R/C Tech Forums

Go Back   R/C Tech Forums > General Forums > Electric On-Road

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-30-2004, 05:31 PM   #1261
Tech Elite
 
rtypec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,969
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

There was already a discussion about this and to be honest, I don't want to rehash and rediscuss it. Way too much typing...but here is a quote from the man himself:

"...The main reason is to maintain suspension geometry when changing toe. As you know, to add toe with the standard system you add a longer rear block which provides the toe. However, you also change the plane of the suspension arm in the process which is not always ideal. In fact, I think the adjustment contradicts one another because that direction of change of the suspension pins reduces stability while the toe overcomes it. If you look closely, my hinge pins are now swept out because I have an X block in the back and a C block in the front. Sort of a trailing arm sweep, yet the toe is maintained. I'm hoping this will allow me to use even less toe overall resulting in even more corner speed and straight line efficiency. Also, I can go as far as to add bump steer via shims to alter mid corner characteristics... and the suspension is totally symmetrical now...."

This setup is ideal for experimentation...
rtypec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2004, 05:36 PM   #1262
Tech Regular
 
rcspeedo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 368
Default

EDIT : Hmmmm, sounds interesting, now give it to us in plane english ... just kidding...

Last edited by rcspeedo; 08-30-2004 at 05:43 PM.
rcspeedo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2004, 08:45 PM   #1263
Tech Champion
 
JDM_DOHC_SiR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Chula Vista, CA
Posts: 9,070
Trader Rating: 31 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by rtypec
There was already a discussion about this and to be honest, I don't want to rehash and rediscuss it. Way too much typing...but here is a quote from the man himself:

"...The main reason is to maintain suspension geometry when changing toe. As you know, to add toe with the standard system you add a longer rear block which provides the toe. However, you also change the plane of the suspension arm in the process which is not always ideal. In fact, I think the adjustment contradicts one another because that direction of change of the suspension pins reduces stability while the toe overcomes it. If you look closely, my hinge pins are now swept out because I have an X block in the back and a C block in the front. Sort of a trailing arm sweep, yet the toe is maintained. I'm hoping this will allow me to use even less toe overall resulting in even more corner speed and straight line efficiency. Also, I can go as far as to add bump steer via shims to alter mid corner characteristics... and the suspension is totally symmetrical now...."

This setup is ideal for experimentation...
Thanks for the Re-hash on that Rod
-Dave
__________________
Ȼ4.5 Centro+α ◊ TRF 501ӽ ◊ TRF 502ӽs ◊ TRF 503 ◊ TRF 511 ◊ TRF 201ӽr ◊ TRF 211ӽ
B5m ◊ T5m ◊SC5m ◊ B64deez nutz
Speedway PAL ◊ SDRC ◊ Shop UFO ◊ SMC
JDM_DOHC_SiR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2004, 04:28 AM   #1264
Tech Elite
 
F. Alonso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,141
Trader Rating: 10 (100%+)
Send a message via AIM to F. Alonso Send a message via Yahoo to F. Alonso
Default

Looks interesting I must say. I am interested mainly because when I took my car out, in the second race I had a rather tepid crash when I guy hit me from behind and it broke 1 rear upright and the ballscrew thing that sits on top of the other upright. CRAZY!! Maybe using the front suspension will be a bit more reliable from that point of view, especially since it has a bar of metal which could stop cars breaking that from directly behind the car. But, as I've found with my F201 racing, it could quite easily pop off the ball joint in an impact rather then keeping going. But, We'll only find out what its like when we all try it!!
__________________
Simon Feigl
RCRacer.com.au - Dedicated Australian Forum and Website

XRAY | HPI | Hotbodies | Hobbies Australia | LRP Electronics | Futaba
F. Alonso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2004, 07:16 AM   #1265
Tech Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 479
Default

i THINK it was becasue a little knock on the rear wheels meant the toe becomes retarded and could screw your whole race up
Evo_Uk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2004, 09:42 AM   #1266
Tech Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Sheffield, UK
Posts: 737
Send a message via ICQ to Cobra81li200
Default

I personally think it is absolutely stupid to use this system. Two reasons : first it's heavier, have more parts (which induces more posibilities of breakages but also more play) and the turnbuckles design makes for more uncertainty in the toe in setting, not to mention impact breakages or bending of the turnbuckle.

Second is the most important : the front end have been designed to be used at the front, not the rear. The resulting geometry is not adapted at all. Yes, with fixed toe-in the plane of the wishbone changes, but it's a part of the setting. Using C-Hubs which includes a castor angle could be much more dramatic for the car.

Also, how can you be sure that there is no "bump toe" (variation of toe in during suspension compression) ? From what I see on the picture that rtypec has posted, the car should have less toe in when the suspensions are compressed, unless there is a massive camber change. That's it, "bump toe" will be a function of the camber change, and that's never good.

Yes, schumacher had this on their previous cars, but there's a good reason if they moved to a front C-hub / rear fixed hub system. Besides, their previous design didn't use a C-Hub but pivot blocks, which makes a helluvalot difference.

just my 2 pennies/4 cents (lol)
Cobra81li200 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2004, 11:23 AM   #1267
Tech Fanatic
 
ttso's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 900
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

The real answer might be: DRS, Dynamic Rear Steering, same with Serpent 710.

