R/C Tech Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-16-2014, 03:10 PM   #286
Tech Master
 
cwoods34's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Indy-freakin'-ana
Posts: 1,156
Trader Rating: 10 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pullstarter View Post
Thinking about trying one of the option CF bottom chassis plates on my 3.0. I notice the 2.0mm plate is labelled as "hard" whereas the 2.25mm doesn't have a description so I'm assuming the 2.25mm plate is the more flexible of the two?

Also, would like to hear feedback from anyone who has tried either of the CF chassis and what they thought compared to the standard alu chassis?

Cheers
Simon
I would run the aluminum chassis over any CF chassis on this car, on any grip level. It is way more consistent and balanced.
cwoods34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2014, 03:12 PM   #287
Tech Master
 
pullstarter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Capital Hill
Posts: 1,488
Trader Rating: 14 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cwoods34 View Post
I would run the aluminum chassis over any CF chassis on this car, on any grip level. It is way more consistent and balanced.
Thanks
pullstarter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 02:46 AM   #288
Tech Regular
 
Holmenkollen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sweden
Posts: 444
Default

Had a race this weekend and ended upp third. Used the RRS in practice but ended up taking it off. Couldnīt really get the feeling I wanted with it, I found the car easier to drive without it. I will try the middle instead of the outer hole for less toe-in gain next practice.

A question of tire prep: usually I drive a couple of warmup laps before the start of the heat. But when the heat starts my car is very loose the first couple of laps. How do I get maximum grip from the start? I tried different traction compounds without much differences. This is on indoor medium grip carpet.
__________________
Xray - Hobbywing - Graupner
Holmenkollen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 05:25 AM   #289
Tech Elite
 
orcadigital's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 2,145
Trader Rating: 61 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pullstarter View Post
Thinking about trying one of the option CF bottom chassis plates on my 3.0. I notice the 2.0mm plate is labelled as "hard" whereas the 2.25mm doesn't have a description so I'm assuming the 2.25mm plate is the more flexible of the two?

Also, would like to hear feedback from anyone who has tried either of the CF chassis and what they thought compared to the standard alu chassis?

Cheers
Simon
Fischer likes the 2mm hard carbon chassis. I have one but have not tried it. I have been back and forth between the 2.25 carbon chassis (stock LE chassis) and the aluminum, and find the aluminum to be superior both indoor carpet high and low traction as well as outdoor asphalt low to mid traction. I have not tried it in other conditions, but the aluminum has been superior for me. Keep in mind other manufacturers aluminum chassis' seem to be much stiffer, where ours seems to give more flex, which seems somewhat opposite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holmenkollen View Post
Had a race this weekend and ended upp third. Used the RRS in practice but ended up taking it off. Couldnīt really get the feeling I wanted with it, I found the car easier to drive without it. I will try the middle instead of the outer hole for less toe-in gain next practice.

A question of tire prep: usually I drive a couple of warmup laps before the start of the heat. But when the heat starts my car is very loose the first couple of laps. How do I get maximum grip from the start? I tried different traction compounds without much differences. This is on indoor medium grip carpet.
I am guessing, but you are burning off most of the compound on your warmup laps and then the tires are cooling before you start your heat. Ideally you want as little time between the warmup laps and the start of your heat. Also, what I see happen is people do warmup laps, then pull offline near where they start so that others doing laps will not hit them in the driving line. You have now taken warmed up sticky tires and run offline picking up all the garbage and loose carpet fibers. You are now trying to get the tires back up to temp as well as cleaning them off, which could cause what you are describing.

Related note, I wish we would qualify similar to nitro, where we have a 1-2min warmup that goes right into timing without having to stop and stage. We tried it at an outdoor offroad race once and most of the electric folks just couldnt figure it out (I am an electric guy) but it was ideal to me.
__________________
Desoto Racing * Serpent America * Boca Bearings

"I was doing fine until about mid-corner when I ran out of talent."
orcadigital is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 10:28 AM   #290
Tech Elite
 
