1LikesXray T3 2012
08-20-2012, 05:56 PM
#3542
Hey everyone i need some setup help,
Im under steering on this particular corner, and feel like im lacking abit of corner speed throughout the whole track
on this track layout,
my current set up is here http://forum.teamxray.com/xform/inde...&setup=t3_2012
Thanks.
Im under steering on this particular corner, and feel like im lacking abit of corner speed throughout the whole track
on this track layout,
my current set up is here http://forum.teamxray.com/xform/inde...&setup=t3_2012
Thanks.
I am running the T3'12 at TFTR in 13.5.
A couple of things that I noticed about your setup which differs from mine.
Your ride height is too low should be about 6.0 front 6.4-5 rear, you car will be getting quite unsettled on a couple of bumps on the track.
Second, your gearing is completely wrong if your running 116 spur and 18t pinion, i am guessing you made a mistake on the setup sheet. 21.5 boosted you should be running FDR of about 5 or so, but check with the other 21.5 guys to make sure.
The main changes I have made was dropping the shocks one hole lower on the rear and I run 2000 oil in my gear diff.
If you need more help let me know.
Thanks
Chris Bismire
08-21-2012, 01:01 AM
#3543
Artwork, I was wondering your thoughts on how Xray's will mount the new toe blocks with two screws? As I've mentioned I'm a big fan of the Tamyia mounted pivot blocks, and I've explained why. Now, I have followed the development of the 417 for some time and many of their design features always seem logical to me. For example, I understood why Tamiya made their steering rack the way they did. This design prevents chassis tweaking by not having it pinned to the upper deck and allowed it possible to add a graphite brace as a stiffening option. This also eliminated the center post that can also tweak the chassis. Very nice.
Now back on topic, I wondered what you thought about how they are going to mount their one piece toe blocks? I think I've examined every inch of the 417 as I feel they know what they are doing and why. I ask myself if there's a reason why Tamyia mounted their toe blocks the way they do. Now I'm talking about screw placement on those blocks. Do you think it makes a difference how the chassis flexes depending on how the two piece blocks are mounted? With Xray's new method I would think this would greatly affect chassis tweak and limit the chassis flex. Mounting them the long way down the chassis makes no sense to me when the chassis twists horizontal to the blocks. Looking at the pictures mounting the blocks like this would result in a weaker mount, more shifting leverage, but it would also prevent chassis flex. Just wondered what you thought. I sure hope Xray will consider the "industry standard" and adopted them, because they are so much easier to use. I hope we see the final car soon as the BD7 information has been released.
Now back on topic, I wondered what you thought about how they are going to mount their one piece toe blocks? I think I've examined every inch of the 417 as I feel they know what they are doing and why. I ask myself if there's a reason why Tamyia mounted their toe blocks the way they do. Now I'm talking about screw placement on those blocks. Do you think it makes a difference how the chassis flexes depending on how the two piece blocks are mounted? With Xray's new method I would think this would greatly affect chassis tweak and limit the chassis flex. Mounting them the long way down the chassis makes no sense to me when the chassis twists horizontal to the blocks. Looking at the pictures mounting the blocks like this would result in a weaker mount, more shifting leverage, but it would also prevent chassis flex. Just wondered what you thought. I sure hope Xray will consider the "industry standard" and adopted them, because they are so much easier to use. I hope we see the final car soon as the BD7 information has been released.
A car that flexes more will roll deeper through corners. Sometimes that makes the car feel lazy because the car is slow to react back to center. The thinner chassis and top deck in my opinion tends to be better in the faster classes, but in the slower classes the thick chassis and top deck tend to be a little faster for me. That is because the car needs less traction and tends to carry lot more corner speed. The X-ray generates speed in a very different way then other chassis I have run (which is a lot of them). The X-ray naturally rolls more then most of the other chassis on the market and as such tends to feel a bit more stuck then other cars. The key in my testing is not just finding the right setup, but also the right chassis combination to meet the speed of the class and your driving style. Getting around the track is the easy part...but going fast is the challenge. People will tell you that the X-ray is the greatest car on the market and to a certain degree I agree, but it is a lot harder to make it faster then other top level cars. But when you do find the right combination, on the right surface, at the right level of grip it is a hard car to beat.
