View Full Version : MY project, just got sweet
I have struck a deal with a legendary RC machinist, who are going to help me design and make my car, from SCRATCH:D
So, if you have any ideas, for a 2wd car, that isnt possible with other conversions, please let me know. I want to make this car, THE car to have;)
jimmy
17-10-2006, 02:23 PM
"legendary RC machinist" is it stu evans ?
;)
"legendary RC machinist" is it stu evans ?
;)
no it isnt Jimmy, sorry, its a US rc machiner known as Platinum racing;)
Nick Goodall
17-10-2006, 02:29 PM
Fair play to you for going for it, but if you need people to just throw up ideas of what they want, surely you're going to need to go a fair distance to beat the quality of a standard out the box AE or Losi car?
How do you think you'll compete with the sort of budget these teams put into R&D, marketing and production?
I know the X-5 is good, but that to be fair was just two pretty good cars made into one..... not anything revolutionary as such.
I've just noticed a lot of people recently trying things - but can't help but be a bit pessimistic and say "Why would Losi/Associated not have tried that?" They've taken a good 10/15 years to get to where they are now, when you look at the old JRX and RC10 - the current cars are proper evolutions of those, that's how many years it's taken to get as good as they are now.......
I just can't see somone magically inventing something that's quicker than these well known cars without some seriously exciting new revolutionary technology (which i'm guessing you would already need to have the idea for?)
jimmy
17-10-2006, 02:37 PM
to a degree I'd agree with you nick, but big companies also have to make compromises to sell cars which a smaller company or individual might not have to.
They have to use their shocks, they have to use a certain style / offset of wheel (or people wont buy it) they have to arrange the cells so a tamiya style pack will fit, maybe they have to make it so it can be made into a truck version. They have to make it strong and easy to work on.
All those things and plenty more can compromise the ultimate performance of the car I think. So someone building a car for their own uses / limited sales, can ignore most of that and just concentrate on building a good buggy using the best of whats readily available (from any and all manufacturers) and building the rest to the spec that works best where it counts, on the track.
Nick Goodall
17-10-2006, 02:48 PM
There's some good points you've said there Jimmy, but in all the years i raced not once did Losi / Associated etc turn up at a big meeting with a one off car....
I guess what I mean is that surely if they knew they could make a quicker car by not worrying about Shocks, location of cells, wheel offsets etc they would have at least done it for a Worlds or Euro's just to get the result?
I remember the XX-4 when Kevin Moore first ran it in 1996, even though it was a prototype and could have had anything on it, was still overall the same as the standard car that followed.....
Sorry, i know i sound really down on the whole thing but my head just says it can't be possible unless you've got some great idea before you attempt this sort of thing?
For me the most advanced / revolutionary car for years is still the Predator - if anyone knows about Motocross suspension they will "get" the Predator a lot more as it's the only R/C car with fully progressive suspension, very similar to the way a motocross rear shock works on their Pro-link set-up (they used to all run Twin shocks like we do)!
There's some good points you've said there Jimmy, but in all the years i raced not once did Losi / Associated etc turn up at a big meeting with a one off car....
I guess what I mean is that surely if they knew they could make a quicker car by not worrying about Shocks, location of cells, wheel offsets etc they would have at least done it for a Worlds or Euro's just to get the result?
I remember the XX-4 when Kevin Moore first ran it in 1996, even though it was a prototype and could have had anything on it, was still overall the same as the standard car that followed.....
Sorry, i know i sound really down on the whole thing but my head just says it can't be possible unless you've got some great idea before you attempt this sort of thing?
For me the most advanced / revolutionary car for years is still the Predator - if anyone knows about Motocross suspension they will "get" the Predator a lot more as it's the only R/C car with fully progressive suspension, very similar to the way a motocross rear shock works on their Pro-link set-up (they used to all run Twin shocks like we do)!
I take take your point, but look at Jcocnepts, they made a buggy in less than 1 month, just 2 guy's and performed well at the worlds, now less than 2 years later, they are the champions.
My aim at first is to make a car I can race next year, then develop it throughout the year, and we'll see what comes afterwards.
jimmy
17-10-2006, 03:07 PM
I think you are right there nick, but the reason AE or LOSI might not run wildly different cars is possibly for the same commercial reasons. Losi don't want to see their drivers hacking up a chassis to place the cells differently (or whatever), because that will make people think they have to do that to make it work - and they will sell less.
You have to balance that out with getting better results from running "special cars" I guess. I think as the industry has matured and these companies are now owned by even bigger "money machines" - selling the car is the main focus, and you have to "appear" to win with the car you sell.
I think the things these big companies do are just less visible, most of the time you only see what they WANT you to see. RCCA is a classic for their "spy shots" I think, they just happen to get a shot of the latest AE or LOSI item when its being secretly tested just prior to launch.
the other thing is, you got to remember, AE and Losi sell globaly.
