FatDog Tube meets PorkChop ideas

[binaryterror]

Ok so I've long studied the GC-1 chassis and found its only wild new idea seems to be the lower links on a "reverse" triangulation and the uppers to be standard. I did a ton of searching both RCCrawler and the 1:1 size sites to find out more on the triangulation. Turns out double reverse triangulation seems to be the most widely accepted as a perfect standard.

Specs for the Build:
AX-10 Axles
AX-10 Trans
Losi Stadium Truck Shocks (have a mixture of parts for lengths/strokes)

Everything else is coming in as I find things to work. Right now it has 61mm Jato Turnbuckle links in the rear and 58mm ones in the front. Working to first get my wheelbase to 12.5". Next step is the pinion angle and driveshafts (Axial shafts with Rustler yokes and outputs).

Since this is on going around some Nitro Offroad racing and long work weeks, I doubt its going to be a lightning fast build, but I'll work as quick as I can.

Mods to date are:
-the 1/4" delrin tranny spacer to help with the driveshafts clearing the reverse triangulation mounts (I do have another idea to help this problem, awaiting a spare chassis pan to mod)
- Cutting reliefs for the triangulation mounts and link ends to freely function.

Pics of how it sits today far from complete:

[TJ_Shunk]

Most folks don't do the double trianglation because it causes a binding issue during flex.

[tsaun987]

Looking good. I like the white chassis

[Kamikaze]

The reason the uppers are parrallell is the lowered roll center of the axle. It you triangulate the uppers it raises the roll center increasing axle swing.

[mtnyote]

just a thought.... maybe you wanna hit those rear springs with some white paint :-(

[Kranberry]

Originally Posted by mtnyote

just a thought.... maybe you wanna hit those rear springs with some white paint :-(

pinks the new black dawg!!!

nice looken fatdog

[ElChupacabra]

Here's a thread I started about dual or reverse triangulation...

Reverse Triangulation?

I didnt have any binding during articulation and that setup is still the best Ive run so far. I'll be adapting my current "Guijerro" chassis design to incorporate the reverse geometry. You'll have to offset your tranny to center the driveshaft outputs in the middle of the chassis to clear the links. Not a big deal.

Here's a link to my Guijerro chassis...

http://www.gsrcrc.com/showthread.php?t=700

Good luck with the build. I'll be watching this one for sure...

[mtnyote]

dude that chasis looks so effing bad!!!!!!!!!!!! got any links

[kawika]

Originally Posted by Kamikaze

The reason the uppers are parrallell is the lowered roll center of the axle. It you triangulate the uppers it raises the roll center increasing axle swing.

How does lowering the roll center decrease axle swing? Even if it does, lowering your roll center,in a sense, raises your center of gravity.

The dual triangulated set-up appears to be the compromise between the two.

The rig looks great.

[Kamikaze]

Originally Posted by kawika

lowering your roll center,in a sense, raises your center of gravity.

How so??

[1beatjeep]

i think i tryed that and the drive line was and problem.

[shrek]

looks good so far, what shocks are you runing fronts or rears, i think they set that chassis up to use fronts 3.5" can't wait to see it finished.

[binaryterror]

Currently its using 4" Losi Rear Truck shocks all around, but they are too long for the front, both in droop (can be limited I know) but the body is also too long and limits compression too much. I will be using the standard Losi Truck front set up, 3.5" fronts and 4" rears.

My research online seems to contradict Kamikaze. Though he might be right, certainly sounds like it has merit. I will know soon enough. Luckily I can swap back to a more GC like set up or anything else as needed.

Chupa: Thanks for the info man. I want to keep the tranny centered as well as I can for another idea in the works. We'll see how things work with the next round of ideas which will take some time to get moving on. Good to hear your Double Reverse Triangulation is working.

The white paint is the FatDog primer believe it or not. I was gonna do another color, but I really like the White, once done it goes out for PowerCoating and White might be the winner. Springs are springs, I don't mind them being pink, I use them in my MF2 for racing, what I had so its what I used.

