Like Tree105Likes

F1 prototype 2017

Reply

Old 04-27-2017, 10:27 AM
  #16  
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (13)
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Arizona
Posts: 937
Trader Rating: 13 (100%+)
Default

Looking fantastic! But I'm still struggling with using a belt for the final drive. The only reason I've ever used a belt in a design is if I have a long distance to cover from the input to the output. Having a belt with the driving and driven pulleys so close together just seems strange to me. At that point I will always use a gear set because they are more efficient.
glennhl is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2017, 11:03 AM
  #17  
Tech Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Czech republic
Posts: 256
Default

What about using Tamiya XV01 internals as final drive? 33T pinion, 52T diff gear, 48p. They are very smooth and quiet.

http://www.rcsoup.com/wp-content/upl...0/P1060400.jpg
http://www.rcsoup.com/wp-content/upl...0/P1060391.jpg
Papi is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2017, 12:03 PM
  #18  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (36)
 
jlfx car audio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: jackson,tn
Posts: 3,627
Trader Rating: 36 (100%+)
Default

the spec r dif is proven to work better so for that reason im fine with the belt being used
jlfx car audio is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2017, 12:04 PM
  #19  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (36)
 
jlfx car audio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: jackson,tn
Posts: 3,627
Trader Rating: 36 (100%+)
Default

so when will they be shipping? i want one just for club racing and pit bling
jlfx car audio is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2017, 12:44 PM
  #20  
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Spring Hill Tn
Posts: 893
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by jlfx car audio View Post
so when will they be shipping? i want one just for club racing and pit bling
you don't have any room for pit bling
freebird is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2017, 05:57 AM
  #21  
Tech Addict
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
G-rem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Belgium
Posts: 746
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by JayL View Post
Longitudinal motor in middle of car "spur" on the diff, "pinion" on the motor, direct contact?
Hum, not sure to understand, can you please elaborate on your comment, please?

Originally Posted by glennhl View Post
Looking fantastic! But I'm still struggling with using a belt for the final drive. The only reason I've ever used a belt in a design is if I have a long distance to cover from the input to the output. Having a belt with the driving and driven pulleys so close together just seems strange to me. At that point I will always use a gear set because they are more efficient.
There are several reasons why I prefer using belt over gears:
- belt transmission is much quieter
- belt is meant to provide a more linear throttle response and higher top speed, making it ideal for large asphalt tracks
- it is compact: by using gear in the current design, I'll need to add one more gear to make the wheels turn in the right way (of course, I could turn the motor by 180 so that I can use only 2 gears)
- I know the design for a belt transmission works and I already have parts for that configuration (I don't have any gear transmission parts at the moment and I prefer to keep the prototype expenses as low as possible)
- internal ratio is far more easy to adjust as I use pulley gears from 3Racing in combination with the Spec-R gear diff. If I have to use gears, I know only few cars (mainly fwd cars, M05 or 3R FGX) with eventually something that could maybe work...

Originally Posted by Papi View Post
What about using Tamiya XV01 internals as final drive? 33T pinion, 52T diff gear, 48p. They are very smooth and quiet.

http://www.rcsoup.com/wp-content/upl...0/P1060400.jpg
http://www.rcsoup.com/wp-content/upl...0/P1060391.jpg
Originally Posted by jlfx car audio View Post
the spec r dif is proven to work better so for that reason im fine with the belt being used
As said above, I am not sure this can work, maybe it is feasible but I don't want to buy parts I'm not sure to use; the prototype is already expensive enough (200$ for printing the parts) and I have to keep in mind I'll have to make some parts in carbon and in alu in order to test the car on track.

Plus the Spec-R diff is far better than the genuine 3R FGX gear diff (gear transmission) and I can find parts easily.

Originally Posted by jlfx car audio View Post
so when will they be shipping? i want one just for club racing and pit bling
Haha, not in the planning for now
I think I'll make another 3D printing for this new design, then I'll have to adjust or correct issues if any, and finally I'll make some parts in carbon (chassis, upper deck, floor, rear suspension arms,...) and some in alu (rear mounts,...)

Thanks all for your comments!

Regards,
G-rem
G-rem is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2017, 08:18 AM
  #22  
Tech Addict
iTrader: (48)
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 687
Trader Rating: 48 (100%+)
Default

G-rem any up date on your F1? Have you tried using awesomatix damper system?
v_squared is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2017, 08:31 AM
  #23  
Tech Addict
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
G-rem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Belgium
Posts: 746
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by v_squared View Post
G-rem any up date on your F1? Have you tried using awesomatix damper system?
Hi,

no big updates for now, I've just done some minor changes to better suit AE wings, body,... In fact, I am nearly ready to print the V2 prototype, which should be done by the end of this month

Regarding the Awesomatix dampers, it would be difficult to use them because there is very little space at the rear of the car. Plus they don't look very realistic compared to real cars, so I prefer sticking to the in-board suspension

Cheers,
G-rem
wtcc likes this.
G-rem is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2017, 11:29 AM
  #24  
Tech Rookie
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 11
Default

The design definitely looks nice and might work fine, don't get me wrong. But instead of schmoozing your work to the point of no return, may I suggest some improvements, specifically regarding the suspension:

The mono shock in the front doesn't allow for independent front suspension because if one side moves upwards, it'll pull the other side up with it. Logically it would be better to run 2 shocks in the front like you did in the back.