TYRC... if your going to do it, be innovative, don't be constrained by 'thinking' you have to use Losi this and AE that.
I think you are right there nick, but the reason AE or LOSI might not run wildly different cars is possibly for the same commercial reasons. Losi don't want to see their drivers hacking up a chassis to place the cells differently (or whatever), because that will make people think they have to do that to make it work - and they will sell less.
You have to balance that out with getting better results from running "special cars" I guess. I think as the industry has matured and these companies are now owned by even bigger "money machines" - selling the car is the main focus, and you have to "appear" to win with the car you sell.
I think the things these big companies do are just less visible, most of the time you only see what they WANT you to see. RCCA is a classic for their "spy shots" I think, they just happen to get a shot of the latest AE or LOSI item when its being secretly tested just prior to launch.
And hence forth springs a car that may be comprimised, as their R&D departments believe that more people use a 6cell combination, and so develop their optimimum comprimise btween appeal to buyers, performance and value. Thats where my car comes in, as previously said, I am not governed by needing to sell it, as for now its only project, should it be good then i can sell it.
At the end of the day, any car is a comprimise, between my previously mentioned factors.
But, I want peoples views on their 'dream' car to see if we can break the moulds( no pun intended) and create a design that appeals to people because of its originality, not because it has blue bits, is raced by Neil Cragg, and has a factory team supporting it.
super__dan
17-10-2006, 03:50 PM
I also don't want to be too pessimistic, but with respect, you've stuck a deal with a ledgendary RC machinist(?) for a car you've not designed conceptually and are asking for ideas on the internet for???
Multiple itterations of design springs to mind!
Good luck all the same.
Dan
I also don't want to be too pessimistic, but with respect, you've stuck a deal with a ledgendary RC machinist(?) for a car you've not designed conceptually and are asking for ideas on the internet for???
Multiple itterations of design springs to mind!
Good luck all the same.
Dan
Its not so much I dont have any ideas matey, but I wanted people to feel tthey really had some input into the design. I have many ideas, and will just use them if the legendary internet springs up no ideas.
Thansk foir the good luck
Chris Doughty
17-10-2006, 04:25 PM
I am fresh out of ideas for 2WD to be honest,
I do think the narrow/slim durango style seems to be 'the new black'
ashleyb4
17-10-2006, 04:54 PM
Hi ben
I think his idea is a really good one he has been planning on making a custom car for a long while. And if you need any help with anything mate just ask i can do most things im good at draphics, CAD drawing that sorta thing. And if you need a test driver im your man:D.
I like the idea of the motor inside the car and outside the car so both would be good. But i like a wide car i dont like really thin long cars. You could make a 4wd to.
A:)
ashley:
i am now part of team yrd making the aero4. pics coming soon already on tyrc.;)
Ryan
ashleyb4
17-10-2006, 05:00 PM
Hi ryan
I know about pics and that i do talk to ben alot.
well quiet abit
A
ashleyb4
17-10-2006, 05:39 PM
Oh soz i got confused so your making the aero4 and ben is making the aero2. Cool well as i said if you want any help just ask Im good at lots im multi talented.
A
Rob Fitzgerald
17-10-2006, 05:44 PM
OK
I will tell you the offroad car that I want ...
It's a competitive 4wd car that transforms itself into a competitive 2wd in no more than 15 minutes - oh - and it has to take a stick pack.
I don't care if it's a little bit heavier than some cars as long as it doesn't break if I stare at it hard.
I don't want any body clips on it anywhere - hold the body on with velcro - thumbscrews for the cells and something like a rallycross fitting for the wing.
last thing - I don't want to pay more than £250
You can keep your graphite style plastic and I will settle for nice glassfibre rather than carbon if I have to as well.
Where do I sign ?
sounds like you need a Tamiys DF03 (Dark Impact) Rob.... stick pack down the middle, mid motor, shaft drive, durable, bodyshell can be velcro'd on, wing mounts are strong..... anything else?
edit: oh yeah, for #250 you can buy two of them, or lots of hop-ups....
Rob Fitzgerald
17-10-2006, 05:56 PM
Will PM you Steve to avoid going off topic
OK
I will tell you the offroad car that I want ...
It's a competitive 4wd car that transforms itself into a competitive 2wd in no more than 15 minutes - oh - and it has to take a stick pack.
I don't care if it's a little bit heavier than some cars as long as it doesn't break if I stare at it hard.
I don't want any body clips on it anywhere - hold the body on with velcro - thumbscrews for the cells and something like a rallycross fitting for the wing.
last thing - I don't want to pay more than £250
You can keep your graphite style plastic and I will settle for nice glassfibre rather than carbon if I have to as well.
Where do I sign ?
