Go Back  R/C Tech Forums > General Forums > Electric On-Road
Serpent Project 4-X >

Serpent Project 4-X

Like Tree260Likes

Serpent Project 4-X

    Hide Wikipost
Old 11-21-2016, 06:09 AM   -   Wikipost
R/C Tech ForumsThread Wiki: Serpent Project 4-X
Please read: This is a community-maintained wiki post containing the most important information from this thread. You may edit the Wiki once you have been a member for 90 days and have made 90 posts.
 
Last edit by: WagwanBumba
Introduction
This is a wiki page for the new and very interesting concept 4-X from Serpent. This is wiki is meant to develop and grow as more is understood about the car.

Serpent's Product Page - http://www.serpent.com/product/400030
The 4-X Development Story - Here

Manual - Here

Spring Chart
SOFTEST
  • 401705 Spring white C4.4 4X (2)
  • 401706 Spring yellow C4.9 4X (2)
  • 401707 Spring orange C5.5 4X (2) = kit
  • 401708 Spring red C6.3 4X (2)
  • 401709 Spring pink C6.9 4X (2)
  • 401710 Spring blue C7.6 4X (2)
  • 401711 Spring purple C8.4 4X (2) = kit
  • 401712 Spring greenC9.5 4X (2)
  • 401713 Spring grey C10.9 4X (2)
  • 401714 Spring black C12 4X (2)
HARDEST

Build Tips

RCBuilds.net Build, tip guide and youtube video - http://www.rcbuilds.net/builds/onroa...nt-project-4x/
Heave + Roll Damper Build Tips
Pivot Ball Nut Tip

Setups



Setup Tips

Ride Height Adjustment
Adjusting tweak with roll damper
Usage of washer on lower arm
Tuning ARS


Option Parts List


Social Media

Facebook 4-X Group

Print Wikipost

Old 08-31-2017, 03:58 PM
  #361  
Tech Master
iTrader: (16)
 
snuvet75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,590
Trader Rating: 16 (94%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Holmenkollen View Post
I had the same experience when running outside. The rear end washed out. In modified this is not a good thing. Bought a T4 2017 and lowered my 5 min time with 6s first run. The 4X can be very fast for some in certain situations but also very difficult in other. I feel that the setup window is small, where the car actually works, compared to a more convential touring car. Many people here prefers the Eryx 4.0 outside instead.
I hope you're wrong. I'll get back to you once I have more experience with this still-funky-looking machine.

Originally Posted by Benzaah View Post
Some suggestions for asphalt. I Never run the h blocks, too stiff. Try running 2 or 1mm under the arm mounts front and rear to raise the roll centre. Try running 2/3 mm of caster shims behind the rear top arms, this also creates more rear steer. I'm running 2k2hole orange heave front/ rear and 2k zero hole roll shocks grey or green rear springs andq green or purple front.
Thanks. Everybody seems to go with 0 hole roll dampers for sure. I'll try it next time.

Originally Posted by 30Tooth View Post
There you are!

Unpredictability on the rear off power during hi loads usually means there is a geometry issue (roll centre, alignment, camber gain,etc...).

Now, having parallel front arms is good actually! The rear roll centre just has to be a tick higher.
Yo! I know it's not alignment in my case. Next time, I'll remove H in the rear to try more camber gain and higher roll center. Since the default RRS(parallel to chassis) is set to maximum already there's nothing more to gain but certainly it's something worthwhile to play with a bit more.
Can you tell me why parallel lower and upper arms is a good thing?

Originally Posted by dan_vector View Post
In my testing outdoors the car is loose at the rear because it is rolling too much to the extent it's rolling off the rear tyre. It needs to be much stiffer in roll. Hence the blank pistons and 2-3k oil in the roll dampers. I'm up to using blues and grey springs in the roll dampers and the car is much better. I don't have the loose rear-end anymore in high speed corners. It just seems the harder I go the better the car gets. Bear in mind I'm running all the latest parts. I'm actually 1mm less shims under the rear upper arm mounts too. The car is getting better every run.
Will try the harder roll damping for sure. Not sure about new parts yet. So much more to test w/o those new parts yet

Originally Posted by Airwave View Post
I'm pleased to see that there are some people that agree with me.

By the way, I'm not sure that the RC are too deep in the ground. On my car, lower and upper arms are parallel with 2mm shim. With that, it is geometrically impossible that the RC is in the ground.

A little bit of help by RC Crew Chief would be nice for that.

The lower arms inserts are also buggering me. On my VBC, I have small shims in the rear and nothing in the front. Does anybody already tried to mount the rear arms support middle-up instead of middle-low?

