Go Back  R/C Tech Forums > General Forums > Electric On-Road
Top Racing Single Belt TC >

Top Racing Single Belt TC

Like Tree1Likes

Top Racing Single Belt TC

Reply

Old 10-18-2016, 02:29 AM
  #16  
Tech Master
 
vr01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Proud Qld'er in Sydney
Posts: 1,054
Default

I'm not sure there will be much to gain in efficiency but I suspect drivability might be improved particularly in mod, with less kickback in the belt. Looking at the chassis it looks like there are options to swap the motor / belt / battery layout and support shorty packs.

Can't wait to convert my existing S4's.
vr01 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2016, 07:05 AM
  #17  
Tech Master
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,156
Default

Originally Posted by niznai View Post
What a missed opportunity.

The belt should run down the middle, the motor centred with the tension run going under and the slack run going over.

And they still cut battery tape slots.

Well, at least this leaves scope for me to finish my design.
When you finish your design. I'd like to see the pics. And if you don't mind, on track performance video without video editing
Juan Aveytia is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2016, 07:50 AM
  #18  
Tech Elite
 
Skiddins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Windsor, UK
Posts: 4,839
Default

Originally Posted by vr01 View Post
I'm not sure there will be much to gain in efficiency but I suspect drivability might be improved particularly in mod, with less kickback in the belt. Looking at the chassis it looks like there are options to swap the motor / belt / battery layout and support shorty packs.

Can't wait to convert my existing S4's.
When running Mod you typically want different belt tensions between the front and rear belts (front tighter than rear), can't see how you could do with with a single belt unless you're using tensioners, which adds even more loss to the drivetrain.
Skiddins is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2016, 07:52 AM
  #19  
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (8)
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lynnwood, Washington
Posts: 871
Trader Rating: 8 (100%+)
Default

Not sure how the motor can be centered unless you design the car around shorty packs. Then you have the design challenges of a belt that goes over and under the motor.
malkiy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2016, 08:42 AM
  #20  
Tech Master
 
EricF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: AZ
Posts: 1,547
Default

... Losi XXXS... but better ;-/???
EricF is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2016, 09:03 AM
  #21  
Tech Elite
 
niznai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: All over the place
Posts: 2,965
Default

My design has the lower run (the tension run) IN the chassis bottom plate. The plate is cut longitudinally all the way between the front and rear pulley.

That is so I can centralise motor, battery, steering servo.

The return (slack) runs above the motor, hopefully very low so the CG doesn't suffer that much.

I am not sure about efficiency dis/advantages, but I would say what you want is to try to eek enough advantage from having a virtually perfectly symmetric chassis (weight distribution and torsional rigidity) to offset any potential disadvantage in efficiency, higher CG, etc.

Not sure if this idea is going to revolutionise TC (most likely not), but it is what I am interested in.

Juan, you'll have a long wait to see a video. I don't have the time or machinnery to cut chassies, CNC, etc. I was hoping some smart cookie (big company, hint, hint) was going to do something like this, or at least come up with a perfectly symmetric bottom chassis so I can use that as a test mule before I drop serious money in it.
niznai is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2016, 09:16 PM
  #22  
Tech Master
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,156
Default

Getting by the conversion tomorrow. Should have it ready for the Fresno race
Juan Aveytia is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2016, 04:34 AM
  #23  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (99)
 
corallyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Edmonds, Wash
Posts: 4,613
Trader Rating: 99 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Juan Aveytia View Post
Getting by the conversion tomorrow. Should have it ready for the Fresno race
Juan,

Do you know of a place or somebody who may have a copy of the instructions, like a .pdf or something. Would love to see a bit more on this. Thanks
corallyman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2016, 05:16 AM
  #24  
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Medina, Ohio
Posts: 917
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Looks like Losi had it right 12 years ago. Just didn't execute the rest as well. Original HPI RS4 had a centered motor and battery (transverse).
old_dude is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2016, 06:40 AM
  #25  
Tech Master
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,156
Default

Corrallyman- I don't. My guess is that the instructions will be 1 page or so. It's jus a conversion
Juan Aveytia is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2016, 07:53 AM
  #26  
Tech Elite
 
Skiddins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Windsor, UK
Posts: 4,839
Default

Originally Posted by old_dude View Post
Looks like Losi had it right 12 years ago. Just didn't execute the rest as well. Original HPI RS4 had a centered motor and battery (transverse).
I think you mean 'also did it this way', not 'had it right 12 years ago'
Whether this design works with the modern high torque motors etc, and the greater power levels we have now, remains to be seen.
Skiddins is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2016, 09:00 AM
  #27  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (57)
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Raleigh, North Carolina
Posts: 2,752
Trader Rating: 57 (100%+)
Default

I do like the simplicity of the design but we'll see performance wise.
Antimullet is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2016, 09:48 AM
  #28  
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (13)
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Arizona
Posts: 941
Trader Rating: 13 (100%+)
Default

Interesting concept, but I really don't get it. One less drive pulley, but have to add an idler pulley. One less belt, but the one belt is much longer. I don't see an efficiency gain, maybe an efficiency hit because of the idler pulley drag. All this to get rid of a small belt, doesn't add up. Looks to me like someone did it just to do it.
glennhl is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2016, 11:10 AM
  #29  
Tech Fanatic
 
daleburr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Posts: 915
Default

Originally Posted by glennhl View Post
Interesting concept, but I really don't get it. One less drive pulley, but have to add an idler pulley. One less belt, but the one belt is much longer. I don't see an efficiency gain, maybe an efficiency hit because of the idler pulley drag. All this to get rid of a small belt, doesn't add up. Looks to me like someone did it just to do it.
About sums it up
daleburr is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2016, 12:00 PM
  #30  
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Medina, Ohio
Posts: 917
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Skiddins View Post
I think you mean 'also did it this way', not 'had it right 12 years ago'
Whether this design works with the modern high torque motors etc, and the greater power levels we have now, remains to be seen.
Maybe I should have said marketed it first. It was a pia to assemble but easy to adjust tension and pinion mesh. I still have one setting in my basement.
RS4 was a two belt car just to mention that.
old_dude is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service