Sign, sign for what? You want to test it:confused::D
I like your body clip less idea, that can be done. The £250 can also be done, and as to converting it to a 4wd in 15 mins its very possible down to my first design using the same bearings as a TC3/ BJ4. I will make it as a 2wd first though. And if needs be, will use it as a base for my 4wd car
Chrislong
18-10-2006, 09:36 AM
Ok, inboard shocks, narrow chassis, and a giro inside so when it turns over it can drive equally as well and the servo is automatically reversed. :)
To build the perfect car, you must evaluate what does and doesn't work, but the trouble with that is people opinion of what works can be very different.
My suggestion is make it strong, and make it have few consumables. Such as diff outdrives which run on roller dogbones (like some of the Losi team used).
You should really test & form your own ideas, as listening to us crazy bunch you could end up with something completely bizarre.
Southwell
18-10-2006, 09:46 AM
You should really test & form your own ideas, as listening to us crazy bunch you could end up with something completely bizarre.
Like an X6? :batman:
j/k :D
jim76
18-10-2006, 10:19 AM
how about something completely different. Front wheel drive!! (i'm assuming that would be BRCA legal for 2wd?)
Nick Goodall
18-10-2006, 10:34 AM
Physics still apply so think about any FWD cars with the equivalent of i guess 1500bhp......
Not really going to corner very well :D Any real car with more then about 230bhp in FWD form is fairly pants when it comes to traction.
It has to be RWD, the only two things you can really work on are layout / weight distribution and suspension geometry.
Have a look at the Predator with inboard suspension as this is a lot more advanced then many people realise and should help cut weight etc right down as you can run small shocks, plus Aerodynamics can be greatly improved :cool:
xx4-nutter
18-10-2006, 11:04 AM
:D one of these would be cool lol :D
http://www.zippyvideos.com/6448261755852606/rebound/
hehe. sumthing durango style with a motor thats stood upwards !! go different!! :D
cheers garry
LOL, I arent really trying to achieve nikko spec:D
Howabout front wheel drive, rear wheel steering
xx4-nutter
18-10-2006, 11:27 AM
ha ha ha ha !!
u should try :D, how about the motor turned end bell up :p. . no one else has done it.
but what could be the upsides to it ?
or down sides
Nick Goodall
18-10-2006, 11:27 AM
LOL, I arent really trying to achieve nikko spec:D
Howabout front wheel drive, rear wheel steering
Get your B4, Wire your motor up the wrong way, reverse your servo and see how quickly you can get round the track and report back to us :D
Nick Goodall
18-10-2006, 11:38 AM
There's a good slogan that BMW use - "The best way to push something Forward, is from behind. That's why all our Cars are Rear wheel drive".
Think that applies pretty well to R/C, FWD is definitely not the way forward.
How about the motor up front ie losi xx4 with a shaft running back to the rear tc3 style gear box with saddle backs at the rear either side of the shaft?
not saying it will work but could be interesting to test:rolleyes:
Southwell
18-10-2006, 01:10 PM
Someones tried that, didn't look too bad mind, was a bj4 layout.
jimmy
18-10-2006, 01:27 PM
heres a front wheeler
http://www.geocities.jp/feriocruise/poprod/poprod2.html
jimmy
18-10-2006, 01:31 PM
here is my national contender:p
http://www.oople.com/rc/projects/selfbuild11.jpg
Nick Goodall
18-10-2006, 02:00 PM
Haha Jimmy i'm loving that - would be great fun to get some decent electrics & tyres just to see what it went like :D Not sure it'd be much good on the bumpy stuff...
point taken, it doesnt really work, if you think about how skinny the front tyres are, theere would be little grip, alot of understeer.
Nick Goodall
18-10-2006, 03:52 PM
Well you wouldn't use narrow tyres on the axle putting the power down anyway so you'd have to have rears on the front, and fronts on the rear.... but basically no it just wouldn't be a good plan at all....
This is my concern dude, if you've not worked out if it's going to be Front or Rear wheel drive you're going to need to start doing some research into what does/doesn't work on real cars as i said earlier Physics are still very much going to apply..... although these weigh a lot less etc principly if it works on a real car it's got a much better chance of working on a toy one :D
Nick Goodall
18-10-2006, 03:58 PM
Have a look into Dune Buggy's etc, maybe get some inspiration from that sort of racing?
http://www.git.com.au/~theedge/torc_buggy_racing.htm
Look for some of the hill climbing cars too as they have some crazy ideas when it comes to suspension etc.
Well you wouldn't use narrow tyres on the axle putting the power down anyway so you'd have to have rears on the front, and fronts on the rear.... but basically no it just wouldn't be a good plan at all....
This is my concern dude, if you've not worked out if it's going to be Front or Rear wheel drive you're going to need to start doing some research into what does/doesn't work on real cars as i said earlier Physics are still very much going to apply..... although these weigh a lot less etc principly if it works on a real car it's got a much better chance of working on a toy one :D
ok matey, think I will go with rear wheel drive first. I dunno about the BRCA rules on putting rear wheels on the front
super__dan
19-10-2006, 08:16 AM
I dunno about the BRCA rules on putting rear wheels on the front
Can I reference the rule book again at this point! :p
xx4-nutter
19-10-2006, 08:25 AM
would it be hard to have the motor end bell up ?. and try to work some neat transmission round it. would it have any set backs ?
