R/C Tech Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-15-2010, 07:21 AM   #1
Tech Champion
 
MantisWorx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,918
Trader Rating: 28 (97%+)
Default Mantisworx F1 chassis!! sneek peek

Getting closer and closer! Here is the version that will be tested this week. Dimensions are where i want them i am still undecided on upper deck material and side shocks. some of the features:

Thin but strong carbon composite lower deck (30%stiffer than weaved carbon)
true link rear suspension with center ball pivot
droop adjustable shock position (dont have to add spacers to the inside of your shocks!!)
super stiff motor mount plate
proven tri-shock design





MantisWorx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2010, 10:28 AM   #2
Tech Apprentice
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: on the edge of insanity
Posts: 83
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Very nice.

I see the rear links are splayed out to the rear. Top secret geometry? How does that play into planting the rear suspension?

And it looks like it accepts the 103 front end. Will it be adaptable between 103/104 suspension and battery configuration?
__________________
Mini-Z F1, Carisma F14 Evo, Tamiya F103R, F104 Pro, F201. Yep I like F1
Jeff D. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2010, 10:41 AM   #3
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 131
Default

You should put the center pivot on the same axis as the pivots of the outer links. If not, you have a lot of binding when compressing the center shock.
Der Dicke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2010, 11:14 AM   #4
Tech Champion
 
MantisWorx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,918
Trader Rating: 28 (97%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff D. View Post
Very nice.

I see the rear links are splayed out to the rear. Top secret geometry? How does that play into planting the rear suspension?

And it looks like it accepts the 103 front end. Will it be adaptable between 103/104 suspension and battery configuration?
not so much top secret but it does make a difference in the geometry, the rear is VERY planted and you can drive the car aggressively with confidence. it will accept 103/104 front suspension but is designed to keep the battery down the middle which eliminates the possibility of short wheelbase for the 103.
MantisWorx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2010, 11:20 AM   #5
Tech Champion
 
MantisWorx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,918
Trader Rating: 28 (97%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Dicke View Post
You should put the center pivot on the same axis as the pivots of the outer links. If not, you have a lot of binding when compressing the center shock.

if you put the links on the exact same pivot point as the center pivot the links do absolutely nothing except keep the pod square. this design actually allows you to alter the rear suspension by way of the links ie IC. you can plant the rear end more for low traction by using longer links or raising the front balls or if you want more rotation go to the shorter links and move them back. it is a true link design and very tuneable. this is the third prototype i have made and there is no binding within the range that the suspension is moving which is about 2mm anyway max and normally not even that much.
Attached Thumbnails
Mantisworx F1 chassis!! sneek peek-1976-nova-original-4-link-setup.jpg  
MantisWorx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2010, 12:37 PM   #6
Tech Champion
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Hawaii, USA
Posts: 7,186
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MantisWorx View Post
if you put the links on the exact same pivot point as the center pivot the links do absolutely nothing except keep the pod square. this design actually allows you to alter the rear suspension by way of the links ie IC. you can plant the rear end more for low traction by using longer links or raising the front balls or if you want more rotation go to the shorter links and move them back. it is a true link design and very tuneable. this is the third prototype i have made and there is no binding within the range that the suspension is moving which is about 2mm anyway max and normally not even that much.
All that works the same way when the pivots are in line with each other as well. One of the problems with not having them in line is you introduce a lot more axle walk or rear steer.

Not to be a downer...but all the talk earlier was of an independent rear suspension with direct drive. This is another link suspension of which there are several already. It may or may not work better than other link suspensions...that is beside the point. I was expecting something different is all.

Also that pic doesn't really apply as that is a 4 or 5 link type suspension rather than one that pivots around a central pivot. The idea is similar but not the same.
InspGadgt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2010, 01:02 PM   #7
Tech Master
 
2wdrive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 1,316
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MantisWorx View Post
if you put the links on the exact same pivot point as the center pivot the links do absolutely nothing except keep the pod square. this design actually allows you to alter the rear suspension by way of the links ie IC. you can plant the rear end more for low traction by using longer links or raising the front balls or if you want more rotation go to the shorter links and move them back. it is a true link design and very tuneable. this is the third prototype i have made and there is no binding within the range that the suspension is moving which is about 2mm anyway max and normally not even that much.
When the pod moves up (or the chassis moves down) the distance between the two pivotballs (on the rear pod and chassis) will become shorter. You put a link between it and the link will act as a stopper. The slop in the ballcups will allow you rotate the pod otherwise the pod would totaly not move up and down. It is not a good design, even though you say the pod can move freely (cause of the slop in the ballcups)

It is very simple. Draw 2 dots on a piece of paper. Fold it and meaure the distance when the paper is flat and when you fold it a little. The distance between the dots will become shorter. Put a link there and the pod can't move up or down. Only the slop will allow you to do that.

Now the links on a link car always fight eachother a little bit when you rotate the pod sideways in extremes. In our application it is hardly noticable but it still does it. You have made the links so they bind the up and down movement as well. It could be considerd a tuning aid but i rather would try to do something with the center shock.

