Tamiya TRF417
#5282
Craig have you experimented with the raceberry conversion?? If so what are your thoughts. Looking into it that's why I ask.
#5283
Hi, gonna switch to 48 pitch spur and pinion. Does anyone know which 48 spurs will connect straight up without any mod do the 417. I heard the serpent spurs might?
#5284
Tech Champion
iTrader: (34)
Overall I think the raceberry is a pretty reasonable upgrade, certainly if I had a 417x and was considering a v5 I would probably just save some money and buy the raceberry conversion. If I had a v5 I think I would just wait for whatever tamiya does.
Hope that helps
#5285
Tech Regular
Rayrush the spurs that are made for top racing photons fit straight on
#5286
#5288
Thanks everyone for your input!
ok so the serpent of photon spurs will fit straight on.what tooth spur and pinion are you using?
Was thinking 81 spur & 35 pinion
Is it just me or is the v5 over shimmed? the rear swingarms are too tight with the 0.5 spacer so i have left them out and the front i have left out the 1mm spacers.
Just checking is it ok to do so?
ok so the serpent of photon spurs will fit straight on.what tooth spur and pinion are you using?
Was thinking 81 spur & 35 pinion
Is it just me or is the v5 over shimmed? the rear swingarms are too tight with the 0.5 spacer so i have left them out and the front i have left out the 1mm spacers.
Just checking is it ok to do so?
#5290
Tech Champion
iTrader: (34)
http://tchub.wordpress.com/2012/07/0...-build-part-2/
#5291
I agree and understand what you did, I was just looking to for a quick 10-15 minute change in an attempt to gain some more rear chassis flex the night before our last race of the season. Unfortunately our carpet season is done now until this fall and there is no outdoor on road racing around here so the project is shelved for now.
Somewhere I saw your setup using a suspension block shim to secure the lay-shaft bearings. (good idea) I just did not have the time or the right screw to try that exact setup. So I went with a much thinner spacer on the bulkhead that was close to the thickness of 3M foam based servo tape just to see if the rear flex was affected and it definitely was. Far from ideal I know, but it was just a little experiment to try in pre-race practice that would also be quickly reversible before racing started if I did not like the results. But it worked well and I ran it for the races that day with positive results.
I would like to try a greater spacer for more clearance over the motor mount like you did but I also got to ask how much is really needed to feel a difference? Here are my thoughts.....
While at your pit table you can easily twist your chassis by hand and get a 1/4"+ deflection at the extreme chassis corners. While that same twisting torque generates no where near as much deflection in the center of the chassis where the top deck is moving in relation to the motor mount IMO. What I mean is the measurable chassis flex deflection is greater at the outside edges than close to the center line of the chassis. And I don't think the cornering grip forces generate anywhere near 1/4" chassis corner deflection while racing on the track. Thus how much clearance do we really need between the motor mount and the top deck to make a noticeable difference?
For example look at how little clearance there is between the V5 floating servo setup and the outer edges of the chassis plate where deflection would be the greatest. It is not that much so I would conclude that you would need even less between the motor mount and top deck due to being close to the center line of the chassis. Sound like a reasonable assumption?
This fall I will explore more top deck to motor mount clearance to see if the effects are noticeable on the track. One idea is to use a suspension block shim and rather than put a screw vertical into the mount to secure it would be to bend the end of the shim 90 deg and run a screw horizontal into the mount after drilling and tapping a hole into it. The idea is to have less bulk added to the top of the motor mount so the top deck does not need to be raised up so much causing belt rub interference. I have not really explored this idea yet so it may not work.
One thing to note is that I am trying this on my USGT 417x chassis and bulkheads and not on a V5 chassis. If it proves to work well I will transfer the concept to my other cars.
Not disagreeing with what you are trying, good discussion topic and I appreciate your input on your findings narcotiks.
Somewhere I saw your setup using a suspension block shim to secure the lay-shaft bearings. (good idea) I just did not have the time or the right screw to try that exact setup. So I went with a much thinner spacer on the bulkhead that was close to the thickness of 3M foam based servo tape just to see if the rear flex was affected and it definitely was. Far from ideal I know, but it was just a little experiment to try in pre-race practice that would also be quickly reversible before racing started if I did not like the results. But it worked well and I ran it for the races that day with positive results.
I would like to try a greater spacer for more clearance over the motor mount like you did but I also got to ask how much is really needed to feel a difference? Here are my thoughts.....
While at your pit table you can easily twist your chassis by hand and get a 1/4"+ deflection at the extreme chassis corners. While that same twisting torque generates no where near as much deflection in the center of the chassis where the top deck is moving in relation to the motor mount IMO. What I mean is the measurable chassis flex deflection is greater at the outside edges than close to the center line of the chassis. And I don't think the cornering grip forces generate anywhere near 1/4" chassis corner deflection while racing on the track. Thus how much clearance do we really need between the motor mount and the top deck to make a noticeable difference?
For example look at how little clearance there is between the V5 floating servo setup and the outer edges of the chassis plate where deflection would be the greatest. It is not that much so I would conclude that you would need even less between the motor mount and top deck due to being close to the center line of the chassis. Sound like a reasonable assumption?
This fall I will explore more top deck to motor mount clearance to see if the effects are noticeable on the track. One idea is to use a suspension block shim and rather than put a screw vertical into the mount to secure it would be to bend the end of the shim 90 deg and run a screw horizontal into the mount after drilling and tapping a hole into it. The idea is to have less bulk added to the top of the motor mount so the top deck does not need to be raised up so much causing belt rub interference. I have not really explored this idea yet so it may not work.
One thing to note is that I am trying this on my USGT 417x chassis and bulkheads and not on a V5 chassis. If it proves to work well I will transfer the concept to my other cars.
Not disagreeing with what you are trying, good discussion topic and I appreciate your input on your findings narcotiks.
these modifications on the 417x ? I'm eager to try it on my V5 the next practice time..
#5292
Tech Regular
iTrader: (8)
I ordered the raceberry last night to give it a try, so hopefully it improves the car further and proves to be a bit more consistent.
#5293
Tech Addict
iTrader: (17)
Race paint scheme ready for the Reedy! Thank you to Eric Albano (aka MiniMod) of Top Notch Paints!
For those of you making the trek out to NorCal, be sure to introduce yourselves so we can swap data, tips, tricks and debrief about the cars. I've got pretty limited wheel time with it (previous seasons I've run AE & XRAY), so I'm open to hearing about everyone's exepriences with the car so far.
My name is Martin Mejia, I'm running Open Mod.
For those of you making the trek out to NorCal, be sure to introduce yourselves so we can swap data, tips, tricks and debrief about the cars. I've got pretty limited wheel time with it (previous seasons I've run AE & XRAY), so I'm open to hearing about everyone's exepriences with the car so far.
My name is Martin Mejia, I'm running Open Mod.
#5294
Tech Rookie
hi i am new on rc tech forum .. i need help with tweak of the trf 417 chassis , i have seen the jg video part 4 of tweak but i dont understand the process of tighteen screws , i mounted like manual and first tight the downbulkheadas put the upperbulkhead then subchasis and towers , can somebody tell how i have to do it ,please the chasis with all mounted is not flat viewing the car towards to me (facing the driver) its litle up in the front right side and litle up in the rear left side i dont understant, i have repeated the mounting pocess lot of times and the problem continues.
thank you very much
thank you very much
#5295
Tech Rookie
the chassis its flat without tighteen all ,but when i tight the screws have the problem..
thank you..
thank you..