Removing the H is a really bad idea as it will create some flex points. I'm considering using standoffs (from PC motherboard) instead of the H.
I didn't measure it using a tool so I could be wrong. I'll take a look again tonight but it seemed certainly very low to me. Especially when the arms are almost parallel, it's next to impossible to determine the crossing point unless somebody holds one freaky long ruler while the other holds the other.
Removing H is inevitable if I want to change the roll center but yeah your idea is not bad putting an improvised pole instead. Or I could grind down the H a little to create some room.
snuvet75 is offline  
Old 08-31-2017, 07:49 PM
  #362  
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 887
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by dan_vector View Post
In my testing outdoors the car is loose at the rear because it is rolling too much to the extent it's rolling off the rear tyre. It needs to be much stiffer in roll. Hence the blank pistons and 2-3k oil in the roll dampers. I'm up to using blues and grey springs in the roll dampers and the car is much better. I don't have the loose rear-end anymore in high speed corners. It just seems the harder I go the better the car gets. Bear in mind I'm running all the latest parts. I'm actually 1mm less shims under the rear upper arm mounts too. The car is getting better every run.
Roll centres were definitely too low stock. I've gone up to med-high roll centre on rear and 2mm shims all around. When running stock, the amount of wear on the carbon were a dead give away the rear was washing out hence loose rear on-power.

I just need to try these new parts once I've finished experimenting with the XQ1
snuvet75 likes this.
WagwanBumba is offline  
Old 09-01-2017, 03:43 AM
  #363  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: My house.
Posts: 3,555
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

I agree with Wagwan, raising the lower arms is a better thing to do if you want to raise roll centres without causing much trouble with part interference or modding parts, use high roll centre bushings exclusively. Then tune with upper shims if the roll centre is too high (the car will start to slide more at a certain point) to bring the roll centre a bit back. if there is too much camber gain then upper arm length has to be longer. Only those two things are needed, everything else will need a bit of tuning but it's easy to address.

Having the arms parallel(and more importantly parallel to ground) is good in a sense of the roll centre will be at ground level, zero height. That is perfect on the front as you have caster and camber gain to keep one from having too little camber once the car rolls and roll bars and roll dampers to limit if there is too much roll. In the rear one just runs one(or two) mm less on the upper arm support and presto, one item ticked to get a balanced car in driving manners.

One more thing, the Ackerman is "wrong". The way it's set means there's a lot of off centre steering, compounding the issue of the rear end. Using the rearmost hole on the wheel side will give less turnbuckle angle and less Ackerman. Everything lost can be achieved using other setup options.

In conclusion, the roll centre bushings need a change (don't change the upper shims without changing the bushings or you are making it more difficult to tune), the upper shims might need a change(depends on how the car will respond because the arm geometry mimics 1:1 race car engineering, which is a big plus),roll will be geometrically stiffer so a change in dampening might be needed and there is no need to change heave,only if the car dips or squats too much that it puts the tire in a non desirable alignment.


Will post something like this in my FB page. https://www.facebook.com/Hephaestus-...6808876003561/
30Tooth is offline  
Old 09-01-2017, 03:44 AM
  #364  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (27)
 
dan_vector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 4,186
Trader Rating: 27 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by snuvet75 View Post
I hope you're wrong. I'll get back to you once I have more experience with this still-funky-looking machine.



Thanks. Everybody seems to go with 0 hole roll dampers for sure. I'll try it next time.



Yo! I know it's not alignment in my case. Next time, I'll remove H in the rear to try more camber gain and higher roll center. Since the default RRS(parallel to chassis) is set to maximum already there's nothing more to gain but certainly it's something worthwhile to play with a bit more.
Can you tell me why parallel lower and upper arms is a good thing?



Will try the harder roll damping for sure. Not sure about new parts yet. So much more to test w/o those new parts yet



I didn't measure it using a tool so I could be wrong. I'll take a look again tonight but it seemed certainly very low to me. Especially when the arms are almost parallel, it's next to impossible to determine the crossing point unless somebody holds one freaky long ruler while the other holds the other.
Removing H is inevitable if I want to change the roll center but yeah your idea is not bad putting an improvised pole instead. Or I could grind down the H a little to create some room.
You gotta get the new parts on the car buddy. It's the first piece of the puzzle and then the way harder roll dampers/springs. It just transforms the car.
dan_vector is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 10:44 AM
  #365  
Tech Regular
iTrader: (24)
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: socal
Posts: 478
Trader Rating: 24 (100%+)
Default

When you guys run the VTD and want to run 2mm shims for the upper roll center, are you changing both the front and rear roll center at the same time? Otherwise if you just change one end the top deck is off no?
littleZEN is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 01:39 PM
  #366  
Tech Master
iTrader: (1)
 
Airwave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,409
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

So it will be the quest for roll centers...

I'm pretty sure that this car also have a very low center of mass, so it means that the roll center must be lower if you want to have the same roll momentum, just a matter of geometry.

The only thing I'm sure for that moment is that with an horizontal neutral roll axis, the cas is not efficient, you have understeering and a slipping rear at the same time!
Now I have to try lower the front roll center or higher the rear roll center to reach a good balance.
Airwave is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 03:26 PM
  #367  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: My house.
Posts: 3,555
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Airwave View Post
So it will be the quest for roll centers...

I'm pretty sure that this car also have a very low center of mass, so it means that the roll center must be lower if you want to have the same roll momentum, just a matter of geometry.

