JRXS, blacksheep, ugly, unloved???
10-28-2005, 03:12 AM
#46
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
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
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
10-28-2005, 04:10 AM
#47
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.
10-28-2005, 04:10 AM
#48
Well, you could run a single belt, all down one side of the batteries, with the offset diffs front and rear.
10-28-2005, 04:22 AM
#49
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?
10-28-2005, 05:21 AM
#50
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.
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.
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 04:28 PM.
10-28-2005, 07:04 AM
#51
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
10-28-2005, 04:44 PM
#52
Originally Posted by Klaus Daimler
... in 19 Turn
10-28-2005, 05:01 PM
#53
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
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
10-28-2005, 08:03 PM
#55
Originally Posted by RandomFellow
I take it, then, that you've never seen an HPI Pro3?
Brant
10-28-2005, 08:43 PM
#56
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
Brant
then you will have a prototype / final shape of (rear motored) JRXS => Pro-3 with CF Chassis... same ingredients..
10-28-2005, 09:07 PM
#57
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?
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,
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.
10-28-2005, 09:24 PM
#58
Originally Posted by Red RSX
then you will have a prototype / final shape of (rear motored) JRXS => Pro-3 with CF Chassis... same ingredients..
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
Brant
http://www.rctech.net/forum/showthread.php?t=88436
10-28-2005, 09:38 PM
#59
Originally Posted by Ghostfit
.............
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 !
..........
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 !
..........
10-28-2005, 09:39 PM
#60
Tech Master
iTrader: (29)
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
)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