24LikesCreating and developing a 2wd buggy
01-22-2018, 03:37 AM
#46
I'm about to say something that is going to be controversial. The faster the car, the lower the roll center needs to be. A car tuned for a 6.5T motor will want a lower roll center than the same car in 17.5T blinky on the exact same track. This makes the assumption that the track is large enough that lap times would be noticeably quicker among the classes. On a small, tight track it wouldn't matter.
Like Krio said before, different arm length for different applications. I would use longer arms front and rear in categories that benefit from stiffer roll mode and shorter arms for softer roll mode.
That way no need to change geometry other than lower and upper arm length, same MR for the shocks.
About high grip tracks I could use lower or higher uprights, like axle height, but the roll centres get lower when the xle is higher. Raising the bulkheads (to have lower ride height, so shimming downwards the chassis) doesn't change roll centres only CG and shock travel.
@icecyc1, thanks for you input! Does that mean the damping and spring rate at the wheel can always be tuned to be equal to a "perfect" shock mounted MR=1 if shock length, DR and K are tuned in a shock mounted away from the wheel?
01-22-2018, 04:46 AM
#47
I'm about to say something that is going to be controversial. The faster the car, the lower the roll center needs to be. A car tuned for a 6.5T motor will want a lower roll center than the same car in 17.5T blinky on the exact same track. This makes the assumption that the track is large enough that lap times would be noticeably quicker among the classes. On a small, tight track it wouldn't matter.
One driver can have two of the exact same cars but ones 17.5 and the other mod .... mod car may get the most traction but with a 17.5 in it the car isnt free enough and that traction slows it down.
01-22-2018, 06:58 AM
#49
You can all talk suspension geometry theory, but applying it to an actual car in the real world, and make a car that is truly faster than what already exists is something completely different.
A 2wd buggy is not going to have a 50/50 weight distribution. The tires are not the same width front to back. The arms can only be made so long because other things have to occupy that space. The car is going forward so the front suspension has to deal with things first.
You can theorize until you are blue in the face, but until you come up with a way to apply that theory to a car in the real world, and then drive the car at the limit, you have no proof that your theoretical car is actually better than what the teams of engineers and professional drivers have developed.
Finally, the zenith of 1/10th scale off-road in my opinion is high grip clay. Carpet and Astroturf are bastardizaions of off-road. Want to build some car for a smooth flat carpet with some terrible and small wood jumps (NitrousBig)? Meh I don't care. Want to try to build a better car for an outdoor loose dirt track, the type of track that has no representation at the big races that matter? Again, meh. High grip clay has huge jumps that are actually doable, elevation changes, banked, flat and off-camber corners, and enough traction for wheelies and traction rolls. If you can design a car to handle all that better than what manufacturers have developed, then good job.
30tooth, have you ever raced directly against Bruno Coelho at one of your local races? If so, how many laps were you off his pace? Because he can drive at the limit and if you are several laps off his pace, you are not even close to the limit of what a car is capable of. If you are that far off the limit there is no way to see if your theoretical car is actually better. It may be better for you, but it probably isn't actually outright better.
A 2wd buggy is not going to have a 50/50 weight distribution. The tires are not the same width front to back. The arms can only be made so long because other things have to occupy that space. The car is going forward so the front suspension has to deal with things first.
You can theorize until you are blue in the face, but until you come up with a way to apply that theory to a car in the real world, and then drive the car at the limit, you have no proof that your theoretical car is actually better than what the teams of engineers and professional drivers have developed.
Finally, the zenith of 1/10th scale off-road in my opinion is high grip clay. Carpet and Astroturf are bastardizaions of off-road. Want to build some car for a smooth flat carpet with some terrible and small wood jumps (NitrousBig)? Meh I don't care. Want to try to build a better car for an outdoor loose dirt track, the type of track that has no representation at the big races that matter? Again, meh. High grip clay has huge jumps that are actually doable, elevation changes, banked, flat and off-camber corners, and enough traction for wheelies and traction rolls. If you can design a car to handle all that better than what manufacturers have developed, then good job.
30tooth, have you ever raced directly against Bruno Coelho at one of your local races? If so, how many laps were you off his pace? Because he can drive at the limit and if you are several laps off his pace, you are not even close to the limit of what a car is capable of. If you are that far off the limit there is no way to see if your theoretical car is actually better. It may be better for you, but it probably isn't actually outright better.
