Pantoura, 1/10 Pan Car, 2S LiPo, Brushless, Tips and Tricks.
10-18-2006, 08:54 AM
#346
I've been avidly following this thread and am extremely excited to see your development and increase in interest!
I will reiterate the admonition given above - one of the primary attractions we found was the simplicity - stick Greens on an L2 and you're at least in the ballpark (at least at SoCalRC). . .
Start making intricate front suspensions and such, we'll be moving the way of 1/12th or oval where there is a LOT of setup involved. . .not BAD, per se. . .but not great.
As it is now, it's almost a turnkey type of racing . . . Get the car, get the tires, and race.
That being said - I'm a tech by nature and trade so it's fun to watch the discussion!
Okay - primary topic. . .blowovers. We've had our cars clocked at over 70mph. We've run 6-cell mod at Revelation Raceway (1/8th track) at nearly 1/8th speeds.
There have been more 1/8th blowovers than pan-car. I can name only two pan-car blowovers and both were due to hitting something which lifted the car (one was a brush up against the outside wall which lifted the nose and allowed air underneath, the other was clipping the inside of a corner/berm with the same effect.)
In fact, we've had to cut out the slots at the tail because of so MUCH DF bending the rear wing down - but still no blowovers.
We never had our bodies cut to really low tolerances - there was always air getting under, we cut the bodies so that they wouldn't grind. . .
I wonder how much this is worry. . . by the way, when a pan car does go airborne, it tends to stop nearly immediately. We're talking a car that's 40-50oz and when it flips up, it becomes an big air-brake. There's no real weight (3 lbs. . .) to keep it going, it generally just nearly stops. . . Yes, I've seen (and done) cars launch and keep going perfectly through the air. . .but that's rare and actually hard to do (you have to STOP the nose from rising before it gets more than an inch off the ground AND you need something to launch you. . .)
So, for battery placement, it's more about keeping the rear wheels planted. You're using weight to give traction when there is no air going over the rear wheels. Once the car gets going, the weight isn't as much of an issue.
I will reiterate the admonition given above - one of the primary attractions we found was the simplicity - stick Greens on an L2 and you're at least in the ballpark (at least at SoCalRC). . .
Start making intricate front suspensions and such, we'll be moving the way of 1/12th or oval where there is a LOT of setup involved. . .not BAD, per se. . .but not great.
As it is now, it's almost a turnkey type of racing . . . Get the car, get the tires, and race.
That being said - I'm a tech by nature and trade so it's fun to watch the discussion!
Okay - primary topic. . .blowovers. We've had our cars clocked at over 70mph. We've run 6-cell mod at Revelation Raceway (1/8th track) at nearly 1/8th speeds.
There have been more 1/8th blowovers than pan-car. I can name only two pan-car blowovers and both were due to hitting something which lifted the car (one was a brush up against the outside wall which lifted the nose and allowed air underneath, the other was clipping the inside of a corner/berm with the same effect.)
In fact, we've had to cut out the slots at the tail because of so MUCH DF bending the rear wing down - but still no blowovers.
We never had our bodies cut to really low tolerances - there was always air getting under, we cut the bodies so that they wouldn't grind. . .
I wonder how much this is worry. . . by the way, when a pan car does go airborne, it tends to stop nearly immediately. We're talking a car that's 40-50oz and when it flips up, it becomes an big air-brake. There's no real weight (3 lbs. . .) to keep it going, it generally just nearly stops. . . Yes, I've seen (and done) cars launch and keep going perfectly through the air. . .but that's rare and actually hard to do (you have to STOP the nose from rising before it gets more than an inch off the ground AND you need something to launch you. . .)
So, for battery placement, it's more about keeping the rear wheels planted. You're using weight to give traction when there is no air going over the rear wheels. Once the car gets going, the weight isn't as much of an issue.
