Jump to content

Origineelreclamebord

Members
  • Content Count

    3138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Origineelreclamebord

  1. That carbon 201 from Lee is awesome: Gearbox off a Vega, nice layout (with those sidepods it reminds me of the RB6), Tamiya parts... I like it that Tamiya is releasing upgrades for the 201, but at this price? It's indeed at least as much as I payed for my original kit! And it's not that this chassis is a big revolution, it's just longer and narrower - for a price like that I'd at least expect to see nifty ways to adjust chassis flex and styling that's not TLR22-'inspired.' Enough nagging though, good to see Tamiya are offering this and I will be keeping an eye on it's release and price
  2. I talked to a guy at the Intermodellbau in Dortmund yesterday. He simply said 'the Twin Hammers has too stiff a setup for proper crawling and taking corners with medium-high speed makes it roll over - it doesn't give you best of both worlds, I wouldn't recommend it.' - I think he just didn't like it and it was a response to me wanting to give it a test drive. However, it may be a fair point that you need two sets of shocks to make it work really well for either type of driving. I do like the TH anyway
  3. What you see here is one of the reasons small companies can exist in what should be considered a relatively small branch. CAD modelling makes modelling flexible and quick design work, and 3D printing is now accessible and affordable even for the smallest of companies, allowing quick testing of the designs you have made. This cycle of designing, testing, re-designing and re-testing. Cost-wise to give you an idea... This buggy uses a lot of 3D printed parts - everything apart from the gearbox, front hubs, driveshafts, dampers and wheels is custom really: The plates (chassis, shock towers etc) will be made in carbon, all the 3D parts (and spacers and rings) will be 3D printed. I can't state exact numbers, but the 3D printed parts - printed at the company Shapeways - cost below 200 euros made from nylon (I tested other parts from this material and it is extremely durable and tough, it held up in racing conditions). When parts are ordered seperately or in small quantities it does cost considerably more, but for prototyping standards this is very affordable. I find the 3D printed drivetrain in the link very interesting. I know there are 3D printing materials out there that are strong enough to make a 3D printed drivetrain (for example 3D printed titanium and stainless steel, or fibre reinforced nylon plastics for 3D printing) I'm not sure if the more 'down-to-earth' materials I see in the pictures hold up to a brushless system, but I absolutely love the initiative!
  4. Partially Mk.1 (front suspension and I think also gear casing), partially Mk.2 (front bumper, rear tires are Super Champ). The rest I can't tell just like that. Since the SRB re-release it seems the wow-factor for finds like this is a bit gone, but don't let that fool you... for $60 I think you scored a gem! If you do a resto, I would try to use original parts everywhere
  5. You can machine parts after moulding, they might machine blanks into gears? (After all machining is done for the accuracy of the teeth and the hole in the center, not the accuracy of the cutouts for the slipper pads). That said, to me it does seem less likely than completely machining a gear or moulding it. I assume you think it's moulded because of the dots on the side of the gear? Just so you know, they are marking points for the spur gear (http://blog.jconcept...Speed-group.jpg)
  6. I have a couple of ideas - they're just theories, I don't know if they'll work in practice If you have one prominent/main colour, you could try dyeing the body. It should allow for scratches to appear on the body without seeing them very clearly - after all the plastic kind of soaks up the colour (not very deep but still worth a try I suppose). After that you could also paint it, but I don't know if it's necessary. If that doesn't work, you could also paint many layers, apply them very thin each time and end up with a thick coat in the end. You might actually need a more flexible paint than the TS paint (as the thick coat may need to flex more). Thick clearcoats may also work. Another option might be to just paint it as usual, and then try to find a method to apply a thin layer of epoxy over your paint to form a hard shell (perhaps in a spray can or through a spray gun)? It will be a clear shell around your body that is a perfect fit over your body and paint job - no dirt getting in, and as scratch resistent as a paintjob becomes I guess Do keep in mind that thick layers of paint, clearcoat and epoxy may result in a loss of detail on the body.