Just some positive critticism.

edit. If you would want to use that in a 3 link type suspension like john stranahan then it might work
2wdrive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2010, 02:33 PM   #8
Tech Champion
 
MantisWorx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,918
Trader Rating: 28 (97%+)
Default

i am a 40yr old engineer and i understand what is happening , i use autocad for all of my designs and everything is worked out, what both of you say is true but never the less the system works a hell of alot better than the traditional t plate system. how much do you think the suspension actually moves in a race situation? i have that data and its not very much at all, and definately not enough to "bind" the pod up. have any of you seen or felt the slop in any TC?? There is no more slop in this design than any other RC car. slop in this scale is something that you cannot get away with. the slop in the pod is only .015" , human hair is anywhere from .005 to .010" so lets keep the "slop" in perspective!!as far as the independent F1 stuff , it is coming but its interesting how when we talk about that nobody wants to change but if i design a traditional type chassis then everyone wants the IRS!! i cant make everyone happy but i figure its a much easier transition if i design a better system for the traditionalist first and the branch into the IRS since it is waaaaaay more involved and waaaaay more costly to produce and prototype.
i realize that the attached picture i posted is not the same but the idea still works the same regardless of how many links. one thing you cannot argue with is laptimes and as of right now this chassis runs circles around the stock system and half circles around exotec!! because of how the internet operates in this world,i am going to travel so some of the F1 hot spots over the next few mths to promote the chassis and some other things i am working on, this way some of you will get first hand experience on what i am trying to do and where i am headed. those of you who actually know me or have met me know how i am and the knowledge that i hold!! BTW john strahnahan is local to me we talk about these things periodically and if you have actually laid hands on one of his chassis you will see that his pod walks quite abit more than mine because of the upper links. no matter what you do you cant get away from it but you can compensate for it which is what he has figured out, just think how long it took for people to even remotely accept what he has done ( and alot still dont!)
MantisWorx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2010, 02:36 PM   #9
Tech Champion
 
MantisWorx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,918
Trader Rating: 28 (97%+)
Default

2wdrive, what happens when the front of the pod lifts up to the point when the "slop" is eliminated? think about that for a minute and you will understand why this increase rear traction. same goes for braking which is where this chassis really shines. another thing i want to add to this whole thing is that im not really concerned with the 21.5/silvercan powered setups that much since there really is not enough power to overwhelm the chassis but there are alot of racers that are not afraid to use the available technology/power and this will benefit them more. i will admit that i dont have much experience with the silvercan but from what i have seen they arent really that fast and you dont have to use brakes, its pretty much stuck. but take that same car and put a 13.5 turbo in it and see what happens!! i like to "drive" my cars and im sure that im not the only one out here that feels this way, i think that as soon as some of the very good drivers drive one of my cars with power people will start believing that the F1's can be a force to be reckoned with, i am already a believer!!
MantisWorx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2010, 03:12 PM   #10
Tech Champion
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Hawaii, USA
Posts: 7,186
Default

Oh don't get me wrong...I'm not saying it won't work and don't doubt the results you have been getting. I'm just saying it isn't the IRS I had expected. Personally I love link/mono pivot designs...all the pan cars I have ran for several years now have been that type. This is another choice in the link type cars.
InspGadgt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2010, 04:11 PM   #11
Tech Apprentice
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: on the edge of insanity
Posts: 83
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Marcus, have you used that damper system on a tamiya T-plate chassis, or just your own? Just wondering how much it could improve the rear traction.
__________________
Mini-Z F1, Carisma F14 Evo, Tamiya F103R, F104 Pro, F201. Yep I like F1
Jeff D. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2010, 06:25 PM   #12
Tech Champion
 
MantisWorx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,918
Trader Rating: 28 (97%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by InspGadgt View Post
Oh don't get me wrong...I'm not saying it won't work and don't doubt the results you have been getting. I'm just saying it isn't the IRS I had expected. Personally I love link/mono pivot designs...all the pan cars I have ran for several years now have been that type. This is another choice in the link type cars.

no worries man! the IRS is coming but i have another idea that will work probably just as good but less complex. everything i make is in preparation for something else. there is much more to come
MantisWorx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2010, 07:09 PM   #13
Tech Champion
 
MantisWorx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,918
Trader Rating: 28 (97%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff D. View Post
Marcus, have you used that damper system on a tamiya T-plate chassis, or just your own? Just wondering how much it could improve the rear traction.
yes i have and it works very well
MantisWorx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2010, 07:11 PM   #14
Tech Fanatic
 
aussierevo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane Qld
Posts: 904
Trader Rating: 14 (100%+)
Default

It really isn't fair to tease people with this type of stuff

i hope the testing goes well and will look forward to reading more and hopefullu being able to purchase in the new year.
__________________
Speed Passion F1.
Hobbywing ESC and Motor, SMC Batteries
Meakin Park Club Member
Team ARGO RC - Like us on Facebook
aussierevo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2010, 07:35 PM   #15
Tech Regular
 
scribbler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 429
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

I"m looking forward to seeing the complete product. When will that be ready?
Any official dates? And when will we see the IRS car?
scribbler 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 10:29 AM.


Powered By: vBulletin v3.9.2.1
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Advertise Content © 2001-2011 RCTech.net