Johnny Wishbone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,419
Trader Rating: 6 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cwoods34 View Post
I would run the aluminum chassis over any CF chassis on this car, on any grip level. It is way more consistent and balanced.
I agree, all around the stock out of the box 3.0 works very well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holmenkollen View Post
Had a race this weekend and ended upp third. Used the RRS in practice but ended up taking it off. Couldnīt really get the feeling I wanted with it, I found the car easier to drive without it. I will try the middle instead of the outer hole for less toe-in gain next practice
Did you keep the .5/.5 blocks in when you went to the stock rear uprights? Whats the use of trying to get less toe on compression? It sort of defeats the whole purpose of the system. A person should be looking for less static toe for straightaway speed and then added toe in on compression for better turn in. The rear arm sweep is required to give the car better stability as well. I ran the RRS this weekend as well, and could not have asked for a better handling car, netting a personal best fast lap time, and a win in the final, running a consistent 0.04 lap variance over 20 laps. The system works, but I still don't think its giving enough rear toe on compression with the stock components. I also looked at one of the other brands version of rear steer, and the driver had the same complaint about their system, that the inner adjustment access is very bad if not just about none adjustable easily.

Quote:
Originally Posted by orcadigital View Post
Fischer likes the 2mm hard carbon chassis. I have one but have not tried it. I have been back and forth between the 2.25 carbon chassis (stock LE chassis) and the aluminum, and find the aluminum to be superior both indoor carpet high and low traction as well as outdoor asphalt low to mid traction. I have not tried it in other conditions, but the aluminum has been superior for me. Keep in mind other manufacturers aluminum chassis' seem to be much stiffer, where ours seems to give more flex, which seems somewhat opposite.
Actually the last couple of Fischers setups I have looked at show him using the aluminum chassis. But take note of the different top decks being used, there is consistency and lap time improvements going to them.
__________________
Gary Lanzer
Johnny Wishbone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 11:10 AM   #291
Tech Regular
 
Holmenkollen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sweden
Posts: 444
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Wishbone View Post
I agree, all around the stock out of the box 3.0 works very well.



Did you keep the .5/.5 blocks in when you went to the stock rear uprights? Whats the use of trying to get less toe on compression? It sort of defeats the whole purpose of the system. A person should be looking for less static toe for straightaway speed and then added toe in on compression for better turn in. The rear arm sweep is required to give the car better stability as well. I ran the RRS this weekend as well, and could not have asked for a better handling car, netting a personal best fast lap time, and a win in the final, running a consistent 0.04 lap variance over 20 laps. The system works, but I still don't think its giving enough rear toe on compression with the stock components. I also looked at one of the other brands version of rear steer, and the driver had the same complaint about their system, that the inner adjustment access is very bad if not just about none adjustable easily.



Actually the last couple of Fischers setups I have looked at show him using the aluminum chassis. But take note of the different top decks being used, there is consistency and lap time improvements going to them.
What RRS setting did you end up with? I'm running modified.
__________________
Xray - Hobbywing - Graupner
Holmenkollen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 12:57 PM   #292
Tech Elite
 
Johnny Wishbone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,419
Trader Rating: 6 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holmenkollen View Post
What RRS setting did you end up with? I'm running modified.
That certainly brings up another part of the RRS system. In the stock form I cannot get the added toe that I feel my car requires, so I've gone to different mount points to get the links much shorter and give more pull (toe in) on compression. BUT, in modified, I admit that I'm not getting a good feel to the car either, and have gone back to the stock uprights.

Please don't take my posts as an attack on what your posting, as I'm in the same situation as you, trying to learn this system and take any advantage there may be with it. Just not finding it in modified. I wonder if weight transfer is limiting how the RRS reacts in modified over a slower car?

I have a big race this weekend and hope to spend more time on the modified car now that I have two different chassis, so I don't have to compensate one setup for 2 different classes.
__________________
Gary Lanzer
Johnny Wishbone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 01:06 PM   #293
Tech Regular
 
Holmenkollen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sweden
Posts: 444
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Wishbone View Post
That certainly brings up another part of the RRS system. In the stock form I cannot get the added toe that I feel my car requires, so I've gone to different mount points to get the links much shorter and give more pull (toe in) on compression. BUT, in modified, I admit that I'm not getting a good feel to the car either, and have gone back to the stock uprights.

Please don't take my posts as an attack on what your posting, as I'm in the same situation as you, trying to learn this system and take any advantage there may be with it. Just not finding it in modified. I wonder if weight transfer is limiting how the RRS reacts in modified over a slower car?

