R/C Tech Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-21-2010, 03:58 PM   #361
Tech Master
 
TheCoolCanFanMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Watford
Posts: 1,738
Default

Hi Guys
I drive for Litemodz, and have spent many hours helping with this excellent product, yes there has been a few issues, as do real car manufacturers when they put a new model out on the raod. There can only be so much testing you can do on any product, thats why car manufacturers have 'Recalls' as its us the public that are the inevitable guinee pigs, so is it for RC gear, not just these Litemodz CVS's. there have been issues with NG esc's and alike.
Jon and his very capable team have been working hard towards making this product a product for all aspects of RC, whether it be on road or off. He hasn't told anyone to go take a flying jump, quite the contrary, he has dealt with the issues, so I don't think you could ask more than that from any company, like some I could mention but won't.
You guys that have version 3, please hold fire untill you get the new internal C, clips. I have them in my car now and will be racing indoors on carpet 21mtrs by 12mtrs but on Sunday I will be racing on 32mtrs by 16mtrs so will give some feed back on Monday or before.

Cheers Malc TCCFM
__________________
ARC 2013 model ZEN Racing, MM-UK, HW 3.1, Rich Paints, MM UK Rug Racers win13.5 2007/8
2nd in 2008/9/10 Win Ansman GP 2010 Schumacher GP. 17.5 blinky Winner of STCC 2009/10 13.5 WLRC 2010 Summer series. Winner of EWS Winter. 17.5 Blinky Winner of 2012/13/14 Rug Racers. 17.5 Blinky 2013 WLRC summer series. Newbury RCC GP 2014 17.5 Blinky 2015 3rd in 17.5 Rug Racers
TheCoolCanFanMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 04:45 PM   #362
Tech Elite
R/C Tech Elite Subscriber
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 4,045
Trader Rating: 23 (100%+)
Default

I have spent some good time on calls and emails with Jon and his team about the issues. They have been receptive to the feedback and have been helpful. Look forward to getting the new parts.
MDawson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 05:09 PM   #363
Tech Regular
 
Gav-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 490
Trader Rating: 3 (100%+)
Default

I'm a bit confused... I bought the very first version that came out, it tore itself apart sadly. LM realised they were faulty and replaced the front set... with what I thought was version 2. Are they now considered faulty as well?

I was going to put them in my new T3'11, but won't if they are causing issues as well. Also, does this mean the version 2 will be getting replaced, or do I need to purchase the new version 3?

Also with the rears I have, which are still the version 1, they have formed quite a bit of slack between the shaft, and the coupling. Is this fixable in anyway?

I have to say though... the racers I have run with them in were fantastic, so much more planted throughout a corner. A great hop-up part, with real performance gains.
Gav- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 05:59 PM   #364
Tech Fanatic
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: downunder
Posts: 814
Trader Rating: 22 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PitNamedGordie View Post
Here is a pic from the Facebook page...


Correct me if I am wrong but are the slots on the dogbone parallel to each other as it looks this way in the photo.

In my opinion if they are parallel to each other [ ] then when the are at an angle to the axle then the balls must be pushed on an increasing diameter.

Should the slots on the bone be machined like ( ) then the diameter is constant through out the angle relative to the axle.

The axle can be machined parallel but the bone must be macined on the same radius to maintain the diameter that the balls pivot on.
bjspinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 11:46 PM   #365
Tech Master
 
PizzaDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Parts Unkown
Posts: 1,044
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjspinner View Post
Correct me if I am wrong but are the slots on the dogbone parallel to each other as it looks this way in the photo.

In my opinion if they are parallel to each other [ ] then when the are at an angle to the axle then the balls must be pushed on an increasing diameter.

Should the slots on the bone be machined like ( ) then the diameter is constant through out the angle relative to the axle.

The axle can be machined parallel but the bone must be macined on the same radius to maintain the diameter that the balls pivot on.
Dunno

Makes sense

Jon comments please? (I trully am curious)
PizzaDude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 03:30 AM   #366
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Norfolk, England
Posts: 166
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gav- View Post
I'm a bit confused... I bought the very first version that came out, it tore itself apart sadly. LM realised they were faulty and replaced the front set... with what I thought was version 2. Are they now considered faulty as well?