  7. Hi everyone, In a recent vintage race, one of my Dyna Storm's dampers scratched the internal damper sleeve beyond repair. It happened when the lower insert with the o-rings unscrewed itself in a vintage race, allowing loads of dirt to form a fatal blend with the oil that was still in there. So... I'm looking for a good condition sleeve from a Dyna Storm damper. I will also consider buying one whole cylinder or damper unit, no matter how shabby it is, as long as the sleeve is in good condition, but preferably I'd buy the sleeve only. Thanks in advance for your help
  8. Update time: I updated the design of the shock tower (the new design is the more curved/rounded one) - The bigger curves and thicker portions of the tower should help reinforce the tower by spreading the load better. Geometry of the mounting positions of the dampers are mostly retained. I also updated many other things on the car. For starters, the rear shock tower and wing mount are done. I might edit them a bit, but the basic principe will stay the same. The two small rear shock towers mount to a block. This block is mounted to the chassis, and mounted to a plate. This plate extends further to the rear, on which the wing will 'float'. The plate also extends to the front, where it is mounted to the chassis with a small block, so it is not just a wing mount, but a reinforcement of the rear shock tower. The chassis has become 15mm longer, and the wheelbase a bit shorter. The longer chassis allows for more room for the electronics, as well as shortening the rear arms (making them cheaper to replace if they break or are subject to replacement by an updated version). The wheelbase has been shortened because the 285mm might just be overcooking it a bit. I can play around with the rear toe-in after all. The front suspension arms were also updated. They are reinforced around the suspension shafts, and the damper mounting is also more solid now. I also changed some other bits and bobs visible on this imagine, but that's just tiny stuff really And lastly, I decided to design another body for it - I didn't like my original design that much. By moving around the servo, servo horn and steering linkage I managed to make it possible to lower the sidepods by 10mm - and I lowered the cab by 10mm as well. I'm quite chuffed with the result. I don't know yet if I'm actually going to make a bodyshell, though I would love to
  9. Shaggy, I'd have a look at a proper pack. For one the pack you mention doesn't have a hard case around them... and LiPo packs are quite delicate. Something with a sharp edge or point is enough to damage one of the cells when it's rubbing in between the pack and the chassis and light it up. And secondly, 12C is not much, at 3600mAh it can handle a continuous discharge of only 43A (3.6A * 12C) , and since it's a receiver pack I don't know if these cells could handle a much higher peak discharge. I don't know exactly how much current the sports tuned motor (23T) draws, but I wouldn't risk a chassis plus it's electronics for a cheap battery. For a few quid more you can have a hard case battery which can handle more of a beating, and ones at the right size are definetely out there Could you share with us the size of the battery tray? That way we can be on the lookout for any promising battery options!
  10. The Traxxas 1/16 series use very small battery packs - some brands (including Team Orion) sell LiPos for them. They will fit - I don't recall if it will sit entirely in the tray or just a bit over the gearbox/transmission housing (in the middle) - it's been some time ago that my TLT-1 chassis was standard
  11. Vaterra Twin Hammers I think is one to consider I suppose if you're looking for a jack of all trades when it comes to surfaces it can drive on