Some cars can be faster the easier you drive them and others are faster the harder you drive them. I tend to feel like I have to be very aggressive with the X-ray to turn faster laps, but it is easier to do them. Other cars do not require such an aggressive driving style to make them fast. It is just different!
Sorry for the tangent, I find that the thinner chassis and top deck produces too much traction and as such makes the car feel stuck in he mud in the slower classes on carpet. I have to make crazy setup changes to make the car fast which makes the car harder to drive to go faster. This may work for Alex or Paul, but does not work for me. I look for a car that rotates naturally and does not have to be whipped around corners. I tend to whip the X-ray more then I would like...but I am able to go fast with it in this way.
Some cars can be faster the easier you drive them and others are faster the harder you drive them. I tend to feel like I have to be very aggressive with the X-ray to turn faster laps, but it is easier to do them. Other cars do not require such an aggressive driving style to make them fast. It is just different!
Sorry for the tangent, I find that the thinner chassis and top deck produces too much traction and as such makes the car feel stuck in he mud in the slower classes on carpet. I have to make crazy setup changes to make the car fast which makes the car harder to drive to go faster. This may work for Alex or Paul, but does not work for me. I look for a car that rotates naturally and does not have to be whipped around corners. I tend to whip the X-ray more then I would like...but I am able to go fast with it in this way.
Last edited by RCknight; 08-21-2012 at 04:30 AM.
08-21-2012, 08:08 AM
#3544
Artwork, I was wondering your thoughts on how Xray's will mount the new toe blocks with two screws? As I've mentioned I'm a big fan of the Tamyia mounted pivot blocks, and I've explained why. Now, I have followed the development of the 417 for some time and many of their design features always seem logical to me. For example, I understood why Tamiya made their steering rack the way they did. This design prevents chassis tweaking by not having it pinned to the upper deck and allowed it possible to add a graphite brace as a stiffening option. This also eliminated the center post that can also tweak the chassis. Very nice.
Now back on topic, I wondered what you thought about how they are going to mount their one piece toe blocks? I think I've examined every inch of the 417 as I feel they know what they are doing and why. I ask myself if there's a reason why Tamyia mounted their toe blocks the way they do. Now I'm talking about screw placement on those blocks. Do you think it makes a difference how the chassis flexes depending on how the two piece blocks are mounted? With Xray's new method I would think this would greatly affect chassis tweak and limit the chassis flex. Mounting them the long way down the chassis makes no sense to me when the chassis twists horizontal to the blocks. Looking at the pictures mounting the blocks like this would result in a weaker mount, more shifting leverage, but it would also prevent chassis flex. Just wondered what you thought. I sure hope Xray will consider the "industry standard" and adopted them, because they are so much easier to use. I hope we see the final car soon as the BD7 information has been released.
Now back on topic, I wondered what you thought about how they are going to mount their one piece toe blocks? I think I've examined every inch of the 417 as I feel they know what they are doing and why. I ask myself if there's a reason why Tamyia mounted their toe blocks the way they do. Now I'm talking about screw placement on those blocks. Do you think it makes a difference how the chassis flexes depending on how the two piece blocks are mounted? With Xray's new method I would think this would greatly affect chassis tweak and limit the chassis flex. Mounting them the long way down the chassis makes no sense to me when the chassis twists horizontal to the blocks. Looking at the pictures mounting the blocks like this would result in a weaker mount, more shifting leverage, but it would also prevent chassis flex. Just wondered what you thought. I sure hope Xray will consider the "industry standard" and adopted them, because they are so much easier to use. I hope we see the final car soon as the BD7 information has been released.
