So after several races with the aluminum chassis on the new black CRC carpet, it's time for some thoughts...
Oddly enough, I sort of felt better about how the car set up with this chassis on the older gray CRC carpet. The first time it put it down, it was awesome. On the black carpet, it was a bit harder to nail the setup. However, this could also be partly due to the high bite at both the races I attended, especially the ROAR nationals in St. Louis.
Part of the problem at the ROAR race was a lack of mid corner steering. Going too aggressive with the front end would only result in a traction roll anyway, so my mistake may have been going with the least flexible front end parts on the aluminum chassis. I used the cross brace for the lower arms, and a pair of Xtreme racing lower arms which have extra bracing. I feel like that may have been what was limiting the car in the middle of the corner. Upon returning to my home track, which has the gray carpet, I went back to the standard lower arms and removed the brace. I felt like the car was a little more forgiving to get around the track. It was hard to tell how much this affected the mid corner steering, since the grip level was different, but at my track mid corner was good. I will return to the Ft. Wayne track in the next few weeks, so it will give a chance for me to revisit that issue.
I would like to point out that the eventual champion at the ROAR race and the rest of the local racers ran the graphite chassis on the car, and did not seem to have a big problem with traction roll. Sometimes the cars looked edgy at the start but they were able to manage that for the most part. Part of this may also have been the tire dope strategy. I noticed some guys doping their tires 15-20 minutes early, so that the compound would dry on the tires. I tried this as well and the car finished the race better. It also didn't seem to make the car any harder to drive. Letting the compound dry might have helped alleviate some of the initial oversteer/tire lifting that occurs when the tires are wiped just before the race.
In general, I think that the aluminum chassis makes the car very consistent, and reduces a lot of the tendency to traction roll. I probably went a little overboard on the stiffer components for the front end. I would imagine that the cross brace for the front end is not necessary in most cases with the aluminum chassis. The stiffer lower arms might be helpful depending on the level of traction. Being aware of how these parts affect the car, I'd like to test again on the black carpet. I should have a little more knowledge in a few weeks.
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
Sunday, January 31, 2016
The Aluminum Xray...and a note on the Serpent wing
After some races with the Xray X1 on the new CRC black carpet, I was interested in possibilities of stiffening the car overall. The X1 has shown it capabilities on various surfaces from asphalt to carpet. This versatility is great since the car will be competitive almost anywhere, but sometimes there are areas where specialized parts help.
Jan Rathiesky showed up at the first ETS race of the season - on carpet- with the aluminum chassis on his Xray. (photo - RedRC)
This is probably a hint.
Anyway, what stood out to me after a couple of these events on the high traction CRC black carpet was that the new CRC F1 with the transverse battery looked awesome...and it was also very flat on the track. It rarely seemed to pick up a tire or traction roll. CRC's website does make mention of the high stiffness weave of their chassis. The car also has a solid lower arm, which I assume is stiffer than the Xray lower arm.
In any event, I wondered if trying to remove some of the flex in the Xray car could help in high traction.
I was able to get an Xray aluminum chassis as well as front lower arms by Xtreme Racing. They sell a lower arm with additional bracing for some more stiffness. I added both these parts to my car, keeping the setup close to see what, if any, difference could be found. Note that the aluminum chassis is 2mm vs. 2.5, so the links and the "football" pivot need a 0.5mm shim to maintain the proper orientation to the stock pod plate.
At the track, I prepared the tires as I did with the original equipment. Putting the car on the track, I noticed the car did not have quite as much mid corner steering as it had before, but it was very flat as it went around the track. This was good as there was recently a well attended series race at the track on the same layout and traction remained very good, though not as high as the CRC black carpet. I also felt like the car was smoother and more predictable all the way around the track. I could drive in a more on power style as well, which I prefer. Adding 0.5mm to the rear of the upper arm for a total of 2.5mm of dynamic caster spacing added the mid corner steering I wanted. It seemed like the car held better corner speed, as I could roll down in throttle and the car didn't seem to bog or "stop" in the corner as it did occasionally before.