  12. Could it be a fluor orange backed with silver?
  13. Yeah I have seen it - I love the design of that car! The rotary dampers are very nice - if a littl emore complicated to understand how they work. That doesn't matter too much though, if it works well (which it seems to) it has the potential to be more intensively researched. Things like this are indeed very much something to remember - for developing this buggy, or in fact any RC car
  14. Thanks for the comments and suggestions To clarify: The car indeed uses CVDs (Tamiya 64mm WO Uni's from the TRF201) - I do need to put larger pins in these driveshafts (the ones that go in the outdrives) or add 'sliders' that you also see on touring cars. There are two main reasons for the very (very!) simple rear suspension system. The first is that any weight savings on the rear contribute to a lot of extra forward traction - and the only thing I had to play with on the rear on the last car were tires, spring rate and droop. With a 'static' setup like this you want minimal grip on the rear without losing traction. This can be achieved by first choosing the right tire - it's better to stay on the side of 'too much' grip, as it's very easy to take grip away but hard to add it. Once you have the tire, you can chose the spring. Finally, you could adjust the droop to add or remove bite. On a well and truly smooth surface like tarmac the droop can be as little as 1mm without losing the rear end - on the last proto anyway The new one will use 2WD and 4WD front tires and a different weight balance. The second reason is that setup changes in the front should make the most difference on the car: You have the drive, the steering and the majority of the weight at that end. There is a lot to discover and develop on the front end, and I would like to learn to understand that first - plus the basics of a simple rear end structure. The inboard suspension on the first proto shows how much an unusual design feature can become like a blindfold in finding the points on where to improve the car - it became harder to read whether some of the behaviour of the car came from the inboard suspension or the front wheel drive, and this seriously slows down development on the main point of the car - the front wheel drive. When I understand the front end and the basic rear end I will definetely try out some more unusual things - like the return of inboard suspension on the car, and a HICAS-inspired rear suspension - about the HICAS by the way, you can do this not just for toe, but also for camber - like the Yokomo YR-F2: There is one last concern with a passive steering system on the rear of the car... On bumpy tracks, the rear end may be all over the place. On smooth tracks it may work very nicely (indoors on tight tracks it might even prove essential) - To test all that it will need to become a system that I can easily enable or disable on the car (so it can be tested head to head). As for camber and toe adjustment... Camber gain can indeed not be adjusted without changing the design of the rear end. however, camber and toe-in can be adjusted on this car. The suspension blocks can be shimmed up and down, tilting the suspension arms. I expect this to have similar effects to anti-squat. To adjust the camber and toe-in, the rear suspension arms have blocks on them that hold the axles. These are removable and symmetrical, so you can swap them between right and left - and by turning them 180 degrees, you can add or remove 2x the camber that is built into the block (so for example from +2 to -2 camber). If you don't turn them 180 degrees you'll have toe-out (which you really don't want). For completely different camber (or toe) settings extra blocks can be 3D printed - and I think toe-in will actually become one of the more important tools on the rear, besides tires, springs and droop. The option for an anti-roll bar is a very good one. I'm still working out a bit how to make the shock towers+wing mount work, but once I have that solved I'm sure there is space for an anti-roll bar. There may also be space for it at the front, but I don't expect to need it there (the upright shocks are very... upright - and this combined with the narrow chassis should reduce roll considerably compared to the last car).
  15. Thanks I have not had the privilege to try the FF03 but I do know what FF tourers are like: FUN, nimble, quick! The real alienating part of an FF Buggy I'd say would be jumping something with such a weight balance. Your feeling says it might just nose-dive straight into the next jump... but it doesn't! Also, if you're used to RWD, you are baffled by the speed with which you can go into and through corners - I haven't tried it yet, but I think it's cornering speed is a close match with a 4WD.