10-18-2006, 09:17 AM
#347
The blowovers have a lot to do with how smooth the track is. I was able to set up the Pantoura with the Stilletto body with huge rear downforce (3 level wing). and it would not blow over. But it did on the first run before I tinkered with it. The Peugeot body has good front downforce even with a 2 inch rear wing. It does not blow over as long as the front dam is close to the track on my track. The McAllister 300 Z GT style Body has a blow over problem. I changed to the HPI molded wing that was on my Stilletto body which is less radical. I lowered the rear of the car. This should cure it. Test today maybe.
Marty-My hole pattern in the chassis is the same as the Stock Pantoura, It fits an Associated 1/12 scale front end, both of which you have in stock. I can run the car narrow if needed (the front is 185 mm with tires stock), or I can make new adaptors with holes in the same place a wide car would be, but lower than my present setup which has a built in 1/4 inch spacer upward. I am not completely sure if wide cars all have the same width from front wheel edge to wheel edge. The front of the bodies are about 212 mm so I would think front width should be about 4 mm less than this to provide clearance on the wheel arch lip.
Pics of my current front end are here
http://www.rctech.net/forum/showthre...sh#post2666505
I think you guys are wrong about the simplicity issue. Why is 80% of racing touring cars. Its good to have the same relevant adjustments that you have on your full size machines. The only adjustment added here is roll center adjustment (maybe). I would guess that the Associated front end with caster, caster change, Spring tension, and camber adjustments is more popular than the solid front end with no adjustments.
Marty-My hole pattern in the chassis is the same as the Stock Pantoura, It fits an Associated 1/12 scale front end, both of which you have in stock. I can run the car narrow if needed (the front is 185 mm with tires stock), or I can make new adaptors with holes in the same place a wide car would be, but lower than my present setup which has a built in 1/4 inch spacer upward. I am not completely sure if wide cars all have the same width from front wheel edge to wheel edge. The front of the bodies are about 212 mm so I would think front width should be about 4 mm less than this to provide clearance on the wheel arch lip.
Pics of my current front end are here
http://www.rctech.net/forum/showthre...sh#post2666505
I think you guys are wrong about the simplicity issue. Why is 80% of racing touring cars. Its good to have the same relevant adjustments that you have on your full size machines. The only adjustment added here is roll center adjustment (maybe). I would guess that the Associated front end with caster, caster change, Spring tension, and camber adjustments is more popular than the solid front end with no adjustments.
Last edited by John Stranahan; 10-18-2006 at 09:45 AM.
10-18-2006, 09:53 AM
#348
I'm in agreement with Boomer over the weight issue. I would rather put the static weight over the rear wheels and then use rake to tune weight transfer. AWD doesn't have the off the line traction issues that RWD does (although I am able to get the front wheels in my AWD Volvo to spin but that's probably due to the center diff on the car...) (Wife won't let me put a bigger turbo in and try to light up all 4...) You're going to get the most traction on the wheels with the most weight over them (hence being able to slide out my pickup in 4WD)
John, I come from the same simplicity school.... I do like Marty's concepts and will purchace one of his GTP cars when they come available (that is if I don't break down and finally buy the mill I've been eyeing...) (think a 50" Plasma is going to win...) But it lacks the Pan Car simplicity... Once you start adding front shocks you start adding complexity. Not, that it's a bad thing it's just adding more to do...
Another thing about Marty's designs is the ability to run Rubber TC Tires and wheels.... I've got plenty of foams even have 2 sets of aluminum pan car wheels but if I want to go out parking lot bashing being able to run rubbers is a much better option....
John, I come from the same simplicity school.... I do like Marty's concepts and will purchace one of his GTP cars when they come available (that is if I don't break down and finally buy the mill I've been eyeing...) (think a 50" Plasma is going to win...) But it lacks the Pan Car simplicity... Once you start adding front shocks you start adding complexity. Not, that it's a bad thing it's just adding more to do...
