Jump to content

AndyCW

Eurobricks Citizen
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    431

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by AndyCW

  1. AndyCW
    There is no need for a differential. Connecting individual motors to individual wheels will provide some level of limited slip differential action. Lego's 8475 and 8366 models used this layout. v/r Andy
  2. AndyCW
    Yes. the yellow piece is a 5l thin lift arm that is anchored at the bottom and the top of the axle. The 'snout' of the pinion seats into the center hole. The nylon washer/shim is not a lego piece. It came from McMaster Car, but I don't have a part number. v/r Andy
  3. AndyCW
    Welcome to the community. Your crawler chassis looks like a great start to the lego RC world. You should put some kind of body on top of it. You can even borrow someone else's body design and adapt it to your chassis. To the best of my knowledge, you can reduce bevel gear slippage by doing the following: Ensure the structure encasing the gears is rigid. Enlarge the 'bearing' surface Place the pinion gear in double shear like the GM 14 bolt with its pinion support. Use a non-lego shim behind the pinion gear to prevent deflection. If this all fails, try using knobs gears Here is a pic of the a shim and the pinion support in the axle of my latest crawler. v/r Andy
  4. AndyCW
    Looks fun. I wish that kind of competition were around here. At least I don't have to worry about breaking construction rules when there is no structured competition. v/r Andy
  5. AndyCW
    Yes, because there would be no current limitations. Unfortunately there would also be no low voltage protections and you would need a Lipo compatible charger. v/r Andy
  6. AndyCW
    I saw the first pic and thought it was built with 62.4mm tires and then I realized it was on a smaller scale. The scale of the MOC is what makes it so interesting. v/r Andy
  7. AndyCW
    What about one of these with a custom adapter soldered together? http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__63375__ZIPPY_Compact_1000mAh_2s_40c_Lipo_Pack.html It has roughly the same capacity as the Lego Lipo battery and the same voltage. v/r Andy
  8. AndyCW
    That change to the front axle is ingenious. Could you turn the rear motor 180 degrees, move the RC unit aft and eliminate the need for the ballast brick? I agree that custom batteries can make a huge difference. The point in my comparison is that my setup allows me to 'use 5292 motors to their full potential' and the RC unit 'should' do the same. The key difference seems to be weight. If I were to run on a 2S Lipo then the comparison would be even better. You are absolutely right that once you cross over into the dark side of including non-lego components, it becomes hard to determine where to stop. Here is a link to the last iteration of my truck. http://www.eurobrick...opic=102138&hl= My newest version has the capabilities listed previously. My builds tend to be neither trophy truck nor trial truck, but closer to King of the Hammers and Rock Bouncers. v/r Andy
  9. AndyCW
    I like its big backside. v/r Andy
  10. AndyCW
    Interesting. I thought the middle gear exchange was 24:8. You make a good point about weight and how required gear ratio and weight do not necessarily scale in a linear fashion with one another. Moving to an S-Brick could be advantageous. The sequence of trophy trucks that were on here a couple of weeks ago make that plainly clear. I currently run 2X 5292 motors through 5:1 gearing with the 107mm tires and it is capable. It pulls a wheelly when sudden direction changes are initiated and spins the tires on tile floors. It also has enough torque to crawl through most anything. Admittedly my truck only weighs 1.4 kg, is relatively balanced fore and aft, uses a 3S Lipo, and a non-lego motor driver/rx. Despite my questions, I love the truck and would love to have the same kind of competitive community on this side of the 'pond'. I envy you. v/r Andy
  11. AndyCW
    Looks and performs great. I think that there is a great deal of margin left in those motors. It appears that it is geared 27:1. I think that you could easily go down to 9:1 and gain drive train efficiency by eliminating one of the 3:1 exchanges. You might even be able to run off of the fast output. Wheel speed matters. ZBLJ's Panther ran 9:1 5292 motors with V1 rx. You have roughly 3+ times more torque delivery capability with the RC unit. I ran 9:1 gearing on 5292 motors with v2 rx and PP tires and had no problems spinning them. I wouldn't be surprised if you could go all the way to 5:1 gearing with the power delivery capabilities of the RC unit. Let her rip, tater chip. v/r Andy
  12. AndyCW
