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

Kyosho VoneR Thread

Like Tree1Likes

Kyosho VoneR Thread

Reply

Old 09-03-2003, 05:04 PM
  #8836  
Tech Elite
 
AMGRacer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 3,939
Default

Originally posted by StepPins
AMGRacer,
even though the new EVO front stabilizar bar holder is of a new mold, do you think/know if the v-one-rr stab bar holder will fit the new lower arms of the EVO conversion?
I'm still in the mist -- since a sales rep from Precision R/C says that the 3Racing (KV006) aluminum front stab bar holders for the v-one-rr will work.
I would rather ask you since you (IMO) have alot of knowledge about the v-one-rr and EVO conversion
Some guys on this forum say that it works fine. I personally like to use the appropriate size items as I feel that the "spring rate" of the bar may be affected with the extra length of the longer holder.

If you feel you need a alloy holder you can be assured that the 3 racing item will fit.
AMGRacer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2003, 05:06 PM
  #8837  
Tech Elite
 
AMGRacer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 3,939
Default

Originally posted by Diva
Harder or what?
They are called "HC" which standands for High Compression. I assume they are "stiffer" I have not visually compared them to the older items.
AMGRacer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2003, 05:09 PM
  #8838  
Tech Elite
 
AMGRacer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 3,939
Default

Originally posted by ziggy12345
Anybody have a decent setup for the V-ONE-RR on a bumpy track using rubber tyres?

Thanks
For bumpy tracks with rubber try the standard V1RR setup with the following changes:

Less camber (around 0-1 degree)
Much lighter shock oil (30 wt or so)
AMGRacer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2003, 05:52 PM
  #8839  
Tech Master
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: concord Ca
Posts: 1,440
Default

Originally posted by Taylor-Racing
You must have been a good boy all year - Merry Christmas, HAG.
Yes I have
HEYALIGNMENTGUY is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2003, 07:07 PM
  #8840  
B4
Tech Addict
iTrader: (1)
 
B4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 642
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Originally posted by AMGRacer
Some guys on this forum say that it works fine. I personally like to use the appropriate size items as I feel that the "spring rate" of the bar may be affected with the extra length of the longer holder.

If you feel you need a alloy holder you can be assured that the 3 racing item will fit.
I held the new sway bar holder and the 3racing one next to each other to again check for the difference. There are two major differences that i can see.
1) The locking screw is now moved to the bottom and is now a deeper thread than the original RR.
2) The length from the lower control arm pivot point to the inner end of the holder is now shorter than the 3racing one. Whilst in theory the 3racing one will fit as is I cut the length of mine back to match the the EVO version.

I actually like the EVO design sway bar holder and only made the changes to the 3racing version because I already had it.
B4 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2003, 07:52 PM
  #8841  
Tech Elite
 
AMGRacer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 3,939
Default

Originally posted by B4
<snip>I actually like the EVO design sway bar holder and only made the changes to the 3racing version because I already had it.
I agree with you. The new holder design is very good. I cannot see a requirement for a metal bar holder myself really. The argument is the holder flexes. Well this is true to a degree but:

1. The inbuilt flex (minimal) is already considered in the overall car design.
2. If you use a metal holder the flex is removed, but the screw on point into the arms then takes the flex. This will in fact cause the arm to flex instead (try it and you will see).

The holder looks great but functionality is negligable.
AMGRacer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2003, 08:02 PM
  #8842  
Tech Elite
 
AMGRacer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 3,939
Default

Testing results agains

Well I have made a "revelation" about this low CG stuff.

First a quick review of the CG theory. The CG of a car is located above the roll centre of the car. The distance between these two places determines how much roll force the car is subjected to. If you lower the CG of the vehicle the car will roll less given the same static damping, spring rate and suspension geometry.

Thus we all begin to see roll as the enemy and it must be avoided at all costs.

HOWEVER in some cases you need roll and sometimes lots of it. Weight on the tires is what produces the friction which produces grip. If your tire/track surface produces bulk grip you need less roll since the static or near static weight of the car is already producing enough weight on the tires for good grip.

However as the tire to track surface friction reduces (dusty and slick tracks) you need to jam more weight onto the vehicles outside tire to prevent the car from sliding. You want to balance the weight transfer so that the outside gets enough but the inside does not get too little.

