Project: Team Associated TC9
12-16-2011, 06:45 PM
#61
Tech Adept
12-16-2011, 10:19 PM
#62
mounting this will be the easiest part i think. the bearing holders for your shaft system will basicly be a slab of material with a few holes drilled in it. no big deal. you can use setscrews to hold bearings in place, or if your good with your drillpress, can make flanges ect.
though id suggest maybe mounting your front layshaft brackets to the front bulkhead to minimize tweak from the chassis flexing. same with the rear.
for shaft drive, id stick to associated ntc3 driveshaft and front input shaft. put an input shaft on each end of the car with a small spring inside to center the shaft as the car flexes.
if the shaft is too long/short, cut it, cut a peice of tube the right inner size to slip over and secure with setscrews.
I could draw something up if needed. or i can cut up my tc5
though id suggest maybe mounting your front layshaft brackets to the front bulkhead to minimize tweak from the chassis flexing. same with the rear.
for shaft drive, id stick to associated ntc3 driveshaft and front input shaft. put an input shaft on each end of the car with a small spring inside to center the shaft as the car flexes.
if the shaft is too long/short, cut it, cut a peice of tube the right inner size to slip over and secure with setscrews.
I could draw something up if needed. or i can cut up my tc5
12-17-2011, 02:04 AM
#63
I think you're right to look at belts instead, a lot less accuracy is needed so it's much more suitable to those of us making bits in the garage with a drill press and Dremel 
With the gears done as in your photos it would gear the shaft up so it would be at about motor speed. I think even the manufacturers would struggle to make the gears and shaft work at that speed!
With the gears done as in your photos it would gear the shaft up so it would be at about motor speed. I think even the manufacturers would struggle to make the gears and shaft work at that speed!
12-17-2011, 05:06 PM
#65
EUREKA! I have come up with an excellent idea for a one belt system.. while keeping the battery and motor centralized.. and without having to cut a channel out of the entire chassis for the belt AND without having to use a pan car servo mounting position 
...simple..yet efficient
I believe, I'm going to run with it... details to come once I start either building..or drawing it up in CAD
Excellent! Thank you for sharing. #3 has given me a very very great idea 
I understand what your saying...I think its do able.. but it is still a complex design. I guess you could say its not a very elegant design. I believe I can make a one belt system work out which I believe would be a simpler design and would yield a higher efficiency. I have tried to do too complex of designs to find out that a simple design would have worked better.
I agree belts are more suited for hand tools.
...simple..yet efficient I believe, I'm going to run with it... details to come once I start either building..or drawing it up in CAD
mounting this will be the easiest part i think. the bearing holders for your shaft system will basicly be a slab of material with a few holes drilled in it. no big deal. you can use setscrews to hold bearings in place, or if your good with your drillpress, can make flanges ect.
though id suggest maybe mounting your front layshaft brackets to the front bulkhead to minimize tweak from the chassis flexing. same with the rear.
for shaft drive, id stick to associated ntc3 driveshaft and front input shaft. put an input shaft on each end of the car with a small spring inside to center the shaft as the car flexes.
if the shaft is too long/short, cut it, cut a peice of tube the right inner size to slip over and secure with setscrews.
I could draw something up if needed. or i can cut up my tc5
though id suggest maybe mounting your front layshaft brackets to the front bulkhead to minimize tweak from the chassis flexing. same with the rear.
for shaft drive, id stick to associated ntc3 driveshaft and front input shaft. put an input shaft on each end of the car with a small spring inside to center the shaft as the car flexes.
if the shaft is too long/short, cut it, cut a peice of tube the right inner size to slip over and secure with setscrews.
I could draw something up if needed. or i can cut up my tc5
I think you're right to look at belts instead, a lot less accuracy is needed so it's much more suitable to those of us making bits in the garage with a drill press and Dremel
With the gears done as in your photos it would gear the shaft up so it would be at about motor speed. I think even the manufacturers would struggle to make the gears and shaft work at that speed!
With the gears done as in your photos it would gear the shaft up so it would be at about motor speed. I think even the manufacturers would struggle to make the gears and shaft work at that speed!
Last edited by eds24; 12-17-2011 at 05:42 PM.
12-18-2011, 01:11 PM
#67
Not to confuse anyone.. I am continuing work on my own project..but I've decided to take a different approach and go with a one-belt design instead of a two-belt , one shaft design. While still keeping the motor and battery centralized.
Last edited by eds24; 12-18-2011 at 01:35 PM.