I have a big race this weekend and hope to spend more time on the modified car now that I have two different chassis, so I don't have to compensate one setup for 2 different classes.
No offense taken, just curious on setup.
I think the car gets stiffer in the rear with the RRS plate. I tried both 0.5-0.5 blocks and 0.5-3.5 with app. the same laptimes.
__________________
Xray - Hobbywing - Graupner
Holmenkollen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 01:21 PM   #294
Tech Fanatic
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 972
Trader Rating: 5 (100%+)
Default

I ran my new 3.0 at the inaugural Alberta Touring Series this weekend. I haven't had much time with the car yet, so I was basically running the kit setup with the addition of a front diff (2.5M fluid). The kit setup seemed really great - stable and easy to drive but with plenty of steering. We Reedy Race of Champions style heats in touring mod and I came away with a perfect 5 wins in 5 rounds. The car was well suited because clean, consistent runs were rewarded more than throwing down a hot qualifying run.

One thing I noticed right away is this is the first car I've run that consistently accelerates and brakes without pulling to one side. I wonder if the aluminum chassis provides more consistent flex, or if things are machined a bit more precisely for better alignment. I could never seem to get symmetrical rear toe on previous chassis.
__________________
Team Serpent
Steve S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 01:42 PM   #295
Tech Master
 
cwoods34's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Indy-freakin'-ana
Posts: 1,156
Trader Rating: 10 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve S View Post
I ran my new 3.0 at the inaugural Alberta Touring Series this weekend. I haven't had much time with the car yet, so I was basically running the kit setup with the addition of a front diff (2.5M fluid). The kit setup seemed really great - stable and easy to drive but with plenty of steering. We Reedy Race of Champions style heats in touring mod and I came away with a perfect 5 wins in 5 rounds. The car was well suited because clean, consistent runs were rewarded more than throwing down a hot qualifying run.

One thing I noticed right away is this is the first car I've run that consistently accelerates and brakes without pulling to one side. I wonder if the aluminum chassis provides more consistent flex, or if things are machined a bit more precisely for better alignment. I could never seem to get symmetrical rear toe on previous chassis.
A big part of it is the chassis. I noticed that with the 2.0 hard chassis, the car was unstable on-throttle and would "pull" left or right. This is because it flexes in the wrong spots. The aluminum chassis fixes this
__________________
Stop holding bitterness deep in your bum soul.
cwoods34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2014, 02:14 AM   #296
Tech Master
 
pullstarter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Capital Hill
Posts: 1,488
Trader Rating: 14 (100%+)
Default

Thanks all for your input
pullstarter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2014, 04:42 AM   #297
Tech Master
 
Benzaah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,989
Trader Rating: 21 (96%+)
Default

The alu chassis does not tweak. I've had some massive hits on practice days at my track and the chassis is bullet proof. It transitions so well don't underestimate how much a simple droop change can make. The set up window is huge and works very well in the low to medium traction asphalt I run on.

I've finally got the RRS set up to get what I feel is the desired toe gain and feel from the back end. I built some short links on xray ball ends to get a greater angle in the link. I've flipped the 4 degree c hubs to angle the steering arm higher up and I'm using the shortest link on the RRS block and 1mm of shim under the link on both ends. I've set up with 0/2.5 blocks using a 2/4 arm spacing. I can get -2.5 at ride height and -4 degrees at chassis flat. I found the back end didn't bite in just quite enough at -3.5 at compression. This means I could possibly get -1.5 at ride height and -4 at chassis flat of you took those shims out. Not sure if it will bind at that great an angle.

I then tried Gary's idea of adding extra Ackerman shims are really dug how that changes the steering arc. I feel like the suspension isn't working hard enough with the 450 oil I'm running so I'm hoping a change to 400 is going to help. I've also found with the Ackerman change going to a 4/5000wt diff has made the car super stable even with all this extra steering.
One other thing it found with the change in steering arc the new camber link locations on the upper bulk heads work really well. I'm undecided if I likes running this location in the front as the grip didn't go up enough on my last practice day.


I've had to change my lines on a number of corners but the car is awesome to drive. I'm hoping to get under my 13 flat this Friday night. I think new tyres might even be on the cards
__________________
Adelaide RC - XRAY Xb2’16de & Xb4’16

Walter Rc Hobby - Serpent 4X

Nosram - R1wurks - Sanwa - Hudy - Muchmore
Benzaah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2014, 05:33 AM   #298
Tech Master
 
chicky03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,993
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Send a message via AIM to chicky03
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve S View Post
I ran my new 3.0 at the inaugural Alberta Touring Series this weekend. I haven't had much time with the car yet, so I was basically running the kit setup with the addition of a front diff (2.5M fluid). The kit setup seemed really great - stable and easy to drive but with plenty of steering. We Reedy Race of Champions style heats in touring mod and I came away with a perfect 5 wins in 5 rounds. The car was well suited because clean, consistent runs were rewarded more than throwing down a hot qualifying run.

