Shaft or Belt?
03-30-2008, 08:42 PM
#33
This past summer, I found an old C4 kit at RC Madness in CT and decided to build it up just for grins to see how it would hold up against the current crop. I ran it at 301 at the Full Throttle race, and it was every bit as pleasant and easy to drive as I remembered it to be, but around two seconds a lap off the pace.
Chassis technology has come a LONG way...
Adrian, I doubt you'd remember, but I bought an Axis from Ron Atomic that year, and you helped me a LOT over the phone. I remember telling you that I was getting the C4 back then and your advice was to hang on to the Axis until after I drove the Corally.
I should have listened to you...
03-30-2008, 09:01 PM
#34
Bob Stellflue is a smart guy but his explanation about belts being inefficient doesn't pan out. In the heyday of the TC3, belt cars won just as many or more racers than the TC3 did with the same "old" batteries.
In testing we at Schumacher found that due to harmonic occilation shafts were less efficient at high speed than belts and the shaft advantage on power exiting corners was so marginal it could not be seen on the track.
At the 2004 Worlds Hara told me that prior to the Worlds he tested his proven HPI Pro4 vs the new HB Cyclone back to back with the same equipment and the Cyclone was 8mph faster on a long straight than the Pro 4 was with identical final drive ratios. He also finished EVERY test run with more battery left in the Cyclone.
Shafts were just a gimmick that was marketed very well and that gimmick sold a lot of TC3's and TC3 copies.
In testing we at Schumacher found that due to harmonic occilation shafts were less efficient at high speed than belts and the shaft advantage on power exiting corners was so marginal it could not be seen on the track.
At the 2004 Worlds Hara told me that prior to the Worlds he tested his proven HPI Pro4 vs the new HB Cyclone back to back with the same equipment and the Cyclone was 8mph faster on a long straight than the Pro 4 was with identical final drive ratios. He also finished EVERY test run with more battery left in the Cyclone.
Shafts were just a gimmick that was marketed very well and that gimmick sold a lot of TC3's and TC3 copies.
I don't know how you came to the conclusion that AE just marketed a gimmick when you said your self that the TC3 was the first sedan with a well thought out suspension. I find it hard to beleive that a company that spent that much time developing a car would compromise the design for what you call a gimmick. As for 7 turn motors there was nobody running a 7 turn in sedan when the car was designed and if they did they would have not come close to making run time.....
03-30-2008, 10:51 PM
#36
Tech Master
I am forced to admit that the NTC-3 (nitro version) was a huge
pile of worthless garbage. Talk about torque steer... Yikes!!
pile of worthless garbage. Talk about torque steer... Yikes!!
03-30-2008, 11:24 PM
#37
I also think so ! Maybe they bring a car with a flexible shaft, like the TT01 stock one?
And for the tourque steer issue, with a 45° angled pinion and spur! then you can mount the motor belt stil!
Greetings, Blueman
And for the tourque steer issue, with a 45° angled pinion and spur! then you can mount the motor belt stil!
Greetings, Blueman
03-31-2008, 12:10 PM
#40
I don't know how you came to the conclusion that AE just marketed a gimmick when you said your self that the TC3 was the first sedan with a well thought out suspension. I find it hard to beleive that a company that spent that much time developing a car would compromise the design for what you call a gimmick. As for 7 turn motors there was nobody running a 7 turn in sedan when the car was designed and if they did they would have not come close to making run time.....
You are right about the 7T I was just talking about what we are/were currently running. When the TC3 was out we were running 3000-3300 NiMh cells and we were running 8T mods. You had to gear it right but making time was not too hard to do.
03-31-2008, 12:27 PM
#41
Tech Fanatic
Refinements are brought in a design and there is a preparation for a batch production now.
Belt or shaft?
We have tested two prototypes with identical (our new) suspension/damping system but with different transmissions.
Belted drive train was from Xray T2 007 completely.
Our shaft prototype was faster in all conditions offered.
We used 3.5T, 4.5T, 8.5T BL motors, rubber tires and 5 cells, a big fast asphalt and med-sized indoor carpet tracks.
Though it was surprising for us also, but all our test-pilots were faster with shaft.
Impressions of independent observers are here:
http://www.teamxray.com/teamxray/new...p?news_id=1307
We choose the shaft car for manufacture.
03-31-2008, 07:51 PM
#42
If I remember there was an article in Racing Lines that they did a test on two cars made by the same company one a shaft drive and one belt drive. Both cars ran on the same track and racing conditions but they found that there was no edvidence that either car was better than the other and it comes down to what you like to drive. I have driven both and I cant spot a difference in performance between the two but I perfer to drive the belt driven car.
04-02-2008, 04:03 AM
#43
04-02-2008, 06:09 AM
#44
i prefer shaft (no homo) 
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