  16. So here we go... the development of a second prototype/generation FWD Buggy Before I say anything more... if you are interested about the previous development, this topic may be useful for you: TamiyaClub Thread: TRF201FF (Generation 1 FWD Competition Buggy) Also, if you want a complete overview of the whole project (first and second prototype), this link may be relevant for you: oOple Thread: Complete thread on FF/FWD Buggy Development And here are some movies of the first prototype in action: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So in short... I have been working on a front wheel driven buggy for use in 1/10 Offroad racing. The reason for it... Well, out of curiosity I'd say. Prototypes of these popped up for a short period around 1990 and proved to be a very promising concept... until they were banned from the IFMAR (World Championships) for the 2WD class. These cars vanished from the racing scene, but many regulations do allow them. I want to know if more than 20 years later, in the age of Brushless and LiPo, this concept can still be competitive. (I'm not mentioning here that I love that they're different and I think they look very cool) So I started making a first prototype in November 2011, and by August 2012 it hit a track for the first time. It quickly became apparent that the first prototype had a promising pace (see youtube movies), but all the points to improve on were so big that it made no sense to update the car. A new car, built from scratch, would be the way to go. And that's what this topic is about: The development of the second FWD Buggy. Without further ado, the design: The design couldn't be much more different from the last car - I pretty much only use two parts from the last car (DB01 suspension blocks and wheels) - the rest is all new. The reason for this lies in some of the changes that the car needed (it will hopefully be self-explanatory later on). These are the main changes/improvements: 1. Team Durango DEX210 Gearbox: This gearbox has many advantages over the gearbox of the last prototype. First of all, the rotation direction of the motor can be changed by adding a 4th gear to the gearbox. This reverses the direction of the reactional force of the motor casing too. On the first prototype, this direction (3-gear gearbox) pulled the chassis out of the suspension, which theoretically means you lose grip, whereas a 4-gear gearbox layout should gain you grip when the motor pushes the chassis into the suspension. On this gearbox I can test both layouts and see what (and how big) an impact this has on performance. Besides the 3 vs. 4-gear gearbox layout I can put a ball differential and (oil-filled) gear differential in there, allowing me to test the difference of the two diffs on the same car. Lastly, the slipper clutch assembly allows the use of an upright shock layout. 2. Team Durango as main supplier of donor parts: I hope this speaks for itself when I'm using a Durango gearbox. 3. Upright shock layout: I really liked the inboard suspension of the first car. However, the system is complicated and therefor difficult to understand. By using the upright shock layout, I take away one system that is difficult to understand so I can compare the performance of the FWD system easier and more accurately with a RWD system. 4. Driveshafts in line with outdrives: On the first prototype I tried to get the weight balance further forward by moving the gearbox further to the front. This put the driveshafts at an angle. Fact is, the greater the angle of a universal shaft, the more inconsistent it's rotational velocity becomes. This causes a loss of grip because your tire speeds up and slows down constantly (even when you're holding the same amount of throttle). Therefor, putting the driveshafts in line reduces this problem as far as I possibly can. It also moves the motor further to the axles. It might not be ideal for the weight balance, but it certainly does help to reduce the diving/dangling nature of the front end on bumpy surfaces (much like it also occurs on rear vs. mid-motor on bumpy surfaces) - not speaking of the reduction of digging into the ground on bumpy tracks or bad landings. 5. Shorty LiPo across width of chassis: I noticed in the tests that the forward weight balance doesn't seem to affect jumping much - as long as you have extra throttle to play with in the air. Also, the rear end didn't seem to need much weight on it. However, forward traction is always welcome. So by rotating the LiPo battery 90 degrees the car gets a weight balance that is further forward despite the fact that the motor is further to the back because the driveshafts are now in line. 6. New chassis layout: On the last car I didn't take into account where the ESC, Receiver, Transponder and wiring needed to go This time atround I have, and there is enough space behind the battery for all electronics. Alternatively, electronics can also be placed on the top chassis deck. 7. Updated Ackermann and Bump-Steer Geometry: This geometry was far off on the last car - and it didn't have enough of a steering angle in general. This problem should be largely solved on this car - and it can be shimmed and adjusted a lot to try out different settings. 8. Reducing anti-squat/kickup to zero: The first prototype had anti-squat/kickup on the front (like any buggy has on the front, but then a bit less). However, it became apparent that the reducing the anti-squat helped forward traction a lot, so this prototype has zero anti-squat/kickup. 9. Less Parts and smarter construction: This is for obvious reasons... It makes the car quicker to build, easier and more fun to work on, cheaper to manufacture, and with less parts there is less to break down I've already made a first mockup of the new front end: This mockup is to check if my CAD models of the existing parts are accurate with the real parts - to prevent getting a headache when I have expensive parts made that turn out to not fit. I can confirm though that all parts fit as expected Also, in the flesh you can spots some things you wouldn't on the screen with the CAD file in front of you. For example, I do find that the front end is kind of narrow - I knew this might be an issue and it indeed is. I am going to look at different driveshafts that might be a better fit. However, if that doesn't work I already have a setup that mostly works. There are also some other small mods, but not really worth mentioning
