Go Back  R/C Tech Forums > General Forums > Electric On-Road
Mid-Motored TC3? >

Mid-Motored TC3?

Mid-Motored TC3?

Old 05-21-2004, 05:30 PM
  #31  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (3)
 
JDXray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Long Island, New York
Posts: 2,802
Trader Rating: 3 (100%+)
Default

why dont you switch it up, but electronics in the back.
JDXray is offline  
Old 05-21-2004, 05:32 PM
  #32  
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,828
Default

The spur gear is there wont fit.....
True R/C Racing is offline  
Old 05-21-2004, 05:32 PM
  #33  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (3)
 
JDXray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Long Island, New York
Posts: 2,802
Trader Rating: 3 (100%+)
Default

oh i forgot the servo.... i guess you cant move it.

Also the spur gear. Well hope for the best.
JDXray is offline  
Old 05-21-2004, 07:46 PM
  #34  
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,828
Default

Also JayP(rctech) Also gave me some info too.
True R/C Racing is offline  
Old 05-22-2004, 06:09 AM
  #35  
Tech Apprentice
 
b3buggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Worcester, UK
Posts: 74
Default

Hi Guys,
Afraid you are too late
Got one in prototype over here, will be ready to run in 2-3 weeks.
V. similar but not identical. came to the same conclusion about a few things.
Picked up a few more parts today.
Hopefully post pics when ready to test.
Code name Project Moon Shot



Ross
b3buggy is offline  
Old 05-22-2004, 07:00 AM
  #36  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Green Bay,WI
Posts: 3,006
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Originally posted by b3buggy
Hi Guys,
Afraid you are too late
Got one in prototype over here, will be ready to run in 2-3 weeks.
V. similar but not identical. came to the same conclusion about a few things.
Picked up a few more parts today.
Hopefully post pics when ready to test.
Code name Project Moon Shot



Ross
R/C Anonymous is offline  
Old 05-22-2004, 07:37 AM
  #37  
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,828
Default

Originally posted by b3buggy
Hi Guys,
Afraid you are too late
Got one in prototype over here, will be ready to run in 2-3 weeks.
V. similar but not identical. came to the same conclusion about a few things.
Picked up a few more parts today.
Hopefully post pics when ready to test.
Code name Project Moon Shot



Ross
What are you trying to say? Don't BMI, WArpspeed, etc Have some chassis's in common? Post some pics too see how yours came out
True R/C Racing is offline  
Old 05-22-2004, 08:09 AM
  #38  
Tech Fanatic
 
tc3stocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: TN, America
Posts: 869
Default

What do yall think.........dual motor capability, 8 cell slots, direct steering, (capability to mount motor, batts, servo and electronics on either side like the EVO 2)
tc3stocker is offline  
Old 05-22-2004, 08:14 AM
  #39  
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,828
Default

Originally posted by tc3stocker
What do yall think.........dual motor capability, 8 cell slots, direct steering, (capability to mount motor, batts, servo and electronics on either side like the EVO 2)
i think the motor switchable thing is going too far....
True R/C Racing is offline  
Old 05-22-2004, 08:26 AM
  #40  
Tech Elite
 
AdR|aN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Malaysia. Land of Peace.
Posts: 2,445
Default

Nice. Very very nice.
So when is production going to start?

How come i feel it got something to do wit Xray???
AdR|aN is offline  
Old 05-22-2004, 08:28 AM
  #41  
Tech Apprentice
 
b3buggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Worcester, UK
Posts: 74
Default

Hi guys,
True R/c-Not Trying to say anything apart from in a certain configurations you are limited to positoning items.
The servo had to be there really- if you want the standard rack.
Tere is no room then for batterys down that side at the fornt so they have to go to the rear. Etc Etc.
There will of course be differences between the designs, but the basics are the same, it is just the way the design is implemented.

tc3stocker- Only possible if there is more room in the chassis, this configuration only just hs enough room for the electrics, let along another two cell cutouts. also dual motors would mean dual cutouts,limiting space for everything else to be positioned, you cannot stick electronics to the air

Are you guys going ahead with the project? We are very limited to machine shops over here, so the initial prototype is using modified off the shelf parts.

