|
||
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
#141
22-04-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
#142
22-04-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Dragon Paints
|
|
#143
22-04-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
Pdw
Read post 124 i4n managed to read it all. The one with 10grams has a Zen axle, hence the weight else where
__________________
MBModels - Schumacher Racing - Vapextech.co.uk - MRT - Savox - SMD
|
|
#144
22-04-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
Weight watchers
Attachment 78657
Well Stu, sounds like the pounds (oops grams) will soon be shed! The carbon chassis will deliver 20 grams.  I have split three though, not all my own fault I might add, where the bumper screw pulls through and delaminates the chassis front, the S1 will obviously do the same at some point though!  Schumacher now have a new chassis protector available which may help!  The photo shows my car ready to race without wheels and shell at 815 grams, using the 'heavy +20g' S1 chassis and an RCS chassis decal, I obviously don't know how this compares to all the other weight watchers on here!  Have fun rebuilding and watching the grams fall away, John
|
|
#145
22-04-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
MBModels - Schumacher Racing - Vapextech.co.uk - MRT - Savox - SMD
|
|
#146
22-04-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
Yes I am extremely excited to get the bits together and start dropping this weight I have been carrying around!
Will be interesting to see how the car feels post weight reductions along with the Vapex lipo. I am also tempted to get the Thunder Power motor, but there is a real part of me that feels like my Dynamite should be able to deliver the same performance, but maybe I am kidding myself. There must be a reason why everyone seems to have this thunder power motor. As they say, if you can't beat em join em!! Unfortunately though, I have a heap of travelling coming up so the car may take a little time before it sees a track again, but I will be very keen to keep this thread going as I believe we can cover every newbie needs to know... It is very interesting seeing all the variables for the weight distribution and the variety of ways people have gone about this, with the arrangement of their electrics in the chassis. I am very keen to get the scales out and start tinkering with the set-up. Would everyone subscribe to a 60-40 weight ratio, 60% rear and 40% front, it seems that pops up quite a lot.
|
|
#147
22-04-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
SlowOne
To clarify, you are saying the IS front conversion is not worth keeping? Go back to the original setup that comes with the kit? To be honest, I had noticed that the car had gone to the understeer side which I had put down to more less the reduction in grip role the lowered pod had brought to the party... So ditch the from conversion... My intention therefore when I rebuild the kit; 1 - Ditch the from end, return to kit. 2 - Keep lowered pod, side dampers (would you recommend thicker side damper oil? i have heard 15000 oil is better?) 3 - Balance the front and rear pods with jewellery scales 4 - New connectors which Beale provided a link for 5 - Reduce wire length to maximum without interfering with the chassis functionality Anything else chaps....?
|
|
#148
22-04-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
pdw seemed to think it was why I had more weight on my car oil is track dependent try it no front pod to balance?
__________________
MBModels - Schumacher Racing - Vapextech.co.uk - MRT - Savox - SMD
|
|
#149
22-04-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
Would be very interested to hear your opinion on the front IF... I think its a winner, depending on your thoughts post the weekend will probably inspire me to keep them. I like the setup..
Sorry , r.e the front pod to balance, I meant the chassis.. balancing up the electrics etc
|
|
#150
22-04-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
Was going to say! Stu you seem to of made a very affordable car unaffordable to most, we have good drivers driving kit S1's with Turnigy electrics faster than carbon with TP motors HW ESC's just because of their ability, I like bling as we all do but don't ditch anything till you've maxed your potential
|
|
#151
22-04-2015
|
|||
|
|||
|
@Xracer - Stu is spending pounds to shed grammes!!
 Stu, I would stick to the kit front end for now. I always drive cars as kit for a few meetings first and tune them up to my driving style. Once I have a base set-up I can drive as fast as my brain will let me, then's the time to try something new. If Mark comes back with something definitive on the IFS, then I'd take that advice. Mark spends a lot of time on his car and racing his car. When we raced together, his advice worked for me. The lowered rear roll centre will give more rear grip so the understeer seems a reasonable development. I think softer tyres all round are what David Gale is able to do now with the new roll centre, so you can get some steering back. Balance the main chassis well but don't be too fussy about the rear pod in my view - MarkC will tell you different! Connectors and wire a from me!Stick to kit oils and springs for now. As Mark says, this is tuned to the track conditions, not just because there are other chassis changes. Get it to a reasonable weight, put the lower-grip setup on it from the handbook and then go race it. Once you have a feel for the car and can replicate lap times within a gnats cock, then you can change things and see what the clock says. Anything else - just get out and drive!! HHT
|
|
#152
22-04-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
Beale..