01-22-2018, 08:48 AM
#50
You can all talk suspension geometry theory, but applying it to an actual car in the real world, and make a car that is truly faster than what already exists is something completely different.
A 2wd buggy is not going to have a 50/50 weight distribution. The tires are not the same width front to back. The arms can only be made so long because other things have to occupy that space. The car is going forward so the front suspension has to deal with things first.
You can theorize until you are blue in the face, but until you come up with a way to apply that theory to a car in the real world, and then drive the car at the limit, you have no proof that your theoretical car is actually better than what the teams of engineers and professional drivers have developed.
Finally, the zenith of 1/10th scale off-road in my opinion is high grip clay. Carpet and Astroturf are bastardizaions of off-road. Want to build some car for a smooth flat carpet with some terrible and small wood jumps (NitrousBig)? Meh I don't care. Want to try to build a better car for an outdoor loose dirt track, the type of track that has no representation at the big races that matter? Again, meh. High grip clay has huge jumps that are actually doable, elevation changes, banked, flat and off-camber corners, and enough traction for wheelies and traction rolls. If you can design a car to handle all that better than what manufacturers have developed, then good job.
30tooth, have you ever raced directly against Bruno Coelho at one of your local races? If so, how many laps were you off his pace? Because he can drive at the limit and if you are several laps off his pace, you are not even close to the limit of what a car is capable of. If you are that far off the limit there is no way to see if your theoretical car is actually better. It may be better for you, but it probably isn't actually outright better.
A 2wd buggy is not going to have a 50/50 weight distribution. The tires are not the same width front to back. The arms can only be made so long because other things have to occupy that space. The car is going forward so the front suspension has to deal with things first.
You can theorize until you are blue in the face, but until you come up with a way to apply that theory to a car in the real world, and then drive the car at the limit, you have no proof that your theoretical car is actually better than what the teams of engineers and professional drivers have developed.
Finally, the zenith of 1/10th scale off-road in my opinion is high grip clay. Carpet and Astroturf are bastardizaions of off-road. Want to build some car for a smooth flat carpet with some terrible and small wood jumps (NitrousBig)? Meh I don't care. Want to try to build a better car for an outdoor loose dirt track, the type of track that has no representation at the big races that matter? Again, meh. High grip clay has huge jumps that are actually doable, elevation changes, banked, flat and off-camber corners, and enough traction for wheelies and traction rolls. If you can design a car to handle all that better than what manufacturers have developed, then good job.
30tooth, have you ever raced directly against Bruno Coelho at one of your local races? If so, how many laps were you off his pace? Because he can drive at the limit and if you are several laps off his pace, you are not even close to the limit of what a car is capable of. If you are that far off the limit there is no way to see if your theoretical car is actually better. It may be better for you, but it probably isn't actually outright better.
The whole point of this is a design exercise. It's all about learning and trying new things. It doesn't mean they'll necessarily work or work better, but you never know. For some people, designing things is called FUN.
01-22-2018, 09:14 AM
#51
urnotevenwrg2,
Call us what you want, but theorizing until we are blue in the face is fun for us. Personally, I prefer nerd but I don't want to speak for everyone here.
Plus, tons of people will read this thread and hopefully better understand the principles behind design choices and tuning changes, thus making better informed decisions when dialing their cars in at the track.
I agree that carpet isn't 'real' off road, but I don't race for the 'realness'. I race for the competition and currently you need to be able to keep pace on turf as well as topsoil. Associated has kept the same arm length since the early/mid 90s and made other changes to compensate for evolving track conditions. Half the fun is dissecting why they've gone this route while others haven't.
That was kind of presumptuous of you to insinuate 30Tooth sucks at driving and thus can't take his car to the theoretical max. It's all relative. Just about anyone can drive a grasshopper at its theoretical max and would still benefit from a better car. Pushing the envelope further doesn't just benefit those at the bleeding edge.
Call us what you want, but theorizing until we are blue in the face is fun for us. Personally, I prefer nerd but I don't want to speak for everyone here.
Plus, tons of people will read this thread and hopefully better understand the principles behind design choices and tuning changes, thus making better informed decisions when dialing their cars in at the track.
I agree that carpet isn't 'real' off road, but I don't race for the 'realness'. I race for the competition and currently you need to be able to keep pace on turf as well as topsoil. Associated has kept the same arm length since the early/mid 90s and made other changes to compensate for evolving track conditions. Half the fun is dissecting why they've gone this route while others haven't.