Another thing about Marty's designs is the ability to run Rubber TC Tires and wheels.... I've got plenty of foams even have 2 sets of aluminum pan car wheels but if I want to go out parking lot bashing being able to run rubbers is a much better option....
10-18-2006, 10:04 AM
#349
I have not seen any of Martys sketches with front shocks. May or may not happen. It is a convenient way to have a telescoping spring mount with adjustable preload. But a simple telescoping spring mount without shocks would work fine in my opinion as the front is dampened by the center and side shock.
Last edited by John Stranahan; 10-22-2006 at 05:17 PM. Reason: added and side shocks.
10-18-2006, 10:04 AM
#350
Originally Posted by John Stranahan
The blowovers have a lot to do with how smooth the track is. I was able to set up the Pantoura with the Stilletto body with huge rear downforce (3 level wing). and it would not blow over. But it did on the first run before I tinkered with it. The Peugeot body has good front downforce even with a 2 inch rear wing. It does not blow over as long as the front dam is close to the track on my track. The McAllister 300 Z GT style Body has a blow over problem. I changed to the HPI molded wing that was on my Stilletto body which is less radical. I lowered the rear of the car. This should cure it. Test today maybe.
Marty-My hole pattern in the chassis is the same as the Stock Pantoura, It fits an Associated 1/12 scale front end, both of which you have in stock. I can run the car narrow if needed (the front is 185 mm with tires stock), or I can make new adaptors with holes in the same place a wide car would be, but lower than my present setup which has a built in 1/4 inch spacer upward. I am not completely sure if wide cars all have the same width from front wheel edge to wheel edge. The front of the bodies are about 212 mm so I would think front width should be about 4 mm less than this to provide clearance on the wheel arch lip.
Pics of my current front end are here
http://www.rctech.net/forum/showthre...sh#post2666505
I think you guys are wrong about the simplicity issue. Why is 80% of racing touring cars. Its good to have the same relevant adjustments that you have on your full size machines. The only adjustment added here is roll center adjustment (maybe). I would guess that the Associated front end with caster, caster change, Spring tension, and camber adjustments is more popular than the solid front end with no adjustments.
Marty-My hole pattern in the chassis is the same as the Stock Pantoura, It fits an Associated 1/12 scale front end, both of which you have in stock. I can run the car narrow if needed (the front is 185 mm with tires stock), or I can make new adaptors with holes in the same place a wide car would be, but lower than my present setup which has a built in 1/4 inch spacer upward. I am not completely sure if wide cars all have the same width from front wheel edge to wheel edge. The front of the bodies are about 212 mm so I would think front width should be about 4 mm less than this to provide clearance on the wheel arch lip.
Pics of my current front end are here
http://www.rctech.net/forum/showthre...sh#post2666505
I think you guys are wrong about the simplicity issue. Why is 80% of racing touring cars. Its good to have the same relevant adjustments that you have on your full size machines. The only adjustment added here is roll center adjustment (maybe). I would guess that the Associated front end with caster, caster change, Spring tension, and camber adjustments is more popular than the solid front end with no adjustments.
here is what I am going to build a 190/200mm and 235mm Pan car and it is going to have the tripod rear shocks of a pan car with a dual floating front suspension with micro shocks or just spring loaded tubes for the front.
Then I am going to build a 235mm Car with a belt drive and a full floating suspension 4 shocks like our F206F1
I will be running the Normal Pan car front and rear tires for both cars and try to make wheel adapters for touring wheels and tires.
As for the front suspension if you know of the AE Dynamic Strut front suspension has adjustable aluminum front arm mounts, which provide 6-position mounting Well I would like to make our front in the same manner but with both upper and lower arms that move and adjust like the AE suspension with shock and springs or spring tubes.
This will also let you mount the AS Dynamic strut front suspension right to our car if one would not want to use our design.
or like john has done and mount it on plates and make them to fit any car just a thought. Well back to making cars!
CEO:Martin Peterson
I think this has nothing to do with what John setout to do here.
