Go Back  R/C Tech Forums > General Forums > Electric Off-Road
Team Associated RC10 B5m Mid-Motor & Rear Motor Thread >

Team Associated RC10 B5m Mid-Motor & Rear Motor Thread

Community
Wiki Posts
Search
Like Tree141Likes

Team Associated RC10 B5m Mid-Motor & Rear Motor Thread

    Hide Wikipost
Old 04-22-2024, 12:09 PM   -   Wikipost
R/C Tech ForumsThread Wiki: Team Associated RC10 B5m Mid-Motor & Rear Motor Thread
Please read: This is a community-maintained wiki post containing the most important information from this thread. You may edit the Wiki once you have been a member for 90 days and have made 90 posts.
 
Last edit by: RCBuddha
Quick link to the front page

First Page

Print Wikipost

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 10-06-2015, 11:52 PM
  #23041  
Tech Adept
iTrader: (5)
 
patiofurniture's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 222
Trader Rating: 5 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by mschumi101
I thought I read somewhere buried in Red RC's coverage that the "salary/Factory" Associated guys were running prototype pre-production Associated made gear boxes, hence the forward mounting shock tower off a B44. So they were custom made by the team, and they might eventually release them as an option part is what I understood.

Everyone else at the worlds driving an Associated branded car used the Reds setup posted above, but not the Factory drivers. The two setups are vastly different.
Yes, that is mostly correct, only the salary guys got 'Factory modified' B5M's, which were specifically optimized for astroturf. Also, the rear tower is not off of a B44, it was custom.
patiofurniture is offline  
Old 10-07-2015, 06:28 AM
  #23042  
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (13)
 
skrichter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 894
Trader Rating: 13 (100%+)
Default

Found this pic from Worlds. This car has a few new JC items - chassis, shock caps, shock collars, etc.
Attached Thumbnails Team Associated RC10 B5m Mid-Motor & Rear Motor Thread-jconcepts_new-products.jpg  
skrichter is offline  
Old 10-07-2015, 06:50 AM
  #23043  
Tech Regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: N Cal
Posts: 283
Default

Originally Posted by skrichter
Found this pic from Worlds. This car has a few new JC items - chassis, shock caps, shock collars, etc.
Also, those nifty new JConcepts cv drive shafts. Would love to get my hands on that chassis to test on some high grip clay.
Fasttrak is offline  
Old 10-07-2015, 09:19 AM
  #23044  
Tech Lord
iTrader: (52)
 
Cpt.America's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 11,085
Trader Rating: 52 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by jpcopeland1
Currently running a B5M Lite with Rivkins OC/RC jconcepts stock nas setup, don't feel like im getting the amount of mid-corner steering I should. Any ideas on what to change from that particular setup to make it more aggressive mid corner?
First think I would change is a simple roll center change to the front of the car. The best way to lower the roll center in the middle of the corner, but not necessarily change it at initial input, is to maintain the same static camber link angle, but lengthen it. This will minimize how much the roll center rises, the more the car leans.
Cpt.America is offline  
Old 10-07-2015, 10:28 AM
  #23045  
Tech Adept
iTrader: (5)
 
patiofurniture's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 222
Trader Rating: 5 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Cpt.America
First think I would change is a simple roll center change to the front of the car. The best way to lower the roll center in the middle of the corner, but not necessarily change it at initial input, is to maintain the same static camber link angle, but lengthen it. This will minimize how much the roll center rises, the more the car leans.
For more aggresive mid to corner-exit steering I usually prefer to raise the rear roll center. Either taking out 1-2mm off the inner rear camber link or perhaps even going a half hole shorter off the hub. However, if you go to far the car can become much more twitchy to drive and almost 'wandery'.

By raising the rear roll center relative to the front roll center you are inclining the roll axis even more so that more weight is transferred to the outside front tire along with quicker weight transfer side -to-side in the rear making the car feel more 'responsive'.
patiofurniture is offline  
Old 10-07-2015, 12:26 PM
  #23046  
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (30)
 
mschumi101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Wisconsin - Madison
Posts: 920
Trader Rating: 30 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by patiofurniture
Yes, that is mostly correct, only the salary guys got 'Factory modified' B5M's, which were specifically optimized for astroturf. Also, the rear tower is not off of a B44, it was custom.
My mistake, at first couple glances it looked like a B44 tower, but after looking at it more it does look custom. Interested to see some body off pics or know if the kit will ever be available as an option
mschumi101 is offline  
Old 10-07-2015, 01:14 PM
  #23047  
Tech Lord
iTrader: (52)
 
Cpt.America's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 11,085
Trader Rating: 52 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by patiofurniture
For more aggresive mid to corner-exit steering I usually prefer to raise the rear roll center. Either taking out 1-2mm off the inner rear camber link or perhaps even going a half hole shorter off the hub. However, if you go to far the car can become much more twitchy to drive and almost 'wandery'.

By raising the rear roll center relative to the front roll center you are inclining the roll axis even more so that more weight is transferred to the outside front tire along with quicker weight transfer side -to-side in the rear making the car feel more 'responsive'.
Yep. Removing rear traction, or adding front traction, will both provide more perceived front traction. My way nets more traction, your way nets less. Which you use would depend on how close to traction rolling you are.