Overall, the car gained a more composed feel on carpet. As good as the Xray car is, there have been times where getting the amount of steering into the car to be competitive could make it a little unpredictable. During on of the races, a marshall commented on how good the car looked, and how easy to drive it looked as well. It was really good for how little I had to change in setup. In a couple weeks I'll be attending another race on the new CRC carpet so a real shake down will occur then. I'm sure I'll have some more thoughts about the new chassis.
Serpent wing update:
I mounted the wing to the graphite tongue I made with aluminum screws. PLEASE USE ALUMINUM SCREWS HERE! I had a harsh crash in practice at full speed, and one screw sheared off. Nothing else was damaged. The aluminum screws are like a fuse that will pop off in a very bad accident and save the wing and/or the graphite parts on your car! I also wound up using 5mm spacers to keep the wing off the track....
Sunday, January 17, 2016
Bulletproofing the Serpent wing
It appears the object was to keep the front wing lightweight at the attachment, and maintaining a realistic look. Both were achieved, but a good crash will crack the wing. I attempted to rebuild and re-enforce my broken wing with J-B Quick epoxy and a piece of carbon fiber, but it broke just as quick again on the next practice run.
At home, I thought about what could be done, and I realized that just the wing itself could be attached as the Xray lexan wings are. I was able to remove the old wing pylon and drill the wing element for an Xray bumper.
At that point, I decided that while the Xray bumper certainly would be secure, it would probably be a bit heavy, and possibly strange looking. I decided to use some scrap carbon fiber chassis material to make an attachment using the same hole pattern as the Xray bumper. This would allow me to use either the Xray bumper or the carbon fiber. Not a bad option if the carbon fiber did not pan out in testing.
It didn't take too long to make a little tongue to mount the wing to the chassis. Not only is it light weight, but it allows some flexibility in how high the wing is mounted as well via spacers underneath the wing element.
All in all, this worked out fantastically. I ran it all day at the local series race, and there were no problems. The wing proved very durable once the attachment was improved. I noticed the lighter Serpent wing gives a little more steering and response, so the carbon fiber attachment only improves this aspect. At some point I will try to make a better finished version, but this prototype piece worked in an excellent fashion.
Sunday, January 3, 2016
F1 Flow Chart
I made this post over at RC tech, but I figured I'd copy it over here before it winds up pages back on the thread....
F1 Flow Chart:
TCS racing?
If yes, see below, If no skip directly to "Buy XRAY"
Do You race on carpet? If no skip directly to "Buy TRF102"
If yes, this is where things start getting interesting.
F104 t bar cars - you need to really look at the F104X1 (or a car optioned to the same spec) or the F104W GP. The X1 has fiberglass chassis parts which actually can be a good thing. It makes a little more traction and has a little more weight down low, which again is not all bad. I have witnessed several brutal beatdowns on high grip carpet with this car. Pretty well optioned if you can get a kit/car. Really the only things you may want are the carbon axle, and clamping hub.
The WGP car is very similar, however you will need to buy the standard F104 front end plastic parts and shorter turnbuckles as the car is an older "wide" 200mm car with the included F103 front end parts. That being said, it is the most well optioned F104 in my opinion. All pod parts are aluminum, chassis is graphite, it includes the aluminum front knuckles, and the t plate I like better. The t plate has a different flex point which I think makes a little more traction. You may also fit any of the other F104 t bars as well, noting that the standard F104 cars cannot use the WGP's tbar due to the larger chassis opening required. Last time I checked you can still find this car for under $200 USD at rc-art online from Japan.
These cars don't turn in quite as hard as a TRF102, which has a much thinner chassis and flexes more in general. That's not always a bad thing, but I have always found that you need to keep a good balance in the car's handling to make it driveable. The car will feel either a little dead off the center of the wheel or it will get a little unstable if you want a steering machine. This is not a concern if you are only racing other Tamiya cars but you will be off the pace vs. Xrays or cars with a similar layout. (off topic excursion coming...) In my experience, and that of even other guys who I feel are better drivers than I am, you won't get the ultimate pace of the other brand chassis. I have been to non TCS races where we threw the kitchen sink at it and in the end you just make the car hard to drive trying to keep up.
