8LikesYOKOMO Touring Car BD-7
10-30-2016, 08:24 PM
#7322
Ok thanks guys for the spur gear info.
10-31-2016, 09:14 PM
#7323
Anyone running a 2015 in USGT ? Just getting into onroad and looking for gearing advice for a medium sized grey crc carpet track.
11-02-2016, 07:31 AM
#7324
Hello everyone! i see that many people requesting good setups for the BD7 for indoor as there are not many out there. so i wanted to provide a setup for you guys. also have a clip you can look at the car how it looks like 
SETUP: https://andrefossto.wordpress.com/20...-indoor-setup/
VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkSe5YOeDeA
SETUP: https://andrefossto.wordpress.com/20...-indoor-setup/
VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkSe5YOeDeA
11-20-2016, 06:27 AM
#7326
Greetings Yokomo camp. Who's in for technical mumbo jumbo jargon?
You might not know that I like to reverse engineer suspension designs and learn the dynamics behind, this has been going for a few years but enough with the chit chat. Let's cut the chase, what brought me here is the BD7'16. Perfect example of what's going on with TC cars right now.
A suspension has two components, geometry (CG and roll centre heights, arm length and angle - roll stiffness) and mechanical (springs and roll bars* - ride frequency). A balance of the two is needed to have a well performing car. The problem is tires and the entire car like a certain ride frequency (lower frequencies equal softer suspension and vice versa). The lower CG height brought with this iteration of the BD7 raised roll stiffness a fair amount, while itself a good change people didn't know how to react to it. That's why people claim the '16 is bad, it isn't, quite the contrary! The change it needs is to rebalance both suspension components back to what the tires like. This will sound outlandish but I tested this theory over and over, our cars are too stiffly sprung because the roll stiffness is too low. What all cars benefit is softer springs and higher roll centres (or in the '16 case nothing as the CG height is lower). I see most are using pink-blue springs which have 260-280gr.cm which provide ride frequencies of around 2Hz having a big toll on the tires (the ring of death will be on the next episode), my experiments have produced better results the ride frequency is bellow 1.5Hz, which according to my calculations would be something around black springs being a necessity but worth it. Applicable in all grip levels and surface types.
TL: DR; the '16 is too stiff by geometry, use of softer springs is a necessity to have a car better than any of the predecessors.
BTW, this is applicable to all cars in the since the TRF415, Awesomatix included. I wanted the Yokomo camp to have an advantage because I have good friends here
You might not know that I like to reverse engineer suspension designs and learn the dynamics behind, this has been going for a few years but enough with the chit chat. Let's cut the chase, what brought me here is the BD7'16. Perfect example of what's going on with TC cars right now.
A suspension has two components, geometry (CG and roll centre heights, arm length and angle - roll stiffness) and mechanical (springs and roll bars* - ride frequency). A balance of the two is needed to have a well performing car. The problem is tires and the entire car like a certain ride frequency (lower frequencies equal softer suspension and vice versa). The lower CG height brought with this iteration of the BD7 raised roll stiffness a fair amount, while itself a good change people didn't know how to react to it. That's why people claim the '16 is bad, it isn't, quite the contrary! The change it needs is to rebalance both suspension components back to what the tires like. This will sound outlandish but I tested this theory over and over, our cars are too stiffly sprung because the roll stiffness is too low. What all cars benefit is softer springs and higher roll centres (or in the '16 case nothing as the CG height is lower). I see most are using pink-blue springs which have 260-280gr.cm which provide ride frequencies of around 2Hz having a big toll on the tires (the ring of death will be on the next episode), my experiments have produced better results the ride frequency is bellow 1.5Hz, which according to my calculations would be something around black springs being a necessity but worth it. Applicable in all grip levels and surface types.
TL: DR; the '16 is too stiff by geometry, use of softer springs is a necessity to have a car better than any of the predecessors.
BTW, this is applicable to all cars in the since the TRF415, Awesomatix included. I wanted the Yokomo camp to have an advantage because I have good friends here
11-20-2016, 11:32 AM
#7327
Tech Adept
Greetings Yokomo camp. Who's in for technical mumbo jumbo jargon?
You might not know that I like to reverse engineer suspension designs and learn the dynamics behind, this has been going for a few years but enough with the chit chat. Let's cut the chase, what brought me here is the BD7'16. Perfect example of what's going on with TC cars right now.