12-18-2011, 01:39 PM
#68
id say shaft to the front is still your simplest option, if only because finding a belt to fit your custom setup with the right pitch may prove difficult. unless you put a ton of tensioner in there to make it work.
you can buy custom belts from mcmastercarr in most pitch's but i don't think they will have the specific pitch for the AE pullies.
if you use 3 belts, you can use ae rear belts for front rear difs and a custom one, using custom pulies for your transfer front to rear, but you will have to cut a custom shaft i imagine. not terribly difficult. if you know someone with a lathe, or if you have a drillpress you can do it that way too using rodstock and a hacksaw blade to cut out notches for eclips.
probably how ill make my custom shafts.
at least if you stick to shaft transfer, your able to use mostly premade ae parts with only slight modification.
not to discredit other options presented here, but you have already started with one method, i just think you should stick to it to save yourself work when your main goal was centralized weight.
you can buy custom belts from mcmastercarr in most pitch's but i don't think they will have the specific pitch for the AE pullies.
if you use 3 belts, you can use ae rear belts for front rear difs and a custom one, using custom pulies for your transfer front to rear, but you will have to cut a custom shaft i imagine. not terribly difficult. if you know someone with a lathe, or if you have a drillpress you can do it that way too using rodstock and a hacksaw blade to cut out notches for eclips.
probably how ill make my custom shafts.
at least if you stick to shaft transfer, your able to use mostly premade ae parts with only slight modification.
not to discredit other options presented here, but you have already started with one method, i just think you should stick to it to save yourself work when your main goal was centralized weight.
12-18-2011, 02:29 PM
#69
id say shaft to the front is still your simplest option, if only because finding a belt to fit your custom setup with the right pitch may prove difficult. unless you put a ton of tensioner in there to make it work.
you can buy custom belts from mcmastercarr in most pitch's but i don't think they will have the specific pitch for the AE pullies.
if you use 3 belts, you can use ae rear belts for front rear difs and a custom one, using custom pulies for your transfer front to rear, but you will have to cut a custom shaft i imagine. not terribly difficult. if you know someone with a lathe, or if you have a drillpress you can do it that way too using rodstock and a hacksaw blade to cut out notches for eclips.
probably how ill make my custom shafts.
at least if you stick to shaft transfer, your able to use mostly premade ae parts with only slight modification.
not to discredit other options presented here, but you have already started with one method, i just think you should stick to it to save yourself work when your main goal was centralized weight.
you can buy custom belts from mcmastercarr in most pitch's but i don't think they will have the specific pitch for the AE pullies.
if you use 3 belts, you can use ae rear belts for front rear difs and a custom one, using custom pulies for your transfer front to rear, but you will have to cut a custom shaft i imagine. not terribly difficult. if you know someone with a lathe, or if you have a drillpress you can do it that way too using rodstock and a hacksaw blade to cut out notches for eclips.
probably how ill make my custom shafts.
at least if you stick to shaft transfer, your able to use mostly premade ae parts with only slight modification.
not to discredit other options presented here, but you have already started with one method, i just think you should stick to it to save yourself work when your main goal was centralized weight.
A single belt system uses far less parts than a dual belt and a shaft system or even a 3 belt system.
For a dual belt/single shaft design... I would have to find 2 belts that were the right length. I don't believe I could just use Rear associated belts because I was using Team Magic pulleys on the front and the rear which are 17t compared to 20t.. how far the pulley's is from the diff in the rear is dependent on spur gears..and in the front it is dependent on the large bevel gear having clearance with the steering links.
Parts I would have to make for a dual belt/ single shaft include:
-Rear layshaft (already made)
-Front pulley shaft
-Front pulley shaft mount
-Front and rear drive cup holders (which have to be mounted in EXACTLY the right location)
-Center drive shaft
-Drive cup holder braces
Those parts..on top of having to find two belts the right length. I'm not saying this isn't something I could do...though mounting the drive cup mounts in exactly the right locations would be hard. I disagree with you that it would take less time and effort than a one belt design. Another main reason why I'm not doing my original design.. is it just isn't a simple design. It's not very elegant or efficient and there is a lot of rotating mass.
I'm not doing a 3 belt system because it simply isn't efficient.. you have to replace lots of belts..and also find three belts that are the right length along with making sure they are tensioned correctly.
A one belt design on the other hand is simple..and elegant. I have to find one belt the right size and I'm pretty sure a Losi xxx-s belt or Losi xxx-4 belt will work great.
Parts I have to make include...
-Layshaft
-Belt tensioner
-Belt guide (easy)
I would also be able to keep the Tc6 steering system by using one belt. One-belt would also be far more efficient and quieter than 2 belts and a shaft.
I too thought doing 2 belts and a shaft was a great idea for awhile.(.otherwise I wouldn't have bought a brand new Tc6 for this project Haha) until I started building it and saw how complex it looked..and then realized that I would have to use drive cups and a separate shaft which would increase the complexity. When it comes to these projects.. I have to learned its best to keep it simple.