The TRF101 has some nice features, including the ability to move the links around and has a little more flexible chassis than the F104V2. Oddly enough, I always had the feeling that it accelerated much better than the other cars in the series, why I don't know. I haven't tried to measue the pod or anything to see if there is some difference, but whatever.
I really don't care for the front end. There is little adjustment and the design is less than optimal to use what should be good features. If you let the upper arm flex too much, the kingpins can pop out. Ride height can be hard to set where you want it. No caster adjustment, like the normal F104 front end ( well not really true since you get more caster the less camber you run). It actually would have been super simple to add to the design via a couple extra holes in the upper arm, but that's neither here nor there. It's simple, and camber is easy to adjust to the 2 positions offered, but on carpet you wind up searching for steering most of the time. At least the F104 front end lets you have 6 camber settings and the ability to add dynamic caster like a 1/12 car with different height ball studs. The more stable handling has seemed to work for some on asphalt. Trying a set of the normal F104 upper arm parts might make this car a little better, but I have always liked the feel of the t bar's more stable launch out of a corner vs Tamiya's link cars.
Getting to the TRF102, the biggest flaw is the chassis if you are going to race carpet. I have gotten this car to within a couple tenths of my Xray car on carpet, which is pretty good since I feel like the Tamiya front end does not produce the steering of the Xray. You need to strap the battery to the chassis and also use double sided tape to make the battery a "stressed member" to help stiffen the car up for carpet. Otherwise, every corner is an adventure if traction is up. For non TCS racing you could fashion an upper deck from scratch or cut up F104 parts, as the holes line up. This is semi effective, but you will get crushed by Xrays and their clones anyway. The other problem is that a lot of the steering is actually produced by chassis flex just behind the servo, so you can't just make it a tank.
I think the TRF102 is probably going to work out for carpet if you use the battery to get the car stiffer. It does have a good amount of steering that just needs to be tamed. Work still needs to be done to get it 100% dialed for carpet, in my opinion. Otherwise, I would go with an F104WGP, which just has a different feel, and can be really fast as well, and has a lot of good setup knowledge out there.
TCS racing?
If yes, see below, If no skip directly to "Buy XRAY"
Do You race on carpet? If no skip directly to "Buy TRF102"
If yes, this is where things start getting interesting.
F104 t bar cars - you need to really look at the F104X1 (or a car optioned to the same spec) or the F104W GP. The X1 has fiberglass chassis parts which actually can be a good thing. It makes a little more traction and has a little more weight down low, which again is not all bad. I have witnessed several brutal beatdowns on high grip carpet with this car. Pretty well optioned if you can get a kit/car. Really the only things you may want are the carbon axle, and clamping hub.
The WGP car is very similar, however you will need to buy the standard F104 front end plastic parts and shorter turnbuckles as the car is an older "wide" 200mm car with the included F103 front end parts. That being said, it is the most well optioned F104 in my opinion. All pod parts are aluminum, chassis is graphite, it includes the aluminum front knuckles, and the t plate I like better. The t plate has a different flex point which I think makes a little more traction. You may also fit any of the other F104 t bars as well, noting that the standard F104 cars cannot use the WGP's tbar due to the larger chassis opening required. Last time I checked you can still find this car for under $200 USD at rc-art online from Japan.
These cars don't turn in quite as hard as a TRF102, which has a much thinner chassis and flexes more in general. That's not always a bad thing, but I have always found that you need to keep a good balance in the car's handling to make it driveable. The car will feel either a little dead off the center of the wheel or it will get a little unstable if you want a steering machine. This is not a concern if you are only racing other Tamiya cars but you will be off the pace vs. Xrays or cars with a similar layout. (off topic excursion coming...) In my experience, and that of even other guys who I feel are better drivers than I am, you won't get the ultimate pace of the other brand chassis. I have been to non TCS races where we threw the kitchen sink at it and in the end you just make the car hard to drive trying to keep up.
