Like Tree172Likes

wtcc's FF project

Reply

Old 11-01-2017, 02:45 PM
  #16  
Tech Master
iTrader: (54)
 
aracefan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: OK
Posts: 1,113
Trader Rating: 54 (100%+)
Default

Ok, now I'm curious - you have to post pics of your Skoda.

Please, and thank you.
aracefan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2017, 03:04 PM
  #17  
Tech Adept
 
Laguna Bozo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Beach
Posts: 243
Default

Herr Kevin,
While I'm not exactly an FF driver (Mini's my addiction), I find your project spectacular, professional, and fascinating as hell! Keep up the good work, man.
Laguna Bozo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2017, 03:23 PM
  #18  
Tech Master
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
wtcc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,441
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

@G-rem: Accurate drawings, then I drill the holes with self-centering-drills. The last step is to cut and shape after the outlines... Important is to check accurately the geometry and that you hit the marks as good as possible. Then slowly drill, making sure that the drill is not pushed off track by the weave of the cfk.

@Laguna Bozo:Thank you very much!!!

@aracefan: Here some pictures of my little "fridge":

Bilster Berg:


Nuerburgring Nordschleife:




1200Kg, 190Ps, 7 speed DKG
G-rem, NutDriver and aracefan like this.

Last edited by wtcc; 11-01-2017 at 03:35 PM.
wtcc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2017, 01:11 PM
  #19  
Tech Master
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
wtcc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,441
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

My spare- and tuningparts came today. I was so excited! Finally the car will have the right width and be back in one piece



These Techra mounts look so good


But then the RC reality hit "hard". The front drive shafts are too short Now I can't drive the car on the weekend Luckily I come away with "just" 17,99 for the 46mm shafts for the #42216 DCJs...
G-rem likes this.
wtcc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2017, 04:07 AM
  #20  
Tech Master
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
wtcc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,441
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Now that the car is repaired, I checked my measurements with the cad file.
I couldn't find a mistake, but together with the "DCJ incident" I was remembered of the ugly angles of the DCJ between differential and hub. As it is right now, the differential is placed very low. Even without load on the car, they are severely angled up. Additionally they are also angled backwards. Because of the doublejoints there is no shattering or other problems occuring...
Yet, every constructor of 1:1 racecars tries to achieve the smallest possible shaft angles between gearbox and hub. A comparison with the T4'17 showed that the center of its spool is around 19mm above the chassisplate. That is what I copied for the FF03r gear differential.
It was one of these rare moments, where with one decision suddenly everything went in the right direction. This position change together with the small Techra mounts solved several major and minor problems Now I have not only nearly nullified the DCJ angles, but could also lower the spur-/countergear-unit, gained space for the motormovement (for different gearing), now totally avoid a possible collision between spur and axle and could position the shocktower in a perfect place. The whole bulkhead-unit is together with the shocktower and camberlink-brace compact & stable. Something that is welcomed, as the printed bulkheads could need it. All this for a 5mm higher placed geardiff.





30Tooth, G-rem, thomsva and 2 others like this.
wtcc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2017, 02:41 PM
  #21  
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
 
Airwave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 999
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

wtff is that! I love the design, again...
Airwave is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2017, 03:50 AM
  #22  
Tech Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Czech republic
Posts: 254
Default

That looks great I always thought that this solution would be better and more efficient than standart buggy gearbox

Have you thought about making RWD version?
MatsNorway likes this.
Papi is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2017, 11:33 AM
  #23  
Tech Master
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
wtcc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,441
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Prototyping begins!
I printed both bulkheads and installed them. Seating of the ballbearing could be better. They didn't went in without grinding. Even the screwholes needed a 2.5mm drill. Unfortunately I was to optimistic with the low position of the spur gear. I need to move it up 2mm to get clearance for the a-arm under load. Here now some first pictures:















This week I will print a updated design. If it fits nice then Shapeways gotta do the final product.
wtcc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2017, 09:23 AM
  #24  
Tech Master
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
wtcc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,441
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Today I corrected all wrongs in the form and made several other changes to accomodate the print quality. Overall the bulkheads got beefier. I still hope that I can use them like they come to save the money for Shapeways



fathead, G-rem and walrusjon like this.
wtcc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2017, 04:34 PM
  #25  
Tech Master
iTrader: (31)
 
Matthew_Armeni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,618
Trader Rating: 31 (100%+)
Default

How is your steering with the spindles reversed? It would seem to give you reverse ackermann. Are you running some static toe out to compensate?
MatsNorway and gigaplex like this.
Matthew_Armeni is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2017, 12:42 AM
  #26  
Tech Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 483
Default

Ackerman is determined by the C-arm i believe, so nothing chances.
MatsNorway is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2017, 01:47 AM
  #27  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (2)
 
gigaplex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Melbourne, VIC
Posts: 2,206
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by MatsNorway View Post
Ackerman is determined by the C-arm i believe, so nothing chances.
Ackermann is controlled by a bunch of geometric parameters, including but not limited to the steering block mounting points, steering rack mounting points, and the steering rack design itself (sliding rack, single bellcrank, dual bellcrank etc).
gigaplex is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2017, 04:04 AM
  #28  
Tech Master
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
wtcc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,441
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

The Ackermann is a bit odd. I reduced the parallelism of the tires with less agressive bumpsteer setup. Now it resembles the normal angles while under load in a turn.
wtcc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2017, 06:19 AM
  #29  
Tech Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Czech republic
Posts: 254
Default

Originally Posted by wtcc View Post
The Ackermann is a bit odd. I reduced the parallelism of the tires with less agressive bumpsteer setup. Now it resembles the normal angles while under load in a turn.
You can try knucle extensions. That would reduce knucle arm angle and itroduce angle to steering rods - that may help with proper akcermann.

Edit: this is extreme version used in rally - it may inspire you


Last edited by Papi; 11-09-2017 at 06:38 AM.
Papi is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2017, 11:09 AM
  #30  
Tech Master
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
wtcc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,441
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Wow, thanks for this solution! I would have never thought of this
wtcc is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service