  17. This project has been silent for quite a while... But I have a good amount of news to share with you (for those that haven't seen it on oOple) First of all, the car got an important update on the front suspension after the late September test I posted here: If you look closely, you will see that there are new rocker arms installed. These rocker arms have a longer end on the side of the pushrod. This results in a rocker arm that needs less extreme angles to transfer forces from pushrod to damper. You might wonder why this is necessary... Well, the more extreme the angles of the rocker arm, the more the pushrod pushes into the axle around which the rocker arm rotates, instead of pushes the forces into rotating the rocker arm. In other words, the frame that holds the rocker arms had excessive stresses on it with the old rocker arms, plus the damping/suspension action felt very firm with the damper either not or almost completely compressed, so the suspension only worked well in the middle bit. Whilst doing this I also used the opportunity to give the car more droop (=negative suspension travel) - it originally had nearly no droop (less than 5mm) - with so little droop the suspension can soak of bumps, but the wheels can't keep contact with dips in the surface, losing a lot of grip. After the update the car has comparable droop to my TRF201 - nice! I've been testing the car in a few races on loose dirt (indoor in a horse riding school). The car went pretty well and I think I ended up 5-8 positions lower than usual (in a field of 30-35 drivers). Especially in the slightly quicker corners or a series of corners into the same direction it went extremely well, where I was clearly gaining ground compared to other drivers. However, there were also several issues. Besides the fact that ploughing through loose dirt doesn't work as well for the FWD as it does for an RWD (though 20 grams of ballast weight on the front end did help a lot). Also, the track becomes very bumpy over the day and the car tends to dig into the ground with the front bumper because it's so bumpy (and I couldn't make the front end any firmer). Furthermore, it became apparent that the car didn't work well in the very tight, twisty bits. This is down to several things - amongst which are a lack of overall steering angle on the car and that unlike an RWD, you can't sweep the back out with more throttle. In the last month I've been focusing on my regular car again because the RWD skills were clearly getting rusty However, I did take the car out onto some tarmac to show to a friend of mine: The car went extremely well on the high bite of the abrasive tarmac (plus worn down spiked tires) - despite near-freezing temperatures and a moist, dirty driving surface. Ok, the (already worn) tires were bald in 2 batteries, but I blame that us trying to make stoppies all the time The car had very impressive acceleration, nice steering response and with only three wheels touching the ground into each corner the rear grip was just at the right level: Minimal rear grip without causing spin-outs! The development of this buggy has ended though. I've gathered so much information from this proto already, and to make this car go quicker I need to make mods so big that it makes more sense starting from scratch. And that's what I have done: Apart from the universal shafts, rear suspension blocks and wheels, this car is no longer a Tamiya. Therefor, I have a new thread about this car in the 'Other Makes' section: AC210FF: 2nd Gen FWD Competition Buggy
  18. Sorry for the late reply. I haven't driven or raced this buggy. However, I have driven someone else's DEX210 in Rear Motor (RM) on Clay for a few laps. He didn't have the setup done for RM, and in fact he never got RM to work well for him (his Mid-Motor (MM) always went quicker on clay), so he drives MM on high and low bite tracks. He drives A-finals regulary in the Dutch-Belgian nationals - and he's known for his meticulous setup work - so I'm betting the setup on his car is ace. I don't think there's time for it next sunday, but I could ask him if I can give the 210 a shot. I may make a switch to the Durango - not because my TRF201 doesn't surprise me positively time and time again, but because my second FF Buggy is in the works - using... this DEX210 as a donor car As for the slipper... I would see it as an advantage. No slipper caps and stuff, and those parts don't need to stay in a clean environment. And the diff, though not conventional, Schumacher also uses it and to be honest after the first 2 months I heard no-one on this diff issue anymore. The one thing I don't understand is why Durango haven't solved one issue on this car. Apparently, one of the lugs on the motor plate that holds the gear cover in place is extremely close to the rear shock tower. As a result, in crashes where the shock tower hit the ground, the rear shock tower snaps very easily. In fact, even aftermarket carbon shock towers tend to have this problem. So you need to offset the tower a bit and/or Dremel away (part) of that lug.
