R/C Tech Forums

R/C Tech Forums (https://www.rctech.net/forum/)
-   Electric On-Road (https://www.rctech.net/forum/electric-road-2/)
-   -   1/12 forum (https://www.rctech.net/forum/electric-road/37-1-12-forum.html)

SlowerOne 07-31-2014 01:23 PM


Originally Posted by EDWARD2003 (Post 13435598)
Thank you for your response. But, the primary adjustment is to adjust the ride height and secondary is roll center?

I also heard going to softer springs will result in more roll. Which is interesting.

If you are running the Yokomo car then maybe those spacers can be used for ride height. On an AE dynamic front end they are never used to adjust ride height. They are only used to set the droop on the front suspension by assuring the correct preload on the spring, or to place under and over the top suspension arm to adjust the roll centre.

Contrary to popular myth, although raising the outer end of the moving suspension does have some impact on the camber change, it is minimal to nothing. The front suspension moves about 1mm during racing on AE20 springs, so a 0.35mm change in the height of the top link when moved through a 1mm arc means the change in camber angle in roll is about two-tenths of bugger all. Softer springs allow more suspension movement so camber change could be altered as much as four-tenths of bugger all!

The change to roll centre by moving the arm up or down has far more impact on the handling. The stiffer you make the front end (higher roll centre) the more grip you will get. If the front of the car is snatchy and trends to grip roll, lowering the roll centre will help tame that.

This is not dissimilar to fitting a softer front tyre. Although a softer tyre will give more grip, it will also compress more - much the same effect as a softer spring. If you allow the car to roll more then you will get less tendency to grip roll. As the chassis can roll more, it lowers the CofG in a corner and reduces the tendency to grip roll.

It all sounds counter-intuitive, but fitting softer tyres when the grip comes right up, and lower the front (and rear, if you can) roll centres helps tame grip roll. HTH :)

implusepro 07-31-2014 05:57 PM

Guys,

What is your perfect/ideal 12th scale setup?

I am a long time nitro on-road 8th scale racer, looking to give 12th a go.

There is virtually no trackside support, so I can really choose any brand.

Money is not a concern :lol:, I tend to overspend on RC :lol:

So in an ideal world, what brand/model would you choose:

Chassis?
Motor (4.5T)?
ESC?
Battery?
Servo?

avink007 07-31-2014 06:25 PM


Originally Posted by implusepro (Post 13437476)
Guys,

What is your perfect/ideal 12th scale setup?

I am a long time nitro on-road 8th scale racer, looking to give 12th a go.

There is virtually no trackside support, so I can really choose any brand.

Money is not a concern :lol:, I tend to overspend on RC :lol:

So in an ideal world, what brand/model would you choose:

Chassis?
Motor (4.5T)?
ESC?
Battery?
Servo?

Speedmerchant Rev 8 w/ new school front end.
4.5 motor all are fast (Orca, Team Orion, Reedy, Trinity doesn't matter too much)
Team Orion R10 1s or Orca 1s ESC
R1 Wurks 7000mah battery
KO Propo 951 servo

EDWARD2003 08-03-2014 10:20 PM

After reading up on the Yokomo C3 U.K Knowledge Base for the 50th time :). I read a comment by Mark Panye where he added 1 mm shims to offset the motor to achieve perfect pod balance. I thought I would give it a try myself, but with three different motors; Trinity D3.5, ORCA TX, and R1 Wurks.

The first motor was the ORCA TX. This motor is known for it's lightweight design, and thus, in my mind should balance fairly easily. I was dead wrong. In order to balance the ORCA TX I would have to offset the motor by 4~5 mm! Upon further inspection, a good chunk of the TX weight is allocated on the pinion side of the motor. I guess this makes it an ideal motor balancing 1/10 touring cars. This design will help keep the weight relatively central.

Both the R1 and D3.5 balanced out using 2 mm spacers. I do wish I didn't have to use spacers. I have to wonder whether or not the C3's rear pod balance point was designed around Yokomo's line of motors.

marcvanderzon 08-04-2014 01:14 PM


Originally Posted by EDWARD2003 (Post 13443694)
After reading up on the Yokomo C3 U.K Knowledge Base for the 50th time :).

Hi
Do you have a link to this knowledge base?
Thanks

SlowerOne 08-04-2014 01:27 PM


Originally Posted by EDWARD2003 (Post 13443694)
After reading up on the Yokomo C3 U.K Knowledge Base for the 50th time :). I read a comment by Mark Panye where he added 1 mm shims to offset the motor to achieve perfect pod balance. I thought I would give it a try myself, but with three different motors; Trinity D3.5, ORCA TX, and R1 Wurks.

The first motor was the ORCA TX. This motor is known for it's lightweight design, and thus, in my mind should balance fairly easily. I was dead wrong. In order to balance the ORCA TX I would have to offset the motor by 4~5 mm! Upon further inspection, a good chunk of the TX weight is allocated on the pinion side of the motor. I guess this makes it an ideal motor balancing 1/10 touring cars. This design will help keep the weight relatively central.

Both the R1 and D3.5 balanced out using 2 mm spacers. I do wish I didn't have to use spacers. I have to wonder whether or not the C3's rear pod balance point was designed around Yokomo's line of motors.

Hi Edward, This issue comes up from time to time. The last time it came up to my knowledge there were a lot of learned and well-reasoned posts about how the weight distribution did this and the motor position did that and so on.

Then, along comes Mike Blackstock, multiple US National Champion and Worlds A Finalist in 12th, who says he has tried all this and it made his car handle worse with a balanced rear pod! That stopped the discussion stone dead!