Well, I think that the blocks mounted long way in the car will provide more flex not less which I do not think the Xray really needs. If the chassis was flexing front to rear instead of side to side then I think the vertical (long way in the car) mounts would limit flex. But, since the chassis mostly flexes side to side then I think it will increase side to side flex having the two piece blocks mounted vertical.
I am glad to see two screws to hold in the blocks, but I don't think chassis flex is a problem naturally on the Xray. The T3 2012 is a car meant to be a bit wider by design...I suspect in the new car that the bulkeds will be moved towards the center of the car in hopes of freeing the natural traction up. The Hagberg mod plays a big roll in making the Xray rotate, and I think you will see this in the new car as well. The xray rolls pretty deep compared to other cars as it goes through a corner, this makes the car feel easy to drive for most drivers, but there is a fine line between slow and easy to drive. I think the car for my driving style actually needs to be stiffer not softer. Also in my testing I have found that the car is a bit out of balance between the front and the rear, and going forward I would like to see either solid one piece blocks in the front rear and rear front or split blocks, but not one or the other. I realize that I could go out and by the two piece blocks for the front, but have not done so, which could be a good change to the car. I don't have issues running the two piece blocks in the rear with the current design, but I don't think they are a great idea in the front, not until they get redesigned.
In my testing I find that the thin chassis top deck makes the car push initially, but it gets better mid and exit. But the steering is so numb coming in that you spend so much time making the car turn that by the time you do the car becomes very hard to drive consistently. The thin chassis is better in mod, but not for the slower classes. My personal felling is that there is more time in setup with the thick chassis then there is in the thin chassis combo. Just my experience.
While I am on the subject of improvements, I think the inner camber links need to be lowered about 1-2mm. This would allow even more adjustability without have to raise the outside even more then it already is. A third hole in the motor mount would be nice especially for the slower motors. Don't get me started on the shocks...
I think the BD7 split blocks are very interesting...kind of a hybrid between the horizontal tamiya blocks and the proposed vertical Xray blocks. By placing them at a 45* I think to create an in between in flex and lateral force. Could be a good compromise.
Of course all of this is speculation, because who knows what Xray will actually release. Team drivers test different combos all of the time and most of them never see the light of day. I do expect that the new xray will be focused on making the rear of the car rotate, but not sure how those changes will be implemented. If I was designing the xray...I would be working on the rear of the car and leave the front alone for now...when you can get better balance in the car front to rear then I think the car will come alive. I will be waiting just like everyone else to see what Martin thinks of next. I hope it focuses on the geometry of the car instead of trying to band-aid those issues with a super thin chassis and top deck.
The Xray is a very good car, but when you push it to it's setup limits the line between fast and hard to drive are apparent. Like any car the xray can be made very hard to drive, but I will tell you the car has one of the biggest setup windows. Which is great if you just want to drive the car around the track, but pushing to get fast laps will require that the setup move in a very different direction, which most people won't do. I will say the car out of the box with the stock setup is probably the best car I have driven out of the box. After that it is up to the driver and mechanic to find the right setup based on the track conditions.
When it comes to setup on the Xray you either go big or go home...I think to really feel changes in a car that has a big setup window then you have to make big changes to feel them. So if you want to test rollcenter, go from one extreme to the other and then if it is too much then move to the middle option. If you want to try a camber link position change go from short ot long and skip the middle until you have tested. I think you will find that this can yield the biggest setup improvements. If you own an Xray and have not tried every roll center position (which I just did recently) then you are missing out on how the car feels in each of those positions.
Last point, is that Xray does a fine job designing a car that appeals to a lot of different levels of drivers. From beginner up to the Hagbergs, Meens, and Paulie's of the world. But the car is very bi-poplar in my view. I have never seen a car that can be amazing at one race and severely off the pace at the next (assuming similar track conditions). I am not sure what that is, but it is obvious to me that it has something to do with the design of the car. Not good or bad, just an observation.
