2LikesTop Racing Single Belt TC
10-19-2016, 02:36 PM
#31
Long time for Top to release a new car...
10-19-2016, 02:37 PM
#32
A lot of negative prognosticating about a car that has yet to see track time. The Sabre is a good car. The Tamiya Ta07 has the exact same drivetrain layout and it has been a good performer as far as spec racing goes. Let's see how it goes this weekend.
10-20-2016, 02:35 AM
#33
There is nothing new here, just a different take on an old idea, with some new technology. My experience with single belt cars comes from Kawada back more than 10 years ago when they started releasing their tourers. The Sigma V1 was impressive in its drivetrain simplicity against the last serious attempts from TRF at shaft cars and early belt cars and a crop of Xrays, early BD, TC3/4 and JRX-S. Looking at it now, the weight is not evenly distributed (not with Lipo, anyway), the chassis is too wide, and the CG is too high. I was hoping someone (maybe even Kawada themselves) would revisit the design and address these issues. With a vertical top deck (which they had in their first tourer, the Alcyon), centralised motor, battery and servo, and a narrow chassis and lower top deck, the design allows a very narrow bulkhead spacing and long suspension arms. Plus a wide choice of motor positions fwd/aft and battery configurations.
Last edited by niznai; 10-20-2016 at 06:45 AM.
10-20-2016, 02:46 AM
#34
10-20-2016, 05:32 PM
#35
Tech Elite
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia. Home of rc-mini.net
Posts: 3,549
Trader Rating: 7 (100%+)
And this is hardly cutting edge. Previous single belt cars (in addition to XXX-S) were the Kyosho KX-One and Corally Assassin.
It's something that seems to re-appear every 4-5 years. I don't believe it has any REAL advantage, it's just different that's all.
It's something that seems to re-appear every 4-5 years. I don't believe it has any REAL advantage, it's just different that's all.
10-25-2016, 01:01 PM
#36
Conversion kit was release !
10-26-2016, 02:54 PM
#40
Tech Apprentice
where can I find a new Sabre S4 kit (the one with the dual belt system)? Are they still selling these?
10-27-2016, 03:37 AM
#41
Tech Master
[QUOTE=FreeBandz;14715811]where can I find a new Sabre S4 kit (the one with the dual belt system)? Are they still selling these?[/QUOTE
[email protected]
Michael O'Donnell is very good to work with. You can call him 650-583-8898
I actually raced the single belt car in 17.5 at the cencal challenge. I finished 2nd. The drivetrain is absolutely awesome. Very smooth and free. What all racers are looking for. Set up is quite a bit different than the 2 belt car. The new layout had crazy rotation in the corners. Fun car
[email protected]
Michael O'Donnell is very good to work with. You can call him 650-583-8898
I actually raced the single belt car in 17.5 at the cencal challenge. I finished 2nd. The drivetrain is absolutely awesome. Very smooth and free. What all racers are looking for. Set up is quite a bit different than the 2 belt car. The new layout had crazy rotation in the corners. Fun car
10-27-2016, 10:22 AM
#42
I now (finally!) have the chassis.
It is based on a Xray T4, custom cut to accept Mi6 bulkheads and with a channel down the middle for the belt.
Not sure what diffs to use, the spacing is narrower and Xray diffs have the pulley offset, Schumacher diffs are too small (I need something around 38 teeth to sink the belt below the chassis).
If not, I will have to resort to some really fancy engineering, maybe graft an Xray pulley on a Losi diff (the new one they brought out in their latest 4WD buggy).
The new Serpent diff in the weird new car looks alright, but it is wide as well.
Suspension will be all Xray simply because it is reliable, proven, available and premium quality. And I have four of their cars lying about.
Top deck is going to be of course the Mi6, which made me space out the bulkheads a little bit further than I would have liked, but at least I can try all their thickness options for tuning. Once I find something that works I can try a custom design for V2.0 but still vertical because I think the idea has serious merit and no drawbacks.
Shock towers will be Mi6 out of necessity, but compared against Xray, I found the shock holes are virtually in the same position both front and rear.
Last edited by niznai; 10-27-2016 at 09:28 PM.
10-27-2016, 04:10 PM
#43
Tech Master
Sounds pretty cool
10-27-2016, 04:23 PM
#44
It is hard to be cutting edge after the Awesomatix, 4X, etc....
10-27-2016, 08:34 PM
#45
Those cars are not cutting edge, they are over engineered.
There is an important difference there. Cutting edge shows a decisive improvement over everything else through a significant advantage and that becomes the norm simply because everything else is not competitive any more. Think in terms of the advent of CF, things like that, or CNC engineering, or Ford's assembly line, Edison's light bulb, etc. Over engineering may or may not provide such an advantage, think about someone inventing the best possible oil lamp that would work inverted, or in space and so on. It is still an oil lamp. Or think of all the innovative, cutting edge writing implements, from sophisticated pens to computers. None of which has put the humble pencil out of service.