The TRF101 has some nice features, including the ability to move the links around and has a little more flexible chassis than the F104V2. Oddly enough, I always had the feeling that it accelerated much better than the other cars in the series, why I don't know. I haven't tried to measue the pod or anything to see if there is some difference, but whatever.
I really don't care for the front end. There is little adjustment and the design is less than optimal to use what should be good features. If you let the upper arm flex too much, the kingpins can pop out. Ride height can be hard to set where you want it. No caster adjustment, like the normal F104 front end ( well not really true since you get more caster the less camber you run). It actually would have been super simple to add to the design via a couple extra holes in the upper arm, but that's neither here nor there. It's simple, and camber is easy to adjust to the 2 positions offered, but on carpet you wind up searching for steering most of the time. At least the F104 front end lets you have 6 camber settings and the ability to add dynamic caster like a 1/12 car with different height ball studs. The more stable handling has seemed to work for some on asphalt. Trying a set of the normal F104 upper arm parts might make this car a little better, but I have always liked the feel of the t bar's more stable launch out of a corner vs Tamiya's link cars.
Getting to the TRF102, the biggest flaw is the chassis if you are going to race carpet. I have gotten this car to within a couple tenths of my Xray car on carpet, which is pretty good since I feel like the Tamiya front end does not produce the steering of the Xray. You need to strap the battery to the chassis and also use double sided tape to make the battery a "stressed member" to help stiffen the car up for carpet. Otherwise, every corner is an adventure if traction is up. For non TCS racing you could fashion an upper deck from scratch or cut up F104 parts, as the holes line up. This is semi effective, but you will get crushed by Xrays and their clones anyway. The other problem is that a lot of the steering is actually produced by chassis flex just behind the servo, so you can't just make it a tank.
I think the TRF102 is probably going to work out for carpet if you use the battery to get the car stiffer. It does have a good amount of steering that just needs to be tamed. Work still needs to be done to get it 100% dialed for carpet, in my opinion. Otherwise, I would go with an F104WGP, which just has a different feel, and can be really fast as well, and has a lot of good setup knowledge out there.
__________________
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
25.5 in the USA
So 25.5 motor F1 has started to take hold in some parts of the country. There seems to be some out there that feel that this is the wrong direction for the class. The arguments range from "F1 should be hard" to "there will be a motor/battery war". I'm not sure what class does not benefit from good equipment, but making a class "hard", and creating barriers to entry is not the way for what is a niche class for most.
When the idea of 25.5 motors was first mentioned to me, I was ambivalent to the idea. 21.5 was working fine, and I didn't really see what the point was. At the same time, I figured if it got more guys involved, that is a good thing. There had been a slow decline in general F1 participation in many parts of the US, including Southern California, where UF1 started and built the class up. The series was pretty much over there.
The remaining guys decided to try something at the club races: 25.5 motors. Oddly enough, the same idea was tried in Cleveland Ohio at the Gate r/c club. Both places found pretty much the same thing, that the cars were much more docile, but produced almost the same lap times. Even more important, a wider range of skill levels could get the most out of the car, making better racing.
Bill Jeric and his Tuning Haus Scale Series in SoCal instituted the 25.5 motor, and they have increased F1 attendance. Both the Halloween Classic race at the Gate and the US Indoor Champs ran 25.5, and the racing was much better. There was a lot more racing and a lot less hanging on. Even at my home track, there is now a heat of cars weekly, where there was lucky to be any F1 racing outside of special events like the Tamiya series or UF1 MIDWEST.
I don't know if this is the answer for outdoor racing. While a little less motor should make an easier to tame car on outdoor surfaces with less bite, the tracks are bigger. There will still be a segment that will want to take advantage and go a little faster.
When the idea of 25.5 motors was first mentioned to me, I was ambivalent to the idea. 21.5 was working fine, and I didn't really see what the point was. At the same time, I figured if it got more guys involved, that is a good thing. There had been a slow decline in general F1 participation in many parts of the US, including Southern California, where UF1 started and built the class up. The series was pretty much over there.