Rob Fitzgerald
19-10-2006, 09:29 AM
Just think about this for a minute
You have the motor in the car endbell up - you are jumping the car and the motor is spinning - what happens ?
email your answer to whyamipontinginthewrongdirection@thisjump.com
xx4-nutter
19-10-2006, 09:32 AM
:o its true i am an idoit
Rob Fitzgerald
19-10-2006, 09:50 AM
You are not an idiot at all.
If people didn't come up with new ideas then we would be stuck racing the same boring old things wouldn't we :)
Southwell
19-10-2006, 10:03 AM
Would be an interesting gearbox mind ;)
If you have the motor end bell up think about the weight distribution, and the high C of G. Innovative idea still.
I am thinking, only thinking mind, of making the wishbones part of the aerodynamics, as in they generate downforce, so that the wing can be a little more refined;)
Divefire
19-10-2006, 02:18 PM
Oh dear, this might not go down so well but bear with me…
Aerodynamics, down force, on a scale buggy doesn’t really exist. Ok now before you throw your chair at me, let me explain a bit.
Yes I know, body shells and wings make the cars handle differently, and that’s a fact but it happens because of the drag being produced not because of downforce. Why not? Well because air density increases with speed, and at the speed the buggies get up to, plus their rather small size, it’s not enough to produce downforce. There’s not the surface area or the speed there.
So how are your normal wings and bodies producing more grip? Basically drag. If you look at a high downforce wing or a touring car body that people say gives more front end, usually they have a very steep front profile. This produces the drag. Drag itself doesn’t produce more downforce but what tends to happen is a cushion of air is built up, increasing the density more then in other areas and thus pushing the car down a bit. Of course at this point the air is having trouble flowing over the car so it isn’t terribly efficient but that doesn’t matter so much on scale racers.
So how does this relate? Well making parts aerodynamically efficient is a bit pointless in this scale. Yes if you’ve got a giant front upright you’d want to try and find a way to minimise it’s drag impact, but that’s about it. Making things like wishbones so they’re an aereo device won’t help, they’ll be no better then a conventional one.
Of course on the subject of wings there is a school of thought that says a multi element wing would produce some efficient downforce, but it would be rather fragile and at the end of the day be no better then a drag inducing wing for our purposes.
Sorry if that comes out a bit know it all, and feel free to argue, aerodynamics is a black art at the best of times. Now if we could just come up with some decent body shell cooling ideas…
Oh on the subject of the actual car design itself, I’d go with mass centralisation, a balanced left to right weight distribution and then find out what front to back weight distribution works best, probably around 55/45. And then there’s suspension geometry and all that fun stuff to play with… Good luck!
wow, matey, you know loads on aerodynamics. Do you have MSN? If so, could you PM me ur addy? I need to talk to you regarding some ideas I have.
I have taken into consideration yuor points. thanks;)
Richard Lowe
19-10-2006, 02:41 PM
I must disagree with the differences between wings (in off-road at least) being purely drag, they do create a downward pressure of some sort. Different sized wings make a big difference to how the car behaves in the air, big wing on the back = nose up, front wing = nose down.
I don't see how that could be caused by drag alone, as surely with the wings being rigidly attached to the car the drag relative to the forward movement acts on the whole car. There must be downforce of some description happening or we wouldn't see different behaviour in the air by altering the wings at either end of the car.
ok, now I am confused LOL:o
xx4-nutter
19-10-2006, 03:17 PM
i can vouch for what rich has said there, my losi xxx4 used to be a pain in the air at landing on the arse end, i dropped a massive yokomo bx wing on it fully uncut and it made the car perfect in the air ! = very happy bunny ! :D
Cooper
19-10-2006, 03:19 PM
http://users.telenet.be/elvo/
chapter 7 :)
PaulRotheram
19-10-2006, 03:47 PM
i can vouch for what rich has said there, my losi xxx4 used to be a pain in the air at landing on the arse end, i dropped a massive yokomo bx wing on it fully uncut and it made the car perfect in the air ! = very happy bunny ! :D
That makes no sense.. if you are struggling with the car being nose high, how can an even bigger rear wing help? it should make the problem worse :confused:
xx4-nutter
19-10-2006, 03:50 PM
that is one of the best sites on set up ive ever seen
very in depth and explains everything
xx4-nutter
19-10-2006, 03:51 PM
That makes no sense.. if you are struggling with the car being nose high, how can an even bigger rear wing help? it should make the problem worse :confused:
nose dive sorry, i also shifted the cells to the back and changed the wing
k£v!n
19-10-2006, 04:44 PM
yeah that site is very helpfull, its intresting ot read too!
kev
Chris Doughty
19-10-2006, 05:25 PM
I agree with the 'moments around the CoG' theory, that drag above the CoG will turn the car onto its back wheels as Elvo points out.