Cutting edge works better in the real world. Over engineering may or may not. Just as an aside anecdote, the best Swiss mechanical watch that cost gazillions of dollars is only accurate to a couple of seconds per day. A cheap (literally, 2$) electronic quartz driven watch is accurate to a couple of seconds per year. There you go. Over engineering versus cutting edge.
Which is why the Awesomatix is now slowly reverting to more classic designs. Gone is the transverse motor shaft drive, floating gearboxes and possibly other things I didn't notice. I am not sure how the Serpent will fare, but that can't be a cheap car to manufacture. One showed up at our track and I had a chance to see it up close. It is impressive, and I would love to just have one in bits in a glass window in my lounge room, but right now, on the track, it is in its proving stage.
Over engineering is beautiful, you can say it is engineering art, but in the real world not everything works.
This is where a single belt design brings inherent advantages that in my opinion have not been explored properly.
My time and possibilities are way more limited than those of a dedicated company, that is why I am so disappointed nobody is investing in the idea. You could say my work comes out of this disappointment.
I think the latest most important developments to come to our world are: vertical top decks (well done, Schumacher), centralising weight at all cost (well done Gizmo), symmetric flex (well done a few manufacturers here), DCJ shafts (almost everybody is on board with that now), ball raced sway bars (some manufacturers are here), gear diffs (almost perfection achieved by a couple of manufacturers), centralised steering servo (pretty much everybody is on board), and perhaps other things I left out.
If you come up with a design that gives up one of these points today without bringing some vital, more important advantage, you are going backwards, make no mistake about it.
As for belts versus shaft, each has its strong points, each has its applications, but belts are prevailing simply because they cover more ground without giving away much in the way of disadvantage.
Like I said a few times now.
The next big step in RC will be to have direct drive on each wheel (motor in or on each wheel) and diff action will be controlled by electronics. Real (electric) cars (and other applications) are already there in design/concept stage and it looks like this is the way forward. Big industrial cranes have had this system for a long time already out of necessity. In our hobby, all we need is for the price to come down a bit. I predict we'll have it within the next 5 to 10 years.
How good is that going to be?! No belts or other moving parts to sap power, no leaky diffs, magic o-rings and so on, and tuning is done without removing a single screw or even coming off the driver stand, from your radio. Good times ahead.
There is an important difference there. Cutting edge shows a decisive improvement over everything else through a significant advantage and that becomes the norm simply because everything else is not competitive any more. Think in terms of the advent of CF, things like that, or CNC engineering, or Ford's assembly line, Edison's light bulb, etc. Over engineering may or may not provide such an advantage, think about someone inventing the best possible oil lamp that would work inverted, or in space and so on. It is still an oil lamp. Or think of all the innovative, cutting edge writing implements, from sophisticated pens to computers. None of which has put the humble pencil out of service.
Cutting edge works better in the real world. Over engineering may or may not. Just as an aside anecdote, the best Swiss mechanical watch that cost gazillions of dollars is only accurate to a couple of seconds per day. A cheap (literally, 2$) electronic quartz driven watch is accurate to a couple of seconds per year. There you go. Over engineering versus cutting edge.
Which is why the Awesomatix is now slowly reverting to more classic designs. Gone is the transverse motor shaft drive, floating gearboxes and possibly other things I didn't notice. I am not sure how the Serpent will fare, but that can't be a cheap car to manufacture. One showed up at our track and I had a chance to see it up close. It is impressive, and I would love to just have one in bits in a glass window in my lounge room, but right now, on the track, it is in its proving stage.
Over engineering is beautiful, you can say it is engineering art, but in the real world not everything works.
This is where a single belt design brings inherent advantages that in my opinion have not been explored properly.
My time and possibilities are way more limited than those of a dedicated company, that is why I am so disappointed nobody is investing in the idea. You could say my work comes out of this disappointment.
I think the latest most important developments to come to our world are: vertical top decks (well done, Schumacher), centralising weight at all cost (well done Gizmo), symmetric flex (well done a few manufacturers here), DCJ shafts (almost everybody is on board with that now), ball raced sway bars (some manufacturers are here), gear diffs (almost perfection achieved by a couple of manufacturers), centralised steering servo (pretty much everybody is on board), and perhaps other things I left out.
If you come up with a design that gives up one of these points today without bringing some vital, more important advantage, you are going backwards, make no mistake about it.
As for belts versus shaft, each has its strong points, each has its applications, but belts are prevailing simply because they cover more ground without giving away much in the way of disadvantage.
Like I said a few times now.
The next big step in RC will be to have direct drive on each wheel (motor in or on each wheel) and diff action will be controlled by electronics. Real (electric) cars (and other applications) are already there in design/concept stage and it looks like this is the way forward. Big industrial cranes have had this system for a long time already out of necessity. In our hobby, all we need is for the price to come down a bit. I predict we'll have it within the next 5 to 10 years.
How good is that going to be?! No belts or other moving parts to sap power, no leaky diffs, magic o-rings and so on, and tuning is done without removing a single screw or even coming off the driver stand, from your radio. Good times ahead.