Your correct my main goal was to get centralized weight.. but the secondary goal was it had to be more efficient and better than a 3 belt system (Otherwise I could just buy a E4). A dual belt/ single shaft is more efficient but its complicated ... and a single belt is even more efficient and simple and there is less that can go wrong.
Last edited by eds24; 12-19-2011 at 01:46 AM.
12-19-2011, 01:02 AM
#70
I took my first steps towards the new one-belt design tonight..
I needed to figure out a way to make the belt run in the middle of the chassis instead of offset. You guys will see later this is because the design needs the belt to be centered in order to have perfect balance. The other reason is I want to try and use the stock TC6 chassis as at least an early testing prototype to keep things simple..for now.
I figured the best and easiest way to do this was to modify and mount another diff pulley to diff pulley which the out drives are connected to. This centers the belt and allows the diff to work fully with out changing how wide the entire diff is. It also allows for the diff to be taken apart easily and without having to disconnect the two pulley's
To mount the extra diff pulley I had looked at using screws..but I wanted to see if a healthy amount of CA glue on the large flat surface of the side of each pulley.. could do the trick and hold up to the 17.5 brushless power. We all know the bonding power of CA glue..but if it doesn't hold up I can simply put a few screws thru to clamp the two diff pulley's together. Trying to twist the two pulley's apart by hand proved to be unsuccessful though
I also ordered the parts that I believe should allow me to complete the drive train.. I'm on winter break from college till Jan 17th..and so I'm trying to take advantage of this time to get some work done on this project. List of parts I ordered include:
- Team Losi HD xxx-s HD long black belt kit
- Associated Diff pulley's
- Traxxas 4-tec 20t pulley
- 1x3x1 bearings for belt guide
I needed to figure out a way to make the belt run in the middle of the chassis instead of offset. You guys will see later this is because the design needs the belt to be centered in order to have perfect balance. The other reason is I want to try and use the stock TC6 chassis as at least an early testing prototype to keep things simple..for now.
I figured the best and easiest way to do this was to modify and mount another diff pulley to diff pulley which the out drives are connected to. This centers the belt and allows the diff to work fully with out changing how wide the entire diff is. It also allows for the diff to be taken apart easily and without having to disconnect the two pulley's
To mount the extra diff pulley I had looked at using screws..but I wanted to see if a healthy amount of CA glue on the large flat surface of the side of each pulley.. could do the trick and hold up to the 17.5 brushless power. We all know the bonding power of CA glue..but if it doesn't hold up I can simply put a few screws thru to clamp the two diff pulley's together. Trying to twist the two pulley's apart by hand proved to be unsuccessful though
I also ordered the parts that I believe should allow me to complete the drive train.. I'm on winter break from college till Jan 17th..and so I'm trying to take advantage of this time to get some work done on this project. List of parts I ordered include:
- Team Losi HD xxx-s HD long black belt kit
- Associated Diff pulley's
- Traxxas 4-tec 20t pulley
- 1x3x1 bearings for belt guide
12-19-2011, 01:28 AM
#71
Tech Fanatic
The associated belt pitch is a different size from most of the other makes, Valk has a point.
12-19-2011, 03:29 AM
#72
What is the difference in pitch? They use S3M pitch. There are different sources for these belts in different length. For my TC6 based project I use one DS3M belt. These are much harder to get, but not impossible. Only thing is the price: I paid 50€ for three in 3mm width. They also cut them in the wide I wanted:
Eds24, just search a little and there is a very good chance that you get what you need. Just be sure about the belt length
By the way: Nice idea with the diff! Very clever and much cheaper than my version = 220€ (this was a special price, official it is around 400 - 600€):
Keep coming with clever solutions, but be aware of the costs as they sum up fast!
Eds24, just search a little and there is a very good chance that you get what you need. Just be sure about the belt length
By the way: Nice idea with the diff! Very clever and much cheaper than my version = 220€ (this was a special price, official it is around 400 - 600€):
Keep coming with clever solutions, but be aware of the costs as they sum up fast!
12-19-2011, 04:47 AM
#73
Single belt designs
I have two Kawada Sigma 2 cars (one V1 and one V1.1) and can assure everybody there is no problem with the motor being where it is. The car can be perfectly balanced the way it is. I have contemplated myself at length various options of centralising the motor on it, but never found the perfect/ideal solution. One thing is for sure, you need to redesign the bottom chassis at least, hence my idea of going back to the 007 which already has the symmetrical layout inbuilt in the design.
One other comment re the comparison with the Kyosho car, the Sigma2 is a very modern car with all the adjustments you find on offerings from all other top shelf companies and quality to match.
A single belt centralised design is possible along the lines of the old cars, but I think the best layout to start with is still that of the old Xray T1 007 models and using saddlepacks. The CG height problem I think is just academic.