I also agree with the 'air damn' theory, if air hits a surface and is forced upwards, there must be a force downwards that the air is giving the car (every action has an equal and oposite reaction)
but low pressure and high pressure enduced downforce is not really that much of a deal at our scale.
ok dokey cheers, I have a few ideas now:D
Divefire
19-10-2006, 07:40 PM
Yeah this is the fun part of aerodynamics, we just don’t know and I have to stress I’m an amateur at it. Don’t have a nice doctorate in it or anything…
Anyway, Richard you’re quite right in what you’re saying, I was just illustrating the differences between efficient aerodynamics, ie a multi element wing with negative lift properties (an aircraft wing upside down sort of thing) and the scoop wings we tend to run on the buggies. If you have a big wing, or a front wing then yes you’re going to catch more air, pushing you down some as you drive forward, but to does have to be at quite an angle to have an effect, thus the drag being caused in that way.
Richard Lowe
19-10-2006, 07:44 PM
I understand what you were getting at before, I'm no expert either lol :p
That's half the fun of this hobby, you never stop learning things :)
Chris Doughty
19-10-2006, 08:21 PM
do you think we are that bothered about aero drag?
especially in off-road, have you ever been to a track and thought that you should take off you super 'bod flap' wing off the back of your car because you are not fast enough down the straight?
half the time we are not running our fastest motors because we can reach speeds too fast for the track.
Divefire
20-10-2006, 01:43 AM
Nope Chris, I’m fully aware that no one is worried about aero drag. I was just using it as an example to explain why making smaller components such as wishbones aerodynamic wouldn’t be worthwhile. That’s all, I’ll go back to lurking now.
Chris Doughty
20-10-2006, 08:35 AM
Nope Chris, I’m fully aware that no one is worried about aero drag. I was just using it as an example to explain why making smaller components such as wishbones aerodynamic wouldn’t be worthwhile. That’s all, I’ll go back to lurking now.
Don't go back to lurking, I was not aiming that drag coment at you, just general opinion really.
you have added some interesting ideas and the topic became very interesting after you post(s)
yeah, dont lurk, post. If I stopped posting everytime I got slagged, I wouldnt be here:D
Divefire
20-10-2006, 02:07 PM
Ok, yeah I shouldn’t read boards at 3am, really not conductive to communication. Thanks guys, just glad to help, as it were.
soonernate
18-12-2006, 02:59 AM
Here's what I'd like to see in a new 2wd.
- Rear Saddle-Pack cell Location. (Yokomo BX style)
- Motor near center of the car. (Yokomo BX style)
- Adjustable angle rear wing mounts.
- Belt drive to make it forgiving.
- Servo mounted low and close the front of the chassis with stearing arms above. (Losi JRXS style)
- 4 screws to remove the diff.
you will be pleased with the Aero2 then mate, accept the belt drive bit:rolleyes:
Having raced TC`s for the las decade of so this has been a "tuning" feature and created no end of debates on the effects of aero dynamics on toy cars, now from the use of a minature wind tunnel and touring car body shells the shape of the body only creates downforce up to 12 mph :eh?: after this it is actually drag that does the rest as air gets up inside the body and flares the sides etc.
I know buggys are a different shape but the wing will act as a stabiliser in the air just as it does on a TC at high speed. Aerodynamics is like everything else in racing its a compromise!!
kuryakin
24-12-2006, 01:19 PM
Here's what I'd like to see in a new 2wd.
- Rear Saddle-Pack cell Location. (Yokomo BX style)
- Motor near center of the car. (Yokomo BX style)
- Adjustable angle rear wing mounts.
- Belt drive to make it forgiving.
- Servo mounted low and close the front of the chassis with stearing arms above. (Losi JRXS style)
- 4 screws to remove the diff.
A guy that races at lawford buggy club is running a car similar to what you describe, might still be pics on there site.
A guy that races at lawford buggy club is running a car similar to what you describe, might still be pics on there site.
There is a pic of that car on this site. It's my dads car that runs a CAT 3000 chassis and a fireblade front end.
Mxrider99
25-01-2007, 03:42 AM
Can i get your msn tyrc. Or can u add me at biker9599@aol.com *anyone can if they wish*
As regards rear wheel steering - I drove a development RWS 1/8th buggy once produced by a local model shop. All was good until it slid up to a track marking rope.........
You just can't steer away from the rope! To get the front of the car to point away and back to the track you have to turn in to the rope, which doesn't work. And if you steer away from the rope with the back of the car, thr front end points straight back at the rope!
That idea was quickly shelved I believe.
I did make a 4WS CAT XLS years ago when it had the old style rear hub carriers that allowed you to alter the toe via a threaded rod. Lots of bellcranks and pivots later it did actually work - the rear steer was about 50% of the front. But just too heavy and fragile to be competitive.
