27LikesSchumacher's new K2 4wd buggy ..!
08-11-2016, 07:12 AM - Wikipost
|
|||
|
|||
|
10-04-2017, 11:59 PM
#781
Tech Apprentice
Anyone know the dry weight of the Cat K2?
10-05-2017, 03:14 AM
#782
Not sure what you mean. Never heard that saying “Dry weight”
However, Stock with electronics body wheels, everything around 1770-1800 full size shorty
Carbon chassis -80g
I’ve titanium turnbuckles & screws & BEZERK RC carbon chassis which is 8g lighter then the Schumacher carbon too also a light ESC got it at 1650, it’s beautiful.
yI race in stock classes and it’s one of the fastest cars for that purpose.
I don’t have chassis stiffeners +15g, I do have a fan. No optional alloy upper diff housing, too heavy and not needed. I also have a slipper eliminator so I lose 35g of rotating mass right there the 4 pad slipper is about 40g you can just use 2 pads though and lose a little weight there.
What’s your intended use? What class? Mod, 13.5t, other?
However, Stock with electronics body wheels, everything around 1770-1800 full size shorty
Carbon chassis -80g
I’ve titanium turnbuckles & screws & BEZERK RC carbon chassis which is 8g lighter then the Schumacher carbon too also a light ESC got it at 1650, it’s beautiful.
yI race in stock classes and it’s one of the fastest cars for that purpose.
I don’t have chassis stiffeners +15g, I do have a fan. No optional alloy upper diff housing, too heavy and not needed. I also have a slipper eliminator so I lose 35g of rotating mass right there the 4 pad slipper is about 40g you can just use 2 pads though and lose a little weight there.
What’s your intended use? What class? Mod, 13.5t, other?
10-07-2017, 12:08 PM
#783
Truck is almost done...need to glue tires ,change rear springs and spring clips and put different body posts on the front
10-08-2017, 03:35 AM
#784
Tech Apprentice
Thanks for the detailed response.
Dry weight I mean as the kit comes...no electronics etc, but your reply more than answers my curiosity.
I am looking to get into 1/10 racing...only ever done 1/8, so looking at various different cars.
QUOTE=Volition;15045747]Not sure what you mean. Never heard that saying “Dry weight”
However, Stock with electronics body wheels, everything around 1770-1800 full size shorty
Carbon chassis -80g
I’ve titanium turnbuckles & screws & BEZERK RC carbon chassis which is 8g lighter then the Schumacher carbon too also a light ESC got it at 1650, it’s beautiful.
yI race in stock classes and it’s one of the fastest cars for that purpose.
I don’t have chassis stiffeners +15g, I do have a fan. No optional alloy upper diff housing, too heavy and not needed. I also have a slipper eliminator so I lose 35g of rotating mass right there the 4 pad slipper is about 40g you can just use 2 pads though and lose a little weight there.
What’s your intended use? What class? Mod, 13.5t, other?[/QUOTE]
Dry weight I mean as the kit comes...no electronics etc, but your reply more than answers my curiosity.
I am looking to get into 1/10 racing...only ever done 1/8, so looking at various different cars.
QUOTE=Volition;15045747]Not sure what you mean. Never heard that saying “Dry weight”
However, Stock with electronics body wheels, everything around 1770-1800 full size shorty
Carbon chassis -80g
I’ve titanium turnbuckles & screws & BEZERK RC carbon chassis which is 8g lighter then the Schumacher carbon too also a light ESC got it at 1650, it’s beautiful.
yI race in stock classes and it’s one of the fastest cars for that purpose.
I don’t have chassis stiffeners +15g, I do have a fan. No optional alloy upper diff housing, too heavy and not needed. I also have a slipper eliminator so I lose 35g of rotating mass right there the 4 pad slipper is about 40g you can just use 2 pads though and lose a little weight there.
What’s your intended use? What class? Mod, 13.5t, other?[/QUOTE]
10-08-2017, 07:21 AM
#785
I just wanted to see if I could build it...once I have think about it it,it will stay in my head until I build it...can't wait until I drive it
10-10-2017, 03:52 AM
#786
can I recomend highly you start with a 2wd.