That was kind of presumptuous of you to insinuate 30Tooth sucks at driving and thus can't take his car to the theoretical max. It's all relative. Just about anyone can drive a grasshopper at its theoretical max and would still benefit from a better car. Pushing the envelope further doesn't just benefit those at the bleeding edge.
01-22-2018, 10:14 AM
#52
You can all talk suspension geometry theory, but applying it to an actual car in the real world, and make a car that is truly faster than what already exists is something completely different.
A 2wd buggy is not going to have a 50/50 weight distribution. The tires are not the same width front to back. The arms can only be made so long because other things have to occupy that space. The car is going forward so the front suspension has to deal with things first.
You can theorize until you are blue in the face, but until you come up with a way to apply that theory to a car in the real world, and then drive the car at the limit, you have no proof that your theoretical car is actually better than what the teams of engineers and professional drivers have developed.
Finally, the zenith of 1/10th scale off-road in my opinion is high grip clay. Carpet and Astroturf are bastardizaions of off-road. Want to build some car for a smooth flat carpet with some terrible and small wood jumps (NitrousBig)? Meh I don't care. Want to try to build a better car for an outdoor loose dirt track, the type of track that has no representation at the big races that matter? Again, meh. High grip clay has huge jumps that are actually doable, elevation changes, banked, flat and off-camber corners, and enough traction for wheelies and traction rolls. If you can design a car to handle all that better than what manufacturers have developed, then good job.
30tooth, have you ever raced directly against Bruno Coelho at one of your local races? If so, how many laps were you off his pace? Because he can drive at the limit and if you are several laps off his pace, you are not even close to the limit of what a car is capable of. If you are that far off the limit there is no way to see if your theoretical car is actually better. It may be better for you, but it probably isn't actually outright better.
A 2wd buggy is not going to have a 50/50 weight distribution. The tires are not the same width front to back. The arms can only be made so long because other things have to occupy that space. The car is going forward so the front suspension has to deal with things first.
You can theorize until you are blue in the face, but until you come up with a way to apply that theory to a car in the real world, and then drive the car at the limit, you have no proof that your theoretical car is actually better than what the teams of engineers and professional drivers have developed.
Finally, the zenith of 1/10th scale off-road in my opinion is high grip clay. Carpet and Astroturf are bastardizaions of off-road. Want to build some car for a smooth flat carpet with some terrible and small wood jumps (NitrousBig)? Meh I don't care. Want to try to build a better car for an outdoor loose dirt track, the type of track that has no representation at the big races that matter? Again, meh. High grip clay has huge jumps that are actually doable, elevation changes, banked, flat and off-camber corners, and enough traction for wheelies and traction rolls. If you can design a car to handle all that better than what manufacturers have developed, then good job.
30tooth, have you ever raced directly against Bruno Coelho at one of your local races? If so, how many laps were you off his pace? Because he can drive at the limit and if you are several laps off his pace, you are not even close to the limit of what a car is capable of. If you are that far off the limit there is no way to see if your theoretical car is actually better. It may be better for you, but it probably isn't actually outright better.
01-22-2018, 10:41 AM
#53
Krio,
He is from Portugal, and he got his first 2wd in 2011. If he raced somewhere like OCRC every weekend for the last 6 years then yeah, he would probably be fast. The hobby is small in Portugal, the likelihood of him having the experience to go that fast is unlikely. Unless he has the time and resources to travel all over europe to race. Which he has stated before that he does not get to race very often.
I have a theoretical design for a 2wd buggy with inboard suspension, decoupled roll pitch and jounce dampening, front brakes that only work when the car is on the ground, dynamic weight that would lean the car into corners, and a few other ideas I don't want to mention. Will it ever be more than an idea? Very likely no, I understand that a car that is a couple orders of magnitude more complex than what we have now, in the name of maybe being a bit faster is just not possible. Most people can barely handle the complexity of what we have now.
Unless there is a new aspect about the track, the best cars are going to be what they have evolved into.
For this project 30tooth wants to start with an original 22 with some 2.0 parts on it. Is there room for improvement when he is starting with that? Yes, of course TLR is on their 4th generation of the platform. Is he going to end up with something noticeably better than a 22 4.0? Very likely not.