The remaining guys decided to try something at the club races: 25.5 motors. Oddly enough, the same idea was tried in Cleveland Ohio at the Gate r/c club. Both places found pretty much the same thing, that the cars were much more docile, but produced almost the same lap times. Even more important, a wider range of skill levels could get the most out of the car, making better racing.
Bill Jeric and his Tuning Haus Scale Series in SoCal instituted the 25.5 motor, and they have increased F1 attendance. Both the Halloween Classic race at the Gate and the US Indoor Champs ran 25.5, and the racing was much better. There was a lot more racing and a lot less hanging on. Even at my home track, there is now a heat of cars weekly, where there was lucky to be any F1 racing outside of special events like the Tamiya series or UF1 MIDWEST.
I don't know if this is the answer for outdoor racing. While a little less motor should make an easier to tame car on outdoor surfaces with less bite, the tracks are bigger. There will still be a segment that will want to take advantage and go a little faster.
Sunday, December 13, 2015
What just happened??
Xray introduced the X1 a while ago, and proceeded to issue a bunch of beatdowns at the ETS races in Europe, among other places. Until this point, there were several ideas on how to build an F1 chassis, but most involved an inline battery.
The front ends were also hit or miss depending on which car you had. The Tamiya front end was pretty durable, and fairly adjustable if you threw the Exotek parts on it. It still had limitations. Speedpassion had some good ideas, but it was hard to set with the shims and graphite plate..maybe a bit complicated for what it did. Some others like CRC and VBC tried to be a little more straightforward yet functional.
So now there has been a sudden swarm of cars based on the "Xray layout" - transverse battery, graphite plate front end parts, and often, a bellcrank steering system.
The front ends were also hit or miss depending on which car you had. The Tamiya front end was pretty durable, and fairly adjustable if you threw the Exotek parts on it. It still had limitations. Speedpassion had some good ideas, but it was hard to set with the shims and graphite plate..maybe a bit complicated for what it did. Some others like CRC and VBC tried to be a little more straightforward yet functional.
So now there has been a sudden swarm of cars based on the "Xray layout" - transverse battery, graphite plate front end parts, and often, a bellcrank steering system.
Xray X1 2016
VBC LightningFX
Bringing back the old front end, but with the
bellcrank instead of direct steering
Roche Rapide
Exotek
Still retaining the Exotek IFS front end
TOP Racing
No bellcranks. adjustable servo angle
Serpent F110SF2
CRC
US Indoor Champs winner,
note machined bulkhead for upper link
So in the last six months, there seems to have been a consensus built on the success of the Xray X1. Only Tamiya carries on with an inline chassis configuration. Ironically, a Tamiya car has taken second place at the most recent ETS race in the Czech Republic. It's hard to know if Tamiya will introduce a car along these lines, knowing their desire to produce scale appearing race cars. The TRF102 was only introduced last summer, but the TRF line would be the only way that made sense for a pure race car to make its appearance.
In my own experience, the Xray cars have easily had .2 seconds per lap on a carpet track over a typical Tamiya car right out of the box. They did not seem to diff as badly, and overall had much more stability. On top of everything else, the front end adjusts easily, with all the aspects you'd like to control (camber , caster . roll center, camber gain, etc.).
Perhaps this is a sign F1 is gaining traction as a class worldwide and can finally have some staying power.
Many pictures stolen from REDRC
Monday, June 29, 2015
Sunday, April 19, 2015
Long and short...again
Attending the Toledo round of the UF1 MIDWEST series a couple months ago, I had not been to the track for some time. Unfortunately for me, my car was pretty much junk at the race and there seemed to be little I could do about it. Disgusted, I decided to rebuild the car completely, similar to the top 2 cars, which were F104W GP cars. My WGP was just not really very good.
Both guys ran the short pack, one with the battery forward, one battery back. As in the past, I have been a big advocate of the full sized battery. I did want to try the short pack since it was so good in these other cars, and I wanted see if that was the difference. In my mind, I have no problem changing my opinion or being wrong if it results in going faster!