A person who can drive 2wd can drive anything. But not always the other way around. Learning how to drive a 2wd buggy will improve your rc game consideranly. And it's cheaper to boot and often more competitive.
[/QUOTE]
A person who can drive 2wd can drive anything. But not always the other way around. Learning how to drive a 2wd buggy will improve your rc game consideranly. And it's cheaper to boot and often more competitive.
Thanks for the detailed response.
Dry weight I mean as the kit comes...no electronics etc, but your reply more than answers my curiosity.
I am looking to get into 1/10 racing...only ever done 1/8, so looking at various different cars.
QUOTE=Volition;15045747]Not sure what you mean. Never heard that saying “Dry weight”
However, Stock with electronics body wheels, everything around 1770-1800 full size shorty
Carbon chassis -80g
I’ve titanium turnbuckles & screws & BEZERK RC carbon chassis which is 8g lighter then the Schumacher carbon too also a light ESC got it at 1650, it’s beautiful.
yI race in stock classes and it’s one of the fastest cars for that purpose.
I don’t have chassis stiffeners +15g, I do have a fan. No optional alloy upper diff housing, too heavy and not needed. I also have a slipper eliminator so I lose 35g of rotating mass right there the 4 pad slipper is about 40g you can just use 2 pads though and lose a little weight there.
What’s your intended use? What class? Mod, 13.5t, other?
Dry weight I mean as the kit comes...no electronics etc, but your reply more than answers my curiosity.
I am looking to get into 1/10 racing...only ever done 1/8, so looking at various different cars.
QUOTE=Volition;15045747]Not sure what you mean. Never heard that saying “Dry weight”
However, Stock with electronics body wheels, everything around 1770-1800 full size shorty
Carbon chassis -80g
I’ve titanium turnbuckles & screws & BEZERK RC carbon chassis which is 8g lighter then the Schumacher carbon too also a light ESC got it at 1650, it’s beautiful.
yI race in stock classes and it’s one of the fastest cars for that purpose.
I don’t have chassis stiffeners +15g, I do have a fan. No optional alloy upper diff housing, too heavy and not needed. I also have a slipper eliminator so I lose 35g of rotating mass right there the 4 pad slipper is about 40g you can just use 2 pads though and lose a little weight there.
What’s your intended use? What class? Mod, 13.5t, other?
10-10-2017, 05:36 AM
#787
I first got into racing in the Stock 2WD SCT class and it was perfect for a medium traction indoor clay track, often with a C Main... however after the track shut down (due to insane fire code violations) and we were forced to start racing on outdoor 1/8 tracks with wildly varying traction conditions, then it didn't take long for the class to die.
What I have observed is that it takes the average person in my area about 1-2 years to learn how to properly tune a car for their driving style and 2WD is by far the most sensitive to tuning adjustments, especially on dry loose pack conditions... I've seen many 2WD drivers come and go quickly from the hobby, but it's those who have adapted to 4WD first and slowly learn how to tune over the course of 1-2 years, those are the folks who stay and eventually go back to 2WD once their all around skills have sharpened.
10-31-2017, 09:19 AM
#788
What parts are required to achieve 4 degrees of rear toe? And are the 7.5 front yokes only available in aluminum? Last question is if I want emulsion shocks should I buy the vented caps or the top caps for the KD and KC?
10-31-2017, 09:48 AM
#789
Yes 7.5 are alloy only
U4209 caps would be easier. if you use the KC/KD caps you'll have to change the top mount to the ball style
10-31-2017, 11:18 AM
#790
Considering the toe blocks are the same as the KC I assume you could use U4719 to achieve 4deg. Although I've never heard of anyone doing this
Yes 7.5 are alloy only
U4209 caps would be easier. if you use the KC/KD caps you'll have to change the top mount to the ball style
Yes 7.5 are alloy only
U4209 caps would be easier. if you use the KC/KD caps you'll have to change the top mount to the ball style
11-04-2017, 08:00 PM
#791
Tech Regular
iTrader: (1)
There seemed to be some development early on when they were changing the servo mount to find more flex. I'm guessing they found just changing the thickness of the rear top deck worked great. It did. It worked for increasing durability as well. I stopped breaking parts once the flex was added. As much as I enjoy buying new cars and building them, this is my fastest car, even more so than my XB4.