I was going to put them in my new T3'11, but won't if they are causing issues as well. Also, does this mean the version 2 will be getting replaced, or do I need to purchase the new version 3?

Also with the rears I have, which are still the version 1, they have formed quite a bit of slack between the shaft, and the coupling. Is this fixable in anyway?

I have to say though... the racers I have run with them in were fantastic, so much more planted throughout a corner. A great hop-up part, with real performance gains.

Hello Gav

The V2 has a redesigned axle which is okay. The issue we had was with the clip hence a revised clip is on its way to all customers as a retro fit. The V2 simply comes now with the revised clips as do the rebuild kits.

The issues with the CVS clips are due to a few reasons. The main reason is due to servo savers and the lack of physical lock stops on cars means that at full lock the clip was being deformed by the shaft as the steering angle goes beyond the natural limit of the car and the shafts. Due to ackerman and the flexible nature of the wishbones and c hubs the steering angle has a tendancy in impact (whether hard or not) to move to about 45 degress to the shaft. At full lock the CVS does have about 4-5 degress extra articulation which means that under all theoretical conditions a clip would not be necessary at all but in the real world things are different.

With our standard CVA’s at any angle beyond the 34-35 degrees the shaft is in contact with the axle. On the CVS the shaft is in contact with the clip which has a degree of “springiness” which can cause deformation. The new round clip is better at withstanding load from over lock.

The clip coming off is pretty much the same as a pin coming out on a standard CVD even if you thread locked it etc.. By that I mean the load applied to it is the same. The new round wire clip stops deformation and transfers more load through to the axle and as a result will be more able to withstand abnormal loads.
jonrg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 03:49 AM   #367
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Norfolk, England
Posts: 166
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjspinner View Post
Correct me if I am wrong but are the slots on the dogbone parallel to each other as it looks this way in the photo.

In my opinion if they are parallel to each other [ ] then when the are at an angle to the axle then the balls must be pushed on an increasing diameter.

Should the slots on the bone be machined like ( ) then the diameter is constant through out the angle relative to the axle.

The axle can be machined parallel but the bone must be macined on the same radius to maintain the diameter that the balls pivot on.
Not quite..


The balls are pushed on an increasing diameter yes. However, if the angles were constant relative to the axle then the unit would not work provide constant velocity. If you would like to PM me I can explain in more detail
jonrg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 04:45 AM   #368
Tech Fanatic
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: downunder
Posts: 814
Trader Rating: 22 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonrg View Post
Not quite..


The balls are pushed on an increasing diameter yes. However, if the angles were constant relative to the axle then the unit would not work provide constant velocity. If you would like to PM me I can explain in more detail

So the balls are increasing in their diameter, this must increase the friction inside the axle, as the diameter is governed by the inside diameter of the axle itself.
To much clearence to allow for the increasing diameter of the ballraced balls will result in excessive play or movement in the parallel position.
If the axle pivots off the centre datum on the grooved end of the bone and the grooves are machined on a radius the same it must be constant.

How can that not provide constant velocity?

Sorry your comment is "if the angles were constant relative to the axle then the unit would not provide constant velocity".

To me it seems that under large angles or hard hits that put large angles on the bone to axle angle, therefore increasing the diameter of the ballraced drive bearing the only place they are going to be able to move is out. Taking the weakest part which is the retaining ring with it.

It seems the only way to make them foolproof is to radius the grooves on the end of the bone so as to eliminate the bearing movement on that increasing diameter.

In simple what is the diameter of a 6mm circle and what is the corner to corner measurment of a 6mm square box?

One increases in size when turned on its centre the other does not.
bjspinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 06:32 AM   #369
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Norfolk, England
Posts: 166
Default

Just to make it quite plain, I'm no tech.guy, I just come up with the daft ideas. I leave that sort of stuff to those who know what they are talking about. This is the reply I've just got from them.