I think I covered your question...and threw in a few of my own ideas in the process. Sorry it was so long!
08-21-2012, 08:23 AM
#3545
Nice posts Artwork, I agree with all of it, except that I haven't found the car to be good one week and horrible the next, unless I push one change too far I can't say the car has ever been horrible, but I have had issues trying to get that last .2ths as many changes will affect feel, but not necessarily times.
08-21-2012, 10:22 AM
#3546
Nice posts Artwork, I agree with all of it, except that I haven't found the car to be good one week and horrible the next, unless I push one change too far I can't say the car has ever been horrible, but I have had issues trying to get that last .2ths as many changes will affect feel, but not necessarily times.
When I went to Carpet Nats I was stunned how different my cars felt. I worked through a bunch of setup changes, but it never really felt anything like it did at other tracks I run at. I know that tires played a big role at Carpet Nats, but I just did not except such a major difference in the car.
In comparison I have taken my Tamiyas to lots of different tracks and even though I had to make some setup changes, my base setup was always pretty close. Always room for tuning of improvement, but close.
I am excited to see how my cars and setups feel in Vegas this year...
08-21-2012, 10:27 PM
#3548
Great post Art, I enjoyed the reading. I am curious about what you said about the motor mount. A third hole? Not sure how that affects slower motors or did you mean faster? The newer mount scares the hell out of me and I would rather see the current one used.
I will be curious to see what Xray does as well. I'll also be waiting to hear what BD7 drivers have to say. I'm very much a fan of Xray's focus to detail and quality. I can't give up many of their design features, but I'm hoping they will abandon their toe blocks. My only pet peeve.
Now Art what about those shocks? lol What do you think of the short shock system? lol I like the idea of a lower profile. With lower Cg, less roll, I'm guessing they will have to make changes to the shock angle positions.
I will be curious to see what Xray does as well. I'll also be waiting to hear what BD7 drivers have to say. I'm very much a fan of Xray's focus to detail and quality. I can't give up many of their design features, but I'm hoping they will abandon their toe blocks. My only pet peeve.
Now Art what about those shocks? lol What do you think of the short shock system? lol I like the idea of a lower profile. With lower Cg, less roll, I'm guessing they will have to make changes to the shock angle positions.
08-21-2012, 11:06 PM
#3549
I just looked at some close up shots of the BD7 and I must say it looks amazing. The center pulley design really opens up the space. I have to say I'm lovin the toe blocks. The return of the center post and the steering rack looks well thought out. Looks like a built in servo saver. Very Interesting, but it lacks the rear top plate flex options.
08-22-2012, 01:53 AM
#3550
Tech Initiate
I don't see a built in servo saver in the new Yokomo. Looks just like a normal dual bell crank steering rack.
08-22-2012, 06:09 PM
#3551
Great post Art, I enjoyed the reading. I am curious about what you said about the motor mount. A third hole? Not sure how that affects slower motors or did you mean faster? The newer mount scares the hell out of me and I would rather see the current one used.
I will be curious to see what Xray does as well. I'll also be waiting to hear what BD7 drivers have to say. I'm very much a fan of Xray's focus to detail and quality. I can't give up many of their design features, but I'm hoping they will abandon their toe blocks. My only pet peeve.
Now Art what about those shocks? lol What do you think of the short shock system? lol I like the idea of a lower profile. With lower Cg, less roll, I'm guessing they will have to make changes to the shock angle positions.
I will be curious to see what Xray does as well. I'll also be waiting to hear what BD7 drivers have to say. I'm very much a fan of Xray's focus to detail and quality. I can't give up many of their design features, but I'm hoping they will abandon their toe blocks. My only pet peeve.
Now Art what about those shocks? lol What do you think of the short shock system? lol I like the idea of a lower profile. With lower Cg, less roll, I'm guessing they will have to make changes to the shock angle positions.