No no, I'm ditching anything... I just want to get the setup right, and a car that is inline with the majority then I will settle for just chipping away with my driving skills. What I can't do is drive a car that I know is inferior in balance and other details like motor, lips etc which don't give me a sporting chance... It stands to reason, the best drivers maximise the the potential of the car, but why would I want to be driving an out of balance, under powered, over weight GT car when the best drivers are driving well balanced, efficient cars that allows them to push their track times. I do see youre point tho.. Having said that, when I turn up at West Kent, I have a picnic table with two small boxes and a charger.. Everyone else backs their truck load of equipment in and races, so I don't think I am going too overboard just yet :-)
|
|
#153
23-04-2015
|
||||
|
||||
motors
Stu...
As a newbie too and for what its worth...I run a tekin redline gen 2 motor with hobbyking 6400 lipos and an older nosram pearl speedo. On my ssgt the gearing is a 70t spur on a 32 pinion (not sure about roll out as I don't bother calculating it and go with the feel of the car out of corners and on the straight to adjust gearing if needs be). Weight is around 974 ready to race. The car is as kit (cf kit) except for the 30g pod weight and an alloy axel. The car is as quick if not quicker on the straights as the quick guys at the club I race at. My driving skills are slowly improving but I am definitely losing time in chicanes rather than on the straights and quicker corners. For what its worth...and as a newbie i may get shouted down ;-) I would get the weight down and concentrate on consistent driving skills before throwing more money at the car. I've found that set up and driving consistency have had the biggest impact on my lap times (oh and changing the body shell from an Aston to Ferrari!). Stick with the motor you have and try and only change one thing at a time re set up....otherwise you'll have no idea which change has effected the car for better or worse! Keep driving Martin Last edited by Martin.s; 23-04-2015 at 09:44 AM.
|
|
#154
23-04-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
-ve grams = +ve ££££'s! plus thoughts on reactive castor!
Quite right SlowOne, diets cost money and as I have said from the beginning of my diatribe!
IFS - it will be interesting to see how this works in combination with the lowered pod pivot. I have never liked the degree of caster change and induced anti-roll with the transversely stiff standard twin beam setup, also splitting the lower beam into independent wishbones may effectively increase the caster change on the loaded wheel due to removing some anti-roll resistance! What this means I cannot imagine yet and when you compare what the Zen offers with effectively no anti-roll or caster change, apart from any load induced flex in the king pin mounts, then is the Schumacher far too complicated? LMP's have long used reactive castor change but I don't think it is anywhere near as much as the Schumacher, I stand corrected if I am wrong on this! We await Marks findings on this one I'm sure!
|
|
#155
23-04-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
Stripped...
|
|
#156
23-04-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
Rebuilt...
Light weight alloy axle too... Weightwatchers :-)
|
|
#157
23-04-2015
|
|||
|
|||
|
XRacer - Mark's IFS has a dirty great big strap between the two sides so it effectively behaves as the single beam. We'll see if he keeps it in place when he reports back. Stu's car does without that adornment.