Thus in this circumstance more roll through less anti-roll bar stiffness and spring rate is a large help.

Now with these lower CG cars they naturally roll less. This means that weight transfer is reduced (given the same spring rates) and in the case where you are struggling for grip it might be reduced too much.

I actually softened the suspension of my EVO and it goes far better on my lower grip track. Because of the lower CG you can go much softer springs and still not over roll on corners and maintain good corner speed.

On the old V1RR I was always goign harder springs to try and keep corner speed up. The EVO needs to be set softer than the V1RR for a give track/tire combo, but in fact retains more corner speed.

Sorry for the long post.............
AMGRacer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2003, 08:35 PM
  #8843  
Tech Prophet
 
InitialD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: MORDOR
Posts: 19,679
Default

Originally posted by AMGRacer
Sorry for the long post.............
No worries. It makes very interesting reading.

Another school of thought to make the car to roll less is to bring and increase the roll center closer to the CG instead of the CG closer to the roll center
InitialD is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2003, 08:38 PM
  #8844  
Tech Elite
 
AMGRacer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 3,939
Default

Originally posted by InitialD
No worries. It makes very interesting reading.

Another school of thought to make the car to roll less is to bring and increase the roll center closer to the CG instead of the CG closer to the roll center
Yes this is true, however an often undesired side effect of increased roll centre geometry is a movement in camber change under compression.

Higher roll centre usually means increased camber change under compression, too much of which removes too much contact patch under cornering loads.
AMGRacer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2003, 09:22 PM
  #8845  
Tech Elite
 
AMGRacer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 3,939
Default

I just got my temp gun from www.tempgun.com. This thing is pretty darned cool!!

The best feature is the max temp feature which reads the hottest point in the detection cone, so if you point it in the general direction of the glowplug you are pretty safe. Accuracy seems to be quite high.

Best part is price, US$35.
AMGRacer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2003, 09:29 PM
  #8846  
Tech Champion
 
Manticore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Heaven
Posts: 9,999
Default

Originally posted by AMGRacer
I agree with you. The new holder design is very good. I cannot see a requirement for a metal bar holder myself really. The argument is the holder flexes. Well this is true to a degree but:

1. The inbuilt flex (minimal) is already considered in the overall car design.
2. If you use a metal holder the flex is removed, but the screw on point into the arms then takes the flex. This will in fact cause the arm to flex instead (try it and you will see).

The holder looks great but functionality is negligable.
the problem with the stock plastic front blade holder is that it flex and you cannot set the blacde accurately.
Manticore is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2003, 09:31 PM
  #8847  
Tech Elite
 
AMGRacer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 3,939
Default

Originally posted by Manticore
the problem with the stock plastic front blade holder is that it flex and you cannot set the blacde accurately.
How so? I have never seen the actual holder itself flex while I move the suspension.

Also I seem to be able to get a balanced blade setup without any front end tweak...........???????
AMGRacer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2003, 09:33 PM
  #8848  
Tech Champion
 
Manticore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Heaven
Posts: 9,999
Default

Originally posted by AMGRacer
How so? I have never seen the actual holder itself flex while I move the suspension.

Also I seem to be able to get a balanced blade setup without any front end tweak...........???????
the adjustment knob doesnt work very well to set left/right balance. besides flex, it could be the molding problem that allows more slop between the knob and the blade holder.
Manticore is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2003, 09:38 PM
  #8849  
Tech Elite
 
AMGRacer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 3,939
Default

Originally posted by Manticore
the adjustment knob doesnt work very well to set left/right balance. besides flex, it could be the molding problem that allows more slop between the knob and the blade holder.
I agree the eccentric knobs can often be off. My car with shocks equal length and precicely the same droop requires the knobs to be at quite different positions to remove the tweak.

I am sure this is a molding problem from left to right.
AMGRacer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2003, 09:46 PM
  #8850  
Tech Champion
 
Manticore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Heaven
Posts: 9,999
Default

Originally posted by AMGRacer
I agree the eccentric knobs can often be off. My car with shocks equal length and precicely the same droop requires the knobs to be at quite different positions to remove the tweak.

I am sure this is a molding problem from left to right.
likely.... and the flex !
Manticore is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service