I have a question. Why do people seem to like emulsion setups? I come from a real world suspension company. We prided ourselves on building inverted monotube coilovers that are much closer in design to bladder shocks. When I build shocks (rc) with bladders, they feel way more consistent and smooth. The addition of air to the shock is inconsistent and the squishy sound it makes is maddening! Please explain.
I have a question. Why do people seem to like emulsion setups? I come from a real world suspension company. We prided ourselves on building inverted monotube coilovers that are much closer in design to bladder shocks. When I build shocks (rc) with bladders, they feel way more consistent and smooth. The addition of air to the shock is inconsistent and the squishy sound it makes is maddening! Please explain.
11-05-2017, 08:18 PM
#793
I am with you on scratching my head as to why people run emulsion shocks (or what Tony is referring to as "vented"). If you have an engineering background, having worked for a company making full scale shocks, you may find this an interesting read if you haven't run into it yet:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-9X...?usp=drive_web
The "net" is that emulsion shocks end up giving you a bit of a spring effect because of the air mixed in. Well supported bladder shocks make for more consistent damping according to his tests/data on the dyno. "Well supported" means the bladder either has some structural support behind it (foam) or has a sealed cap (no venting). I know Tessman ran his HB shocks with bladders in 1/10. He kept the bleeder screws out of the caps and then cut out small discs of scotchbrite pad to provide some support under the cap.
I personally run the bladders in all my Schuey shocks that come with the kits and in the rebuild kits: U3667. They make an "HD" version of the bladders that are a thicker rubber. You can probably run these without bleeder screws in the caps they are so firm. Part #U3782
The main advantages of building the shocks this way to me are the lower maintenance and the consistency. You end up not having to fill/top off as often because as the oil escapes past the seals in the bottom over time the volume lost is taken up as air space behind the bladder. And to get them back to how you want them in terms of rebound (either positive or negative) you just crack the bleeder screws and then position the piston where you want before sealing the bleeder screw again. You can build a pretty neutral shock or one that has negative or positive rebound depending on where the piston is when you seal it.
The worst part of emulsion shocks is actually having to "emulsify" them manually before you throw it down. Otherwise the first part of your run will be spent mixing the air into the shocks.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-9X...?usp=drive_web
The "net" is that emulsion shocks end up giving you a bit of a spring effect because of the air mixed in. Well supported bladder shocks make for more consistent damping according to his tests/data on the dyno. "Well supported" means the bladder either has some structural support behind it (foam) or has a sealed cap (no venting). I know Tessman ran his HB shocks with bladders in 1/10. He kept the bleeder screws out of the caps and then cut out small discs of scotchbrite pad to provide some support under the cap.
I personally run the bladders in all my Schuey shocks that come with the kits and in the rebuild kits: U3667. They make an "HD" version of the bladders that are a thicker rubber. You can probably run these without bleeder screws in the caps they are so firm. Part #U3782
The main advantages of building the shocks this way to me are the lower maintenance and the consistency. You end up not having to fill/top off as often because as the oil escapes past the seals in the bottom over time the volume lost is taken up as air space behind the bladder. And to get them back to how you want them in terms of rebound (either positive or negative) you just crack the bleeder screws and then position the piston where you want before sealing the bleeder screw again. You can build a pretty neutral shock or one that has negative or positive rebound depending on where the piston is when you seal it.
The worst part of emulsion shocks is actually having to "emulsify" them manually before you throw it down. Otherwise the first part of your run will be spent mixing the air into the shocks.
11-05-2017, 09:04 PM
#795
By "emulsion" style build I am referring to the way you see most people building 1/10th shocks right now. The process is typically like:
- Fill the shock
- Install the cap without the bleeder screw
- Move piston to top of stroke to bleed
- Install bleeder screw (seal cap)
- Pump the shock 20-30 times
- Remove bleeder screw and re-bleed, then seal