![]() |
Originally posted by GoldFinger Because when look it very carefully, the spur diameter is still big relatively to the carbon stiffener height. Somebody mentioned here that the 1st gear spur is like more than 60 teeth. Roughly calculating the number of teeth per 1/3 of the circular quadrant, I've came to a figure of 22 teeth. So my guess is that the total 1st gear spur should have about 66 teeth. The 1st gear pinion is 18T. In order to hit a final drive ratio of say 8.0, the internal ratio should be somewhere about 2.1 to 2.2. Well, these are just some conjured numbers and not necessarily true... |
fmolzer
To fmolzer:
yes, you are correct. Next time, i shall find someplace else to talk about subjects not very relevant to the topic. I apologize for trailing off. Oops, forgot to put the "I" there haha dont misunderstand |
1 Attachment(s)
Originally posted by InitialD I'm guessing here but I think the diameters of the spurs are the same (or close) to the original ones. In order to cram in more teeth in the spur, I think the large spur size is needed. ....... Somebody mentioned here that the 1st gear spur is like more than 60 teeth. Roughly calculating the number of teeth per 1/3 of the circular quadrant, I've came to a figure of 22 teeth. So my guess is that the total 1st gear spur should have about 66 teeth. The 1st gear pinion is 18T. In order to hit a final drive ratio of say 8.0, the internal ratio should be somewhere about 2.1 to 2.2. Well, these are just some conjured numbers and not necessarily true... But correct me if Im wrong, im no algebra expert : in order to achieve a "slower-rate power tranny" like S99(sorry) says, the internal ratio should be around 2.5~3. If it still 2~2.2 (current 705) the 2speed shaft is still turns in relatively higher speed comparing to other car. Im very happy to see the front diff pulley is being bigger:D , but when I see the counter(mid Pulley) is still around 16-17T, I hate that so much:flaming: I think a kevlar belted is no good to turn at such small diameter. |
Re: fmolzer
Originally posted by B To fmolzer: yes, you are correct. Next time, i shall find someplace else to talk about subjects not very relevant to the topic. Apologize for trailing off. |
Re: Re: fmolzer
Originally posted by GoldFinger I think with statement like this, this thread wil kept going..., and going.. and going..:D :) :D |
Originally posted by GoldFinger ...make sense to me. But correct me if Im wrong, im no algebra expert : in order to achieve a "slower-rate power tranny" like S99(sorry) says, the internal ratio should be around 2.5~3. If it still 2~2.2 (current 705) the 2speed shaft is still turns in relatively higher speed comparing to other car. If what I'm guessing about the internal ratio is correct, you only need to have large spurs (or smaller pinions, which is not the case if you're having 0.8 module gearing) to push up the final drive ratio. Still, I believe 18T on a 0.8 module pinion is small. I see Kyosho, Mugen and even NTC3 having the smallest pinion as 20T. Originally posted by GoldFinger Im very happy to see the front diff pulley is being bigger:D , but when I see the counter(mid Pulley) is still around 16-17T, I hate that so much:flaming: I think a kevlar belted is no good to turn at such small diameter. |
Originally posted by B To fmolzer: yes, you are correct. Next time, i shall find someplace else to talk about subjects not very relevant to the topic. Apologize for trailing off. At this point, there are nothing but opinions on the design. We can't make anything more or less because we don't own one yet. This forum is advertising right now more than anything else. |
For me I have to say that, despite being a newbie in GP cars, I will state that the best designed and handling cars are still your Kyosho Evo (not driven one yet), Mugen MTX3 and Serpent 705 (not in order ok). The TC3 is a great car but for the fragility.
Looking at the 710 I admire the way they have brought in some useful gimmicks (quick change gear box). The so called ART is a false description, it is not active, this is passive unlike what you had in F1 cars back in the late 80's. I can understand how it works, hence the need for 3 rear arms. Its like how the car will give more camber when the springs load up. This is a brilliant piece of work on Serpent's part! This car has definately taken RC car technology to a new level. We are now talking technical/mechanical engineering wars between car maker! No more your titanium and make the car lighter issues, its now down to pure technology. |
Originally posted by tIANcI The so called ART is a false description, it is not active, this is passive unlike what you had in F1 cars back in the late 80's. |
Originally posted by Proficar403 My impulse never developed slop in its three years under my control.:) |
Originally posted by InitialD Sorry for the nit picking... Active is used because its constantly changing. See this as an example of active suspension --> http://www-control.eng.cam.ac.uk/gww...is_active.html They used actuators. |
Originally posted by tIANcI Sorry ... the term active is used when it is not merely mechanical. There are sensors that will control it, active does not mean constantly changing. That is what they use in the F1 industry. In this case when we're talking small 1/10 scale cars, we don't expect their suspension to be controlled by actuators and solenoids and having F1 technology in it, don't we?:rolleyes: |
An "Active" suspension would set its self up for the part of the track it was about to encounter.
I think the true term for serpents system is "Reactive" The suspension "reacts" to the position of the rear arm. If I remember correctly this is what schumacher used on the front of their 2wd buggies. It reduced castor when the suspension compressed so that the car had more off power steering but it added castor when it extended to give more on power steering. |
Originally posted by InitialD :confused: Active here means just that. The wheel toe in changes in accordance to the suspension of the car. Can we call this passive? Whether it's changed by means of actuators or by way of the inherent design of the wheel hubs and knuckles, it's still active and not passive. In this case when we're talking small 1/10 scale cars, we don't expect their suspension to be controlled by actuators and solenoids and having F1 technology in it, don't we?:rolleyes: |
Originally posted by InitialD :confused: Active here means just that. The wheel toe in changes in accordance to the suspension of the car. Can we call this passive? Whether it's changed by means of actuators or by way of the inherent design of the wheel hubs and knuckles, it's still active and not passive. In this case when we're talking small 1/10 scale cars, we don't expect their suspension to be controlled by actuators and solenoids and having F1 technology in it, don't we?:rolleyes: |
| All times are GMT -7. It is currently 02:54 PM. |
Powered By: vBulletin v3.9.3.9 Patch Level 3
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.