Mxrider99
25-01-2007, 06:01 PM
thank you ty. i first saw you at trcz. but then you kinda dissapeared. few people wondered where you went lol.
roboliver
03-02-2007, 04:09 AM
in the early 80s mugen had a 4ws car called the bulldog mosy of us that raced them locked the rear steer it was pretty much usless
The CADs have been created, I can tell you it does not feature rear wheel steering. Why change a formula that works so well? I think innovation should be through other items, and will be spending more time testing and setting it up, than trying to get the rear wheels to steer.
However, I tried a Lola shell on my tc tonight, it was the dogs, so at the minute I am open to suggestions.
The force with TYRC I think it is, not enough though I fear this will be.
bert digler
04-02-2007, 09:49 PM
The force with TYRC I think it is, not enough though I fear this will be.
is this some jedi yokall:D
Mxrider99
05-02-2007, 12:52 AM
The force with TYRC I think it is, not enough though I fear this will be.
we got darth vader, and yoda now...
The force with TYRC I think it is, not enough though I fear this will be.
Thanks for the compliment :confused:
chris_exeter
05-02-2007, 10:41 PM
Rather than think of how to improve race performance maybe look at ways to reduce race frustration? Here's a few random ideas:
A design where another car cannot ram you from behind and get stuck under your wing would be good. Likewise something to help prevent the car getting stuck up on a hose..
How about a spring back system on the front end to reduce snapping wishbones etc..
A decent air intake system for cooling..
A way to see how much oil is in the shocks without needing to remove or take the shock apart - for quick checking of possible leaks etc
Moveable weight distribution while racing would be cool - so as you brake the weight shifts forward, back when you accelerate and left or right on corners etc for extra traction
Moving on to a bit of a different subject but what are everyones opinioun on weight distribution from the front of the car towards the rear in a 4wd? Is it better to have the cells and motor as near centre of the car as possible or as far apart as they can be such as cells far rear as possible and motor forward as much as possible?
Also what sort of balance would you think would work eg 40%front 60% rear or 50/50? if that makes sense lol:D i have heard quite few ideas that how far the motor needs to be as far forward as possible and other suggestions but what will it all result in? far to much steering, or not enough if to much weight was to the rear:eh?: . Apart from being unbalanced in the air what other effects would it have?
Ryan
SimonW
06-02-2007, 08:21 PM
This is what i want, make it and I'll buy it, dead cert
1) I want a 4wd, belt driven with the motor in front of the spur gear so that when you let off the throttle the car dips forward and vise-verses(on the ground aswell as in the air)
2) It has to have saddle packs at the front like the pred'
3) Servo opposite the motor and receiver and speedo at the back.
4) Single bellcrank steering with adjustable ackerman.
5) Plastic front diff with outdrive savers and a bullet proof alloy rear diff (with roller driveshafts)
6) ZX5 style pivot mounts for the suspension
7) Pred style rear suspension and cat 2K style front, but with upright inner balls on the front and X-Ray(touring car)style on the rear (front and back of the rear top arm..<pred theme?>,
feel free to shoot me down it's just what my head thinks is gonna work(from my experience)
Good luck with it though i'm off now my head hurts
andys
06-02-2007, 08:58 PM
For what it's worth, I reckon you need a 'designer' not a 'machinist' to help develop a car. I know a handfull of excellent machinists, but they couldn't design an rc car for toffee.
I also have a pal who is an industrial designer, designing things ranging from jet planes to action man toys, again he wouldn't have a clue where to start with an RC car !
I'm not sure of Richard Wetherlys (The Pred) background, but i'd guess he had a passion for all things automotive ? Cecil Schumacher designed the first ball diff for an Rc car and pioneered the way with the CAT, a totally revolutionary design, I believe he worked for Cosworth at the time.
Anyway, my point is, if you haven't got any industry experts, don't bother. Jason (BJ fame) worked I believe for many years at AE, you see there's a pattern forming here, non of these people were really developing cars in their sheds, they were experts in associated fields.
What seems to be happening today is simply that people are improving and evolving cars from the big manufacturers. If you look back to the cat 3000, you'll see the basic design of many of today's 4 wheelers, it's a real shame schumacher aren't still in the offroad game, as they have set the standards time and time again, a BJ worlds, or the new HB, basically have a CAT 3000 inspired layout !
For me, TTech are the only true pioneers still operating in offroad, there design was amazing when it was launched, and it's amazing that it still competes today, all be it improved. If I was designing a car, i'd start with a clean sheet of paper rather than butcher another car and call it my own. Would it run well, probably not, that's why i'll personally never do it !
Nuff said, good luck TYRC, if you ever get any of you designs built (have you actually got a design ?) and running well i'll be amazed, unless of course it's a B4 or Losi with the gearbox spun round, nice and original that one. Oh and last thing, I hope youv'e got plenty of cash and time to throw at it, you'll need it.
