I have a feeling you'd have enjoyed my UC Berkeley experience. He sort of sounds like a disciple of Alan Watts, who was much revered by many of my long haired, bearded, sandal wearing fellow students. I was there near the beginning of the "hippie" or "Beatnik" movement. Fortunately, tho friends with many of them, I felt they were directionless and took another path.

Never looked back.

After a quick interweb scan I would say you didn't get me (or Pirsig). Nope, I am not fascinated by oriental philosophy if it can not provide answers (which it does not even try). I guess that is what you mean by directionless.

Back to more mundane problems, I have another question:

http://www.rctech.net/forum/electric...l#post11280895

Unfortunately, sleeving and soldering seems to be the only solution to your problem. There isn't anyway that any kind of butt joint would work.

If your attempt at doing this failed, my guess would be either improper technique or the wrong materials or solder. I have a feeling that in your particular project, the usual soldering iron would not be sufficient. Perhaps a small torch or a much larger iron. Just a thought, not saying that definitely is the solution.

No, directionless has nothing to do oriental philosophy. My friends at the time, tho many were brilliant, spent too much time "thinking" and too little time "doing". Some are still back there thinking. Perhaps I've relegated Persig in the wrong category, but circular thinking is just not my bag. It can be appealing and seductive, and is a great diversion, but--------.

Anyone run bigger bearing on diff output on M05 ? i think they could be 15x6x5 bearing and it lookd it will fit in well.

I have a microweld machine for repairing jewellery, silver solder may be an option for you.

Nah, my soldering iron is big enough (80W) for the size of the job. I think the driveshafts are a hard steel though hence difficult to solder by definition.

Welding didn't work, because the welder doesn't use an electrode/rod to add metal. It only melts locally the two pieces together so penetration is not very deep at best. Given the small shaft diameter, the power had to be turned down so penetration was even worse then.

Thinking is a class of doing. And no, it's not the oriental philosophy, but the way it is approached by westerners. Pirsig, I think has managed to find a better way. No circular thinking in his book.

I'm more a student of Yoda.

I'm building a rotating camera rig for my M03, based on this guy's idea. Should be entertaining. Old heli parts are useful after all.

Also, found a cleaner image of the M06R. Definitely looks like some clamp on weights on the rear axle. This is also kind of backed up by some bad Japanese/English translation.

The question is why you'd want to increase unsprung weight. Oh, and maybe aluminum lower rear arms, too.

You don't want to increase unsprung weight. But putting the weights on the rear axle increases the moment of inertia, which will make the acceleration and deceleration less responsive. Basically, you'll make the rear end more planted under power/braking with these parts.

It's a driveablility fix, not a raw performance fix. You see lots of added weight on buggies in the UK, and Tamiya already added a weight to the back of their F1 car recently.

Red is SO last year :)

So Tamiya make a big arse heavy counterweight, after they just release lightweight rear axles and lightweight universal swing shafts ... there is balance in the force, always.

Did you just have an anodizing party, or what?

It was a year ago, and I'm still recovering from the party ;)

This falls into Gollem's category: "his" precious I reckon.
Like the gold Tim. Niceeee....

You were right about it slowing the cars reactions down, but that weight does not rotate. It looks clamped to the rear hub.

So no increase in the axle MOI. No flywheel effect. However... placing all of the weight out back and in the corners changes the cars COG rearward and also increases the MOI for the rotation of the car around the COG... Essentially making the car less responsive.

I don't believe he was talking about rotational inertia, re: wheels/axles, but rather rotational inertia of the vehicle as a a whole.

What I'm trying to grasp still is adding weight to the rear of a car that already has a motor hanging off the back. These things launch like scalded bunnies out of the corners already and most I've seen running them locally add weight lower and further forward. Perhaps it will help stick it through the corners. I guess we'll see.

Now I could be wrong about this, but full scale vehicle dynamics do not transfer to our little R/C cars directly. All the component sizes, weights, design etc are completely out of whack. So something as basic as sprung to unsprung ratios can sometimes not be relevant. One of the biggest problems in relating R/C cars to full scale is the rubber. Our tires have so much more grip than the full scale counterparts, what can be done on our cars would be impossible full scale.

Another factor is that our cars are so much faster, but the aero doesn't work the same cause our cars are moving more slowly thru the air. Sounds like a contradiction, but think about it.