Jump to content

VroomVroomRC

Members
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

25 Excellent

About VroomVroomRC

  • Rank
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yes, MIP Ball Diff, and the least aggressive acceleration setting on the ESC. Not the most earth shattering off the line speed, but nothing has fallen apart yet. https://www.instagram.com/reel/C5biO5zxWoK/
  2. Which one to get? The answer is, "yes." Recently discovered this video and immediately reminded me of this thread!
  3. Hah, we totally think alike! I explored this concept while considering an aluminum pan chassis, to which all the bulkheads would be mounted. I ended up scrapping the idea because the angled battery and RX/ESC tray would raise the center of gravity and keep much of the weight shifted to the rear. There is also the matter of getting the battery in/out without impacting anything else. I also looked into keeping all the electronics on the pan, and mounting the battery above it, but this solution had an overall higher center of gravity as well. Another possibility was to rotate the battery 90 degrees, but that would require mounting it much further forward to clear the rear swing arm pivots. Finally, a non-printable pan chassis would mean additional cost for this build. The last option I explored was to have the servo, RX and ESC on a tray above the battery, and make the battery accessible from below the chassis (with a cover plate). This might have worked, but I was pretty set on keeping the Frog skid plate as it is one of my favorite original Tamiya parts on the ORV. Here is a quick mockup with a 3S LiPo, and a standard Futaba servo sitting flat on the bottom of the chassis (there isn't room for the servo saver or steering linkages in this drawing): At the end of the day, I felt that accepting this small increase in the wheelbase was a reasonable compromise. The upside is that even with a 3S setup, wheelies are very controllable and body roll is about the same a stock. Here are a few common references for 15mm:
  4. Hey guys, I just wanted to post my experience with the ORV drive shaft chatter issue previously mentioned here. I didn't even know about it until another member reached out to me on IG and explained it was well known/understood by the community here! I finally managed to get a hold of a pair of 2016 Blackfoot rerelease shafts and the difference is night and day! I really hope Tamiya addresses this problem in future ORV rereleases. My IG post detailing my own experience with this problem: https://www.instagram.com/p/C5Eo_AHRvmS/ Another IG user's (fantasticplasticadventures) post detailing the same observations with his kits: https://www.instagram.com/tv/CYjzC-JF-8i/?id=2748264702161710882_28453774994 A really great reference post detailing the nature of the phasing issue:
  5. Thank you! I used to scrutinize all the little design details as a little kid, and really wanted to keep as many as possible. The prints are all done in PLA-CF right now, but I would eventually like to print the final version in PA12. The layer adhesion with PLA isn't as strong as I'd like, so print orientation has had a big impact on the durability of parts. It's andyray998! Thank you! Looking forward to seeing that Mini come together.
  6. Hi everyone! I just wanted to share a project I have been working on to update the ORV chassis for the Monster Beetle. I have been out of the hobby for a long time, but have always had this project in the back of my mind. The two main goals are to get the most out of the suspension travel and to handle the power of a brushless setup. Although the majority of the chassis parts are replaced, keeping the following recognizable features were a priority. Rear trailing arms and axle boots ORV gearbox Front swing arm brackets Front suspension trailing links Original wheelbase (almost, but not quite) Rear cantilever shocks (failed) Original track width Maintaining the original wheelbase was not possible because of the reoriented battery, resulting in a 6% (15mm) increase. Designing a robust rear cantilever shock setup has also been challenging as the additional links and pivot point introduce significant weight and potential points of failure. Unfortunately this is something I have had to compromise on for now, however the "we have BBX at home" rear suspension has been working reliably with upright shocks. EDIT: Here are some photos from the final stage of development. My nephew has been "testing" parts to failure, so a few redesigns and instruction updates are still needed. The most significant functional addition has been the rear sway bar. Clearance between drive shaft and motor, with rear suspension fully compressed: Parts list draft: Build instruction draft:
×
×
  • Create New...