OK, so here is the story with the third hole. With the slower motors it is harder to get gearing right when the spur is 100 or 96 and the pinion is about 50 (64P). There comes a point in which getting the screw in the rear most hole becomes almost impossible. What some other companies have done is put a hole above the top deck directly in the middle of the motor mount. This allows you to use the top hole and the forward most hole to secure in the motor. It is a really nice option but would require a modification to the current design. Probably not going to happen, but it would be nice for these companies to realize that 75% of the people running these cars, never put in faster then a 13.5...ever!
The shocks in the picture (of Meen's car) looked about the same length, but did appear to be a little wider. I am not sure if that was the angle, but they certainly looked like they were wider then the standard shocks. It is really hard to tell, but regardless I doubt you will see major shock changes coming. My dislikes about the shocks, mostly the plastic ones, are pretty well known in this thread. The stock bladders are junk...they are way too soft and tend to rip fairly easily. Every part when putting the shocks together needs to be modified or sanded, or custom fit. If you take the shocks off of the tree and build them then I can guarantee you have shock issues and do not even know it. Just like with any plastic parts, in order for them to work right they need fitting. This is the nature of plastic parts that cool at different rates when they are ejected from the molds. Also molds wear out over time and will also create some tolerance issues. After a lot of effort fitting each part and the Reflex racing bladders I think I finally got some decent Xray shocks. But they are not up to the level of quality I would expect from Xray. They get so much right with this car...just increase my kit cost and include well designed aluminum shocks with machined POM pistons and I will be very happy. Shocks move so little on these cars...that they have to be perfect in every way or they will affect the way the car feels.
Some day I will do a little video on how to complete a shock build on an Xray...because I have spent way to much time in my basement trying to figure out the right method to get perfect feeling Xray shocks (as perfect as they can feel). I know a lot of people will laugh and say..."what is so hard about building Xray shocks?" I can tell you from experience that it is not as easy as you think. Running lots of cars over the years from lots of different companies I guess I just have a higher standard then most. But if my shocks are not perfect...they don't go on my car. The other night I spent an hour on one shock...I know this sounds ridiculous, but it felt like crap every time I built it. I finally got it right and then the other three only took me a few minutes, funny how that works sometimes.
Last thing on the shocks...I am not a big fan of how little movement there is in the pivot ball on both the top and bottom mounts of the shocks. I think the shocks have more of a tendency to feel a bit bound up. I have not found a solution for that yet, but when I do I will make sure I let people know. If anyone has a solution I would love to hear about it!
Remember it is the little things that seem to matter the most...at least that is my experience!
08-22-2012, 06:28 PM
#3552
Sounds like you just need to run tamiya shocks. I just for a 2nd car and decided to give the xray shocks a try, and was ready the melt them into shims the first time I tried to bleed them well. I managed to get 4 similar feeling shocks, but not nearally as nice as the TRFs, or even a HB, Shui or TOP shock.
08-22-2012, 06:59 PM
#3553
Art,
Are you talking about the lack of *range* of movement of the shock ends or just that they feel bound up ?
If it is that they feel bound up , I polish the balls (did I just say that in public ? ) with 400 grit sandpaper. Specifically I chuck up and spin the ball on a long 3mm screw in my dremel ( or other "rotary" tool ) and use the sandpaper to make the ball nice and shiny. It seems to do the trick.
Jake D.
Are you talking about the lack of *range* of movement of the shock ends or just that they feel bound up ?
If it is that they feel bound up , I polish the balls (did I just say that in public ? ) with 400 grit sandpaper. Specifically I chuck up and spin the ball on a long 3mm screw in my dremel ( or other "rotary" tool ) and use the sandpaper to make the ball nice and shiny. It seems to do the trick.
Jake D.
08-22-2012, 07:41 PM
#3554
Shock ends
Maybe you pushed the pivot balls in the wrong way . I have never had them fit tight without any modification . Or on the bottom one you may have screwed it on to far and bound up the motion