Ultimately, as long as he is having fun, thats all that matters. I'm just trying to keep a realistic perspective.
He is from Portugal, and he got his first 2wd in 2011. If he raced somewhere like OCRC every weekend for the last 6 years then yeah, he would probably be fast. The hobby is small in Portugal, the likelihood of him having the experience to go that fast is unlikely. Unless he has the time and resources to travel all over europe to race. Which he has stated before that he does not get to race very often.
I have a theoretical design for a 2wd buggy with inboard suspension, decoupled roll pitch and jounce dampening, front brakes that only work when the car is on the ground, dynamic weight that would lean the car into corners, and a few other ideas I don't want to mention. Will it ever be more than an idea? Very likely no, I understand that a car that is a couple orders of magnitude more complex than what we have now, in the name of maybe being a bit faster is just not possible. Most people can barely handle the complexity of what we have now.
Unless there is a new aspect about the track, the best cars are going to be what they have evolved into.
For this project 30tooth wants to start with an original 22 with some 2.0 parts on it. Is there room for improvement when he is starting with that? Yes, of course TLR is on their 4th generation of the platform. Is he going to end up with something noticeably better than a 22 4.0? Very likely not.
Ultimately, as long as he is having fun, thats all that matters. I'm just trying to keep a realistic perspective.
01-22-2018, 02:09 PM
#54
Krio,
He is from Portugal, and he got his first 2wd in 2011. If he raced somewhere like OCRC every weekend for the last 6 years then yeah, he would probably be fast. The hobby is small in Portugal, the likelihood of him having the experience to go that fast is unlikely. Unless he has the time and resources to travel all over europe to race. Which he has stated before that he does not get to race very often.
I have a theoretical design for a 2wd buggy with inboard suspension, decoupled roll pitch and jounce dampening, front brakes that only work when the car is on the ground, dynamic weight that would lean the car into corners, and a few other ideas I don't want to mention. Will it ever be more than an idea? Very likely no, I understand that a car that is a couple orders of magnitude more complex than what we have now, in the name of maybe being a bit faster is just not possible. Most people can barely handle the complexity of what we have now.
Unless there is a new aspect about the track, the best cars are going to be what they have evolved into.
For this project 30tooth wants to start with an original 22 with some 2.0 parts on it. Is there room for improvement when he is starting with that? Yes, of course TLR is on their 4th generation of the platform. Is he going to end up with something noticeably better than a 22 4.0? Very likely not.
Ultimately, as long as he is having fun, thats all that matters. I'm just trying to keep a realistic perspective.
He is from Portugal, and he got his first 2wd in 2011. If he raced somewhere like OCRC every weekend for the last 6 years then yeah, he would probably be fast. The hobby is small in Portugal, the likelihood of him having the experience to go that fast is unlikely. Unless he has the time and resources to travel all over europe to race. Which he has stated before that he does not get to race very often.
I have a theoretical design for a 2wd buggy with inboard suspension, decoupled roll pitch and jounce dampening, front brakes that only work when the car is on the ground, dynamic weight that would lean the car into corners, and a few other ideas I don't want to mention. Will it ever be more than an idea? Very likely no, I understand that a car that is a couple orders of magnitude more complex than what we have now, in the name of maybe being a bit faster is just not possible. Most people can barely handle the complexity of what we have now.
Unless there is a new aspect about the track, the best cars are going to be what they have evolved into.
For this project 30tooth wants to start with an original 22 with some 2.0 parts on it. Is there room for improvement when he is starting with that? Yes, of course TLR is on their 4th generation of the platform. Is he going to end up with something noticeably better than a 22 4.0? Very likely not.
Ultimately, as long as he is having fun, thats all that matters. I'm just trying to keep a realistic perspective.
Good luck on your endeavours, it's easier to get it done than what you think it is.
01-22-2018, 02:14 PM
#55
Tech Adept
You can all talk suspension geometry theory, but applying it to an actual car in the real world, and make a car that is truly faster than what already exists is something completely different.
A 2wd buggy is not going to have a 50/50 weight distribution. The tires are not the same width front to back. The arms can only be made so long because other things have to occupy that space. The car is going forward so the front suspension has to deal with things first.
You can theorize until you are blue in the face, but until you come up with a way to apply that theory to a car in the real world, and then drive the car at the limit, you have no proof that your theoretical car is actually better than what the teams of engineers and professional drivers have developed.