Now with 4 aluminium shocks your car will weigh a ton compared to other current F1 chassis with a pretty high COG, too.
Maybe it would be much simpler and lighter if you used fixed lower a-arms with kingpin suspension on all 4 wheels and use the push-rod-mechanic to activate some longitudinally mounted damper-tubes from a 12th scale car.
Of course, you'd have to mount the push-rods on the upper swingarm then and not the lower one

That way you still basically have indipended suspension with dampening on all wheels but lighter, cheaper (you could use turnbuckles from existing 12th or F1 cars), sturdier (you can make the lower a-arm nice and thick, less moving parts, less ball joints), lower COG and it'll fit nicer underneath the body cuz let's be honest: the shocks are pretty big for the snug fitting bodyshells
..
.
.
.
edit: I don't mean this in a harsh way at all btw. I understand that it's freaking cool to have longitudinal shocks like the real F1 car adn it further underlines the "scale" factor of the F1 class but I imagine it'd be pretty frustrating to build a car on your own that looks cool as hell but gets outperformed like crazy by people who bought their cars
Obstsalat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2017, 12:51 PM
  #25  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (69)
 
1/8 IC Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: North America & Europe
Posts: 3,431
Trader Rating: 69 (99%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Obstsalat View Post

The mono shock in the front doesn't allow for independent front suspension because if one side moves upwards, it'll pull the other side up with it. Logically it would be better to run 2 shocks in the front like you did in the back.
It can be done, has been done in 1/5, also in full size ala one spring setup 2 dampners, just a bit complicated...
Attached Thumbnails F1 prototype 2017-berg-f1.jpg   F1 prototype 2017-single-shock-system.jpg  
1/8 IC Fan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2017, 02:37 PM
  #26  
Tech Rookie
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 11
Default

Originally Posted by 1/8 IC Fan View Post
It can be done, has been done in 1/5, also in full size ala one spring setup 2 dampners, just a bit complicated...
sure it CAN be done. But I was talking about his contruction here...not about mono-shocks in general and he didn't allow for independant movement so that's why his monoshock construction is flawed
Obstsalat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2017, 04:59 AM
  #27  
Tech Addict
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
G-rem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Belgium
Posts: 746
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Obstsalat View Post
The design definitely looks nice and might work fine, don't get me wrong. But instead of schmoozing your work to the point of no return, may I suggest some improvements, specifically regarding the suspension:

The mono shock in the front doesn't allow for independent front suspension because if one side moves upwards, it'll pull the other side up with it. Logically it would be better to run 2 shocks in the front like you did in the back.

Now with 4 aluminium shocks your car will weigh a ton compared to other current F1 chassis with a pretty high COG, too.
Maybe it would be much simpler and lighter if you used fixed lower a-arms with kingpin suspension on all 4 wheels and use the push-rod-mechanic to activate some longitudinally mounted damper-tubes from a 12th scale car.
Of course, you'd have to mount the push-rods on the upper swingarm then and not the lower one

That way you still basically have indipended suspension with dampening on all wheels but lighter, cheaper (you could use turnbuckles from existing 12th or F1 cars), sturdier (you can make the lower a-arm nice and thick, less moving parts, less ball joints), lower COG and it'll fit nicer underneath the body cuz let's be honest: the shocks are pretty big for the snug fitting bodyshells
Hi Obstsalat and thank you for your comment, I think it is always good to get different opinions, that's how we can go further

Regarding the monoshock front suspension configuration, you are absolutely right in the description you've made.
I took my informations from the French 1/5 F1 champion (who runs with a Genius FR2), as the design is mainly inspired by this category. He told me that on their car, they usually lock the side movement allowed by this suspension configuration, because it helps to calm down the front end. As I understood the functionning process, it acts so more like an anti-roll bar than a "real" suspension system.
As I have absolute no idea how it will perform on track, the testing process will be very important. But I'm very enthusiastic to see the result (and that's why I planned a more common front suspension system with 2 shocks in my drawings, in order to have something ready to compare). The only certainty I have is the fact that front end rolls very very few (I mean: the suspension moves are very small on this kind of car, at least at the front), so maybe this could work

Concerning the 4 alu shocks, once again you are right. But my goal is to have a car that looks and reacts on track like the real ones; I'm not driven by the only performance, even if I hope it will behave well My car won't be allowed to run in competition anyway, so that's absolutely not a problem.
The shocks I'll use are the CRC Encore ones, so 1/12 size, which are smaller than touring shocks (but still heavier than a classic design).
My last trial conversion of the FGX weighted "only" 1,1kg, so basically only 50g above the weight limit in Europe, not so bad for such a different design. The goal here is to reach at least the same weight, which should be managable as I'll use some 3D printed parts that are lighter than nylon & carbon injected plastic parts.

Finally, all the measures have been done to fit under the FGX body. I think Bittydesign bodies should also fit, but not the PF.

Once again, thank for your comment, I'll keep them in mind for further improvements if needed

Regards,
G-rem
G-rem is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2017, 05:41 AM
  #28  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (69)
 
1/8 IC Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: North America & Europe
Posts: 3,431
Trader Rating: 69 (99%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Obstsalat View Post
sure it CAN be done. But I was talking about his contruction here...not about mono-shocks in general and he didn't allow for independant movement so that's why his monoshock construction is flawed
I did not say anything about his design, or anything countering your statement, just merely that it can done.
1/8 IC Fan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2017, 03:36 AM
  #29  
Tech Addict
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
G-rem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Belgium
Posts: 746
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Hi there,

I am considering introducing some lateral "slop" in the front monoshock suspension design in order to try to get some more independant moves, either by o-rings at both sides between the support and the lever, either by belleville washers.

Any thoughts about this?
G-rem is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2017, 06:01 AM
  #30  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (1)
 
30Tooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: My house.
Posts: 3,470
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Basically up travel adjustment...that way you can tune roll independent from heave, it's done that way in 1:1. Only lacking now a roll bar.
30Tooth is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service