The grooves on the ball end of the shaft indeed have radii but simply moving the intermediate component at the same rate as the shaft inclination does NOT provide constant velocity. The intermediate section has to be controlled in a certain manner. Move over the intermediate cage design prohibits movement towards the outer face of the axle in the horizontal plane. The picture on RCTech and red RC is not quite the item. I may add that this is not a copy of the Birfield Rzeppa pot type joint you are eluding to.
jonrg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 12:43 PM   #370
Tech Addict
 
hana166's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 677
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

hana166 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 01:58 PM   #371
Tech Fanatic
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: downunder
Posts: 814
Trader Rating: 22 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonrg View Post
Just to make it quite plain, I'm no tech.guy, I just come up with the daft ideas. I leave that sort of stuff to those who know what they are talking about. This is the reply I've just got from them.

The grooves on the ball end of the shaft indeed have radii but simply moving the intermediate component at the same rate as the shaft inclination does NOT provide constant velocity. The intermediate section has to be controlled in a certain manner. Move over the intermediate cage design prohibits movement towards the outer face of the axle in the horizontal plane. The picture on RCTech and red RC is not quite the item. I may add that this is not a copy of the Birfield Rzeppa pot type joint you are eluding to.
Sorry fella I was not eluding to anyone else's product or joints as you assume

My basis was purely from looking at the components that are in the linked picture and the corresponding post.

The comments that you make are contradictory and your request that I PM you for a further explination are down played with this post you have just replied with.

As you claim now you are no tech guy.

My assumptions were condusive to finding a solution.

From looking at the pictures of the components I could see the potenetial issues that may have been arising from the design of those components.
The radius in the grooves to me was one way to allieviate the problem of the retaining rings being pushed out by the bearing pushing against them.

Good luck square things dont go to well in round holes.
bjspinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 04:12 PM   #372
Tech Fanatic
 
dfiantii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Arlington, Tx
Posts: 799
Trader Rating: 16 (100%+)
Send a message via AIM to dfiantii Send a message via Yahoo to dfiantii
Default

I think i get what your saying but please don't come off like your bashing. There are drafters who have an idea and those out there who machine it to implement said idea.
__________________
TT-01/Hitec MG/SP LPF V1.1/Trinity 7.5
Losi Type-R/JR Z8800S/SP GT 2.0
Exotek F1R/Savox 1251/Tekin RS
TLR 22 2.0
"ELECTRIFIED TO THE HILT"

Last edited by dfiantii; 10-22-2010 at 04:28 PM.
dfiantii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 06:05 PM   #373
Tech Master
 
yokemad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,150
Default

is V3 needs new C clips or are they safe to use?
cheers
yokemad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2010, 01:27 AM   #374
Tech Fanatic
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: downunder
Posts: 814
Trader Rating: 22 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiantii View Post
I think i get what your saying but please don't come off like your bashing. There are drafters who have an idea and those out there who machine it to implement said idea.
I am glad that you altered your post as I don't feel I was bashing litemodz at all, just giving my observation and response to replies that I have read.

Sometimes people can be to sensitive untill they have re-read what was actually posted as a comment, myself included in that assesment.

I know many people who have used these drive shafts and like them just not the reliability that they have. Good concept just not there quite yet.
bjspinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2010, 01:44 AM   #375
Tech Fanatic
 
dfiantii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Arlington, Tx
Posts: 799
Trader Rating: 16 (100%+)
Send a message via AIM to dfiantii Send a message via Yahoo to dfiantii
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjspinner View Post
I am glad that you altered your post as I don't feel I was bashing litemodz at all, just giving my observation and response to replies that I have read.

Sometimes people can be to sensitive untill they have re-read what was actually posted as a comment, myself included in that assesment.

I know many people who have used these drive shafts and like them just not the reliability that they have. Good concept just not there quite yet.
I thought about what I wrote and decided to change it and I am glad I did. You know it may not be there yet but without input from us the customers, inventors can't improve their product. So I say keep the observations coming.

By the way can anyone tell me what option for these would fit the Losi Type R?
__________________
TT-01/Hitec MG/SP LPF V1.1/Trinity 7.5
Losi Type-R/JR Z8800S/SP GT 2.0
Exotek F1R/Savox 1251/Tekin RS
TLR 22 2.0
"ELECTRIFIED TO THE HILT"
dfiantii is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



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 06:30 AM.


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