1LikesTLR 22 Racing Buggy Thread
12-06-2010, 11:51 AM
#692
OK. So i haven't paid a lot of attention to Electric racing is some time. But I have never heard of Matt Chambers, or Dustin Evans. That maybe because of my lack of attention to anything 8th scale. When i think of top Losi drivers, i think Truhe, Fisher for electric.
Since i personally have never heard of them, i see the 22 TQing and winning the show as a HUGE achievement because they beat easily the #2 2wd buggy driver in the world with its first official outing.
I will bet that Kyosho, and AE stopped work on the B5/RB6 when this was announced. I would also bet that they are going over their design and making some big changes to what they were doing. Just saying.
Since i personally have never heard of them, i see the 22 TQing and winning the show as a HUGE achievement because they beat easily the #2 2wd buggy driver in the world with its first official outing.
I will bet that Kyosho, and AE stopped work on the B5/RB6 when this was announced. I would also bet that they are going over their design and making some big changes to what they were doing. Just saying.
12-06-2010, 11:53 AM
#693
Well, I see one really obnoxious potential problem right off the bat, and it really goes to the core of why I run AE products for 1/10 after switching from kyosho. I had an RB5 and a lazer zx-5 fs -- loved them both, but got tired of breaking stupid things in minor crashes... things that simply didn't give out on the AE b4 and b44 without a much harder hit.
To put it bluntly: Inherent Design Strength.
Bottom line: Toughness from a design decision based on real world feedback and experience... not the coolest thing to come from a CAD program by a designer looking to re-invent the wheel. Some of this is a cop out -- you have to try new things to find new things, so you can't harp on losi or any company for trying something new... after all, nothing wagered nothing gained. But, in that sea of experimenting, there are some trends and 'constants in the universe' that you should observe, remember, and work within when coming out with a new design, and THAT is where I have a major problem with one thing I've seen in the pics of the 22.
^^^ THAT. BAD. NO.
Note how little distance there is between the bottom hinge pin at the hub and the mounting surface for the ball stud. The less distance there, the more mechanical advantage that is placed against the ball stud (see: potential to snap it off or rip it out of the plastic) when landing less than perfect. This is physics 101: leverage. This is something that kyosho, and now apparently LOSI, doesn't get. You can raise/lower or move forward/backward the inner and outer link heights at the same time to maintain handling characteristics while giving less mechanical advantage to snap off those ball studs.
The worst part is that that mounting on the top of the hub is touted as an advantage. If I were peter griffin, that would really grind my gears. If you mount on the side, as with all 1/10 AE hubs, you have more material higher up giving you strength to resist shearing ballstuds off. In a top mount design, the screw portion of the ball stud is bearing a lot more stress than in a side mounted configuration -- it's just simple leverage.
Basically, what this design does, at least in my head, is gives you a tuning point (up/down forward/back) at the outside link in preference of durability. Here's the kicker -- you can achieve the same changes by just changing the inside links, and on the inside, you're not limited by the height of the wheel and the location of the hinge pin, and in general, you have more room to work. Ideally, at least in my head, once again, is having the outer stud mounted sideways as high up as you can get with lots of hub material up there reinforcing strength -- as high up as you can go without rubbing the wheel with the suspension working. Then, from there, you adjust camber changes with the inside link mounting positions.
Check out the B4 rear hubs:
Notice the definite difference? B4/B44 rear hub == please do not break my ball studs off, thanks! Note that AE released new rear inner camber plates with .060 raised mounting surface on the b4/t4 because everyone was running at LEAST 2 .030 washers. It is obvious that not breaking off ball studs is a priority at AE.
I was REALLY excited to see this buggy and all of it's new features, then I saw the pic of the rear hub, and my heart sank -- seriously?!
To put it bluntly: Inherent Design Strength.
Bottom line: Toughness from a design decision based on real world feedback and experience... not the coolest thing to come from a CAD program by a designer looking to re-invent the wheel. Some of this is a cop out -- you have to try new things to find new things, so you can't harp on losi or any company for trying something new... after all, nothing wagered nothing gained. But, in that sea of experimenting, there are some trends and 'constants in the universe' that you should observe, remember, and work within when coming out with a new design, and THAT is where I have a major problem with one thing I've seen in the pics of the 22.