Finally, the zenith of 1/10th scale off-road in my opinion is high grip clay. Carpet and Astroturf are bastardizaions of off-road. Want to build some car for a smooth flat carpet with some terrible and small wood jumps (NitrousBig)? Meh I don't care. Want to try to build a better car for an outdoor loose dirt track, the type of track that has no representation at the big races that matter? Again, meh. High grip clay has huge jumps that are actually doable, elevation changes, banked, flat and off-camber corners, and enough traction for wheelies and traction rolls. If you can design a car to handle all that better than what manufacturers have developed, then good job.
30tooth, have you ever raced directly against Bruno Coelho at one of your local races? If so, how many laps were you off his pace? Because he can drive at the limit and if you are several laps off his pace, you are not even close to the limit of what a car is capable of. If you are that far off the limit there is no way to see if your theoretical car is actually better. It may be better for you, but it probably isn't actually outright better.
A 2wd buggy is not going to have a 50/50 weight distribution. The tires are not the same width front to back. The arms can only be made so long because other things have to occupy that space. The car is going forward so the front suspension has to deal with things first.
You can theorize until you are blue in the face, but until you come up with a way to apply that theory to a car in the real world, and then drive the car at the limit, you have no proof that your theoretical car is actually better than what the teams of engineers and professional drivers have developed.
Finally, the zenith of 1/10th scale off-road in my opinion is high grip clay. Carpet and Astroturf are bastardizaions of off-road. Want to build some car for a smooth flat carpet with some terrible and small wood jumps (NitrousBig)? Meh I don't care. Want to try to build a better car for an outdoor loose dirt track, the type of track that has no representation at the big races that matter? Again, meh. High grip clay has huge jumps that are actually doable, elevation changes, banked, flat and off-camber corners, and enough traction for wheelies and traction rolls. If you can design a car to handle all that better than what manufacturers have developed, then good job.
30tooth, have you ever raced directly against Bruno Coelho at one of your local races? If so, how many laps were you off his pace? Because he can drive at the limit and if you are several laps off his pace, you are not even close to the limit of what a car is capable of. If you are that far off the limit there is no way to see if your theoretical car is actually better. It may be better for you, but it probably isn't actually outright better.
01-22-2018, 02:34 PM
#56
Tech Initiate
If you need anything 3d printed, hit me up. I've got a Prusa i3 MK2s. I'll gladly print whatever you need for the cost of the plastic and shipping. Probably would cost less than $5 per part (a-arms, hubs, etc) and like $4-5 for shipping. I have ABS and Nylon on hand. I am looking into buying some of the fiber reinforced nylon in the future, but for a prototype, standard nylon or abs will do just fine.
01-22-2018, 03:12 PM
#57
If you need anything 3d printed, hit me up. I've got a Prusa i3 MK2s. I'll gladly print whatever you need for the cost of the plastic and shipping. Probably would cost less than $5 per part (a-arms, hubs, etc) and like $4-5 for shipping. I have ABS and Nylon on hand. I am looking into buying some of the fiber reinforced nylon in the future, but for a prototype, standard nylon or abs will do just fine.
01-22-2018, 03:39 PM
#58
I'm hopefully understanding it right that when you are trying to achieve "balance", you are trying to get the same wheel "spring rate" and wheel "damping rate" at both ends of the car. The damping ratio is the relationship between the two, and is well known and used in the full scale industry. A common damping ratio value for an autocross racer is about 0.65-0.70 to provide the most consistent traction. This is of course on-road, so off road buggies may be different, but that is also the theoretically best value to get the wheel back to "normal" after hitting a bump.
I'm getting long, but here is another point that should be made. Damping Ratio can be calculated for the unsprung mass (wheel hitting a bump), but it can also be calculated for the sprung mass, (car landing from a jump). In this case, you use the mass of the car, not the wheel. From what I learned from fredswain, the balance is actually the sprung mass, not the unsprung. I think either way, you will see best results near the 0.67 damping ratio after you find the spring balance. This is also one of the reasons I wanted to build the shock dyno, to find out what the damping coefficient of a shock is, so I can calculate and compare the effects at the wheel, no matter what car it goes on (as long as I know the motion ratio.
A fun exercise for me would be to build up geometrical models of the pro's cars, using "assumed" weights and mass, and using their setup sheets, discover what their damping ratio ended up as. I think those results would end up being somewhat consistent no matter what spring/piston/oil/shock location they use.
