XC Gear reduction ?

[shenlonco]

Hi anyone know or have any info on how to make some kind of gear reduction for the XC chassis?

THANKS for the help :-)

[miramar]

This topic has been covered a few times before, so if you make a search, you will surely find masses of interesting information.

A small German company has made a gear reduction unit for the XC-chassis, which seems to be of high quality. However, it's an open design, so it depends on the gearbox cover and the lower part of the gearbox (integrated with the tub) of the XC for protection. As I haven't tried it myself, I won't make a verdict, but until somebody can convince me it's the best choice, I will stay with my Graupner reduction gearbox.

The Graupner gearbox is intended for airplane models, but suits the XC very well. The housing is very rigid (fibre reinforced plastic) and seals off very well, the gears are hardened steel and all axles have high quality rollerbearings. The diameter is the same as a 540-motor and it bolts right in between the motor and the original XC motormount plate without any modifications. Vertical CoG (center of gravity) is also not affected unlike most other designs I've seen, which is good for off-road driving. Ratio is 4:1, and I've used mine a lot without any problems. A strip of tape around the housing where the split between the front and rear halves is, makes it practically waterproof.

Downsides:

Because of the added length, a few things have to be changed:

1. "Radioplate" (part E1) will have to be removed. unless you use the original MSC, this doesn't really present any problems.

2. Battery must be rotated 90 degrees, so it can't be removed through the side opening. This hasn't presented any problems to me though.

3. For the motor to clear the chassis, a little material has to be scalloped from the chassis tub. Done in a few minutes with a Dremel and has no impact on function, but then the tub is of course not really original anymore.

4. The Graupner gearbox has a press-fit (no grub screw) pinion. It can be difficult to remove the pinion again from the motor, but again, I haven't had any problems with it.

[shenlonco]

Hi thanks for the info.

What if I just run a kyosho magnettic mayhem motor?

Or i heard intagy lathe motors are good? Sombody also tald me they ground out there motor plate and now they can use a 14 tooth pinion gear would this work any good?

THANKS

[_Jimbobulon_]

Its, you're choice with those motors mate, but to mod the XC for a 14 tooth pinion I gather you just have to cut new holes to screw the motor onto the plastic motor mount. Easiest way is to make slots, then turn the motor round until you get a correct mesh with pinion/spur. With a lathe motor, I doubt you'd want 14t pinions though, from what I hear its slow/torquey enough as is!

James

[mr_pushrod]

I'd go for a Graupner Speed 600 Eco 7.2, more torque than a lathe motor and cheaper. Only mod you will have to do is grind the shaft down slightly to stop it rubbing on the battery tray.

[shenlonco]

Hi but does that speed 600 motor draw more current AMP's than the stck 540? because i want long run time also.. and the lathe motor is a single 55 turn and the magnettic mayhem is a single 22 turn witch are mild motors for long run times.

[DJTheo]

The 600 Eco doesn't draw much current like the 600 Speed does, but still a 80T motor from LRP or Team Orion draws less giving with modern 3000+packs "run" (actually more craw LOL) times of almost an hour [8D]

Cheers

[DCLXVI]

I'd go with one of the slow, high-torque motors instead of a gear reduction...

[miramar]

quote:Originally posted by DCLXVI

I'd go with one of the slow, high-torque motors instead of a gear reduction...

---

id="quote">id="quote">

Why?

I prefer both, but if I had to choose either gear reduction or high-torque motor, I would go for the gear reduction. One good reason is that the brushes of a stock silvercan 540 are much less sensible to dust, sand and moisture than the brushes in the endbell of a modified motor. Driving the XC under extreme conditions with mud and water entering the tub, brushes have tended to get stuck (causing bad electrical contact with the commutator) in "open endbell" motors whereas the "trailing free-floating" brushes in a silvercan stay in contact with the commutator very well. Because of the moderate currents when running with a reduction gearbox, the otherwise inferior design of the closed endbell silvercan 540 is not a problem. Also, with the gear reduction, the motor is allowed to work more efficiently at higher RPM's (but the gear reduction of course add a loss), and surge current during initial acceleration is lower. To me, nothing beats "granny's low"! []