^^^ THAT. BAD. NO.
Note how little distance there is between the bottom hinge pin at the hub and the mounting surface for the ball stud. The less distance there, the more mechanical advantage that is placed against the ball stud (see: potential to snap it off or rip it out of the plastic) when landing less than perfect. This is physics 101: leverage. This is something that kyosho, and now apparently LOSI, doesn't get. You can raise/lower or move forward/backward the inner and outer link heights at the same time to maintain handling characteristics while giving less mechanical advantage to snap off those ball studs.
The worst part is that that mounting on the top of the hub is touted as an advantage. If I were peter griffin, that would really grind my gears. If you mount on the side, as with all 1/10 AE hubs, you have more material higher up giving you strength to resist shearing ballstuds off. In a top mount design, the screw portion of the ball stud is bearing a lot more stress than in a side mounted configuration -- it's just simple leverage.
Basically, what this design does, at least in my head, is gives you a tuning point (up/down forward/back) at the outside link in preference of durability. Here's the kicker -- you can achieve the same changes by just changing the inside links, and on the inside, you're not limited by the height of the wheel and the location of the hinge pin, and in general, you have more room to work. Ideally, at least in my head, once again, is having the outer stud mounted sideways as high up as you can get with lots of hub material up there reinforcing strength -- as high up as you can go without rubbing the wheel with the suspension working. Then, from there, you adjust camber changes with the inside link mounting positions.
Check out the B4 rear hubs:
Notice the definite difference? B4/B44 rear hub == please do not break my ball studs off, thanks! Note that AE released new rear inner camber plates with .060 raised mounting surface on the b4/t4 because everyone was running at LEAST 2 .030 washers. It is obvious that not breaking off ball studs is a priority at AE.
I was REALLY excited to see this buggy and all of it's new features, then I saw the pic of the rear hub, and my heart sank -- seriously?!
12-06-2010, 12:05 PM
#694
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (13)
That makes a lot of sense razathorn.
I think the very thing you speak of is what broke on Dustin Evans SCT while leading the race.... Not sure if its the same design though.
BIG- You are right, Dustin Evans and Matt Chambers are fast guys but not usually the ones TQ'ing in Electric 1/10 scale off road. Thats saved for guys like Maifield, Truhe, Tebo and Cavaleri. As you see with Cody King(world champ 1/8 nitro), all of these guys are super fast and you just never know when they are gonna step up and win.
The 22 is fo Real thougH!
I think the very thing you speak of is what broke on Dustin Evans SCT while leading the race.... Not sure if its the same design though.
BIG- You are right, Dustin Evans and Matt Chambers are fast guys but not usually the ones TQ'ing in Electric 1/10 scale off road. Thats saved for guys like Maifield, Truhe, Tebo and Cavaleri. As you see with Cody King(world champ 1/8 nitro), all of these guys are super fast and you just never know when they are gonna step up and win.
The 22 is fo Real thougH!
12-06-2010, 12:07 PM
#695
I guess not totally sure where you are going with all that? The stress on the ball stud latterally is the same if it is vertcle or horizontal. You don't understand the dynamics of roll centers with your idea of how the hub should be designed. You also failed to see that the 22 uses all metric hardware. This includes the new ball studs which are the metric 4.7 balls. Bigger and thus stronger then the old 4-40 "std" size ball studs Losi used to use and AE still does. The kyosho ball studs were some of the best I have ever used and only broke on ball stud in over a year racing those cars. Now Losi is using this same size ball which can take more abuse. Verticle ball studs do allow for fine tuning of a setup you can't get any other way. There is an advantage of being able to raise and lower the inside and outside as well. I think it is great Losi is giving us these options as it is a used feature. Yeah a lot of people will setting on a setting they like the most but it is something that is adjusted by the pro's to "tweak" a setup from track to track. From a pure breed racing standpoint (the point of TLR) this is the right way to configure stuff. Again with larger ball studs you have inproved durability with the new camber links. Larger stronger tie rods, Larger stronger ball studs mean a stronger overall car!