The only thing I'm sure for that moment is that with an horizontal neutral roll axis, the cas is not efficient, you have understeering and a slipping rear at the same time!
Now I have to try lower the front roll center or higher the rear roll center to reach a good balance.
Not that way! Roll centres aren't static when the car is in motion and 99% of the time they should be at least at ground level. For our case RC can never be set underground (most if not all TC use roll centres height of -2mm to -5mm). The front is bad, the rear is worse! For a natural driving feeling the rear roll centre has to be higher than the front. In the end you would make a good change,raising roll centres more than needed is asking for trouble so don't go overboard as you are right in your assumption.
30Tooth is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 04:02 PM
  #368  
Tech Master
iTrader: (16)
 
snuvet75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,590
Trader Rating: 16 (94%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Airwave View Post
So it will be the quest for roll centers...

I'm pretty sure that this car also have a very low center of mass, so it means that the roll center must be lower if you want to have the same roll momentum, just a matter of geometry.

The only thing I'm sure for that moment is that with an horizontal neutral roll axis, the cas is not efficient, you have understeering and a slipping rear at the same time!
Now I have to try lower the front roll center or higher the rear roll center to reach a good balance.
Center of mass meaning center of gravity? Why do you think the car is not efficient with lower CG? The lower the better. It is still above chassis in Project 4x. Even higher with upper deck I'm sure.

Last edited by snuvet75; 09-08-2017 at 12:13 PM.
snuvet75 is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 06:03 PM
  #369  
Tech Master
iTrader: (14)
 
roadrage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Palm Bay, FL.
Posts: 1,282
Trader Rating: 14 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by littleZEN View Post
When you guys run the VTD and want to run 2mm shims for the upper roll center, are you changing both the front and rear roll center at the same time? Otherwise if you just change one end the top deck is off no?
If using 2mm rear roll center shim you need to shim the vtd up 1mm in the rear under the mounting bracket.
littleZEN likes this.
roadrage is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 09:14 PM
  #370  
Tech Regular
iTrader: (24)
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: socal
Posts: 478
Trader Rating: 24 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by roadrage View Post
If using 2mm rear roll center shim you need to shim the vtd up 1mm in the rear under the mounting bracket.
Doh!! Thank you!! So simple I didn't even think of it.
littleZEN is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 09:18 PM
  #371  
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 887
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by snuvet75 View Post
Center of mass meaning center of gravity? Why do you think the car is not efficient with lower CG? The lower the better. It is still above chassis in Project 4x. Even higher with upper deck I'm sure. Having close distance between CG and RC is also always a good thing.
Lower CG is not necessarily better - look at the BD7'16
You need to balance the CG with the RC and then also consider the roll sensitivity given damping and spring rates on top of the CG and RC.

It's all a bit complicated for me, so only thing I do is go by that golden rule of change one thing at a time and try it out on track.

I for sure run higher rear roll centre by using 2mm rc shims all around and run mid-high pills on the rear and stay with mid-low on the front.
WagwanBumba is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 10:39 PM
  #372  
Tech Master
iTrader: (16)
 
snuvet75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,590
Trader Rating: 16 (94%+)
Default

Originally Posted by WagwanBumba View Post
Lower CG is not necessarily better - look at the BD7'16
You need to balance the CG with the RC and then also consider the roll sensitivity given damping and spring rates on top of the CG and RC.

It's all a bit complicated for me, so only thing I do is go by that golden rule of change one thing at a time and try it out on track.

I for sure run higher rear roll centre by using 2mm rc shims all around and run mid-high pills on the rear and stay with mid-low on the front.
What happened to BD7 '16? And I don't know why lower CG is not better unless it's below chassis which is impossible. Please enlighten me.
snuvet75 is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 11:17 PM
  #373  
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 887
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

BD7'16 was a dog of a car compared to its '14 and '15 variants. Primary change? Lower CG, smaller shocks.

I'm not saying it's not better - I'm saying that lower CG needs to be considered amongst other things too. If you change just the CG, but leave roll center and all your springs and damping the same, you'll end up with a much stiffer car setup that probably won't work.
WagwanBumba is offline  
Old 09-08-2017, 11:58 AM
  #374  
Tech Master
iTrader: (1)
 
Airwave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,409
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by snuvet75 View Post
Center of mass meaning center of gravity? Why do you think the car is not efficient with lower CG? The lower the better. It is still above chassis in Project 4x. Even higher with upper deck I'm sure. Having close distance between CG and RC is also always a good thing.
Thats not what I mean. I was just pointing the fact that the front and the rear RC are rarely at the same height.
snuvet75 likes this.
Airwave is offline  
Old 09-08-2017, 12:12 PM
  #375  
Tech Master
iTrader: (16)
 
snuvet75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,590
Trader Rating: 16 (94%+)
Default

Originally Posted by WagwanBumba View Post
BD7'16 was a dog of a car compared to its '14 and '15 variants. Primary change? Lower CG, smaller shocks.

I'm not saying it's not better - I'm saying that lower CG needs to be considered amongst other things too. If you change just the CG, but leave roll center and all your springs and damping the same, you'll end up with a much stiffer car setup that probably won't work.
snuvet75 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.