I did initially place the electronics so I could use both types of packs. I have tried both types of packs back to back many times and have gone to the big pack almost every time. One difference is my home track replacing the carpet with the CRC carpet from this past year's IIC race in Vegas. This significantly improved grip levels at the track. In the past, there was a big difference in how the cars behaved at my track and races elsewhere due to the differences in the carpet. With the new carpet, I found the short pack to be very good, and I chose to stick with it. At the first UF1 MIDWEST race of the year in Cleveland, I actually went to the short pack and then reverted to the full sized pack and went faster. However, this was with the SpeedPassion SP-1 link car and not a T bar car like the WGP. Maybe the T bar car makes a little more grip naturally? I'm not exactly sure. Either way, I stuck with the short battery.
I can say this certainly did work well for me, as I was able to tq and win the UF1 round at my home track, as well as the Tamiya TCS race shortly after. I tried the big pack during practice for the TCS race, but as the car was set up, it wanted to over rotate.
The short pack certainly has it's place. It's a setup option as much as any other adjustment on the car. The full sized pack is definitely useful in low traction situations, and on asphalt, as I still think it plants the car better and slides the rear tires less. That can be a big difference keeping the rears from going off, especially on a hot day.
Both guys ran the short pack, one with the battery forward, one battery back. As in the past, I have been a big advocate of the full sized battery. I did want to try the short pack since it was so good in these other cars, and I wanted see if that was the difference. In my mind, I have no problem changing my opinion or being wrong if it results in going faster!
I did initially place the electronics so I could use both types of packs. I have tried both types of packs back to back many times and have gone to the big pack almost every time. One difference is my home track replacing the carpet with the CRC carpet from this past year's IIC race in Vegas. This significantly improved grip levels at the track. In the past, there was a big difference in how the cars behaved at my track and races elsewhere due to the differences in the carpet. With the new carpet, I found the short pack to be very good, and I chose to stick with it. At the first UF1 MIDWEST race of the year in Cleveland, I actually went to the short pack and then reverted to the full sized pack and went faster. However, this was with the SpeedPassion SP-1 link car and not a T bar car like the WGP. Maybe the T bar car makes a little more grip naturally? I'm not exactly sure. Either way, I stuck with the short battery.
I can say this certainly did work well for me, as I was able to tq and win the UF1 round at my home track, as well as the Tamiya TCS race shortly after. I tried the big pack during practice for the TCS race, but as the car was set up, it wanted to over rotate.
The short pack certainly has it's place. It's a setup option as much as any other adjustment on the car. The full sized pack is definitely useful in low traction situations, and on asphalt, as I still think it plants the car better and slides the rear tires less. That can be a big difference keeping the rears from going off, especially on a hot day.
Thursday, November 13, 2014
TRF101..... better late than never
So I have had a TRF 101 sitting around waiting to be completed for a few months. It's been out for a while, and there is now the TRF 101W as well, though it's 200mm. The biggest change is the front end in comparison to the F104 front end.
I was a little unsure on the new front end in that I was used to the parameters I could use to tune the F104 front end. The TRF setup is a lot like the old F103 standard front end or an Associated "old school" front end. About all you can really change is the camber, spring, and the amount of flex.
Tuesday I was headed up to the local track (fresh rug ..yeah!) for a little practice time, and I was waiting on parts for my other car. The TRF just needed to be finished off, so I decided to bring it and get some time on the track. The setup was pretty standard to what I have run on Tamiya link cars, possibly outside of angling the links which was not possible before. The front of the link was all the way to the inside, the rear in the middle hole with the spring on the rear of the link.
As far as the front end, I set it for max camber just to see what that would do. The car was lifting tires all over the place. It really didn't want to traction roll too much, but it was losing drive off the corner. The track was medium traction, so I knew it would only get worse. I switched to the lesser camber setting and that was just right.
I also wanted to test what would happen with o rings under the upper suspension screws. Potentially it could add some steering, or affect the feel of the car. Using some soft clear o rings and setting the screws to put a moderate squeeze on the o rings, the car was less reactive, but at first I thought it lost some bite on the front end. Going back to a "bolted down" front end definitely brought the reaction back, but not necessarily the steering. I think I was thrown by the fact that it had a mellow steering feel. The added flex has a little more steering, at least in the conditions at my track.
