R/C Tech Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-30-2003, 02:16 AM   #7996
Tech Prophet
 
InitialD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: MORDOR
Posts: 19,679
Default Re: need a measurements

What was the old engine mount height when the 35.7 mm diameter flywheel fitted fine on the stock chassis?
InitialD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2003, 02:40 AM   #7997
Tech Fanatic
 
Data's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NCC-1701E, the Enterprise
Posts: 765
Default Re: need a measurements

Quote:
Originally posted by finchy
Can anyone help me with some measurements. I would like to machine down my flywheel to suit some lowered engine mounts.

The fly wheel O/D is 35.7mm
New engine mounts are 14.5mm high.
the bottom surface of the two mounting flanges on the enigne lines up with the center of the shaft. for a set of 14.5mm tall engine mounts and a 3mm chassis, max. O.D. of the fly wheel is 35mm for it to work without any problem. i will cut it down to 34.5mm just to play it save.
Data is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2003, 02:45 AM   #7998
Tech Fanatic
 
finchy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 823
Default

Quote:
InitialD What was the old engine mount height when the 35.7 mm diameter flywheel fitted fine on the stock chassis?
The height of the old engine mounts are 16.7mm high. I guess you could take 2mm off but do you have to allow for knurling the flywheel.

finchy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2003, 03:08 AM   #7999
Tech Prophet
 
InitialD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: MORDOR
Posts: 19,679
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by finchy
The height of the old engine mounts are 16.7mm high. I guess you could take 2mm off but do you have to allow for knurling the flywheel.

To get it to where the flywheel would be with reference to the chassis when the new engine mounts are used, you need to take off 2.2 mm off (16.7 - 14.5) from the radius of the flywheel. So your engine flywheel should have a new diameter of 31.3 mm (35.7 - 2 x 2.2).

For the flywheel of the starterbox to crank the engine flywheel properly, you may have to open wider the flywheel opening hole in the chassis. Just double check.
InitialD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2003, 06:33 AM   #8000
Tech Fanatic
 
finchy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 823
Default

Quote:
To get it to where the flywheel would be with reference to the chassis when the new engine mounts are used, you need to take off 2.2 mm off (16.7 - 14.5) from the radius of the flywheel. So your engine flywheel should have a new diameter of 31.3 mm (35.7 - 2 x 2.2).
Thanks InitailID for the help
Cheers
finchy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2003, 08:55 AM   #8001
Tech Regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bronx,NY
Posts: 431
Send a message via AIM to Bxclip
Default

will the hpi .12r ss fit on the v one r?
Bxclip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2003, 10:56 PM   #8002
Tech Master
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: concord Ca
Posts: 1,440
Send a message via AIM to HEYALIGNMENTGUY Send a message via Yahoo to HEYALIGNMENTGUY
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Bxclip
will the hpi .12r ss fit on the v one r?
Yes, if it is the non pull start version, Don't forget the Kyosho side exhaust manifold
HEYALIGNMENTGUY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2003, 02:11 AM   #8003
Tech Elite
 
Vinyard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,493
Default

Any idea when the EVO RR is going be released?
Vinyard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2003, 03:52 AM   #8004
Tech Fanatic
 
finchy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 823
Default

Quote:
Any idea when the EVO RR is going be released?
Soon it's all ready released in Japan
finchy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2003, 04:05 AM   #8005
Tech Elite
 
Taylor-Racing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne OZ
Posts: 2,066
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by AMGRacer
I am not totally sure it will be needed. The Kyosho has always had better rear geometry than the MTX2 and with a lowered CG the rear roll centre will more closely match the overall car CG resulting in less roll anyway. I would have prefered the more adjustable approach but I think it may pan out ok.

I actually am usually chasing steering with my V1R and I often use lower shore front than rear tires. If these front mods aid the steering whilst retaining the rear stability (they should) then I will be happy
Yeah . . the only bit that annoys me is that we are supposed to get a lower CG with the lay-down servo, then promptly give it up by having to use the standard fuel tank.

. . . . hope the front mods work out - we'd be happy to get a bit more steering, also.
Taylor-Racing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2003, 04:30 AM   #8006
Tech Elite
 
AMGRacer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 3,939
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Taylor-Racing
Yeah . . the only bit that annoys me is that we are supposed to get a lower CG with the lay-down servo, then promptly give it up by having to use the standard fuel tank.

. . . . hope the front mods work out - we'd be happy to get a bit more steering, also.
The tank is not a big deal when you look at it really. The Mugen and Serpent tanks "look" lower but in fact they have a quite high CG because they have cutouts for the battery underneath them. The fuel sits quite high in both of these tanks because of this hollow, so while the Kyosho tank looks high the CG is probably quite similar. Also the V1R tank is centred unlike the Mugen and NTC3 so the overall effect on polar movement is less.
AMGRacer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2003, 04:38 AM   #8007
Tech Elite
 
Taylor-Racing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne OZ
Posts: 2,066
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by AMGRacer
The tank is not a big deal when you look at it really. The Mugen and Serpent tanks "look" lower but in fact they have a quite high CG because they have cutouts for the battery underneath them. The fuel sits quite high in both of these tanks because of this hollow, so while the Kyosho tank looks high the CG is probably quite similar. Also the V1R tank is centred unlike the Mugen and NTC3 so the overall effect on polar movement is less.
Yes, your right. I guess I'm just bitching because I'll need to provide the budgetry requirements for a new tank.

