Tweet
hey thought this was pretty slick so i decided to share my findings here, check it out.
http://www.rccrawler.com/forum/showthre ... hlight=dig
http://www.rccrawler.com/forum/showthre ... hlight=dig
-
-
Re: torque twist control
Very cool idea. Looks like it works when he is in dig unlock mode. pull out the torque roll from 4wd, then suck down the frame. nice idea. -
Re: torque twist control
yeah seemed like it really helped! pretty simple concept and effective.Comment
-
Re: torque twist control
Would that be legal???
That would be like having an adjustable suspension...Comment
-
Re: torque twist control
Originally posted by Rckcrwlr
With the way he has it set-up no. If it was mounted within 1" of the axle centerline then yes, same as a suckdown winch.Comment
-
Re: torque twist control
what if it was mounted center of axle but not center of chssis? does it have to be center to center to be legal?Comment
-
Re: torque twist control
which axle CL? the X axis or Z axis?Originally posted by Bustedcrawler
it looks good, but dang, there is ONE MORE stinking servo to put on your rig to suck up battery life.Comment
-
Re: torque twist control
only need to run 8-10 min max for a comp. who cares how much torque twist you have when playing around, just unplug it for more battery life.Originally posted by STEEL_CITY_CRAWLERComment
-
Re: torque twist control
Are you saying does the servo have to be mounted to the center of the chassis if it hooks up to the center of the axle?Originally posted by Rockbound
No, IF the linkage runs inside the box 1 inch either side of the centerline.
It would have to be similar to your old winch servo set-up. The servo was off-set, but where the line exited the chassis and where it picked up the front axle was in the correct location.Comment
-
Re: torque twist control
Originally posted by STEEL_CITY_CRAWLER
How do you have your cordinates set-up?
should be within 1 inch of X and Y, and as close to 1 inch on Z as physically possible, IMHO.Comment
-
Re: torque twist control
X is widthOriginally posted by BustedcrawlerOriginally posted by STEEL_CITY_CRAWLER
How do you have your cordinates set-up?
should be within 1 inch of X and Y, and as close to 1 inch on Z as physically possible, IMHO.
Y is height
Z is length
i rarely refer to the Z axis in mormal situations. (being a steel designer)Comment
-
Re: torque twist control
Originally posted by STEEL_CITY_CRAWLER
That is why I asked as my nominal coordinates are:
X for width
Y for length
Z for elevationComment
-
Re: torque twist control
ahh, good info to know from the "rules comittee"Originally posted by Bustedcrawler
when referencing axis i will follow this, to minimize confusion between all....
Comment
-
Re: torque twist control
There is no set USRCCA coordinate system...
That is just what I am used to with 3D modeling and how we do drawings and 3D stuff at work
Comment
-
Re: torque twist control
nice setup and kool idea.
I foresee problems if used in a comp though.
Essentially it would fall under the "forced articulation" rule:
BUT, due to the linkage used between the chassis and axle, and being mounted to a servo (movable mount point), it would konflikt with the suspension mount rule:2.1.8 - Forced Articulation is allowed – Forced articulation is the use of something such as hydraulics or electronics to literally force the suspension to move in a driver-controlled manner.
In which they use the terminology for "fixed" to mean, not being able to move relative to other suspension/linkage mounting points.2.1.5 - All suspension mounting points must be fixed mounted. This includes all link mounts, and shock mounts.
They used this interpretation to outlaw extendable chassis.
Which, IMHO is a BS interpretation of the rule, as it would mean that shocks and cantilevers were illegal as well.
I got this from an instanse I had posted on RCC, in which after getting the response i did with that interpretation, I conceded my argument with an obligatory post about cantilevers.
Suspension argument from RCC:
My initial post on subjekt:
shadowtech
[quote:1ecssadu]ctlarson
I have a question about the following rule, for both 2.2 & Super classes:
"All suspension mounting points must be fixed mounted. This includes all link mounts, and shock mounts."
Does this mean cantilever shock setups are not allowed? If not cantilevers, I am unclear as to what exactly they are trying to prohibit.todd1803
I believe this is intended to stop people from running an adjust on the fly type of suspension. Cantilevers are a fixed suspension pivot. An example of a non-fixed mount would be if you built your upper link mounts on a slide, and installed a servo to move if up and down to adjust anti-squat while running.
At least that's how I would apply the rule.ok, first off, HI! new to the forums here
now on to business..
This suspension rule is carried over into the 2008 rules. Now I can see todd's point in his reply. I have yet to see how the videos in Grizzly's reply apply to this suspension rule. As from what I can see in the videos, the suspension and mounts do not have floating/adjustable mount points. What I do see is an electronically operated telescoping chassis, which according to the rules, is not a violation. The only way I could see a violation with the telescoping chassis is if: 1.) In the 2.2 class it extended to more than a 12.5 inch wheelbase, or 2.) In the Super class is compressed to less than a 12 in wheelbase, and/or 3.) The telescoping action is used within the run of a course.
Anyways, my point is, the truck in the videos can be seen in violation of another rule (The vehicle must run a course entirely with the same wheelbase, track width, ride height, and tires it started that course with. Any changes to the vehicle [other than winching down the suspension or forced articulation] by the driver, another person, or any device, while on the course are prohibited.) if used in that aspect, but not in relevance to the suspension mounting rule, nor the question asked about it.
I'm new to this board, so don't beat me too hard.
Just had to make a message on this, as it was bothering me. [/quote:1ecssadu]
The reply sent to me:
To this point, if the suspension mounting points move relative to each other, then they are not "fixed".Grizzly4x4
The rule that ctlarson refers to was written because we wanted to make "on the fly" extending wheelbase chassis' illegial. That's why I referred to the videos.
[quote:1ecssadu]shadowtech
As from what I can see in the videos, the suspension and mounts do not have floating/adjustable mount points. What I do see is an electronically operated telescoping chassis, which according to the rules, is not a violation.
Sure the link and shock mounting points do not move relative to the chassis, but the rear link/shock mounting points move relative to the front link/shock mounting points. Or vise versa depending on what you use for a reference. Therefore the mounting point locations are not "fixed".
Another way to look at it is: measure the distance between the shock mounting holes at the beginning of the video, then measure again at the end of the video. The distance is not the same, therefore the mounting points are not fixed.
Does that make it clearer? [/quote:1ecssadu]
SO, with this argument, and the reply given with their interpretation of the wording of, and reason for, the rules given for 2008; is where I foresee problems with his "twist torque control system" if used in a comp.
I know, a lil log winded, but just my $0.02 on the matter
USRCCA 2008 Rules (pdf)Comment
Comment