A suspension has two components, geometry (CG and roll centre heights, arm length and angle - roll stiffness) and mechanical (springs and roll bars* - ride frequency). A balance of the two is needed to have a well performing car. The problem is tires and the entire car like a certain ride frequency (lower frequencies equal softer suspension and vice versa). The lower CG height brought with this iteration of the BD7 raised roll stiffness a fair amount, while itself a good change people didn't know how to react to it. That's why people claim the '16 is bad, it isn't, quite the contrary! The change it needs is to rebalance both suspension components back to what the tires like. This will sound outlandish but I tested this theory over and over, our cars are too stiffly sprung because the roll stiffness is too low. What all cars benefit is softer springs and higher roll centres (or in the '16 case nothing as the CG height is lower). I see most are using pink-blue springs which have 260-280gr.cm which provide ride frequencies of around 2Hz having a big toll on the tires (the ring of death will be on the next episode), my experiments have produced better results the ride frequency is bellow 1.5Hz, which according to my calculations would be something around black springs being a necessity but worth it. Applicable in all grip levels and surface types.
TL: DR; the '16 is too stiff by geometry, use of softer springs is a necessity to have a car better than any of the predecessors.
BTW, this is applicable to all cars in the since the TRF415, Awesomatix included. I wanted the Yokomo camp to have an advantage because I have good friends here
You might not know that I like to reverse engineer suspension designs and learn the dynamics behind, this has been going for a few years but enough with the chit chat. Let's cut the chase, what brought me here is the BD7'16. Perfect example of what's going on with TC cars right now.
A suspension has two components, geometry (CG and roll centre heights, arm length and angle - roll stiffness) and mechanical (springs and roll bars* - ride frequency). A balance of the two is needed to have a well performing car. The problem is tires and the entire car like a certain ride frequency (lower frequencies equal softer suspension and vice versa). The lower CG height brought with this iteration of the BD7 raised roll stiffness a fair amount, while itself a good change people didn't know how to react to it. That's why people claim the '16 is bad, it isn't, quite the contrary! The change it needs is to rebalance both suspension components back to what the tires like. This will sound outlandish but I tested this theory over and over, our cars are too stiffly sprung because the roll stiffness is too low. What all cars benefit is softer springs and higher roll centres (or in the '16 case nothing as the CG height is lower). I see most are using pink-blue springs which have 260-280gr.cm which provide ride frequencies of around 2Hz having a big toll on the tires (the ring of death will be on the next episode), my experiments have produced better results the ride frequency is bellow 1.5Hz, which according to my calculations would be something around black springs being a necessity but worth it. Applicable in all grip levels and surface types.
TL: DR; the '16 is too stiff by geometry, use of softer springs is a necessity to have a car better than any of the predecessors.
BTW, this is applicable to all cars in the since the TRF415, Awesomatix included. I wanted the Yokomo camp to have an advantage because I have good friends here
Thus I told the guys over here, the 16 doesn't have a design issue, it is us that do not understand the car enough, in fact we have one hell of car that I reckon could still kick arse even with the arrival of the BD8!
11-22-2016, 08:29 AM
#7329
The change it needs is to rebalance both suspension components back to what the tires like. This will sound outlandish but I tested this theory over and over, our cars are too stiffly sprung because the roll stiffness is too low. What all cars benefit is softer springs and higher roll centres (or in the '16 case nothing as the CG height is lower). I see most are using pink-blue springs which have 260-280gr.cm which provide ride frequencies of around 2Hz having a big toll on the tires (the ring of death will be on the next episode), my experiments have produced better results the ride frequency is bellow 1.5Hz, which according to my calculations would be something around black springs being a necessity but worth it. Applicable in all grip levels and surface types.
11-22-2016, 09:20 AM
#7330
Very helpful info. Are you recommending Black (2.3) springs in front and rear? And, are you also suggesting that softer sway bars would also be better (front and rear)? Do we need to increase ride height and/or droop to compensate for softer springs? Thanks. PS: was wondering why the "ring of death" seems to appear much sooner on my new BD7-16. Eager to hear your theory on this.
11-22-2016, 02:16 PM
#7331
Very helpful info. Are you recommending Black (2.3) springs in front and rear? And, are you also suggesting that softer sway bars would also be better (front and rear)? Do we need to increase ride height and/or droop to compensate for softer springs? Thanks. PS: was wondering why the "ring of death" seems to appear much sooner on my new BD7-16. Eager to hear your theory on this.
