Tamiya TRF415

Reply

Old 11-11-2003, 07:46 PM
  #331  
Registered User
 
Suradaj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: +:+:+BKK-Thailand+:+:+
Posts: 206
Default

Maby to cool the endbell better?
Suradaj is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2003, 07:50 PM
  #332  
Tech Champion
 
black-knight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Out to lunch
Posts: 6,042
Default

The 415 looks like it will be more balanced with the motor further from the centre as a result of the cells been down the right side.
black-knight is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2003, 07:53 PM
  #333  
Registered User
 
Suradaj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: +:+:+BKK-Thailand+:+:+
Posts: 206
Default

Originally posted by disaster999
man..it cost a lot...88 bucks????
besides, my stupid dvd rom is weird...i never changed the region on my dvd..and i cant play any region 2 dvd anymore now
There was also a $42.47 set but it is still code 2.
Suradaj is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2003, 08:21 PM
  #334  
Tech Adept
 
stratuskyo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: singapore
Posts: 164
Default Hmmm....

Wonder how much 415 cost.....Anyone noes??
stratuskyo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2003, 09:21 PM
  #335  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (2)
 
rtypec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,975
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default Re: Hmmm....

Originally posted by stratuskyo
Wonder how much 415 cost.....Anyone noes??
Hmm I wonder if .... nevermind. Just scroll down.

Battle Royal? Man I need to watch that soon. Kinda hard to find here in the States, most of it is the animated version which is still cool
rtypec is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2003, 09:32 PM
  #336  
Tech Master
 
horniez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,266
Default Re: Hmmm....

Originally posted by stratuskyo
Wonder how much 415 cost.....Anyone noes??
prob about USD500 ???
horniez is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2003, 05:29 AM
  #337  
Tech Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Sheffield, UK
Posts: 737
Default

If the motor was more centered, it would not balance the weight of the battery. Remember the problems on the TB Evo I and II, the TC3 and so, the chassis have more weight on the battery side.

Also, the architecture of the drive train don't allow that much possibilities for the motor if they want the front belt centered...

The car seems better balanced to me than even the Evo 3, as the pack is more centered. Sure it will be fast, but bet T-Boned and you can say bye bye to your motor.

Oh an the car is scheduled o be 59800 Y
Cobra81li200 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2003, 06:07 AM
  #338  
Tech Adept
 
YoKoMo-MX4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: ND, USA
Posts: 204
Default Balance is good...

I agree that the balance should be very good on this car. 2 GP3300 cells weigh about as much as a typical motor ... I don't think Tamiya designed this without extensive thought on the mass balance.

Also if you move the mass further out (within reason and evenly left to right) you should get better turn-in due to slightly more chassis roll. Add a roll bar and you will be able to fine tune it to your liking ...

As for getting T-Boned ... it shouldn't be a problem to make (from scratch or aftermarket) a carbon plate nerf bar for the motor. That would keep those pesky crashers from trashing the motor/mount/spur/belt/car ...


Originally posted by Cobra81li200
If the motor was more centered, it would not balance the weight of the battery. Remember the problems on the TB Evo I and II, the TC3 and so, the chassis have more weight on the battery side.

Also, the architecture of the drive train don't allow that much possibilities for the motor if they want the front belt centered...

The car seems better balanced to me than even the Evo 3, as the pack is more centered. Sure it will be fast, but bet T-Boned and you can say bye bye to your motor.

Oh an the car is scheduled o be 59800 Y
YoKoMo-MX4 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2003, 01:26 AM
  #339  
Tom
Tech Regular
 
Tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Australia-mate
Posts: 349
Default

On the top view picture of karn's car at the reedy race, they could mil the motor plate so the motor sits more towards the battery, and run the pinion back wards (toothed side towards motor can and screw side towards battery). However this would make it harder to tighten as the screw would be in line with the belt, and you would have to watch the motor shaft hitting the battery, but the centred mass would make even a little movement better.

Centred mass is the key to these cars, just look at what honda did to the RCV(moto GP bike 2 time world champ from 2 years).

Centred mass means lower roll centres, softer springs ect... this is because the wieght has less leaver affect then if the wieght was out wide.

Also if you move the mass further out (within reason and evenly left to right) you should get better turn-in due to slightly more chassis roll. Add a roll bar and you will be able to fine tune it to your liking ...
more chassis roll? i dont agree, i would rather have less and run softer springs giveing better forward/aft traction (accelerating/breaking)

http://www.rctech.net/forum/attachme...&postid=583371
Tom is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2003, 05:01 AM
  #340  
Tech Master
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 1,244
Default

Originally posted by Tom
On the top view picture of karn's car at the reedy race, they could mil the motor plate so the motor sits more towards the battery, and run the pinion back wards (toothed side towards motor can and screw side towards battery). However this would make it harder to tighten as the screw would be in line with the belt, and you would have to watch the motor shaft hitting the battery, but the centred mass would make even a little movement better.

Centred mass is the key to these cars, just look at what honda did to the RCV(moto GP bike 2 time world champ from 2 years).

Centred mass means lower roll centres, softer springs ect... this is because the wieght has less leaver affect then if the wieght was out wide.



more chassis roll? i dont agree, i would rather have less and run softer springs giveing better forward/aft traction (accelerating/breaking)

http://www.rctech.net/forum/attachme...&postid=583371


softer springs would not increase acceleration it would decrease it b/cthe springs are absorbing power which can go to the wheels.
trf racer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2003, 04:54 AM
  #341  
Tech Master
 
Pyramid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: ID
Posts: 1,945
Default

Originally posted by Cobra81li200
If the motor was more centered, it would not balance the weight of the battery. Remember the problems on the TB Evo I and II, the TC3 and so, the chassis have more weight on the battery side.

Also, the architecture of the drive train don't allow that much possibilities for the motor if they want the front belt centered...

The car seems better balanced to me than even the Evo 3, as the pack is more centered. Sure it will be fast, but bet T-Boned and you can say bye bye to your motor.

Oh an the car is scheduled o be 59800 Y
I think saddle pack is still the best balance configuration. But the car looks very promising...
Pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2003, 07:22 AM
  #342  
Tech Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Sheffield, UK
Posts: 737
Default

Originally posted by trf racer
softer springs would not increase acceleration it would decrease it b/cthe springs are absorbing power which can go to the wheels.
Not really, unless the chassis can go down as much as it wants, even under the floor... And the mass transfer will produce indeed more traction, but also a less responsive car.
Cobra81li200 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2003, 07:23 AM
  #343  
Tech Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Sheffield, UK
Posts: 737
Default

Originally posted by Pyramid
I think saddle pack is still the best balance configuration. But the car looks very promising...
I never said it was better than saddle pack... But there is better than saddle pack...
Cobra81li200 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2003, 11:55 AM
  #344  
Registered User
 
Suradaj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: +:+:+BKK-Thailand+:+:+
Posts: 206
Default

"Rumour has it, that the new TRF 415 is not designed in house by Tamiya itself but by Tech who's been quite successfull during the last couple of seasons."

I like a car that is all built by one company.
Suradaj is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2003, 12:38 PM
  #345  
V12
Tech Elite
iTrader: (1)
 
V12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,641
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

From what I have heard the TRF 415 was designed by Tamiya with Tech Racing and Team Atlas involved. And this seems to be not the first time.
V12 is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Terms of Service