| |
10-10-2010, 11:14 PM
| #1 |
| Quarry Creeper Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Malaysia
Posts: 374
|  Active camber
Terranaut introduced me to Google Sketchup recently, so I've spent a few minutes playing with it. It's a bit rough and simple because I'm still new to the software. Let me know what you guys think of this. Couldn't be bothered to draw the other side and the drivetrain but I think you get the idea. This is a BTA, so we're looking at the back side of the front axle. Or it could be the front, if you like, depending on which way you want the wheels to lean when turning.  Edit: Was sleepy and got my lefts and rights mixed up. We're looking at the front of the axles, if we want the rig to lean into the turn. If it's BTA, we're leaning away from the direction of the turn. Last edited by sim; 10-11-2010 at 05:41 PM. |
|  |
| Sponsored Links | |
| | |
|
10-10-2010, 11:27 PM
| #2 |
| Tossin' Salad Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Petaluma
Posts: 1,826
|
The most obvious problem I see is that the servo horn would have to take a large amount of forces in many directions. This in turn will probably destroy that servo. Casey |
|
| |
|
10-11-2010, 07:33 AM
| #3 |
| I wanna be Dave Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 16,952
|
What are you trying to accomplish with this?
|
|
| |
|
10-11-2010, 09:56 AM
| #4 |
| 20K Club   Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Sending illegals home one Hayabusa at a time.
Posts: 22,981
|
This has been done, and as long as you don't put it on the rear of a 2.2 you are fine. Search, road grader or something like that. A guy basically rotated the C's of and Axial axle on the rear of his rig. May give you some ideas. His idea was not legal in 2.2 FYI.
|
|
| |
|
10-11-2010, 10:50 AM
| #5 |
| RCC Addict Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Pasadena
Posts: 1,118
|
But on the front, active camber +steering would be legal. Go for it, but just letting you know, a normal servo will not handle this force. You will need to get creative.
|
|
| |
|
10-11-2010, 10:50 AM
| #6 |
| RCC Addict Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Earth?
Posts: 1,698
|
I like the idea.
|
|
| |
|
10-11-2010, 12:30 PM
| #7 | |
| Quarry Creeper Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Malaysia
Posts: 374
| Quote:
Thanks Harley. Found the thread. It's Road Grader Camber Setup w/ Pics. Now I'm seeing that part in the rules about track width... 2.3.2 - Vehicle track width is limited to a maximum of 12.5 inches. This is determined by measuring the bottom of the outer most edge of the front and rear tires while the vehicle is sitting on level ground. 3.8 - 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. What do you guys think? It's a device, and it's neither winching down nor forced articulation and I do think the track width might change a little even though the tires are still roughly parallel. Last edited by sim; 10-11-2010 at 12:33 PM. | |
|
| |
|
10-11-2010, 06:14 PM
| #8 |
| Quarry Creeper Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Malaysia
Posts: 374
|
I just read this thread, which pretty much says it's illegal. Measuring Track Width? Although I don't think the track width, measured from outermost to outermost, would exceed 12.5", it would still change due to a device. Oh well, it was an interesting brain fart. Kept me up all night too. :( |
|
| |
|
10-11-2010, 06:14 PM
| #9 |
| Quarry Creeper Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Malaysia
Posts: 374
|
Edit: clicked twice. oops
Last edited by sim; 10-11-2010 at 06:21 PM. |
|
| |
|
10-11-2010, 06:32 PM
| #10 | |
| Quarry Creeper Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Malaysia
Posts: 374
| Quote:
| |
|
| |
|
10-11-2010, 08:08 PM
| #11 |
| RCC Addict Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Lowell, Arkansas
Posts: 1,307
|
45 degrees of caster would do about the same thing.
|
|
| |
|
10-12-2010, 12:01 AM
| #12 |
| Quarry Creeper Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Malaysia
Posts: 374
| camber control  |
|
| |
|
10-12-2010, 12:02 AM
| #13 |
| Quarry Creeper Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Malaysia
Posts: 374
| onboard camber adjustment  |
|
| |
|
10-12-2010, 12:08 AM
| #14 |
| Tossin' Salad Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Petaluma
Posts: 1,826
|
You still have not answered the basic question...what is your goal for trying this? It is an interresting theory, but I am having trouble understanding when and where this extra movement would be useful. Casey |
|
| |
|
10-12-2010, 12:24 AM
| #15 | |
| Quarry Creeper Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Malaysia
Posts: 374
| Quote:
| |
|
| |
|
10-12-2010, 12:39 AM
| #16 |
| Ex Nor-CalRCRC slave   Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: San Mateo, CA.
Posts: 2,242
|
The idea would work, but since it's roughly the same as clocking C's back, I wouldn't see the benefit unless some big angles were involved. Most of the parts on the axle would have to be compact to provide the "leaning room" such a setup would need. The easiest solution is clocking, 15-20 degrees helps steering a lot:   Camber would work better if the knuckles are moving in the same direction, I don't see much benefit if they are tilted in towards each other, except maybe for some increased grip. Last edited by gunnar; 10-12-2010 at 12:44 AM. |
|
| |
|
10-12-2010, 12:44 AM
| #17 | |
| Quarry Creeper Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Malaysia
Posts: 374
| Quote:
We've all been in situations where the crawler is straddling two rocks and ready to fall into the gap between them. I wished I had some negative camber then. My original thought was to have permanent negative camber in all four wheels, but then the front were always going to be a problem because the inner wheel would rub into the links and shocks with just a slight turn. So I thought about having 3 wheels with negative camber but 1 wheel with positive (to avoid the shocks and links), so came up with the first diagram. I should have realised that caster did the same thing, so that first diagram turned out to be a waste of time. Since my brain wouldn't stop farting, I came up with the 2nd and 3rd diagram too. I don't know if there's a situation where you'd actually want to lean away from a turn, so that 2nd one might be a dumb idea too. Last edited by sim; 10-12-2010 at 01:01 AM. | |
|
| |
|
10-12-2010, 12:54 AM
| #18 |
| RCC Addict Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: crawlifornia
Posts: 1,612
|
it would be interesting to see how this benefits side hilling!!! If you could lean the tires into the hill. Other than that I would forget all the gadgetry and clock my C's for the same effect.... oh wait, I already did!!! Gunnar's has that gangsta lean to it in the pictures.  |
|
| |
|
10-12-2010, 12:57 AM
| #19 |
| Quarry Creeper Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Malaysia
Posts: 374
|
gunnar, Thanks for posting the pics. I never understood caster until today. Now I'm going to make some gunnar beef toobs and clock away  |
|
| |
|
10-12-2010, 12:58 AM
| #20 |
| Tossin' Salad Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Petaluma
Posts: 1,826
|
I am also starting to get interrested in getting some more positive caster on my rig...the only thing stopping me is my tie rod. I will have to design a new one.
|
|
| |
 |
| |
Linear Mode