Richard Lowe
06-02-2007, 09:29 PM
The voice of reason Mr Shillito :)
Ryan:- Having the mass as close togeather in the car will give good direction change and general agility at the detriment of stability over bumps. Spreading the weight out over the length of the car will give good stability on bumps but with slower reactions and more pendulum effect when the car slides.
Every aspect of a car is a compromise, pick your strengths and weaknesses and design accordingly ;)
SimonW
06-02-2007, 09:34 PM
Is anyone old enough to remember the OLD gold chassis RC10 that MIP made a 4wd conversion for ? A sadly departed old friend of mine had one. All he had to do was undo 5 screws and unclip the servo saver, un-hook the chain to the back and bolt on the 2wd front end. Now there is a car that could be raced in either class in less than FIVE minutes work
Nuff said, good luck TYRC, if you ever get any of you designs built (have you actually got a design ?) and running well i'll be amazed, unless of course it's a B4 or Losi with the gearbox spun round, nice and original that one. Oh and last thing, I hope youv'e got plenty of cash and time to throw at it, you'll need it.
:D :p Yes we have got a design, i spent 2 months drawing and designing after school then taking advise from people and altering it, so yes we definatly have a design and thanks to alot of advise from people such as Scott Dickonson, Jonathan from atomic carbon and various others the design changed alot hopefully for the better.
Also have in mine that i am 14 yrs old and ben has just left school and we have designed and made a prototype we aint doing bad huh?:eh?:
Ryan
andys
06-02-2007, 10:23 PM
:D :p Yes we have got a design, i spent 2 months drawing and designing after school then taking advise from people and altering it, so yes we definatly have a design and thanks to alot of advise from people such as Scott Dickonson, Jonathan from atomic carbon and various others the design changed alot hopefully for the better.
Also have in mine that i am 14 yrs old and ben has just left school and we have designed and made a prototype we aint doing bad huh?:eh?:
Ryan
Ok, I guessed as much, 14 eh ? I had you down for at least 17 :) It all now makes perfect sense !
Have you drawn it (you know crayola and suchlike) or is it designed using some rapid prototyping software, so that you can actually get parts made. If so, your going to need more than the odd paper-round to pay for it.
I appreciate you may have had some input from Atomic carbon and suchlike, but just look how he's got to the Slim 4, he's built it up from making the odd carbon shocktower, even he's not tried to build a full car (yet !) and i'm guessing he still holds down a full time job !
Ok, I guessed as much, 14 eh ? I had you down for at least 17 :) It all now makes perfect sense !
Have you drawn it (you know crayola and suchlike) or is it designed using some rapid prototyping software, so that you can actually get parts made. If so, your going to need more than the odd paper-round to pay for it.
I appreciate you may have had some input from Atomic carbon and suchlike, but just look how he's got to the Slim 4, he's built it up from making the odd carbon shocktower, even he's not tried to build a full car (yet !) and i'm guessing he still holds down a full time job !
What where you building when you where 14? was it airfix models or where you still on paper aeroplanes?:p :rolleyes:
May I just randomly interject the following:
Henry Ford, when asked about the building their first car, said:. "If I’d asked my customers what they wanted, they’d have said a faster horse.""
andys
07-02-2007, 05:40 PM
What where you building when you where 14? was it airfix models or where you still on paper aeroplanes?:p :rolleyes:
Neither old lad, I think I was largely interested in girls at 14, no time for much else. Listen if any of the things i've read about ever get built i'll be impressed, till then at least I now understand it's a kid or 2 that's behind it, so at least I know it's not something to get excited over just yet. It's great to have a passion for something, it's just how it's being talked about and promoted on this site and others, it looks like somehting it plainly isn't, i.e a company developing a car properly and aparently selling imported rc goods into the bargain, i'm confused, so i'll let it lie. At least I know what the crack is now, Nuff said.
Thanks SimonW for your input.
@ AndyS.
I am a 17 year old web developer/ designer and search engine marketing consultant. I am on a fair amount of money, enough to build a car ;):D.
I have the set the company up, and run my own online RC store, so I wil lbe using this company as a parent of this project.
I have purcahsed AutoCAD and am in the process of learning, but have completed the design to my final spec, pending aprroval, with my A* graphic design skills :D.
I think that with time and mony, and a whole lot of testing this car can be made to a good standard. And provve to be a real handler at the same time.
Ben
MATTY
09-02-2007, 06:29 PM
There's a good slogan that BMW use - "The best way to push something Forward, is from behind. That's why all our Cars are Rear wheel drive".
Think that applies pretty well to R/C, FWD is definitely not the way forward.
Not in the snow boys !!:D
rich_cree
09-02-2007, 07:32 PM
Not in the snow boys !!:D
Think you'll find lots of stranded rear wheel drive cars round the country at the moment, stuck in car parks mainly!