01-22-2018, 03:40 PM
#59
Tech Initiate
I was talking to some rc enthusiasts and they claimed, "anybody can buy a 3d printer and print stuff". They were right, but they overlooked printing quality parts takes time and effort.
01-22-2018, 04:06 PM
#60
The point is that you set your Wheel rates (spring and damper) based on the unsprung mass (wheel and 1/2 suspension). If you are limited in physical placement of the shocks, or the physical size of the shocks, then you must have some kind of Motion Ratio to account for the physical location. We do have a wide adjustability with our pistons (2holes -12 holes, 0.7mm to 2.5+mm, etc) and oils, 100cst to 1000+cst, so we can create almost any damping coefficient we want or need in the shock depending on where it is located, to get the wheel damping we need. Same with the springs, but you are definitely more limited to what manufacturers provide (# of coils, wire diameter, and coil diameter are primary determinants of spring rates).
I'm hopefully understanding it right that when you are trying to achieve "balance", you are trying to get the same wheel "spring rate" and wheel "damping rate" at both ends of the car. The damping ratio is the relationship between the two, and is well known and used in the full scale industry. A common damping ratio value for an autocross racer is about 0.65-0.70 to provide the most consistent traction. This is of course on-road, so off road buggies may be different, but that is also the theoretically best value to get the wheel back to "normal" after hitting a bump.
I'm getting long, but here is another point that should be made. Damping Ratio can be calculated for the unsprung mass (wheel hitting a bump), but it can also be calculated for the sprung mass, (car landing from a jump). In this case, you use the mass of the car, not the wheel. From what I learned from fredswain, the balance is actually the sprung mass, not the unsprung. I think either way, you will see best results near the 0.67 damping ratio after you find the spring balance. This is also one of the reasons I wanted to build the shock dyno, to find out what the damping coefficient of a shock is, so I can calculate and compare the effects at the wheel, no matter what car it goes on (as long as I know the motion ratio.
A fun exercise for me would be to build up geometrical models of the pro's cars, using "assumed" weights and mass, and using their setup sheets, discover what their damping ratio ended up as. I think those results would end up being somewhat consistent no matter what spring/piston/oil/shock location they use.
I'm hopefully understanding it right that when you are trying to achieve "balance", you are trying to get the same wheel "spring rate" and wheel "damping rate" at both ends of the car. The damping ratio is the relationship between the two, and is well known and used in the full scale industry. A common damping ratio value for an autocross racer is about 0.65-0.70 to provide the most consistent traction. This is of course on-road, so off road buggies may be different, but that is also the theoretically best value to get the wheel back to "normal" after hitting a bump.
I'm getting long, but here is another point that should be made. Damping Ratio can be calculated for the unsprung mass (wheel hitting a bump), but it can also be calculated for the sprung mass, (car landing from a jump). In this case, you use the mass of the car, not the wheel. From what I learned from fredswain, the balance is actually the sprung mass, not the unsprung. I think either way, you will see best results near the 0.67 damping ratio after you find the spring balance. This is also one of the reasons I wanted to build the shock dyno, to find out what the damping coefficient of a shock is, so I can calculate and compare the effects at the wheel, no matter what car it goes on (as long as I know the motion ratio.
A fun exercise for me would be to build up geometrical models of the pro's cars, using "assumed" weights and mass, and using their setup sheets, discover what their damping ratio ended up as. I think those results would end up being somewhat consistent no matter what spring/piston/oil/shock location they use.
I see, that was my doubt but I wasn't sure if you meant damping rate or spring rate. I have a good assortment of springs and if the need arises I can get them made to spec. It is some time ago I've made a spreadsheet that calculated how much damping force and shock travel you need for a car with X mass to be critically damped, or thereabouts. Got to revisit it again!
Sounds good! I've got hundreds of hours on my printer. I've encountered many calibration issues, loose belts, defective prints, etc. I think learning how to use a 3d printer is a challenge in itself. Most people overlook that aspect of 3d printing lol. Needless to say, I've got plenty of experience lol.
I was talking to some rc enthusiasts and they claimed, "anybody can buy a 3d printer and print stuff". They were right, but they overlooked printing quality parts takes time and effort.
I was talking to some rc enthusiasts and they claimed, "anybody can buy a 3d printer and print stuff". They were right, but they overlooked printing quality parts takes time and effort.