery(supershorty only), body, tires, etc.... I will have mine ready for future carpet racing, but money is very short right now. I still will not use the lighter(3g less) ball diff, and no aluminum outdrives(4g less) to race though... I feel that a minimum of 12grams off the drivetrain is needed before acceleration gets affected... If it were up to me, I would have the whole drivetrain made in carbon fiber !!!

Last edited by bertrandsv87; 10-14-2016 at 02:33 PM.
bertrandsv87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2016, 04:49 PM   #29
Tech Rookie
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robk View Post
That TQ racing car looks really good. I still feel that the weight distribution will be further forward than most pan cars. If the weight distribution is brought back far enough, then it should be possible to use F1 pan car front suspension for a lower overall weight.

I can see what you mean by it being a Niche class. Its obviously the case for cars that are individually custom built. If a major manufacturer did some proper development, it could easily change all that.
UniRacer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2016, 05:14 PM   #30
Tech Master
 
gigaplex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Melbourne, VIC
Posts: 1,293
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UniRacer View Post
That TQ racing car looks really good. I still feel that the weight distribution will be further forward than most pan cars. If the weight distribution is brought back far enough, then it should be possible to use F1 pan car front suspension for a lower overall weight.

I can see what you mean by it being a Niche class. Its obviously the case for cars that are individually custom built. If a major manufacturer did some proper development, it could easily change all that.
There isn't much room in the back to move the weight there. The motor had to be moved forward to make room for the suspension. They couldn't go vertical as then the body shells wouldn't fit.
gigaplex is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BCE racing custom chassis thread moparsrule Nitro Off-Road 1979 04-27-2017 02:43 PM
BMI Racing Discussions protc3 Team and Company Discussions 10674 02-05-2017 06:24 PM
On-Point Racing On-Point Racing Team and Company Discussions 402 12-04-2015 02:31 PM
Clodbuster Question muttb0ne Monster Trucks 6 02-24-2013 06:44 PM
TC3 Graphite Chassis, Best Aftermarket model? Cain Electric On-Road 103 04-06-2004 08:13 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 09:43 PM.


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