R/C Tech Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-28-2005, 04:12 AM   #46
Tech Master
 
bender's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,504
Trader Rating: 4 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by POOKYT
LMAO!!!! Ditto !!!

For the record, the XXXS has a less free dive train not from the belt rubbing the bottom cover but its from the big "S" bend the single belt has to go through. Gill Jr. and Todd have covered this a million times.

Brant
Actually, the bends are simply in a different spot to a 2-belt layout, the number of bends are the same. Plus one of those bends is inside-out, where there is less friction as the belt teeth are not "grabbing" the pulley.

Plus the single belt layout has the advantages of less roatating mass, including lighter diffs (with equal size outdrives left/right), equally-loaded diff outdrive bearings due to the centralised diffs, and less tooth surfaces to wear (3 vs 4).

Without wishing to argue against Todd or Gil Jr, it seems obvious to me that the reason Losi went to the 2 belt system for the JRXS was that it was the only system they could use to get around the inline battery-motor-servo layout - and that layout was obviously their priority.

To run an in-line layout with a single belt transmission would mean:

a) running the belt along the chassis under the cells (therefore raising the cells and cg.

b) running the belt above the cells by means of more pulleys = higher cg transmission with less effiency due to increased bends.

In a static state, the single belt will always feel worse - but under load is another story


My thoughts on the JRXS - it's the ugliest car I've ever seen....but we have two local guys running them and they are always quick - so it must still work
Attached Thumbnails
JRXS, blacksheep, ugly, unloved???-layout_1.jpg  
__________________
Jason W
FIR#2 - "You can't buy this much talent"
Durango Dex410 - Schumacher Cougar SV - Top Photon
bender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2005, 05:10 AM   #47
Tech Elite
 
ChadCapece's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: CofC
Posts: 3,313
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WD40
Anyone that read this statement above and got a negative idea about the JRX-S just hear this---> I was the one he was talking about that burned his belt and overheated my battery bar and shorted my battery out at the track. But ever since I switched to trinity plugs, I have had zero problems. That is the only complaint I have about the car....it's hard to direct solder your batteries....period. This is an excellent car and I totally disagree with the above statements. Sorry Chad I just had to say it

True, he did solve the problem. But the JRXS still has plastic bulkheads, needs new arms, and aluminium toe blocks.

Who ever said it was the easiest to work on has never seen a 415 MSX or Yokomo BD.
ChadCapece is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2005, 05:10 AM   #48
Tech Elite
 
sosidge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 3,865
Default

Well, you could run a single belt, all down one side of the batteries, with the offset diffs front and rear.
sosidge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2005, 05:22 AM   #49
Tech Regular
 
Rick Worth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Elmwood,Tn
Posts: 348
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

I switch the spur & pinion about every run to get the rollout exactly where we want it. Soldering in the batteries is a piece of cake with the bars bent out instead of in. Why do we need the new arms for carpet & foam? Why would you need the aluminum toe blocks?
Rick Worth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2005, 06:21 AM   #50
Tech Elite
 
RCknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,273
Trader Rating: 5 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huskerfreak
The BJ4 that won worlds had the motor in a differnt spot on the chassis with a different battery configuration. So there you go.

As for improving the concept of the xxx-s. Are you an enginner that does this stuff for a living? Do you run a multi million dollar rc company and know whats good for the company? Do you think the reason they went to a new platform is beacuse they had gotten all they could out of the xxx-s?

Look were associated is with the "improve the concept car" In the back of the pack following. If it wasent' for Baker the car would be all but dead.
Like I said before Jamee, we are just gabbing here on our own thread, and once again you don't read or listen. Go back to your JRX-S thread and keep tring to find that setup. First, yes the XXX-S belt did rub on the bottom chassis plate when the belt stretched, it would slap under load and off again if you ran the tentioner loose. I know, I had one. Second, Losi could slam the batteries closer to the center line with a cf chassis, something you see with all the tc design theses days. I'm sure you could enough that you wouldn't need to put weight on the battery side. The JRX-S has some great design features, that would go well with a redesigned XXX-S.

If you ask me AE's problem was not with releasing a improved car. It's there business practices, cover ups, denials and etc. That's what got them in hot water and was the biggest reason why I switched. I won't be back anytime soon. When they tell you your wrong, and later they fix something? Honestly is always the best policy and I'm glad I finally made the switch. Just my two cents.

Last edited by RCknight; 10-28-2005 at 05:28 PM.
RCknight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2005, 08:04 AM   #51
Tech Rookie
 
Klaus Daimler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ping Island
Posts: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by polesitter61
Matt Francis sure was fast at the on-road nats a few weeks ago, fast enough to win triple A-mains.
... in 19 Turn
Klaus Daimler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2005, 05:44 PM   #52
Tech Regular
 
Josh Numan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 389
Trader Rating: 12 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klaus Daimler
... in 19 Turn
19 turn is better then nuthing!! And almost all the same drivers where in the 19 turn main that was in the mod main,just so you know befor you laugh.
Josh Numan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2005, 06:01 PM   #53
Tech Elite
 
POOKYT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Cabot, AR
Posts: 3,584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bender
Actually, the bends are simply in a different spot to a 2-belt layout, the number of bends are the same. Plus one of those bends is inside-out, where there is less friction as the belt teeth are not "grabbing" the pulley.

Plus the single belt layout has the advantages of less roatating mass, including lighter diffs (with equal size outdrives left/right), equally-loaded diff outdrive bearings due to the centralised diffs, and less tooth surfaces to wear (3 vs 4).