At the same time, I wasn't wholly satisfied with the the way the car was working. Don't get me wrong, it was actually incredibly good for having been set on the track for the first time. Lap times were right where they should be for F1. I felt like I wanted to get between a solid front end and the soft o rings, so I replaced what I had with the hard black O rings that come with Tamiya kits.
Back on the track, this was just what I was looking for. The steering was there and it was pretty easy to drive. The lap times came consistently without pushing hard.
At the other end of the car, I just wanted to see what could be done with the links. Normally, the angled link is a bit more stable getting on the power but will help the car wrap the corner. The car was very stable overall, so I thought straightening the link might help get the car through the corner a little more on power.
So with both ends of the link in the middle hole I went back out on the track. Oddly enough, the car felt much the same getting on the power, but it did not get through the middle of the turn as it had before. Straightening the link killed a lot of the wrap and didn't take away any rear grip. This was somewhat contrary to what I had found on other cars, but I couldn't deny what this car was doing. Most of the time straightening the link frees the car up, but in this case the angle link was better.
On the whole I was really impressed with the TRF101. Right out of the box it felt as good as anything I have had on the track lately. Stable and easy to drive, I didn't feel like it would have needed much to be competitive in any situation. One of my buddies came up and asked if it was as easy to drive as it looked, and I said "YEAH". He was impressed with how smooth it looked and it drove just the way it looked. I hadn't been sure what to expect, but it was a nice surprise.
I was a little unsure on the new front end in that I was used to the parameters I could use to tune the F104 front end. The TRF setup is a lot like the old F103 standard front end or an Associated "old school" front end. About all you can really change is the camber, spring, and the amount of flex.
Tuesday I was headed up to the local track (fresh rug ..yeah!) for a little practice time, and I was waiting on parts for my other car. The TRF just needed to be finished off, so I decided to bring it and get some time on the track. The setup was pretty standard to what I have run on Tamiya link cars, possibly outside of angling the links which was not possible before. The front of the link was all the way to the inside, the rear in the middle hole with the spring on the rear of the link.
As far as the front end, I set it for max camber just to see what that would do. The car was lifting tires all over the place. It really didn't want to traction roll too much, but it was losing drive off the corner. The track was medium traction, so I knew it would only get worse. I switched to the lesser camber setting and that was just right.
I also wanted to test what would happen with o rings under the upper suspension screws. Potentially it could add some steering, or affect the feel of the car. Using some soft clear o rings and setting the screws to put a moderate squeeze on the o rings, the car was less reactive, but at first I thought it lost some bite on the front end. Going back to a "bolted down" front end definitely brought the reaction back, but not necessarily the steering. I think I was thrown by the fact that it had a mellow steering feel. The added flex has a little more steering, at least in the conditions at my track.
At the same time, I wasn't wholly satisfied with the the way the car was working. Don't get me wrong, it was actually incredibly good for having been set on the track for the first time. Lap times were right where they should be for F1. I felt like I wanted to get between a solid front end and the soft o rings, so I replaced what I had with the hard black O rings that come with Tamiya kits.
Back on the track, this was just what I was looking for. The steering was there and it was pretty easy to drive. The lap times came consistently without pushing hard.
At the other end of the car, I just wanted to see what could be done with the links. Normally, the angled link is a bit more stable getting on the power but will help the car wrap the corner. The car was very stable overall, so I thought straightening the link might help get the car through the corner a little more on power.
So with both ends of the link in the middle hole I went back out on the track. Oddly enough, the car felt much the same getting on the power, but it did not get through the middle of the turn as it had before. Straightening the link killed a lot of the wrap and didn't take away any rear grip. This was somewhat contrary to what I had found on other cars, but I couldn't deny what this car was doing. Most of the time straightening the link frees the car up, but in this case the angle link was better.