I never had any snow!!!:(
Southwell
09-02-2007, 08:00 PM
I had a brown pant moment going towards my rents house yesterday, luckily i had lift off oversteer :D
Chris Doughty
13-02-2007, 05:56 PM
Think you'll find lots of stranded rear wheel drive cars round the country at the moment, stuck in car parks mainly!
Not mine.... Doriftoooooo!!
well half true... I was in a car park, but not 'stuck' enjoying the weather is more the words
jimmy
13-02-2007, 06:04 PM
Snap! Can't stop a smart car with a bit of snow.
My espace was ace, bout the only time the car hasn't played up one way over the other (bloody French grumble grumble...) and it handbrake turns lovely, nice and controllable.
smokes
17-02-2007, 08:38 PM
Oh dear, this might not go down so well but bear with me…
Aerodynamics, down force, on a scale buggy doesn’t really exist. Ok now before you throw your chair at me, let me explain a bit.
Yes I know, body shells and wings make the cars handle differently, and that’s a fact but it happens because of the drag being produced not because of downforce. Why not? Well because air density increases with speed, and at the speed the buggies get up to, plus their rather small size, it’s not enough to produce downforce. There’s not the surface area or the speed there.
So how are your normal wings and bodies producing more grip? Basically drag. If you look at a high downforce wing or a touring car body that people say gives more front end, usually they have a very steep front profile. This produces the drag. Drag itself doesn’t produce more downforce but what tends to happen is a cushion of air is built up, increasing the density more then in other areas and thus pushing the car down a bit. Of course at this point the air is having trouble flowing over the car so it isn’t terribly efficient but that doesn’t matter so much on scale racers.
So how does this relate? Well making parts aerodynamically efficient is a bit pointless in this scale. Yes if you’ve got a giant front upright you’d want to try and find a way to minimise it’s drag impact, but that’s about it. Making things like wishbones so they’re an aereo device won’t help, they’ll be no better then a conventional one.
Of course on the subject of wings there is a school of thought that says a multi element wing would produce some efficient downforce, but it would be rather fragile and at the end of the day be no better then a drag inducing wing for our purposes.
Sorry if that comes out a bit know it all, and feel free to argue, aerodynamics is a black art at the best of times. Now if we could just come up with some decent body shell cooling ideas…
Oh on the subject of the actual car design itself, I’d go with mass centralisation, a balanced left to right weight distribution and then find out what front to back weight distribution works best, probably around 55/45. And then there’s suspension geometry and all that fun stuff to play with… Good luck!
I am throwing the chair at you .... Due to chavs thinking sticking a wing and body kit on a car dosen't produce drag.
Drag co efficient is a contant for a particular body it is usally work out in the wind tunnel or doing a coast down test.
All object passing through a fluid produce drag the more the is fluid displaced the larger the drag. Two of the biggest factors of drag is frontal area and the wake it produces the bigger the wake the more drag, wake can be considered a vacuumm sucking the object back in opposite direction to which it going. Note tricks have being done to over come this such as the ford KA it actually produce a positive pressure on the back of the car which pushes the car forward.
Wings work by creating a pressure diffence by being asymetrical profile this forcing the air to move faster over one surface than the other. The longer suface of the profile will create the lower pressure as the air is moving faster look up bernoulli equation. the diffence in the pressure creates a lifting moment (effect) around the center of pressure.
As a since a wing is a body being passed through a fluid it has a drag co efficient naca wings can vary bettween 0.1 to 0.5.
Next thing is the relativity air isn't scalable but it has a scaleable behaviour inorder to allow very small thing such as bee to fly and very large things to fly such as 747s.
When bee is flying the bee wings are flying through treacle , when a scale aircaft flys the air density factor is something like water otherwise scale wings just wouldn't work. Note air desnity is a constant relative to altitude and temperature. air pressure drop due to increase in speed but drag force increase due to increase in speed.
so buggy wing do provide a large contributing factor.
Any body or object that has an asymetric profile can by considered as wing in term of produce + - monment of lift. most road car produce + lift due to fact that the body upper profle is longer (bonent font window roof rear hatch) than the lower profile ( bottom of the chassis). Modern car use of good ground effect and front splitters and rear wake minimiation have contributed to reduce +lift and creating - lift. Where the air has to change direction in severe manner such as where the bonnet meets the windscreen create high point of pressure pushing agianst the body. This produces a - lift force but it also is considered ineffient way of produce - lift as too much drag is created for the amount of - lift. A touring car shell it will produce + lift due it has a longer upper profile but by creating -lift at the front rear of the car you can conter act it and over come it but with the price of increasing overall drag.
I have mention soming called the center of pressure c.o.p this the point of the sum total of lift force act on the body your main aim here is to create equal moments of either side of for a body to keep the c.o.p in the center of the body to feels stable if you don't you get a moment of torque or the c.o.p shift towards the front of the rear of the body. some bodys do shift the cop to the back or the front to reduce or increase steering.
Sorry for long post but i would rather point out the correct facts of the black art than have everyone think incorrect facts are right, :o
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.