An idea for the comp guys to think about

[jayliu1984]

Hi, here I am presenting my idea of a (I think and I hope) better layout than most rigs out there.

Please don't be harsh on me if you find this faulty. I just give it some thoughts and I havn't built it yet and I know it will be tricky and maybe it doesn't work out. But I think I should present it for critics.

Below is a concept layout (say based on WK chassis). It has two motors indicated by green circle. Mounted beyond the WB for better leverage.



2.2 class indicate you can only run 1 motor, but I think it means 1 motor at a time. The lower links does not excert downword force on axles, only the shocks. And the chassis hang on the shocks. Now here is the trick.

Longitudinally mounted motors creat chassis twist. And the force is used to compress one side of the shock, creating an uneven load on the tires. You are out of luck if you need the other side to have more grip.

These two motors are mounted laterally, so will it twist the chassis laterally. Compressing both spring the same amount.

By selecting either one of the motor to run at a time (using 3rd channel), you can choose to compress the front or rear shock creating different leverage. As shown:



Front motor runs, creating a chassis twist, leveraged from the center, compresses the front shock, excerting additional force on front wheel. And vice versa:



The benefit of shifting COG at will is obviously. As shown below:



At position 1, use rear motor to help lift the front end (BTW, its 4WD all the time, just using different motor. Note: a bit of torque will be wasted running the non-driving motor). At position 2, use front motor to help front wheel to get more grip and pull the car up.

Here is the basic idea. It should be easy to come up a chassis that has motor mounts both ends.

Thx for listening. If you ever try this idea, at your own risk, lol. Question me, correct me, like I said, I didn't run a computer simulator though it yet (and never will). LOL

PS: Another benefit of this setup is that the shock is ALWAYS excerting a perpendicular force againt axial, it is better than having heavier car trying to get more friction since as the angle increasing, the benefit of heave weigh diminishes.

[H3RESQ]

You'll like your idea better when I tell you this...........There's no rule staying you can only run one motor in 2.2....you could run four if you like.

My immediate issue with design is..Those motor's way out there will be more in the way than anything. If they hit before tires it won't matter how well it climb's.

Cool, thinking outside the box!!

[firebat45]

So, if I read right, the two motors and axles would be connected via a drivetrain? Unless you run a belt, that would be a conventional driveshaft, and you're right back into torque twisting again.

The only way to completely eliminate torque twist from one axle to another with a driveshaft is to actually run two counter-rotating driveshafts that cancel each other out.

Nice job thinking with the two motor idea though. Maybe incorporate torque twist as a sort of forced articulation, with two motors so you can choose which way you get twist?

[jayliu1984]

Originally Posted by H3RESQ

You'll like your idea better when I tell you this...........There's no rule staying you can only run one motor in 2.2....you could run four if you like.

My immediate issue with design is..Those motor's way out there will be more in the way than anything. If they hit before tires it won't matter how well it climb's.

Cool, thinking outside the box!!

It doesn't have to be, but it will help. It will be the same if the motor is directly above the wheel.

[jayliu1984]

Originally Posted by firebat45

So, if I read right, the two motors and axles would be connected via a drivetrain? Unless you run a belt, that would be a conventional driveshaft, and you're right back into torque twisting again.

The only way to completely eliminate torque twist from one axle to another with a driveshaft is to actually run two counter-rotating driveshafts that cancel each other out.

Nice job thinking with the two motor idea though. Maybe incorporate torque twist as a sort of forced articulation, with two motors so you can choose which way you get twist?

I should have stated that motor is connected to the center gear box via a drive train, and to the axials. Like a horizontal "H".

[Crawlerguy851]

Originally Posted by firebat45

So, if I read right, the two motors and axles would be connected via a drivetrain? Unless you run a belt, that would be a conventional driveshaft, and you're right back into torque twisting again.

The only way to completely eliminate torque twist from one axle to another with a driveshaft is to actually run two counter-rotating driveshafts that cancel each other out.

Nice job thinking with the two motor idea though. Maybe incorporate torque twist as a sort of forced articulation, with two motors so you can choose which way you get twist?

Or build a 2.2 Clod, or get an OCM.

[cuban b]

It's pretty much a clod but unnecessarily complex.

Using torque twist is an interesting idea, but I don't think a good one.

No torque twist, or dealing with it will make a much more predictable and user friendly rig.

[firebat45]

Originally Posted by firebat45

The only way to completely eliminate torque twist from one axle to another with a driveshaft is to actually run two counter-rotating driveshafts that cancel each other out.

Originally Posted by Crawlerguy851

Or build a 2.2 Clod, or get an OCM.

Neither of those use a driveshaft, which is what I meant. But yes, no torque twist with axle mounted motors either.

[Crawlerguy851]

Torque Twist can also be combated nearly to elimination with a good link setup. One reason why the GC-1 is so good.