niznai

Meh.

It's a hotch-potch of what someone with limited time and resources can do without quitting their day job.

The crucial goal I need to achieve if I am to prove anything is to eek some advantage from perfect symmetry and weight centralisation. If I manage to find a clear advantage, the exercise might mean something. If not, it will just be another dead end. Compared to the Gizmo, I don't think I can win. The question of drivetrain efficiency (one belt vs two) still bugs me, and right now I am inclined to think the Gizmo has the edge there. I hope I am wrong, hence the motivation to run this expensive (for me) experiment.

I might be able to move the motor back further than the Gizmo, and place the battery down the centre (think either shorty length wise or square pack, or even saddle packs side by side or across). Test fittings suggest this is possible.

I am now thinking about a central servo mechanism, something direct on the servo with no linkages.

Another idea is to have the battery straight up front and the steering servo behind it, somewhere in front of the motor, to put more weight on the front.

We'll see what comes out of it if I ever finish it.

gigaplex

iTrader: (2)

"Cutting edge" doesn't always mean superior. It's used to describe the latest or most advanced development. Over engineered designs like those listed above do classify as cutting edge.

niznai

Doesn't the most advanced development in anything have to be superior in some way to existing whatever it is you develop?

Why would anyone waste their time to develop it if not?!

Hey, I have developed a new flux capacitor! It is not superior in any way to existing ones, but it is cutting edge by definition because it is the latest development, I just finished working on it two minutes ago!

And those chassies are not cutting edge really. Like someone said. Revisited developments of existing designs, yes. Innovative, yes. Cutting edge in my opinion implies an element of net superiority, which none have as yet demonstrated.

gigaplex

iTrader: (2)

No, advanced doesn't always mean superior, although is occasionally used as a synonym. It mainly means newer, further ahead in development etc. Please take a look at a dictionary or thesaurus before claiming your usage of a term is the only correct usage.

niznai

I challenge you to show me where I made that claim.

Besides, I think you will run into some serious trouble trying to justify "advanced" without "superior". In just about any language, not only english where both came from Latin and where both meant "above" or "in front".

Ha. Lessons of semantics in an RC thread.

Please finish high school before you make yourself the laughing stock of the world.

PS. Try and explain your teacher that advanced algebra is in no way superior to "normal" algebra (if you ever reach that level).

Good bye.

gigaplex

iTrader: (2)

Sure.
It doesn't have to be superior. One usage is such, and you're telling me that it can't be used in any other meanings where it doesn't, simply by saying it "has to be".

That is not incompatible with my earlier explanation that it often means newer, moving forward. In this case it could mean to make more complex, or potentially over-engineer in an attempt to innovate like you said earlier.

A quick Google search comes up with this definition of "cutting edge" for me:

That does describe the Awesomatix, Gizmo and 4-X cars. But you're telling us that, due to your opinion, we can't use that definition.

I had to search a bit deeper to find a definition that specifically requires that the advancement has actually made a significant improvement to qualify as cutting edge. Most definitions I found focus on the "most modern" usage.

I finished my university degree years ago, there's no need for such childish remarks. And that algebra example is terrible, advanced algebra is more complex but it's not "better".

racenut123

iTrader: (32)

Castradamus

iTrader: (62)

@racenut123 - That is true!


I am glad that someone is revisiting a single belt design for whatever reason. There are plenty of things that get revisited and this is the first time that I have seen a such criticism. Active rear toe wasn't new when Awesomatix used it. I wish Losi would have revisited there prototype of the XXX-S and released that but the Top car is going to the closest thing to it. I would love to see pictures of the EJ's car if anyone has some or maybe he could post some himself.

racenut123

iTrader: (32)

Hook it up Juan!

masterhit

iTrader: (16)

From Friendface.

Mike

FreeBandz

how much is the conversion kit?

Skiddins

But by adding unsprung weight.
Will be interesting to see if it can be done without effecting the handling in adverse ways.
Also means more wiring and electrical components to go wrong.

OVA

iTrader: (86)

180.00 dollars from RC Market

Juan Aveytia

I think Top USA is far less. Don't hold me to it. But I believe the conversion is $160

niznai

True, that is a problem, that is why I thought initially you could have the motors inboard and use classic driveshafts, which is still a step forward even if you only get rid of belts and diffs.

Wiring is not a problem, yes, there would be more of it, but we have managed to wire computers and stuff, and that isn't simple, I reckon we can deal with four motors and their sensor wires (in fact you could have one set of sensor wires for both front motors and one rear and multiplex the signal).

The speedy would have a lot of wires coming out of it, but then again, you could have the speedy split in control stage and power stage and have the control stage in one and four power stages on the motors. And electronics have proven to be much more reliable than mechanicals even though they can go wrong too, I accept that. Look at the vast array of electronics in daily use today in hard conditions, like electric cars, and airplanes and stuff. Nah, done properly electronics are the most reliable systems we have ever come up with. If only everything else was as reliable.

I guess my point is electronics are easier to adapt than mechanicals, which by the looks of it have reached their limit. I mean from where we are now it is difficult to see any mechanical improvement/optimisation. Maybe you could come up with some sort of hydraulic drive, but again, how simple could that be?