12-06-2010, 12:16 PM
#696
I think its alittle too early to tell what is a problem and what isnt a problem. Until the general racing public gets there hands on the car and can actually put some abuse and different driving styles thru it, Nobody will know.
As a fan of RC cars and everything new wait until it comes out before bashing on a part of it because its all speculation until people start driving it.
Raz - I thought you were going to say somethign about the e-clips.
As a fan of RC cars and everything new wait until it comes out before bashing on a part of it because its all speculation until people start driving it.
Raz - I thought you were going to say somethign about the e-clips.
12-06-2010, 12:37 PM
#700
12-06-2010, 12:39 PM
#702
Yes, the roll center and camber gain are both affected by moving the upper link "up". However, there is less force on the neck of the ballstud mounted horizontally vs virtically even if the location of the ball doesn't change. Losi has been using hubs like that for a while and I think it just looks shorter because it's so chunky. lol. Can't wait to find out.
I guess not totally sure where you are going with all that? The stress on the ball stud latterally is the same if it is vertcle or horizontal. You don't understand the dynamics of roll centers with your idea of how the hub should be designed. You also failed to see that the 22 uses all metric hardware. This includes the new ball studs which are the metric 4.7 balls. Bigger and thus stronger then the old 4-40 "std" size ball studs Losi used to use and AE still does. The kyosho ball studs were some of the best I have ever used and only broke on ball stud in over a year racing those cars. Now Losi is using this same size ball which can take more abuse. Verticle ball studs do allow for fine tuning of a setup you can't get any other way. There is an advantage of being able to raise and lower the inside and outside as well. I think it is great Losi is giving us these options as it is a used feature. Yeah a lot of people will setting on a setting they like the most but it is something that is adjusted by the pro's to "tweak" a setup from track to track. From a pure breed racing standpoint (the point of TLR) this is the right way to configure stuff. Again with larger ball studs you have inproved durability with the new camber links. Larger stronger tie rods, Larger stronger ball studs mean a stronger overall car!
12-06-2010, 12:46 PM
#703
Yes, the roll center and camber gain are both affected by moving the upper link "up". However, there is less force on the neck of the ballstud mounted horizontally vs virtically even if the location of the ball doesn't change. Losi has been using hubs like that for a while and I think it just looks shorter because it's so chunky. lol. Can't wait to find out.
12-06-2010, 12:54 PM
#704
It's where the neck of the ballstud lies. When vertical let's say the neck is .5 inches from the lower hinge pin. When horizontal with the same geometry the neck is now .6 inches from the lower hinge pin. The neck sees less force because it has more leverage on the block. e.g. The longer the moment arm the less force is required to produce the same amount of torque.
12-06-2010, 12:55 PM
#705
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (22)
Well, I see one really obnoxious potential problem right off the bat, and it really goes to the core of why I run AE products for 1/10 after switching from kyosho. I had an RB5 and a lazer zx-5 fs -- loved them both, but got tired of breaking stupid things in minor crashes... things that simply didn't give out on the AE b4 and b44 without a much harder hit.
To put it bluntly: Inherent Design Strength.
Bottom line: Toughness from a design decision based on real world feedback and experience... not the coolest thing to come from a CAD program by a designer looking to re-invent the wheel. Some of this is a cop out -- you have to try new things to find new things, so you can't harp on losi or any company for trying something new... after all, nothing wagered nothing gained. But, in that sea of experimenting, there are some trends and 'constants in the universe' that you should observe, remember, and work within when coming out with a new design, and THAT is where I have a major problem with one thing I've seen in the pics of the 22.
^^^ THAT. BAD. NO.
Note how little distance there is between the bottom hinge pin at the hub and the mounting surface for the ball stud. The less distance there, the more mechanical advantage that is placed against the ball stud (see: potential to snap it off or rip it out of the plastic) when landing less than perfect. This is physics 101: leverage. This is something that kyosho, and now apparently LOSI, doesn't get. You can raise/lower or move forward/backward the inner and outer link heights at the same time to maintain handling characteristics while giving less mechanical advantage to snap off those ball studs.