Without wishing to argue against Todd or Gil Jr, it seems obvious to me that the reason Losi went to the 2 belt system for the JRXS was that it was the only system they could use to get around the inline battery-motor-servo layout - and that layout was obviously their priority.

To run an in-line layout with a single belt transmission would mean:

a) running the belt along the chassis under the cells (therefore raising the cells and cg.

b) running the belt above the cells by means of more pulleys = higher cg transmission with less effiency due to increased bends.

In a static state, the single belt will always feel worse - but under load is another story


My thoughts on the JRXS - it's the ugliest car I've ever seen....but we have two local guys running them and they are always quick - so it must still work

Bull Hockey!!! Take any belt you want and do what you want to it and the fact is that for every bend it makes i.e suface it touches the friction goes up! Any belt drive car on the maket with dual belts( if properly built) will have less friction than a single belt car because the 2 belts are traveling closer to a circle than a belt that has to make multiple bends. No flame here just having some good conversation!

Brant
__________________
EA Motorsports--B-Main Motorsports--Blizzard Concepts--Loose Nuts Racing--BigDog Graphics

My Carbon Footprint is Larger than Yours! :p
POOKYT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2005, 08:42 PM   #54
Tech Regular
 
RandomFellow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Plymouth, MI
Posts: 311
Trader Rating: 3 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soviet
I think it's one of the most original looking / functioning TCs to come about in quite a while.
I take it, then, that you've never seen an HPI Pro3?
Attached Thumbnails
JRXS, blacksheep, ugly, unloved???-hpi-pro3-4.jpg  
RandomFellow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2005, 09:03 PM   #55
Tech Elite
 
POOKYT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Cabot, AR
Posts: 3,584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomFellow
I take it, then, that you've never seen an HPI Pro3?
Man!!! If you had a pro 3 and added a CF chassis then you................Awwwww what am I saying?!! LMAO

Brant
__________________
EA Motorsports--B-Main Motorsports--Blizzard Concepts--Loose Nuts Racing--BigDog Graphics

My Carbon Footprint is Larger than Yours! :p
POOKYT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2005, 09:43 PM   #56
Tech Initiate
 
Red RSX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 39
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by POOKYT
Man!!! If you had a pro 3 and added a CF chassis then you................Awwwww what am I saying?!! LMAO

Brant

then you will have a prototype / final shape of (rear motored) JRXS => Pro-3 with CF Chassis... same ingredients..
Red RSX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2005, 10:07 PM   #57
Tech Initiate
 
Red RSX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 39
Default

Quote:
As for improving the concept of the xxx-s. Are you an enginner that does this stuff for a living? Do you run a multi million dollar rc company and know whats good for the company? Do you think the reason they went to a new platform is beacuse they had gotten all they could out of the xxx-s?
Didn't mean to argue with Gil Jr. Or Todd,
yes, I told you buddy, look it with detail and think it again, after put your anger on backseat,
there's a way out, batt can get way down closer to center (with CF Plate), single belt can replaced with dual belt (center) with ease,

Quote:
Look were associated is with the "improve the concept car" In the back of the pack following. If it wasent' for Baker the car would be all but dead.
fyi, Asso are now take over by taiwan company, racing maybe of their focus this season,
Red RSX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2005, 10:24 PM   #58
Tech Addict
 
Ghostfit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Milky Way
Posts: 617
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red RSX

then you will have a prototype / final shape of (rear motored) JRXS => Pro-3 with CF Chassis... same ingredients..
Quote:
Originally Posted by POOKYT
Man!!! If you had a pro 3 and added a CF chassis then you................Awwwww what am I saying?!! LMAO

Brant
You guys refering to my posts in this tread ??

http://www.rctech.net/forum/showthread.php?t=88436
Ghostfit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2005, 10:38 PM   #59
Tech Initiate
 
Red RSX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 39
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostfit
You guys refering to my posts in this tread ??

http://www.rctech.net/forum/showthread.php?t=88436
you mean this...
Quote:
.............
If it's that bad, why would a US company choose to copy the design ? ...and why are they raving about the US car ?

Granted, it does not have all the latest bells and whistles, but if you are broad minded enough to look beyond that, you'll see that it doesn't really need all the other features !

oh, and yes, ....The Pro3 was the car Hara won a Championship with !
..........
partly yes, I think team may finally realize the rear motored JRXS has more potent that first JRXS --> refer to Hara Pro-3, back 3 or 4 years ago
Red RSX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2005, 10:39 PM   #60
Tech Master
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Diego, Ca.
Posts: 1,024
Trader Rating: 29 (100%+)
Wink

the only time I ever saw pooky drive an original pro 3(not the proto copy of one he drives now )he just shook his head and said it wasnt fair having to run against it lol.....I personally still like the pro 3 myself, and still dont understand why it got such a bad name
Mdoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
IS YOUR BABY UGLY???? sirio man Chat Lounge 4 05-09-2007 08:49 PM
novak GTX $45.00 shipped (looks ugly) vintagetamiya R/C Items: For Sale/Trade 8 04-02-2007 02:22 PM
UGLY, but working AMB personal transponder! WYLDTHING R/C Items: For Sale/Trade 14 02-20-2006 03:23 PM
not all noob cars have to be ugly, do they? the #1 noob Painting, Designs, Graphics and Photography 9 02-07-2006 03:48 PM
New ugly top of the line radio! Super Steve Electric On-Road 48 04-25-2004 05:37 AM



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 03:50 AM.


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