And one last comment about efficiency of one belt vs two/three belt. I think you need to actually calculate the energy loss before you can conclude your design is more efficient. It may look that inherently is more efficient, but I don't think it's so clear cut when you factor in the losses incurred in having to route the belt around the motor. The Kyosho model mentioned above is an ingenious solution, but it lends itself more readily to moulded rather than CF chassies.
One other comment re the comparison with the Kyosho car, the Sigma2 is a very modern car with all the adjustments you find on offerings from all other top shelf companies and quality to match.
A single belt centralised design is possible along the lines of the old cars, but I think the best layout to start with is still that of the old Xray T1 007 models and using saddlepacks. The CG height problem I think is just academic.
And one last comment about efficiency of one belt vs two/three belt. I think you need to actually calculate the energy loss before you can conclude your design is more efficient. It may look that inherently is more efficient, but I don't think it's so clear cut when you factor in the losses incurred in having to route the belt around the motor. The Kyosho model mentioned above is an ingenious solution, but it lends itself more readily to moulded rather than CF chassies.
Last edited by niznai; 12-19-2011 at 05:11 AM.
12-19-2011, 07:14 AM
#74
You need a 3mr pitch for the ae belts call gates they will have any length you want , I bought custom belts from them before . They have almost any length that you want.
id say shaft to the front is still your simplest option, if only because finding a belt to fit your custom setup with the right pitch may prove difficult. unless you put a ton of tensioner in there to make it work.
you can buy custom belts from mcmastercarr in most pitch's but i don't think they will have the specific pitch for the AE pullies.
if you use 3 belts, you can use ae rear belts for front rear difs and a custom one, using custom pulies for your transfer front to rear, but you will have to cut a custom shaft i imagine. not terribly difficult. if you know someone with a lathe, or if you have a drillpress you can do it that way too using rodstock and a hacksaw blade to cut out notches for eclips.
probably how ill make my custom shafts.
at least if you stick to shaft transfer, your able to use mostly premade ae parts with only slight modification.
not to discredit other options presented here, but you have already started with one method, i just think you should stick to it to save yourself work when your main goal was centralized weight.
you can buy custom belts from mcmastercarr in most pitch's but i don't think they will have the specific pitch for the AE pullies.
if you use 3 belts, you can use ae rear belts for front rear difs and a custom one, using custom pulies for your transfer front to rear, but you will have to cut a custom shaft i imagine. not terribly difficult. if you know someone with a lathe, or if you have a drillpress you can do it that way too using rodstock and a hacksaw blade to cut out notches for eclips.
probably how ill make my custom shafts.
at least if you stick to shaft transfer, your able to use mostly premade ae parts with only slight modification.
not to discredit other options presented here, but you have already started with one method, i just think you should stick to it to save yourself work when your main goal was centralized weight.
12-19-2011, 08:21 AM
#75
very nice. unless i'm misreading your intention, it appears you've taken a liking to the schumacher mission tranny layout as well.
for what it's worth, efficiency related to belt tooth mesh isn't really worth prioritizing in my opinion. having run multiple pulleys/belts over the years (in stock no less) i have never noticed any negative result to mixing/matching profiles (within reason). the worst mesh i had was experienced when using a fennerdrives (fht-3 profile) belt on a tamiya pulley (htd profile, i believe). it even wore the pulley teeth down some, but never was there any perceived loss of power on the track whether going by sight or by lap times. it may be measureable on an instrument, but it's just unimportant in terms of getting the car around the track quickly. i'm not looking for an argument, but to point out that crippling another element of the functionality simply for drive efficiency could be regrettable.
wtcc - pure sex right there.
for what it's worth, efficiency related to belt tooth mesh isn't really worth prioritizing in my opinion. having run multiple pulleys/belts over the years (in stock no less) i have never noticed any negative result to mixing/matching profiles (within reason). the worst mesh i had was experienced when using a fennerdrives (fht-3 profile) belt on a tamiya pulley (htd profile, i believe). it even wore the pulley teeth down some, but never was there any perceived loss of power on the track whether going by sight or by lap times. it may be measureable on an instrument, but it's just unimportant in terms of getting the car around the track quickly. i'm not looking for an argument, but to point out that crippling another element of the functionality simply for drive efficiency could be regrettable.
eg - corally once fantasized about how great the effects of a direct drive tranmission would be (see the 'assassin'), but shortly after its release all the team drivers were using the twin belt conversion because the car handled tons better w/o the motor sitting on the left rear tire. similarly, it was thought that the tc3 revolutionized lap times because of the shaft drive tranny. only later (after failed attempts by other mfrs and a failed revision) did most realize that the car had very good suspension geometry, weight bias, and flex characteristics.
keep up the good work and enjoy the holidays. wtcc - pure sex right there.