The worst part is that that mounting on the top of the hub is touted as an advantage. If I were peter griffin, that would really grind my gears. If you mount on the side, as with all 1/10 AE hubs, you have more material higher up giving you strength to resist shearing ballstuds off. In a top mount design, the screw portion of the ball stud is bearing a lot more stress than in a side mounted configuration -- it's just simple leverage.
Basically, what this design does, at least in my head, is gives you a tuning point (up/down forward/back) at the outside link in preference of durability. Here's the kicker -- you can achieve the same changes by just changing the inside links, and on the inside, you're not limited by the height of the wheel and the location of the hinge pin, and in general, you have more room to work. Ideally, at least in my head, once again, is having the outer stud mounted sideways as high up as you can get with lots of hub material up there reinforcing strength -- as high up as you can go without rubbing the wheel with the suspension working. Then, from there, you adjust camber changes with the inside link mounting positions.
Check out the B4 rear hubs:
Notice the definite difference? B4/B44 rear hub == please do not break my ball studs off, thanks! Note that AE released new rear inner camber plates with .060 raised mounting surface on the b4/t4 because everyone was running at LEAST 2 .030 washers. It is obvious that not breaking off ball studs is a priority at AE.
I was REALLY excited to see this buggy and all of it's new features, then I saw the pic of the rear hub, and my heart sank -- seriously?!
To put it bluntly: Inherent Design Strength.
Bottom line: Toughness from a design decision based on real world feedback and experience... not the coolest thing to come from a CAD program by a designer looking to re-invent the wheel. Some of this is a cop out -- you have to try new things to find new things, so you can't harp on losi or any company for trying something new... after all, nothing wagered nothing gained. But, in that sea of experimenting, there are some trends and 'constants in the universe' that you should observe, remember, and work within when coming out with a new design, and THAT is where I have a major problem with one thing I've seen in the pics of the 22.
^^^ THAT. BAD. NO.
Note how little distance there is between the bottom hinge pin at the hub and the mounting surface for the ball stud. The less distance there, the more mechanical advantage that is placed against the ball stud (see: potential to snap it off or rip it out of the plastic) when landing less than perfect. This is physics 101: leverage. This is something that kyosho, and now apparently LOSI, doesn't get. You can raise/lower or move forward/backward the inner and outer link heights at the same time to maintain handling characteristics while giving less mechanical advantage to snap off those ball studs.
The worst part is that that mounting on the top of the hub is touted as an advantage. If I were peter griffin, that would really grind my gears. If you mount on the side, as with all 1/10 AE hubs, you have more material higher up giving you strength to resist shearing ballstuds off. In a top mount design, the screw portion of the ball stud is bearing a lot more stress than in a side mounted configuration -- it's just simple leverage.
Basically, what this design does, at least in my head, is gives you a tuning point (up/down forward/back) at the outside link in preference of durability. Here's the kicker -- you can achieve the same changes by just changing the inside links, and on the inside, you're not limited by the height of the wheel and the location of the hinge pin, and in general, you have more room to work. Ideally, at least in my head, once again, is having the outer stud mounted sideways as high up as you can get with lots of hub material up there reinforcing strength -- as high up as you can go without rubbing the wheel with the suspension working. Then, from there, you adjust camber changes with the inside link mounting positions.
Check out the B4 rear hubs:
Notice the definite difference? B4/B44 rear hub == please do not break my ball studs off, thanks! Note that AE released new rear inner camber plates with .060 raised mounting surface on the b4/t4 because everyone was running at LEAST 2 .030 washers. It is obvious that not breaking off ball studs is a priority at AE.
I was REALLY excited to see this buggy and all of it's new features, then I saw the pic of the rear hub, and my heart sank -- seriously?!
Lifting the outside link does the oposite to lifting the inside link.
And without actually having this car in front of me I would say you would be able to lift the hinge pin pivot blocks up and down to also change the rollcentre.