  19. It's indeed best to disconnect your batteries from the electronics. And ok, I might be overdoing it a bit, but I keep all my LiPos together in an ammo box when not in use It's more reassuring for me, for everyone who's sharing this same roof After all I've seen a car burn down it's interior completely on just a 1000mAh LiPo battery (the guy only made a hard landing with his plane - the battery seemed to be undamaged and completely stable - until he came back to his car after half an hour). As for higher end batteries... they will still be drained by your electronics. The only thing they can assure you is that the quality is more consistent and the batteries handle what the spec actually says... cheap batteries don't always have the same Capacity and C rating, so running them on the limit is asking from problems As long as you don't do that, I've found them to work just fine (I'm using HobbyKing/Turnigy Shorty LiPos).
  20. DF01 Suspension Arms and tub+FF01 gearbox and shock towers = Front Wheel Drive Buggy! http://www.tamiyaclu...=90871&id=22450 (Images show FF01 tub but it needed a longer wheelbase for stability) You can also do a lot with M03/04/TL01/FF02 stuff... In fact, with few mods I'd say you can put the TB01 in that list as well In the end I think it's most plausible to end up with a 2WD, using many different parts on the front and a drivetrain mostly from the same chassis type (or family) - that is, if you want to prevent making custom parts.
  21. Looking very nice ralphee, I'm glad the Nimrod parts did arrive in the end and are up to expectations! As for the shell, how about doing a custom shell without using the original decals? You can trace the window decals for making window masks, and the lines that run between sidepod and body can be made in much the same way (either masking+painting or decal). That way you can prevent the use of decals for a custom shell. Also, I'd recommend you to scan the decal set before you use it (preferably with some kind of scale line/rules next to it) That way you can re-use it again for reference or even make a custom set from it (different colours for the logos and such?) There's a lot you can do with slightly different decals and colours on a Dyna: http://www.tamiyaclu....asp?cid=109751 I'm really curious to see what your car will look like by the end of the restoration!
  22. If this happens again you might be able to solve it with a Helicoil (or the cheaper brand, V-coil) - they are thread inserts, in case your original thread has given up on life. All you need to do is drill up the hole slightly with the included drill, thread that hole with a tap that has the same thread pitch as the insert and screw you'll be using. After that, screw the insert in. When the insert is completely in, take out the thread installation tool and break of the small piece with which you grip on the insert (a small shaft is included for this) and you're done! This is how one a set of this looks: http://www.minisport...epair-5a8c2.jpg It's a little off topic but I though I'd let you know As for (other) weak or unavailable components, some 3D printing methods will also work to make parts stronger than the originals (though if I'm to make a guess the Rogue Element Components are the way to go, if the Fox was completely in Nylon you'd probably be able to jump it into trees without breakage ).
  23. If it is not for a shelfer, I would consider to paint the blue on the outside (and a clear laquer over the blue if you need it to be very glossy). If it is for a shelfer, I would try polycarbonate safe Graffiti Removers (I heard some don't actually remove the PS paint but it might be better to start off safe and work from there).
  24. I never use grease on the outdrives or at the axles/universal joints. I suppose in very clean environments you can do it but it will still gather grit, even indoors. For maintainance you could always spray in/through some WD-40 - it flushes the grit out that may gather over time despite using no grease, and keep things from rusting (thus keeping the surfaces of the joint clean and smooth I have no experience with dry lubricants, you could always give it a shot, it would be interesting to see the result!
  25. Based on what I've read and heard from other people, I have to agree with TA-Mark: The DB01R is indeed the way to go. The DB01's quality handling and decent durability make it a very good club level racer. On the 'R' they've added some very nice tuning parts for a great price (TRF shocks, Universal shafts, Aluminium suspension mounts/hangers and much more). So with the 'R' there's no need to buy hopups that you otherwise probably would somewhere along the line for the regular DB01. It therefor comes quite close to a TRF without spending close to twice the money. PS: Of course the TRFs are even more advanced, but keep in mind these cars are purpose built for racing on tracks, a DB01® is built to be way more diverse: It's good for club level racing, but will feel right at home as a basher, too (whereas the TRFs don't have a fully enclosed drivetrain, the lexan undertray can't handle the abuse of bottoming out rocks, pebbles, gravel etc as well as a chassis tub and won't outhandle a car like the DB01 on a less refined surface than a track).
×
×
  • Create New...