The ring depends on roll and camber gain, most cars use more camber gain in the rear because it rolls too much the problem isn't being tackled at the core. So by using higher roll centres the car will roll less and therefore need less camber gain, making the rear tires flatter without that dynamic camber motion. Your case I believe is because of the lower CG height being closer to the roll centre, the car is already rolling less because of that, keeping camber gain the same as before exacerbates that dynamic camber situation and the tire is overworked on that small area. My current tires don't have a ring of wear (they are broken in), I know they are being kept at closest to -1* of camber at most times so they wear the entire width. Let me see if I can attach a pic.
Great to hear! If I see correctly the BD8 went back to high diffs but closer weight to centre of the car, that will surely make the car more darty and therefore roll a bit more. While that isn't figured out the '16 can enjoy a big setup advantage.
Last edited by 30Tooth; 11-22-2016 at 03:29 PM.
11-22-2016, 03:13 PM
#7332
Anyone running Xray Progressive springs both front and back?
2.5-2.8 for the front
2.3-2.6 for the rear
I ordered some, hope they can be useful for carpet surface.
2.5-2.8 for the front
2.3-2.6 for the rear
I ordered some, hope they can be useful for carpet surface.
11-23-2016, 03:01 AM
#7334
Greetings Yokomo camp. Who's in for technical mumbo jumbo jargon?
You might not know that I like to reverse engineer suspension designs and learn the dynamics behind, this has been going for a few years but enough with the chit chat. Let's cut the chase, what brought me here is the BD7'16. Perfect example of what's going on with TC cars right now.
A suspension has two components, geometry (CG and roll centre heights, arm length and angle - roll stiffness) and mechanical (springs and roll bars* - ride frequency). A balance of the two is needed to have a well performing car. The problem is tires and the entire car like a certain ride frequency (lower frequencies equal softer suspension and vice versa). The lower CG height brought with this iteration of the BD7 raised roll stiffness a fair amount, while itself a good change people didn't know how to react to it. That's why people claim the '16 is bad, it isn't, quite the contrary! The change it needs is to rebalance both suspension components back to what the tires like. This will sound outlandish but I tested this theory over and over, our cars are too stiffly sprung because the roll stiffness is too low. What all cars benefit is softer springs and higher roll centres (or in the '16 case nothing as the CG height is lower). I see most are using pink-blue springs which have 260-280gr.cm which provide ride frequencies of around 2Hz having a big toll on the tires (the ring of death will be on the next episode), my experiments have produced better results the ride frequency is bellow 1.5Hz, which according to my calculations would be something around black springs being a necessity but worth it. Applicable in all grip levels and surface types.
TL: DR; the '16 is too stiff by geometry, use of softer springs is a necessity to have a car better than any of the predecessors.
BTW, this is applicable to all cars in the since the TRF415, Awesomatix included. I wanted the Yokomo camp to have an advantage because I have good friends here
You might not know that I like to reverse engineer suspension designs and learn the dynamics behind, this has been going for a few years but enough with the chit chat. Let's cut the chase, what brought me here is the BD7'16. Perfect example of what's going on with TC cars right now.
A suspension has two components, geometry (CG and roll centre heights, arm length and angle - roll stiffness) and mechanical (springs and roll bars* - ride frequency). A balance of the two is needed to have a well performing car. The problem is tires and the entire car like a certain ride frequency (lower frequencies equal softer suspension and vice versa). The lower CG height brought with this iteration of the BD7 raised roll stiffness a fair amount, while itself a good change people didn't know how to react to it. That's why people claim the '16 is bad, it isn't, quite the contrary! The change it needs is to rebalance both suspension components back to what the tires like. This will sound outlandish but I tested this theory over and over, our cars are too stiffly sprung because the roll stiffness is too low. What all cars benefit is softer springs and higher roll centres (or in the '16 case nothing as the CG height is lower). I see most are using pink-blue springs which have 260-280gr.cm which provide ride frequencies of around 2Hz having a big toll on the tires (the ring of death will be on the next episode), my experiments have produced better results the ride frequency is bellow 1.5Hz, which according to my calculations would be something around black springs being a necessity but worth it. Applicable in all grip levels and surface types.
TL: DR; the '16 is too stiff by geometry, use of softer springs is a necessity to have a car better than any of the predecessors.
BTW, this is applicable to all cars in the since the TRF415, Awesomatix included. I wanted the Yokomo camp to have an advantage because I have good friends here
This sounds great! Care to share a setup we can try out? would be great to see how the car could work!
11-23-2016, 07:27 AM
#7335
If the car becomes too sensitive subtract the height of shims used under the suspension blocks from under the outer ball stud on the hub.