[TC18] >=< (finished, but cancelled)

[Jurss]

Not so nice weather outside, and also idea came already yesterday. In fact, that some development of one old MOC. Now I wnated to make more functional.

In fact, main upgrade and function will be steering. 

The name will be >=<

First mocups.

There is also suspension integrated. That is another function. 

My old original inspirational idea 

Edited April 4, 2020 by Jurss

[Parazels]

It looks very futuristic, almost like Technic cars of late 90s, 

but I can't shake off the feeling it will be too easy to break those long wishbone arms.

[Jurss]

No so bad with those arms, pretty elastic. 

Seems, that this won't look so futuristic, it will look more like some formula, as for double wishbone setup the paneling is much harder, there is not so much space left.

[Jurss]

Done :)

... first iteration.

I don't know if I will continue with this setup, as front wheels bottom part goes soemhow away from center, also then wheels go on each side. It is not playable. So that is not good model ... I'm afraid, I should build something else.

[BusterHaus]

That was quick. Did you think about filling some of the empty spaces on the sides? Maybe some air inlet grills on the front, or exhaust pipes in the rear? 

[Jurss]

As I wrote, this is first iteration. But there is problem with front wheels, because they try to go each on both sides, it is not drivable, just stands nicely. When it turns, then it goes better in fact. It has issues driving straight. 

[Seasider]

Love the simplistic and clean shapes of this

[agrof]

I really like the first sketch model - very promising. Good idea with the unusual suspension (I also had it my mind for a while, but never started to actually try it), I am very interested how You will solve the steering. 

[johnnym]

3 hours ago, Jurss said:

As I wrote, this is first iteration. But there is problem with front wheels, because they try to go each on both sides, it is not drivable, just stands nicely. When it turns, then it goes better in fact. It has issues driving straight. 

Maybe two rubber bands (upper right to lower left and vice versa) could make a difference? But most likely they won't stay where they should.

That track car looks fantastic btw.

[Jurss]

8 hours ago, johnnym said:

Maybe two rubber bands (upper right to lower left and vice versa) could make a difference?

If I understood Your idea, it woult llok just awfull. Lego also doesn't have such a long rubberbands. 

9 hours ago, agrof said:

I also had it my mind for a while, but never started to actually try it

Now You know, that this is not good idea, yes, looks good, but doesnt work, at least for front. That swingarm is just too elastic sideways. Also, if the play in steering would be lees, then it would help. But this is lego. 

Maybe some caster angle would help? Need to think about that. In fact it is there, but negative. Maybe that also makes everything worse.

[Jurss]

This is how it looks going forward

I moved upper swingarms one stud back (it is much, but easyeast for testing), yes, now moving forward is better, but still from "load" bottpm part tends to move sideways (making inclination)

And now (of course) going backwards is real pain

Maybe I'm wrong, but there is no proper way to solve it, or all the "beauty" of this setup will be lost. 

OK, going back to something more standard - but I can keep that solution for back.

 

[johnnym]

1 hour ago, Jurss said:

If I understood Your idea, it woult llok just awfull. Lego also doesn't have such a long rubberbands.

Sure, but if it helps - though I don't know if it does.

58 minutes ago, Jurss said:

I moved upper swingarms one stud back (it is much, but easyeast for testing), yes, now moving forward is better, but still from "load" bottpm part tends to move sideways (making inclination)

What about moving the upper arms also half a stud to the outsides?

[Jurss]

Just now, johnnym said:

What about moving the upper arms also half a stud to the outsides?

Then it will look bad when standing still, I suppose.

[Cumulonimbus]

1 hour ago, Jurss said:

 

Its not a bug it's a feature: you simply modeled the DAS system.

Seriously though, I like your model so far. What's is the problem exactly? Is there too much play in those hub or is the the flexibility of the suspension arms that plays up? In that last case you could replace the lower arm with something more rigid and hide in an undertray.  Might not be as elegant, but it could save this model? Good luck.

[Jurss]

35 minutes ago, Cumulonimbus said:

Is there too much play in those hub or is the the flexibility of the suspension arms that plays up?

Main problem is in that suspension arm, that it can pretty easy flex also on the side. If there would be normal beam with, not halfbeam at that end, then, maybe, there won't be such issues.

Replacing with something more rigid will cancel suspension function and ruin whole idea.

[Cumulonimbus]

5 minutes ago, Jurss said:

Replacing with something more rigid will cancel suspension function and ruin whole idea.

I understand what you're trying to do, my suggestion could have been a bit more clear. What I was trying to say was to come up with another way to create the lower wishbone so that it gives you the degree of freedom in the desired direction (up-down) but rigidity in the other directions. As said, this will probably be more bulky than your current setup, hence the suggestion to hide it in another part of the car.

But it's your party, I'm still trying to find ideas for my entry.

[Void_S]

The problem here, is that these elastic wishbones moves not only in up-down direction but in left-right too and even replacing one of the with a more rigid liftarm will still left the other flexible and able to make this "stance stand".

Personally, I would left is "as-is" as now your car is on the edge of simplicity and effectiveness, so any further changes will bring more and more bulky solutions ruining the idea. I upvote for leaving it with a current setup: in the real life Formula cars, as far as I know, seems to never use reverse gear. Please move forward  

[Jurss]

Of course, I can leave it as it is, as video is not required this time. But I won't be satisfied, and not feel good, knowing, that it just looks good.