4LikesReflex Suspension Dynamics (RSD) TC6 Upgrades (vertical ball studs, pistons,etc)
09-03-2011, 08:03 AM
#331
The dual arm setup worked well. I prefer it to the more aggressive feel of the single post system. I only got a chance to run it in 17.5. Not having it attached to the upper deck helped a lot, also. I went up to Sweep 36s and still had a slight push all evening (ran 15.5/14.5 springs). The car was a bit easier to drive with the smoother steering and allowed for some tight passes!
It stresses the servo a bit more than the stock setup, which actually hurt me for the main
I had the fastest car but my servo saver started to come loose about the 3rd lap and I eventually had to pull the car off. Completely my fault, however - I should've used a longer screw when I installed it.
I'll test it in mod this next weekend!
Cristian --- there are 2 holes in the chassis just behind the front bulkheads. I was thinking there might be a way to use those 2 holes for a dual arm setup except with the arms pointed backwards. I don't think it would affect the geometry and you could still use the stock battery mounts.
It stresses the servo a bit more than the stock setup, which actually hurt me for the main
I had the fastest car but my servo saver started to come loose about the 3rd lap and I eventually had to pull the car off. Completely my fault, however - I should've used a longer screw when I installed it. I'll test it in mod this next weekend!
Cristian --- there are 2 holes in the chassis just behind the front bulkheads. I was thinking there might be a way to use those 2 holes for a dual arm setup except with the arms pointed backwards. I don't think it would affect the geometry and you could still use the stock battery mounts.
09-03-2011, 10:05 AM
#332
Tech Fanatic
There is also the two holes from the rear/top of front bulkhead, don't know if this is usable to have your steering post upside down basically?
09-03-2011, 10:33 AM
#333
The concern with a top deck post set-up is that as the chassis flexes, the steering would not be very precise as it would induce "flex steer".
Honestly, for the time being, we are not planning on a conversion. If we were ever to do one, we would make a chassis for it. If we can find a company cut a limited number of chassis, then we would consider it, using perhaps the XRAY parts. We would just need to get the parts re-anodized in black or blue to match.
Honestly, for the time being, we are not planning on a conversion. If we were ever to do one, we would make a chassis for it. If we can find a company cut a limited number of chassis, then we would consider it, using perhaps the XRAY parts. We would just need to get the parts re-anodized in black or blue to match.
09-03-2011, 10:55 AM
#334
Chassis Flex
Regarding chassis flex, cutting vs. thinner material.
I think there are two modes of flex mainly (or axis) that are interesting, torsional (front relative to back, axis down length) and bending stiffness (axis across width at center between axles).
I haven't ever played with any of this, but I would think the width of the top plate would tune primarily torsional stiffness while the thickness would effect both, but have the ability to primarily influence bending stiffness by increasing the width to compensate for lost torsional stiffness. Think of a t plate on a pan car.
Since the top deck width is already pretty narrow and can't be grown out much, I would start with same shape with lower/higher thicknesses and/or different materials and test them. A composite with a different weave ( and therefore different stiffness in x and y directions) might be interesting.
Torsionally I have always felt the TC6 is 'light' which is why it has grip with spec tires. Maybe a torsionally stiffer plate with a different material for carpet would be good etc....
Also there is the flex 'rate' front vs. rear which gets more complicated. Interesting!
I think there are two modes of flex mainly (or axis) that are interesting, torsional (front relative to back, axis down length) and bending stiffness (axis across width at center between axles).
I haven't ever played with any of this, but I would think the width of the top plate would tune primarily torsional stiffness while the thickness would effect both, but have the ability to primarily influence bending stiffness by increasing the width to compensate for lost torsional stiffness. Think of a t plate on a pan car.
Since the top deck width is already pretty narrow and can't be grown out much, I would start with same shape with lower/higher thicknesses and/or different materials and test them. A composite with a different weave ( and therefore different stiffness in x and y directions) might be interesting.
Torsionally I have always felt the TC6 is 'light' which is why it has grip with spec tires. Maybe a torsionally stiffer plate with a different material for carpet would be good etc....
Also there is the flex 'rate' front vs. rear which gets more complicated. Interesting!
Last edited by dorkmissle; 09-03-2011 at 11:22 AM.
09-03-2011, 01:54 PM
#335
The XRAY setup comes with extra "mounts" that go from the top of the arms and bolt to the upper deck. Without the car in front of me I want to say that they would not work on the upper deck of a TC6 (too wide). If someone with a steering mod has concern for flex behind the front bulkhead affecting steering geometry, you could use some sort of brace mounted with the holes behind the bulkhead. I remember XRAY had one for the 008(?) that spanned the front of the chassis and had an arch for the belt.
If you wanted an upper deck that stiffened/flattened the car out, one way would be to allow standoff posts at the front and rear of the car, OR to have a post/brace in the middle, like the FT TC4 chassis (although that was primarily for foam tire). It would help prevent both torsional and lateral flex. A center brace and/or standoff posts might be a bit much, though.
Personally I'd love a wider and slightly stiffer top deck. I always find it easier to add traction rather than take it away (while keeping driveability).
If you wanted an upper deck that stiffened/flattened the car out, one way would be to allow standoff posts at the front and rear of the car, OR to have a post/brace in the middle, like the FT TC4 chassis (although that was primarily for foam tire). It would help prevent both torsional and lateral flex. A center brace and/or standoff posts might be a bit much, though.
Personally I'd love a wider and slightly stiffer top deck. I always find it easier to add traction rather than take it away (while keeping driveability).
09-04-2011, 03:06 PM
#336
Another great day out with the TC6 with RSD goodies.
Was leading till I made a mistake and finished 2nd.
Ran the new bladders today and were great!. 0 Rebound, and what I really like is that their clear and you can see any air bubbles before you put the cap on.
Thanks RSD for great products.
Pete
Was leading till I made a mistake and finished 2nd.
Ran the new bladders today and were great!. 0 Rebound, and what I really like is that their clear and you can see any air bubbles before you put the cap on.
Thanks RSD for great products.
Pete
09-06-2011, 05:38 PM
#337
Got my bladders in the mail today, and used that as an excuse to crack open my shocks and install the new bladders and the 1,1,1.5 pistons that I've had laying around. WOW, buttery smooth and zero rebound with a 1mm hole drilled in the shock cap. Can't wait to get this thing back on the track and see how it handles.