Chassis is a FatDog, you can see them in the Vendor Marketplace. I believe they will be taking orders again after the new year.

[Fishmaxx]

[QUOTE=binaryterror;951753]Ok so I've long studied the GC-1 chassis and found its only wild new idea seems to be the lower links on a "reverse" triangulation and the uppers to be standard. I did a ton of searching both RCCrawler and the 1:1 size sites to find out more on the triangulation. Turns out double reverse triangulation seems to be the most widely accepted as a perfect standard.

Originally Posted by binaryterror

My research online seems to contradict Kamikaze. Though he might be right, certainly sounds like it has merit. I will know soon enough. Luckily I can swap back to a more GC like set up or anything else as needed.

Did your research or studies take you anywhere nere here?

HPI Racing RCCrawler Nationals LIVE coverage.

or

HPI Racing RCCrawler Nationals LIVE coverage.

[kawika]

Originally Posted by Kamikaze

How so??

Well this is the way I see it. The roll center is the longitudinal axis on which the axle pivots. If the axle is stationary the chassis pivots on that point. If the chassis is stationary then the axle pivots on that point. I'm going to use a ratchet analogy.

Lets pretend that the COG is at the end of the handle portion of the ratchet and the roll center is the socket. If you lower the roll center you are in effect making the ratchet longer. The distance from the roll center and COG is increased. This gives the center of gravity a greater mechanical advantage over the roll center. The same principal that it's easier to loosen a bolt with a longer ratchet than a shorter one. You have increased the the ability, or lowered the force needed to cause the chassis to lean in a side hilling situation.


But if you apply this principal in reverse, you should reduce the amount of torque twist. But I could be wrong in that interpretation. That is something I've heard that these chassis have very little of.

What's more important? I don't know?

I also can't see why just using parallel uppers and triangulated will effect axle swing. If you flip a rig over amount of axle swing doesn't change.



[QUOTE=Fishmaxx;953268]

Originally Posted by binaryterror

Ok so I've long studied the GC-1 chassis and found its only wild new idea seems to be the lower links on a "reverse" triangulation and the uppers to be standard. I did a ton of searching both RCCrawler and the 1:1 size sites to find out more on the triangulation. Turns out double reverse triangulation seems to be the most widely accepted as a perfect standard.



Did your research or studies take you anywhere nere here?

HPI Racing RCCrawler Nationals LIVE coverage.

or

HPI Racing RCCrawler Nationals LIVE coverage.

Yes he's a great driver. But that doesn't mean we should critically analyze the GC1's suspension geometry.

binaryterror, if you don't want this conversation in your build thread, I'll stop.

[binaryterror]

No no guys, keep going with the talk. Makes it good for testing on my part. Plus you guys keep giving me new ideas, love ideas, wish I had enough time and money to try them all.

[Rockcrawler]

Originally Posted by binaryterror

No no guys, keep going with the talk. Makes it good for testing on my part. Plus you guys keep giving me new ideas, love ideas, wish I had enough time and money to try them all.

Thats one of the problems with setups. Everyone just look to "see" what everyone is running instead of actually testing and trying different setups. Not to mention that different axels have different mounting locations for shocks and links.

[kawika]

Originally Posted by Rockcrawler

Thats one of the problems with setups. Everyone just look to "see" what everyone is running instead of actually testing and trying different setups. Not to mention that different axels have different mounting locations for shocks and links.

If that's the case, we really don't need this site.

[El Gooch]

This is why this site is so good. People arn't worried to try new things and share them with others. All of the ideas I have seen on this post are all good ones. Nothing ventured nothing gained. KEEP IT UP.

The Gooch

[Rockcrawler]

Originally Posted by kawika

If that's the case, we really don't need this site.

Everyone was the wrong word. "ALOT" of the guys on here just run with what there truck came with when they bought it new or used. They just dont play around with set up like they should to learn about everything on and inside the trucks.