hitcharide1

iTrader: (1)

I've got the front end just about complete and some machining to go to get the rear end assembled.

First, let's hope the fate of the world never depends on my machining skills. Tom's better at it but he's busy with other stuff.

If I recall (and given my memory, that's debatable) you Motonica guys are basically using front hubs like on a 4wd, pillow balls and such. I've replaced some front hubs over the year on my 4wd, and I'm wondering now as to their durability given a car that now has no suspension/flex to take some of the strain. I'm already looking into getting some aluminum hubs made but I wonder if anyone else has had an issue with fragility.

Next...looking at some pics of a Motonica P8.0, I notice the front of the thing (oddly similar to what I'm building, tho I got my idea from a Delta Phaser) has a FLOATING front end. Is this considered suspension?? I know most of the old flat pans have a "wobble" area (on a Delta, you loosen the front servo mount screw in order to give the chassis more flex in the turns) but a full floating front end seems more like suspension to me. If it's legal to you guys, I may consider duplicating a version of it, since that'd relieve some of the strain on my plastic/nylon pieces. Thanx.....

aarcobra

iTrader: (12)

[COLOR="Red"]The front end is mounted on a seperate piece, but the discussions I have had, agreed that it is for tweek adjustment and is too stiff to act as suspension. That may or may not always be true but it should be!! I would say it it starts to flex more at the plate than at the chassis, it would be illegal and need to be teched (I hope it doesn't come to that...) The beam front end I mention above could be mounted either on the chassis or a plate. Again I would like to see a simple front end (whole car!!) with an MRP type tweek plate tried....Good luck!!!!

hitcharide1

iTrader: (1)

Stiff it may be, but it can be loosened and would allow for a lot more movement than the typical pan car. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with it, and like I said, I'd be apt to emulate it, but I think it'd be really pushing the envelope, especially when I remember comments from some saying how locking out a suspension 2wd wouldn't be allowed as the simple flex/slop/give in the parts themselves would disqualify it. in short, if the new Motonica setup is considered legal to run, then as far as I'm concerned, any suspension 2wd with the suspension locked out will also be legal (tho I doubt anyone would try such a setup anyways.)

I don't have a beam type front axle...it's round, goes through the two bulkheads, which are slit cut, tapped and drilled. You roll the axle to give you whatever degree you want, then tighten down on the locking screws and you're done. The new Motonica 2wd appears to have more or less the same thing (tho smaller, lighter, and much nice looking than mine, tho also not nearly as bulletproof.) Then again, I'm building a car for newbies, if/when I go into production I'll include a set of rubber tires so a person can practice before coming to the track. I'm just hoping that the front hubs can be done in aluminum without being too expensive since I'll outsource those..and I'd probably put them on my 4wd as well. I'm still trying to keep costs down as well..........

aarcobra

iTrader: (12)

Phil, Maybe you were not around when we started talking about this a couple of years ago...It was specifically stated that no "locked out" suspension cars would be run. Since most of the suspension part are made of plastic. there could be more flex than on the Moto and it would be "independent on each side, where the Moto "rocks". I would ask that if suspension design goes the way you are talking about, a rule would be made to limit the axle movement to .XXX" with .YY lbs. hanging from the wheel when the chassis is held flat at points to be specified. Let's keeep it a PAN CAR CLASS!

As far as messing with the front "Flex" seems kinda backwards as we are running harder tires on the front to get rid of steering. Adding any type of "suspension" to the front would add grip, causing the car to tend to oversteer, not really what we are looking for. Of course as things progress more steering may be needed, so I would say limit this stuff now!

As far as the front hubs, the shape and the threading will add cost as well as much machining is necessary. Unless you have free CNC time $$$. The round front beam worked great back in the day andmight still be good. Roy Moody started using that on his cars and Delta copied. Just remember one mount is clamped the other is a slip fit. If both are tight the tweek will be a problem. Another way around it is to have a split front beam with a pin connecting the two together in the middle and clamp both mounts.

2wdrive

Seeing that in a highly competitive enviroment all manufacturers are using pivotballs for the front plate (motonica as well now) tells me that pivotballs for the front plate works better than foam discs even though in theory the front plate can "float" on the foam discs.