On the whole I was really impressed with the TRF101. Right out of the box it felt as good as anything I have had on the track lately. Stable and easy to drive, I didn't feel like it would have needed much to be competitive in any situation. One of my buddies came up and asked if it was as easy to drive as it looked, and I said "YEAH". He was impressed with how smooth it looked and it drove just the way it looked. I hadn't been sure what to expect, but it was a nice surprise.
Friday, November 7, 2014
Halloween Meltdown
Didn't have a good time with the SP-1 at the Halloween Classic at The Gate in Cleveland OH. Qualified 9th finished 10th.
Other than Bill Jeric's VBC, everything at the front was CRC. I think a lot of that has to do with the CRC cars ability to steer without wanting to traction roll, at least most of the cars I saw. The VBC car was pretty stable as well.
I did add a set screw in the unused hole on the cam to try to stabilize the arm by putting another point of contact there. I'm not sure how much it helped.
Anyway, I rebuilt the front end, checked the football and links, etc. etc. Same thing next round! Now I was really confused. I went through everything again. The only thing I could figure was maybe I needed more preload on the side springs? I added preload, but I'm not sure if that cured it. This time I had also flattened out the upper arms to try to make sure it would not tip, but it was just pushy. Bleh.
Other than Bill Jeric's VBC, everything at the front was CRC. I think a lot of that has to do with the CRC cars ability to steer without wanting to traction roll, at least most of the cars I saw. The VBC car was pretty stable as well.
I went into the race with the same setup as I had the last time I was out there. Traction was up as you may imagine. Initially, the car had a lot of off power steering, but needed more on power. Not a big problem. One thing I was noticing, contact with boards was changing my trim. If I touched a board it was making the steering go 7-8 clicks one way or the other. (note I replaced the ball cups on the steering links at this point) I had the front suspension plate mounted direct to the chassis with 5mm spacers under the suspension arms. I noticed the cams that set the width of the lower arms looked cock eyed. Figuring that being raised off of the suspension plate, the arms could move, I instead raised the plate on the spacers and mounted the arms directly on the plate. Everything should be fine, but when I went out for the first qualifier, the car felt broken. It felt like when the foam on the steering wheel of your radio jams against the radio body and the wheel won't return (I DID check this LOL). The car was actually good, but it was hard to determine exactly where it was going or how much to turn the wheel.
I did add a set screw in the unused hole on the cam to try to stabilize the arm by putting another point of contact there. I'm not sure how much it helped.
Anyway, I rebuilt the front end, checked the football and links, etc. etc. Same thing next round! Now I was really confused. I went through everything again. The only thing I could figure was maybe I needed more preload on the side springs? I added preload, but I'm not sure if that cured it. This time I had also flattened out the upper arms to try to make sure it would not tip, but it was just pushy. Bleh.
Looking back, maybe something on the steering was touching during suspension travel, as was suggested by one of my friends.
In the final qualifier, I dropped that arm back down and added front droop. This helped but it was touchy. Driving very easy, it was actually decent, but wanted to roll if pushed. It was all for naught anyway as I had a crash and I popped off an upper arm.
In the main I set up the car with an Exotek upper am and Tamiya knuckle combo, mostly to ensure the front end would not break. I didn't have enough new plastic with me to replace the front end parts. 6* caster and 1.5 camber. Car drove ok, and I was fighting with the back end of the field until I crashed again...yay
One mistake I think I made was being wide on the suspension links. Looking at the CRC car, the links are extremely narrow, which upon reflection of the last few weeks, may be the way to go. I think it brings more steering to the car by allowing the rear end to work with the front end. Being wide on the links I think that may contribute to the lifting/traction roll by limiting travel.
Also, talking with a buddy he did bring up one interesting point among a lot of other things: a bunch of the 1/12 cars are moving the spring as far inboard as they can. I have to look into this as far as how true it is but the theory is that it is working the spring more for the amount of pod movement. Intriguing.
I am also looking at cutting a new front suspension plate with a hole to bolt the lower arm down with the unused hole near the suspension ball. Maybe this would keep the arm from moving in a crash and help with high traction stability.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)