|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Great to see you doing this. Id love to do something like what you're intending. Sounds like a good project to do and can't wait to see the outcome, good luck. For parts, Associated parts are cheap so why use any other make.
|
#22
|
||||
|
||||
Well I hope our info is helping you here. As for the quality of the Academy, Steve (DCM) can give the best first hand advice as he was the most patient for longest.
If you was to go for this kit as a base. Start by fixing the faults: 1, Quality of plastic, very flexible 2, Quality of metals - the diff outdrives and driveshafts wear fast 3, Quality of gears - They seemed to flex and slip 4, Iinternal Ratio very high, which meant it span like crazy to go a normal speed If you could remould parts, and adjust the chassis to fit AE/Pred transmission throughout. To go for the BJ4 would give you an instantly relaible car to start on, but I fear that you wouldn't tempt any already satisfied BJ4 owners. We'd all like to see you succeed! Or how about a complete new car? How about something new? (from top of my head) a tranverse motored shaft drive car? (i.e. motor 90degree turned compared to current shaft drives) |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Jonathan | Atomic-Carbon |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
Hmm, maybe for the futrue, I just want to make something that is simple, but goes like the wind. I have a good budget avaialble.
I have a few questions about the acedmemy 1. How good is the chassis/ top deck material? I think that will be a ll I am using from that car, with a TC3 tranny
__________________
Who am I fooling? I love oOple
|
#25
|
||||
|
||||
Academy chassis, erm, take a peice of quilted toilet paper (sounds good so far) then wet it, you get the idea. As for the transmission, I never, funnily, had an issue and thought it worked pretty good, but like any other shaft drive, it took correct shimming. Shit loads of work to stop metal bits from devouring each other though.
The only thing I would say, if you ARE going to make a shaft drive, ensure you tie the prop shaft in to the motor mount in some way, then you are garaunteed an accurate mesh (no telling me off now Northy). Personaly, the way I see it, decide on your transmission first, then go from there. Dude you got my msn, I got a bloody good idea for you, and as long as you can get alloy machined, you da'man.
__________________
dragon paints : team tekin : fusion hobbies :SCHUMACHER RACING : Nuclear R/C for all my sticky and slippery stuff - if it needs gluing or lubing, Nuclear RC is the man! |
#26
|
||||
|
||||
So, perhaps not the best base car then? I do need to find a car that is shaft drive, and is less than compettiive that needs a tyrc upgrade
__________________
Who am I fooling? I love oOple
|
#27
|
||||
|
||||
V2 aint so bad! Goes pretty well actually, I've just not had time to play and get it set up and that!
__________________
http://japazzle.wordpress.com |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
.
By choosing a car which is seen as a failure are you not going to invest money on a car which ultimately with all the best of intentions end up being at best as good as the current best in market? If the academy had so much problems would it not be best focusing on a car that didnt have so many issues to start with. Look at the X5, started with a car which was good already and improved where the manafacturer didnt. Other cases are Xenon and shooters with the associated RC12L3.
To begin with would it be best to start making upgrades for an exisiting successful car to refine any weak parts it has or improve it further where the manafacturer may of wanted to but couldnt for what ever reason. I am just thinking that the initial set up costs would be much lower while allow you to build a reputation for your company. Once established you can do what you intend currently and use the name you have built as a part of your marketing. |
#29
|
||||
|
||||
why shaft though?
__________________
dragon paints : team tekin : fusion hobbies :SCHUMACHER RACING : Nuclear R/C for all my sticky and slippery stuff - if it needs gluing or lubing, Nuclear RC is the man! |
#30
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Nowt wrong with the Pred if you mesh it right and tightern up the motor mount screw until you think it's gonna strip and then a little bit more! G
__________________
Graham North http://www.atomic-carbon.co.uk https://www.facebook.com/atomiccarbon https://www.facebook.com/nortechracing |
#31
|
||||
|
||||
So what does everyone think is a good starter or base car? All suggestions are welcome
__________________
Who am I fooling? I love oOple
|
#32
|
||||
|
||||
Ok, I have anew idea. A belt driven car, based on a corally rdx. IT will have re-machined transmission housing though, with some a e bits, a few jconcepts prats, just need to make a slipper clutch for it
__________________
Who am I fooling? I love oOple
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
If you wanted to make something a bit different how about a B4 back end with the transmission reversed, with a belt from the layshaft to the front end?
|
#34
|
||||
|
||||
That sounds pretty similar to my 4wd at the moment, except it is a shaft not a belt, but basicaly a 2wd gearbox back there.
__________________
dragon paints : team tekin : fusion hobbies :SCHUMACHER RACING : Nuclear R/C for all my sticky and slippery stuff - if it needs gluing or lubing, Nuclear RC is the man! |
#35
|
||||
|
||||
Now then you said any ideas, How about a shaft and belt driven 4wd two shafts ala losi jrxs conected in the middle with a belt. You can use the slipper from the B4 batteries and motor down the middle servo st side of motor speedo and reciever other side. You will have to use diffs like on the jrxs with longer outdrive on one side. In theory should have good weight distribution (I am no engineer) with all the heavy stuff in the middle. Could be best of both worlds no torque steer on hard acceleration like on a shaft car but with the eficiency of a shaft car. Did a little doodle of this last night and it looks like it could work (it was quiet at work).
|
#36
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Who am I fooling? I love oOple
|
#37
|
||||
|
||||
With the cells / motor down the middle, like the Tamiya Impact, you have very centred weight side to side. But front to back the weight is very spread out.
The Xfactory X5 however has the most compact mass of any car I can think of with cells and motor in the centre of the car side to side AND front to back. I would have thought that was an optimal layout |
#38
|
||||
|
||||
I am going to try pull a failry innovative design, with a RDX style super thin chassis keeping all parts as close to the centre line as possible, using a heavily modifed AE TC4/3 transmission. It's going to include aerodynamically shaped diff cases, reduced wieght, and UBER low c.g. and profile
__________________
Who am I fooling? I love oOple
|
#39
|
||||
|
||||
okay, I have my pics I drew, manufacturing is gonna start uber soon
http://www.teamyrd.co.uk/car , check em out, tell me what you think, and if you know anyone who sells carbon fibre and alimnium uber cheap let me know
__________________
Who am I fooling? I love oOple
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
These Designs are outstanding in my opinion!
http://www.teamyrd.co.uk/car/chassis...iew%20copy.jpg From looking at the pic above the shocks look very cool,and should work very well! The only worry I have is if it’s going to be belt driven, how strong will the belt be and will it be able to cope with today’s cells and motors? Keep up the good work, and keep us updated! Kev |
|
|