I am not sure if the p8.0 is a good example for inspiration with your DIY project.
As an inspiration this http://www.rcbazar.net/modules.php?n...ticle&sid=1313 would probably do a better job and is in line with what you want to do with the front end.

hitcharide1

iTrader: (1)

I disagree with you about former suspension cars. Point being, something somewhere is going to move. Now, something moving that is unpredictable is called SLOP. Something moving that you can regulate via springs, shocks, or a flex plate could be called SUSPENSION. Again, I don't have a problem with the new Motonica setup because it isn't full suspension. I believe it would add to the handling of the car, but with that said, it gives it an unfair advantage against cars that aren't so equipped. It's not an issue that's going to make or break someone in a main event (since accidents and other unpredictable things happen) but it doesn't seem fair to outlaw one thing where movement isn't preplanned while allowing something else where the movement is both preplanned and regulated. (Note..we're not going to see some sudden rash of guys with locked-out suspension cars running, mostly because what's left of them are shelf queens, but also because there is sort of a shortage of parts for any such cars out there, and the weight disadvantage of all that extra running gear that is now locked out wouldn't help either. But I'd still let that person run if they want. My feeling is we don't have so many people that we can afford to exclude anyone without very good cause.)

Another fr'instance. I'm going to try out some rubber tires this year on 2wd. The rules specifically state foam tires only, but we've agreed this is a Midwest thing (which to me means rules aren't set in stone, more of a consensus thing). The GT cars do rather well with them and I've been wondering for some time if they wouldn't work for us as well. If nothing else, they'd be excellent for the newbie who wants to putter without wasting far more expensive foam. If they do work on the track, I'd hope others would want to go that route as well and I'd be happy to supply anyone with a set at cost (about 30 bucks for a set of four tires.) Then again, should the consensus be against rubber, my build will accept foam and I'll go that route. I don't think all the advancement in 2wd has been fully explored, since things went to suspension and then 4wd so quickly, and if there is any improvement that can be had to make our cars a little quicker, more durable, and more cost efficient, then count me in.

hitcharide1

iTrader: (1)

The link you posted is exactly what I'm getting at, tho the builders of that thing are clearly smarter and better at design than I am. And here I thought I was thinking "outside the box." Now pardon me while I gather up what remnants of ego I have left and go mess with more aluminum...

By the way...that's a good looking car!

Taylorm

....thought we already hashed out the no "locked out" suspensiom thing as well as no arms on pivot pins.......i don't consider the rocking front end as suspension....i bet if you completely locked the front end on any given Motonica the handling wouldnt change much.......my scratch pan will have no articulation .....as Phil said...we dont have the #s to exclude someone because of "suspension"......my old RC300 ran great with no suspension..(when it wasnt exploding clutches or killing rear tires...)....i say ok to floating front ends......and also t-bar cars like my old Davis 300....

hitcharide1

iTrader: (1)

I originally wanted to go with a t-bar setup but couldn't figure out a way to do it given my drivetrain...unless I put it in front...in which case it'd either weaken the car or I'd have to beef it up to the point where it'd be no help. I know the issue on suspension cars and the concensus on it, I just don't agree with it, that's all. Frankly, I'd have a class of "run what ya brung" just to get more numbers and eventually coax a few more to move up to what the majority are running, but I don't think that idea is very popular either. Meh. As long as I have gas money and there's a track, I still get to play, so I'm not complaining..............much.

5italkart

iTrader: (2)

that is a nice car on that link, ah the fun you can have with cad software and a little mach. at one time i considerd a front kinda like the old rc12I. just a couple slits in the chassis too smooth out the ride.

hitcharide1

iTrader: (1)

As I said, I suspect that between all of us, we've got ideas for improving things, I'm happy to run it as it is, but I want to tinker a little for improvement if I can get it. If you come up with an idea no one else is trying, go for it...you never know, it just might work and everyone wind up duplicating it.

5italkart

iTrader: (2)

you guys are gitt'n me thinkin of going back for more "pan wars"

hitcharide1

iTrader: (1)

I think we were talking about that earlier in the year, or something like it. More along the lines of being a hobbyist or a modeler....or both! The guy who just wants to drive and doesn't want to build can do that, nothing wrong with it (and probably a little less frustrating, design wise.) Or, I know a few guys who are busily at work trying to do their own thing, then take it to the track and see what it does. Best of both worlds, in my book, and any improvement on one car that can be duplicated on another car is a good thing. But again, no matter who does what, we still get to play...lol.

5italkart

iTrader: (2)

started moving my shop today, now i can work year round

Taylorm

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/d...ylorm/PAN2.jpg
http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/d...ylorm/PAN1.jpg