Thanks
Ross
b3buggy is offline  
Old 05-22-2004, 08:34 AM
  #42  
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,828
Default

Originally posted by b3buggy
Hi guys,
True R/c-Not Trying to say anything apart from in a certain configurations you are limited to positoning items.
The servo had to be there really- if you want the standard rack.
Tere is no room then for batterys down that side at the fornt so they have to go to the rear. Etc Etc.
There will of course be differences between the designs, but the basics are the same, it is just the way the design is implemented.

tc3stocker- Only possible if there is more room in the chassis, this configuration only just hs enough room for the electrics, let along another two cell cutouts. also dual motors would mean dual cutouts,limiting space for everything else to be positioned, you cannot stick electronics to the air

Are you guys going ahead with the project? We are very limited to machine shops over here, so the initial prototype is using modified off the shelf parts.

Thanks
Ross
We Don't Know if we are going to make this chassis, It all depends if People want the try the chassis. If only like 1-2 People want the chassis there is no reason on spending Money for 1-2 people. SO People We need Your Feedback If you want this chassis to be done.
True R/C Racing is offline  
Old 05-22-2004, 08:37 AM
  #43  
Tech Fanatic
 
tc3stocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: TN, America
Posts: 869
Default

this project kind of looks like the Hot Bodies Lightning 1/7, and also the Losi Street Weapon
tc3stocker is offline  
Old 05-22-2004, 02:29 PM
  #44  
Tech Regular
Thread Starter
 
SammyXp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Winston Salem, NC
Posts: 428
Default

Originally posted by Griffin
I hate to be the only negative comment here, but what are the real advantages to this design? What are you offering other then the 'wow' factor?

The way I see it, there are MANY shortcomings with the TC3, of which the chassis is NOT the most major.

I DO like the fact that you address the motor mounting scheme as I feel that is one of the major mechanical deficiencies of the car (along with the part tolerances - especially diff cases), and even the steering setup (I think the classica bell crank is a much better design) however, I just don't see the point.

On a positive note, that's some really good modeling. Did you do it in Pro/E?
I don't interperet your comments as negative at all. This is precisely the kind of discussion I was hoping to spark. You are absolutely correct that there are few advantages to be had over the impressive factory tc3 design. The one minor Left/Right bias problem is easily remedied (at least mostly remedied) by milling the battery slots to even out the balance.
But you have to admit the "wow" factor is a pretty powerful marketing tool. Admit it, a huge part of the reason most of us are into RC at all is for that wow factor.
That said, this design isn't all fluff. It does have some merits and warrants some further testing. I'm excited about seeing the results of the prototype that Ross is constructing. Everyone need not worry - I am not looking to compete with anyone else or "steal" anyone else's show. I'm just a Design Engineer with some resources on my hands that I thought I'd put to work for something I love.

By the way - as Ariel mentioned, I am using Unigraphics NX2 (Although I also have access to Pro/Engineer). Thanks for the compliments on the modeling work. It definitely took quite a bit of time. Especialy tweaking the part material properties to closely simulate real world weight distribution.

Speaking of weight distribution, this design is not rear-heavy at all. It actually has about the same rear weight bias (47/53 - F/R) as the factory chassis with the batteries in the forward position. I can share the centroid data with you if you like. A definite downside to this design is lack of adjustability. If one were to desire more rear weigh bias (simulating the factory six cells rearward position), this design does not accomodate it at this time (pending further review).

Sorry to be so long winded. I get pretty excited discussing this stuff. As for a production date - no such thing is planned at this time. I am considering approaching one or more existing aftermarket chassis manufacturers, though, so keep your eyes peeled.
SammyXp is offline  
Old 05-22-2004, 02:48 PM
  #45  
Tech Regular
 
Crashmaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Lincs, England
Posts: 363
Default

Originally posted by SammyXp


Speaking of weight distribution, this design is not rear-heavy at all. It actually has about the same rear weight bias (47/53 - F/R) as the factory chassis with the batteries in the forward position. I can share the centroid data with you if you like. A definite downside to this design is lack of adjustability. If one were to desire more rear weigh bias (simulating the factory six cells rearward position), this design does not accomodate it at this time (pending further review).

How about using a system kind of like the Mi2 so as you can move the bats forwards and back on a tray, that way you would be able control the bias to the finest degree.

Cheers
Crashmaster
Crashmaster is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.