Last edited by Cpt.America; 10-07-2015 at 02:07 PM. Reason: added "perceived"
Cpt.America is offline  
Old 10-07-2015, 01:27 PM
  #23048  
Tech Prophet
iTrader: (84)
 
Wildcat1971's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 17,388
Trader Rating: 84 (100%+)
Default

I am actually -2mm inside and inside 2 hole down on mine. But we race on a very edgy clay track with frequent traction rolls.
Wildcat1971 is offline  
Old 10-07-2015, 01:27 PM
  #23049  
Tech Adept
iTrader: (5)
 
patiofurniture's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 222
Trader Rating: 5 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Cpt.America
Yep. Removing rear traction, or adding front traction, will both provide more front traction. My way nets more traction, your way nets less. Which you use would depend on how close to traction rolling you are.
Ah, I mis-read an thought you were referring to the rear. My mistake.

I usually keep 2mm washer on the front inner camber link as standard (so I don't usually go up from there and don't prefer to lengthen the front link) and go down as grip increases, and likewise on the rear to keep a roll balance.
patiofurniture is offline  
Old 10-07-2015, 03:26 PM
  #23050  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (2)
 
Razathorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,220
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by jpcopeland1
Currently running a B5M Lite with Rivkins OC/RC jconcepts stock nas setup, don't feel like im getting the amount of mid-corner steering I should. Any ideas on what to change from that particular setup to make it more aggressive mid corner?
Can you clarify what you mean by mid corner. Are you decelerating in just before the apex, accelerating out just past the apex, or really just stuck in the middle of the corner forced to go slow because the car didn't make the corner and leveled out.

You will find that, with team setups, the harder you drive into the corner, the more the car will turn. Have you tried absolutely blasting the corner
Razathorn is offline  
Old 10-07-2015, 07:51 PM
  #23051  
Tech Regular
 
Volition's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 404
Default

Asked previously-

Does anyone have a chart of the smallest and largest pinions that fit onto the Spurs. Just trying to save myself the legwork.

If so I can do a FDR chart in excel/pdf for everyone to save and/or print out

75 spur min pinion is 25

This is assuming a standard motor plate
Volition is offline  
Old 10-07-2015, 09:39 PM
  #23052  
Suspended
iTrader: (61)
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,121
Trader Rating: 61 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Volition
Asked previously-

Does anyone have a chart of the smallest and largest pinions that fit onto the Spurs. Just trying to save myself the legwork.

If so I can do a FDR chart in excel/pdf for everyone to save and/or print out

75 spur min pinion is 25

This is assuming a standard motor plate
Back of the manual has gearing suggestions, if that's what you're after. There's no reason to use anything but a 69/72 spur for 17.5, and a 78 for mod.
Socket is offline  
Old 10-08-2015, 04:34 AM
  #23053  
Tech Regular
 
Volition's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 404
Default

I race on a huge 1/8th track on some weekends then small 10th tracks otherwise. Very different.Randy Pike from Tekin recommended I try around 7.9 fdr for the small track. I got the RPM motor. I worked it out for a 72 spur and then the pinion wouldn't reach. So was hoping someone had a table somewhere. To save me the annoyance of changing pinions and Spurs not knowing if they'll fit.
I suppose if I stick to the Spurs you recommend I'll work it out pretty quickly. Thanks.
Volition is offline  
Old 10-08-2015, 06:34 AM
  #23054  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (166)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Vancouver, Washington
Posts: 4,596
Trader Rating: 166 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by patiofurniture
For more aggresive mid to corner-exit steering I usually prefer to raise the rear roll center. Either taking out 1-2mm off the inner rear camber link or perhaps even going a half hole shorter off the hub. However, if you go to far the car can become much more twitchy to drive and almost 'wandery'.

By raising the rear roll center relative to the front roll center you are inclining the roll axis even more so that more weight is transferred to the outside front tire along with quicker weight transfer side -to-side in the rear making the car feel more 'responsive'.
The track im talking about is super high bite (when they groom it correctly) LRH where we run slicks. I got it pretty much figured out by removing 2mm of inner camber link ball stud washers. It did give me more mid-corner on power steering, Not sure why. I also noticed a build error, I was sent the +4mm C arm mount. Didnt know there was a newer arm mount out, it's been a while since I ran AE. Suffice to say my rear end was too wide running that plate and 7mm hexes. Got the standard C plate and gained all kinds of steering everywhere since the track width of the rear of the car is now correct. I could use that LCG gearbox.
jpcopeland1 is offline  
Old 10-08-2015, 06:37 AM
  #23055  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (166)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Vancouver, Washington
Posts: 4,596
Trader Rating: 166 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Razathorn
Can you clarify what you mean by mid corner. Are you decelerating in just before the apex, accelerating out just past the apex, or really just stuck in the middle of the corner forced to go slow because the car didn't make the corner and leveled out.

You will find that, with team setups, the harder you drive into the corner, the more the car will turn. Have you tried absolutely blasting the corner
It was a build error, was sent the +4mm C plate and used it with the 7mm rear hubs. Car was a wide boy. replaced it with the right c mount, and its fine now.
jpcopeland1 is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.