Ignore it. Most of us won't be able to tell the difference, but Mike can and he says he leaves the motor where it is in the pod with no spacers. That's good enough for me! HTH :)

CanyonCarverR1 08-04-2014 01:36 PM


Originally Posted by SlowerOne (Post 13445031)
Hi Edward, This issue comes up from time to time. The last time it came up to my knowledge there were a lot of learned and well-reasoned posts about how the weight distribution did this and the motor position did that and so on.

Then, along comes Mike Blackstock, multiple US National Champion and Worlds A Finalist in 12th, who says he has tried all this and it made his car handle worse with a balanced rear pod! That stopped the discussion stone dead!

Ignore it. Most of us won't be able to tell the difference, but Mike can and he says he leaves the motor where it is in the pod with no spacers. That's good enough for me! HTH :)

I'd like to read that myself. Just having a hard time buying the idea that an unbalanced pod would handle better than a balanced pod.

EDWARD2003 08-04-2014 05:21 PM


Originally Posted by SlowerOne (Post 13445031)
Hi Edward, This issue comes up from time to time. The last time it came up to my knowledge there were a lot of learned and well-reasoned posts about how the weight distribution did this and the motor position did that and so on.

Then, along comes Mike Blackstock, multiple US National Champion and Worlds A Finalist in 12th, who says he has tried all this and it made his car handle worse with a balanced rear pod! That stopped the discussion stone dead!

Ignore it. Most of us won't be able to tell the difference, but Mike can and he says he leaves the motor where it is in the pod with no spacers. That's good enough for me! HTH :)

It was nice of Mike Blackstock to chime in about his experiences with pod balancing. However, it's rather strange that we go through all the effort to balance the main chassis. Yet, we completely disregard the balance of the rear pod. :weird:

The only benefit I see of balancing the rear pod is even tire wear and weight distribution on the rear tires.

What is the rear pods function? Function with the main chassis, ect.

RedBullFiXX 08-04-2014 06:05 PM

http://www.rctech.net/forum/9902334-post3306.html


Here is what happend to me on the whole balance the pod thing.. I noticed the pod was off balance with the motor so i added 3mm worth of shims and the pod was correct. Then i went out and practiced and the car was horrible. So i took the shims out and ran the car again and she was back to good. So i am not sure it really matters and i will not be doing it in the future..

The last few races my car has been the best driving car i have had since 1s lipo's have come out.


Again this is all my opinion.

Mike Blackstock

EDWARD2003 08-04-2014 07:02 PM


Originally Posted by RedBullFiXX (Post 13445677)

RedBullFixx - Thanks :) . I really do appreciate a professional opinion on this topic, but that's all that he's provided. There wasn't any reasoning behind it nor did he comment on the differences in handling. :cry:

But really...Why do 1/12th designers disregard achieving perfect rear pod balance? Doesn't make much sense now does it. :rolleyes:

Maybe, I'm just speculating here... The distance of 3 mm he used in his test was probably too much of an offset. With this offset and the weight of the motor could of caused the screws to generate elastic characteristics (spring effect). This is all just speculation.

RedBullFiXX 08-04-2014 07:05 PM


Originally Posted by EDWARD2003 (Post 13445823)
RedBullFixx - Thanks :) . I really do appreciate a professional opinion on this topic, but that's all that he's provided. There wasn't any reasoning behind it nor did he comment on the differences in handling. :cry:

But really...Why do 1/12th designers disregard achieving perfect rear pod balance? Doesn't make much sense now does it. :rolleyes:

Go to the top of the page, and read all the comments
I think it was a fairly well covered topic
See for yourself :smile:

http://www.rctech.net/forum/electric...rc12r5-83.html

EDWARD2003 08-04-2014 07:26 PM


Originally Posted by SlowerOne (Post 9901421)
Someone is going to have to explain this pod-balancing obsession to me...

The pod is a solid structure, with no joints. Whatever weight is put in it will even out across both wheels. It is connected to the chassis by a single, central point so can have no effect on the balance of the chassis.

Once the dynamics kicks in, then a severe imbalance could conceivably cause the car to unweight one wheel more than the other, but it would have to be severe. It could be countered by setting the axle slightly offset, thus sharing whatever dynamic imbalance exits across the contact patches. This clearly is not the case, since those doing the balancing do not run their axle center-line any different to those of us who don't.

It's a concept that has apparent merit in theory, but in practice it doesn't stand up to a basic mechanical engineering analysis. Unless someone can explain it better...

I do like his explanation and it makes sense in my mind. :nod:

EDWARD2003 08-04-2014 07:27 PM

Double double; Tim Horton

I)arkness 08-04-2014 07:41 PM

how does balancing of the main chassis work out with non balanced rear pod, as i thought id gotten mine pretty well even left to right with balancing pins, but when i used a corner weight rc scale station i was much heavier on left side, even when it was perfectly tweaked still was out.
is it possible to get it perfectly balanced to some degree??

toroloco 08-05-2014 12:28 AM

Hi,

I want to join the 1/12 racing but there are so many brands out there?
I will racing 1s 10.5t blinky on carpet.
Yokomo, Asso, Xray, Serpent, Onpoint, Speedmarchent, Morotech, VBC, Corally
and many others?
What would be the brand to go the car should be durable and easy to set up.
Also what tyres brand Jaco, JFT, Hotrace, Mobgumm's....
I will also need a tyre truer but the Hudy is way out of my budget..
Thank's for Your help.

Claude


All times are GMT -7. It is currently 08:39 PM.

Powered By: vBulletin v3.9.3.9 Patch Level 3
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.