Reactive castor works by giving the car an easier entry to the corner, stands the kingpin up a bit to gain mid-corner grip and then returns to more castor to help the car complete the turn. It certainly works on LMP cars. When setting up the GT, the castor at rest is as important a setting as the ride height. Too much castor makes the car lazy on entry - a right pain for changing direction in chicanes - and loses grip mid-corner, so the first setting to sort out is that. Most cars set up around 3.5 to 4deg static castor (chassis complete and ready to race) and then set ride height as required whilst retaining that setting. The amount of reactive change is not that much. With 4mm ground clearance and the chassis coming off clean (not decking out) the most movement you'll get is around 2.5mm. Push the car down that amount and the castor goes to about 2.5deg to 3deg depending on the springs fitted. (Note - push the car down on the outside of the LiPo, not across the front axle. Pushing across the front axle effective doubles the spring rate and gives you a false impression. Pushing on the outside of the LiPo weights the outside wheel and unweights the inside wheel, closer to what actually happens.) The amount of movement depends mostly on the springs used. Next, the amount of steering depends on the amount of stiffness of the front suspension in roll. If the suspension is too soft it will un-weight the inside wheel more and you lose traction. More weight goes on to the outside wheel while the inside one is unweighted more. Also, the increased roll from a disconnected front end will make the kingpin camber reduce more and give less tyre contact on the outside wheel. That tends to generate understeer. Depending on your driving style, this works for some and not others. Load induced flex is common to all the cars. None of the front ends can be infinitely stiff (if they were they would break under load!) as they need resilience to absorb static and dynamic loads. It doesn't take much to flex the front ends of any of the cars, even slightly, but that is a function of good design using resilient materials that don't snap the instant we clip a barrier! In reality the amount the kingpin leans out in roll hugely exceeds any flex so the flex is negligible. All the cars theoretically generate more camber because as the wheels turn they describe an arc that presents more of the inside of the tyre to the track. That's just the geometry - there's no way to avoid that. However that is not changing static camber in roll relative to the chassis, it is a function of the geometry of the front axle and kingpin with their camber and castor angles in play. In that respect the GT can generate more than most because you can get it up to 5 or 6deg static castor - but then it gets lazy in the turns...! It's all a compromise as so many have said on here. The reality is that the roll centres front (theoretically on the floor) and rear (theoretically at the centre of the pivot ball) play a more important role than the front suspension geometry in the handling. That's why the GT now has a revised rear roll centre! Looking forward to the weekend and our last GT National of the season. I'll keep an eye on Mark's progress - if IFS is really that good he'll beat me for the first time since SYR in January!
|
|
#158
23-04-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
Goodness me SlowOne you've just knocked me out the park with that one. I'll have to take a few hours to read digest and get back with the various questions I have on that one!!
Very very very interesting stuff, and personally as someone who works in sport and sports performance, knowing the intricacies of what actually goes on during a cars performance is so so important, rather than "just do this, and it will work" Does not grow ones knowledge and understanding which stunts growth... So this is vital stuff which I am loving!! Waiting to weight up the chassis with the electrics and getting a weigh in tomorrow to see what exactly the axle and carbon has had on the car. Very exciting!
|
|
#159
23-04-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Maybe you should see it before you claim what it does! Its a lot softer than the kit beam. A qoute from a windygale Have been running for last few weeks at club. Red springs and a 1.6mm fibreglass ARB link seem good. Have been very happy with car at MK which is quite a difficult and bumpy track. Tomorrow night will try this vs std beam, to try and decide which I will run on sunday.
__________________
MBModels - Schumacher Racing - Vapextech.co.uk - MRT - Savox - SMD
|
|
#160
24-04-2015
|
||||
|
||||
|
SlowOne
So having a little bit of time to read your last post in more detail. In essence, the pitch and roll of the chassis (Ground clearance, spring strength, castor settings) will then detail how much steering and grip the car has. This of course is hugely valuable info for a newbie when setting the car and know what he is feeling for and at what point of the corner you are sensitive too... My eager eye watching the cars move around the circuits, from a Zen to a GT, there is what I believe to be a huge difference of how level the cars seem to appear to be through the cornering. Zens seem to have almost zero or far reduced body roll compared to the GT's... I would think that the reason why people dislike the front conversion (still don't understand the IF's abbreviation) is that it adds more in the way to destabilising the from left and front right of the car which for many could be another anomaly that throws out their perception of what is truly happening to the vehicle. In sport, the more options the more detail the greater detail the increased "opportunity" for performance you have. I say opportunity because sometimes options only leads to confusion, which I think is the reason fro the Zen now becoming more and more popular amongst many good drivers, wishing to take out the art of car setup which surely takes away a huge amount of the enjoyment. I was speaking to a fellow enthusiast and it seems to me the setup is as much if not more enjoyable than the driving itself. Yawn yawn for menu, get me on that track ripping it around I hear you say... But longevity in this sport must come from knowing best how to set the car for the differing tracks... For me therefore, people saying don't do too much is a false economy, know what the car can do and what it can't with the variety of hop ups etc... I am really interested in the Kv ratings (which to many feel this is a make up number than actuals) due to many reasons, and how these sweetspots work with different gearing types and of course this all has a load bearing on how the car handles around the tracks etc... so much to think about and my racing journal of setups and changes is expanding by the day... I would really encourage newbies to take ownership of their setups and cars, ask why and not be a follower of simply "because that driver over there said so, because he is good...." this is not the way to go in the long run... The chances are, that driver has little idea too!!! I am rambling now... Look forward to hearing SlowOne and Mark's views on my thoughts... AND anyone else for that matter!! The more newbies join this thread, the better.. So if you're reading this thread, get involved.... Over and out....
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