    The car has a lot of booty (back end). I like it. v/r Andy
  13. AndyCW
    Cool. It's nice to see the design of the winning entry in a trial truck race. We don't have many of those here in the 'States'. With the standardized rules of trial truck races it could boil down to drive skill in picking the right 'lines'. v/r Andy
  14. AndyCW
    You were right that this style rarely leaves people indifferent. I enjoy drifting, but these seem like circus clown cars. With that said, what you have created is certainly entertaining and I give you two thumbs up. It looks fun to drive, but I wouldn't want to be seen in that van. v/r Andy
  15. AndyCW
    Wow! The function density is impressive. I have driven vehicles of this size and they are entertaining for a couple of miles and then it quickly becomes tedious. v/r Andy
  16. AndyCW
    Thank you they will compliment the 'birfields' that I ordered the other day. v/r Andy
  17. AndyCW
    Have you thought about using this piece on either side of the center section? One on the top and one on the bottom could be used to reinforce the axles stubs and replace the 2L arms and connectors. v/r Andy
  18. AndyCW
    Is there any chance of your reviving this piece? It seems far superior to the 8880 hubs I am struggling with. An independently sprung crawler would be quite awesome. v/r Andy
  19. AndyCW
    That looks like a fun car. In the same way that a MX-5 is fun and a Viper is terrifying. Kinda Kei Car in its design. v/r Andy
  20. AndyCW
    Knowing when to stop tinkering and calling it goof enough. v/r Andy
  21. AndyCW
    I'll give those parts a try and let you know how they turn out. Thanks for the alternative recommendation. v/r Andy
  22. AndyCW
    Efferman, Could you cook up some u-joints that are two studs in diameter instead of only one. Both the normal style and the slide style. The added diameter should increase the strength of the part. Keeping them three studs long would be ideal. This design would likely not be able to achieve the extreme angles of other designs, but would offer improved strength. On the current parts two things happen when subjected to extreme shock loads... The 'ears' snap off. The center cross moves too freely causing catastrophic wobble. Keeping the joint in a portal hub or similar manner prevents this, but when used for drive shafts they fail. I'm using your joints in your portal hubs and they hold up, but when I use them on drive shafts they inevitably explode. v/r Andy
  23. AndyCW
    I'm a newly minted Kaiser jeep fan. What about one of these? http://powernationtv.com/episode/XO2015-06/project-lockjaw v/r Andy
  24. AndyCW
    That looks better, but we have ground clearance to facilitate break-over angle. A benefit of this height is improved front suspension geometry and an improved turning radius. You could extend the length of the torque arms to regain ground clearance while not impacting geometry too much. Off road vehicles tend to have the longest radius arms, torque arms, and suspension links possible to enable better geometry through the largest range of axle movement. With the reduction in ground clearance you might want to shorten the wheelbase to 'get back' break-over angle. The ratio between the the height of the door and the height of the window opening looks peculiar. Your window opening is 3 studs high and the door/side is 12 studs? Visibility out of this vehicle would be terrible for tight constrained off road trails. Have a look at the following for a sense of proportions. There are also instructions. http://www.nico71.fr/trial-crawler/ Differently designed off-road vehicles are good at different things. Crawlers, rock bouncers, trophy trucks, and trial trucks all look different because of the kind of competition they engage in. What you have designed may very well be the ideal solution for a specific course and taking my general recommendations may reduce its performance on the intended course. TL;DR It still looks great and can serve as a foundation for further development. v/r Andy P.S. watch some videos at the following to get a better understanding of these kinds of off road vehicles. http://www.powernationtv.com/shows/xtreme-off-road
  25. AndyCW
    Looks promising. You will find while looking at full scale rock crawlers that amount of ground clearance you have isn't present. The penalty in roll stability and center of gravity isn't worth it. At full articulation or compression of the suspension, the tires should be at or on the body work. The amount of slope that a vehicle of this type could traverse would be minimal. Off road performance is about more than ground clearance. You have an excellent foundation for further work. v/r Andy
×
×
  • Create New...