I feel like I am walking on Johns Thread here and will move this to my GTP/LMP Thread ok I think what John is doing and it is great that he is doing it but some of the stuff being talked about here is ' I feel not right' John keep testing and give us updates and more video would be great as well! I love what you are doing!!!! Man!!!!!
http://www.rctech.net/forum/showthre...1&page=3&pp=30
Last edited by Marty Peterson; 08-03-2008 at 12:44 PM.
10-18-2006, 10:16 AM
#352
For a simple low profile front suspension a single shock mounted horizontally between the front A Arm mounts and Levered off the upper A arm may be the way to go.... I can draw it out later if needed....
10-18-2006, 10:23 AM
#353
marty.. who makes those aluminum front upper arm mounts? the ones i saw were waaaay tall, so i'm curious about these.
10-18-2006, 10:32 AM
#354
Originally Posted by vtl1180ny
For a simple low profile front suspension a single shock mounted horizontally between the front A Arm mounts and Levered off the upper A arm may be the way to go.... I can draw it out later if needed....
Well I have did this in the past.
Last edited by Marty Peterson; 08-03-2008 at 12:44 PM.
10-18-2006, 10:35 AM
#355
Originally Posted by Mason
marty.. who makes those aluminum front upper arm mounts? the ones i saw were waaaay tall, so i'm curious about these.
AE for there oval car! http://www.teamassociated.com
10-18-2006, 12:04 PM
#356
Roll center adjustments
I have found that by calculating roll centers on touring cars that multiple holes for mounting positions are not too useful. There is too great a change usually. Sometimes as much as a half inch change going one hole down on an innner camber link. It is more useful in my opinion to have a shimmed adjustment like the inner TC4 camber link ball stud which is placed vertically so that it can be shimmed up or down or the Losi JRXS bottom inner A-arm pivots that can be shimmed up or down. A .020 inch movement is a good size movement. Just though I would mention this.
John
I have found that by calculating roll centers on touring cars that multiple holes for mounting positions are not too useful. There is too great a change usually. Sometimes as much as a half inch change going one hole down on an innner camber link. It is more useful in my opinion to have a shimmed adjustment like the inner TC4 camber link ball stud which is placed vertically so that it can be shimmed up or down or the Losi JRXS bottom inner A-arm pivots that can be shimmed up or down. A .020 inch movement is a good size movement. Just though I would mention this.
John
10-18-2006, 01:03 PM
#357
Marty, that is the most simplistic... The current TC's are way overengineered, don't want to see this project go in that direction...
John, that would be a good idea. Have a top brace that rides on top of the upper A arm mount/pivot point to add lateral strangth but not affect the adjustment in any way.... A simple piece of CF can do the job well....
John, that would be a good idea. Have a top brace that rides on top of the upper A arm mount/pivot point to add lateral strangth but not affect the adjustment in any way.... A simple piece of CF can do the job well....
10-18-2006, 01:18 PM
#358
Originally Posted by John Stranahan
Roll center adjustments
I have found that by calculating roll centers on touring cars that multiple holes for mounting positions are not too useful. There is too great a change usually. Sometimes as much as a half inch change going one hole down on an innner camber link. It is more useful in my opinion to have a shimmed adjustment like the inner TC4 camber link ball stud which is placed vertically so that it can be shimmed up or down or the Losi JRXS bottom inner A-arm pivots that can be shimmed up or down. A .020 inch movement is a good size movement. Just though I would mention this.
John
I have found that by calculating roll centers on touring cars that multiple holes for mounting positions are not too useful. There is too great a change usually. Sometimes as much as a half inch change going one hole down on an innner camber link. It is more useful in my opinion to have a shimmed adjustment like the inner TC4 camber link ball stud which is placed vertically so that it can be shimmed up or down or the Losi JRXS bottom inner A-arm pivots that can be shimmed up or down. A .020 inch movement is a good size movement. Just though I would mention this.
John