Have you had a close look at the new front geometry?
I'm wondering if it's going to correct the F/R geometry changes caused by using the overdrive pulleys and the consequent smaller front tyres.
Any thoughts on this theory?
Taylor-Racing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2003, 05:10 AM   #8008
Tech Elite
 
AMGRacer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 3,939
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Taylor-Racing
Yes, your right. I guess I'm just bitching because I'll need to provide the budgetry requirements for a new tank.

Have you had a close look at the new front geometry?
I'm wondering if it's going to correct the F/R geometry changes caused by using the overdrive pulleys and the consequent smaller front tyres.
Any thoughts on this theory?
Hard to say without looking at it in my hand. Longer arms make the car more stable and less prone to roll/pitch. If the upper arm is shorter it will affect the camber change and if the upper arm is more angled it will lower the roll centre. That is all I can say for now

I must say that I am routinely now using lower shore tires on the front and softer front springs than rear (eg. black front and rear rear) This is mainly to try and get the car to turn in hard (note I am going into corners pretty damn hot without brake usage) More front bite I think will balance this car out rather than more rear bite. My experiments with the M1RR rear end proved to be very successful in some ways (rear was more stable in some circumstances) but it actually removed a lot of steering from the car exacerbating the slight tendency to understeer. Bring on the EVO!
AMGRacer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2003, 06:09 AM   #8009
Tech Elite
 
Taylor-Racing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne OZ
Posts: 2,066
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by AMGRacer
Hard to say without looking at it in my hand. Longer arms make the car more stable and less prone to roll/pitch. If the upper arm is shorter it will affect the camber change and if the upper arm is more angled it will lower the roll centre. That is all I can say for now

I must say that I am routinely now using lower shore tires on the front and softer front springs than rear (eg. black front and rear rear) This is mainly to try and get the car to turn in hard (note I am going into corners pretty damn hot without brake usage) More front bite I think will balance this car out rather than more rear bite. My experiments with the M1RR rear end proved to be very successful in some ways (rear was more stable in some circumstances) but it actually removed a lot of steering from the car exacerbating the slight tendency to understeer. Bring on the EVO!
Hmmm . . I thought that both upper and lower EVO arms were longer.
Ahhh, I guess we'll really need to see it.

On the set-up front, we haven't used the M1RR rear end yet, partly because there are so many other things I wanted to try in order to get a proper base line. I think I mentioned that I couldn't get the super hard Fantom springs to work for us, and I dare say there are track differences underlying part of this.
We have seemed to have settled on black front and gold rear springs, lately, for Lilydale - some of this was intended to kill a bit of rear grip and, thus get some more steering.

For tyres, we also run softer fronts than rears, and yes, this gets the desired steering. Interestingly, the F/R balance seems better and more forgiving, also. In fact, we ran 35F/35R at Lilydale last meeting, which was a bit OTT but the grip obtained was tremendous, though tyre wear was worse, as you might expect. We run Active tyres, and they seem more forgiving of a "too grippy" tyre choice and the weather differences in Melbourne are more marked than Brisbane and this would account for part of it - the last meeting at Lilydale was only 14 C or something.
With this grippy set-up, I run less rear toe-in (maybe only 1.5) and it keeps the rear more progressive and less "snappy" - helpfull when you really do have too much grip.

We're also running the car higher than usual - 5.0 front and 5.5 rear, together with more tightly limited droop - I'll need to take a measurement.
I'm pretty happy with this set-up even though it seems a bit strange - and the Mugen's don't seem to have anything on it, any more.
Taylor-Racing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2003, 06:12 AM   #8010
Tech Elite
 
Taylor-Racing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne OZ
Posts: 2,066
Default

Hey, what about some weekend race reports, guys?

Not much news from me . . . we went to Castlemaine, all fired up . . . RAIN AGAIN . .

. . . but the Mini Z pool was a lot of fun.
OZDC showed all how it is done.
Taylor-Racing is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Kyosho VoneR Roller $120 Tag R/C Items: For Sale/Trade 4 08-06-2003 07:22 PM
kyosho VoneR w/ nova, pipe $200 Tag R/C Items: For Sale/Trade 9 07-25-2003 03:09 AM
Kyosho VoneR Macky R/C Items: For Sale/Trade 6 07-31-2002 09:04 AM
Brand new Kyosho VoneR kit $230 Tag R/C Items: For Sale/Trade 0 10-22-2001 02:12 PM
NIB Kyosho VoneR $250 Tag R/C Items: For Sale/Trade 4 10-21-2001 06:39 PM



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 06:50 AM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Powered By: vBulletin v3.9.2.1
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Advertise Content © 2001-2011 RCTech.net