For those don't know what DRS is, here is a link: http://www.mytsn.com/publ/publ.asp?s...d=9327&exp=109

By changing the height of rear steering joint on chassis, resulting you get more toe-in or less toe-in when shock be compressed.

Why? It give you dynamic toe-in during accelration, brake, and throttle free. So your toe-in setting might change from 1 (brake, enter corner) to 3 (accelration, leaving), give the car best agility (and more option to tweak..)


The problem for DRS is the joint play, and, for DRS behind the rear drivetrain, be rammed from rear. S710 is ram-problem-free becase DRS is in front of drivetrain, but seems EVO4 DRS will has similar problem with old NTC3, disconnect rear steering rod if you got rammed from behind...
ttso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2004, 11:27 AM   #1268
Tech Fanatic
 
ttso's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 900
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

btw, in case causing confusion.

Old NTC3 doesn't design for DRS, at least this is not stated on manual or anywere else officially. But the reality is by moving the angle of rear steering rod, you got DRS effect...
ttso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2004, 04:09 AM   #1269
Tech Apprentice
 
KinzR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 66
Default aluminium rear upright for evo IV

Can 53687 "TB Evolution III Aluminium Rear Upright" (1 deg.) be used with the new rear arm design used on the evo4? If not, what other aluminium rear hub carriers might be used on an evo4?
__________________
" Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports ... all others are games."
- Earnest Hemingway
KinzR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2004, 04:28 PM   #1270
Tech Elite
 
JimmyMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NC
Posts: 4,443
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

It can not be used unless if you grind out the arms to make them fit like they did in Europe. It would require alot of modification. See pics on the German Nats forum of Marc's 415.

I beleive Square is coming out with a set. But don't quote me on that. Dave would know more on this....
__________________
M.J. McIntyre

Yokomo YRX12
Tamiya TB03
JimmyMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2004, 05:49 PM   #1271
Tech Master
 
forty6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,922
Default

It's true. Here is the link
http://www.rc-square.com/news.htm

forty6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2004, 01:08 AM   #1272
Tech Elite
 
JimmyMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NC
Posts: 4,443
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

I took some pics of my EvoIV with the pro4 front spindle, 415 axle, and EvoIV dogbone. Here they are.

This first pic shows the Pro4 spindle with a Pro4 axle and TC3 dogbone above the stock EvoIV spindle and parts. This was before I changed out the Pro4 axle with the 415 axle and shims.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg evo4pro3.jpg (42.5 KB, 238 views)
__________________
M.J. McIntyre

Yokomo YRX12
Tamiya TB03
JimmyMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2004, 01:12 AM   #1273
Tech Elite
 
JimmyMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NC
Posts: 4,443
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

This next pic show the Pro4 spindle installed with the 415 axle and Evo IV dogbone. Note the .75mm shim under the spindle. And also the Tamiya silver 6mm wheel hexes. You need to use axle shims to take out the play in the 415 axle. I used about .9mm worth of shims. .4mm of shims on one side of the axle and .5mm shims on the other side of the axle next to the 6mm wheel hex. I think the best option would be to use the Square Ti Pro4 axles (non MIP style). This will eliminate the need for all those shims.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg evo4pro2.jpg (42.1 KB, 212 views)
__________________
M.J. McIntyre

Yokomo YRX12
Tamiya TB03
JimmyMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2004, 01:14 AM   #1274
Tech Elite
 
JimmyMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NC
Posts: 4,443
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

This next pic is for those worried about running 28mm foams on your EvoIV or 415 with LW suspension. This shows the clearance that you have with the Pro4 spindle setup.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg evo4pro1.jpg (63.0 KB, 209 views)
__________________
M.J. McIntyre

Yokomo YRX12
Tamiya TB03
JimmyMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2004, 01:15 AM   #1275
Tech Elite
 
JimmyMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NC
Posts: 4,443
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

This last pic is of the Team Bomber main shaft and the ring around the cup mod to prevent the cup from spreading and breaking during hard impacts.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg evo4bomber.jpg (56.5 KB, 231 views)
__________________
M.J. McIntyre

Yokomo YRX12
Tamiya TB03
JimmyMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Selling Schumacher Mi2, Tamiya M02, Tamiya TA04-S, Tamiya TB Evolution 3 Surikarn Ltd st_rob Australia For Sale/Trade 4 12-23-2008 07:37 PM
FS: Tamiya TB Evolution II (NEW) ivan3721 R/C Items: For Sale/Trade 1 05-18-2008 05:56 PM
FS: Tamiya TB Evolution 5 veecee Australia For Sale/Trade 3 07-20-2007 08:13 PM
tamiya tb evolution 5 b-man777 Electric On-Road 1 05-24-2006 11:38 AM
XXX-S GP VS Tamiya Evolution III capricess Electric On-Road 29 01-27-2003 08:49 AM



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. It is currently 09:19 PM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Powered By: vBulletin v3.9.2.1
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Advertise Content © 2001-2011 RCTech.net