One thing I noticed right away is this is the first car I've run that consistently accelerates and brakes without pulling to one side. I wonder if the aluminum chassis provides more consistent flex, or if things are machined a bit more precisely for better alignment. I could never seem to get symmetrical rear toe on previous chassis.
Nice job Steve!!
__________________
Serpent America, Picco, Desoto Racing, Motiv, J Concepts, Nitro Pro fuel, PT RC Racing Oils, TQ Wire(best wire ever!), BSR tires, Arrowmax, Xceed, Sanwa, Amain Hobbies, MIP, Getcustomized, EZ Customs
chicky03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2014, 05:55 AM   #299
Tech Regular
 
Holmenkollen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sweden
Posts: 444
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzaah View Post
The alu chassis does not tweak. I've had some massive hits on practice days at my track and the chassis is bullet proof. It transitions so well don't underestimate how much a simple droop change can make. The set up window is huge and works very well in the low to medium traction asphalt I run on.

I've finally got the RRS set up to get what I feel is the desired toe gain and feel from the back end. I built some short links on xray ball ends to get a greater angle in the link. I've flipped the 4 degree c hubs to angle the steering arm higher up and I'm using the shortest link on the RRS block and 1mm of shim under the link on both ends. I've set up with 0/2.5 blocks using a 2/4 arm spacing. I can get -2.5 at ride height and -4 degrees at chassis flat. I found the back end didn't bite in just quite enough at -3.5 at compression. This means I could possibly get -1.5 at ride height and -4 at chassis flat of you took those shims out. Not sure if it will bind at that great an angle.

I then tried Gary's idea of adding extra Ackerman shims are really dug how that changes the steering arc. I feel like the suspension isn't working hard enough with the 450 oil I'm running so I'm hoping a change to 400 is going to help. I've also found with the Ackerman change going to a 4/5000wt diff has made the car super stable even with all this extra steering.
One other thing it found with the change in steering arc the new camber link locations on the upper bulk heads work really well. I'm undecided if I likes running this location in the front as the grip didn't go up enough on my last practice day.


I've had to change my lines on a number of corners but the car is awesome to drive. I'm hoping to get under my 13 flat this Friday night. I think new tyres might even be on the cards
What hole are you using on the steering spindle (rear)?
__________________
Xray - Hobbywing - Graupner
Holmenkollen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2014, 09:10 AM   #300
Tech Elite
 
Johnny Wishbone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,419
Trader Rating: 6 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linguster View Post
I am not any closer to an answer to the question if there is something strange with the diff housing I got with the 3.0 or if it is something wrong with my intellect I sent the question to Jirka working at the distributor in Germany but I have not heard back yet.

I am using a housing from a 2.0 car.
I actually found a older diff housing that is probably a V1 that doesn't have the deep plunge for the pin access, so I'm thinking you have a old one for some reson.

Quote:
Originally Posted by orcadigital View Post
2nd hand info, but I am told some of the Xray drivers were actually using 6 degree hubs angled forward to good effect.
I think the below, may be the answer to the above observation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzaah View Post
I've finally got the RRS set up to get what I feel is the desired toe gain and feel from the back end. I built some short links on xray ball ends to get a greater angle in the link. I've flipped the 4 degree c hubs to angle the steering arm higher up and I'm using the shortest link on the RRS block and 1mm of shim under the link on both ends. I've set up with 0/2.5 blocks using a 2/4 arm spacing. I can get -2.5 at ride height and -4 degrees at chassis flat. I found the back end didn't bite in just quite enough at -3.5 at compression. This means I could possibly get -1.5 at ride height and -4 at chassis flat of you took those shims out. Not sure if it will bind at that great an angle.

I'll explain, going to the 4 or the 6 will shorten the measurement to the inner RRS mount point and the steering hub, so this should give you more toe at compression. I think that is the missing information we need to get that extra amount we are looking for.

I also wonder if, at some point the bind will require DCJ instead of stock axles.

As far as the hole mounting for the steering hub, I don't think its going to make a difference as we don't get into the arc of the steering enough to have the ackerman effecting it, the static toe is set, using either hole, but it doesn't effect the pull of the steering hub one way or the other, JMO. But, I too would be curious to know which one your using.
__________________
Gary Lanzer
Johnny Wishbone 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 01:59 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