|
RCP Crawlers 2.2 Motor Driven Axle Assembly **See a Pic** Post Your Comments http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/4...ssemblywb6.jpg We are in the beginning stages of design on a new axle for the 2.2 class crawler. The goal of the project is to design and manufacture a light weight, extremely durable and adjustable motor driven axle assembly. The features of the axle assembly are listed below. We are looking for your input on this project. The picture shown above is very priliminary and shows the axle from the bottom. The axle tubes will be designed so you can clock the tranny up for max. clearance. We are currrently working on a custom high wind, 400 size brushed crawler motor, that will compliment this 2.2 assembly. We are incorporating a small locker gear to gain max clearance under the axle tubes. The top of the tranny will be cut flat, so that we can mount a custom top link bracket to the top and side of the tranny case. We are looking to machine the tranny case out of delrin and plan to machine the tubes and C's out of aluminum. See the features of the axle assebly below. 1) Utilizes TLT MIP CVD's. 2) Utilizes RCP Max Steer TLT aluminum Knuckles 3) Delrin tranny case 4) Aluminum axle tubes 5) Aluminum axle C's (clockable) 6) Small Locker gear for max clearance ( All gears made from Aluminum) 7) 400 size custom RCP crawler motor 8) Custom top link mount bracket 9) Custom servo mount bracket 10) Custom battery bracket |
I like the idea. This could possibly end the drive shaft truck's dominance in the 2.2 class. "thumbsup" |
looks like an egg with axles attached to it make it flat on the bottom of the tranny housing for clearance |
Quote:
The egg shape allows max slide off rocks and obstacles. With the tranny clocked up, there is very little material below the bottom of the axle tubes. |
Things I would like to see. 1. Clockable tubes with like 6 positions so each user could set them right where needed. 2. Upper link mounts, lower link mounts, and shock mounts that are real close to where they are on a tlt so that all the current chassis on the market would still work just fine. 3. Adjustable motor mounts built right in so we don't need to buy a seperate part. 4. Gear ratio real close to what we currently run in the 2.2 class. 5. Easy servo mount built in. |
Quote:
|
Maybe two available widths? Jay |
Looks interesting for sure. Any renderings with a motor bolted up to one? Just call them "egg beaters".;-) |
Nice. I cant wait to see the motor! |
I've been thinking about starting on something like this. Glad to see someone taking initiative. I would suggest offsetting the pumpkin, although that means producing specific cvds for these axles. If these go into production, I'll be getting some since the mini-raptors seem to be vaporware right now. Other things I'd like: 1) Make sure there is enough room for full throw for the cvds. 2) Obviously we need a good servo mounting spot I'll brainstorm more, I would love to see a purpose built motor driven axle for 2.2s. |
Nice to see what you guys are working on and thanks for asking for input. Since you are using the TLT MPI cvd's does that mean the overall axle width will end up about the same? I think the TLT width is about right. How about a titanium plate under the diff? What I was thinking is a thin plate of titanium in such a way that the distance between the rocks and the gears is minimal. Hopefully the plate could be situated in such a way that it is very close to the gears and the plate thickness of the ti would be way thinner than delrin or aluminum. Ti under the diff: - a replaceable part (maybe this would be possible) - very resistant to dents, scratching and gouging - would probably slide over obstacles better than anything else since the rock can't dig into it like aluminum or delrin - max ground clearance (probably the thinnest material that could be used) I know ti is tough to work with and it might not be feasible for this reason. I have drilled, ground, cut, filed and bent titanium it is tough stuff. Oh, everything that Jason said too. Thanks John for your efforts and interest in feedback. It is appreciated. |
The tubes will be clockable not the C's. ;-) Pretty much everything that Jason posted is going to be incorporated into this axle. Different widths would be difficult because we plan to use our existing CVD's. We think the delrin center combined with the aluminum tubes will make for a very rigid and slippery axle. I keep waiting for Mork to jump out. |
Nano nano:lol:, nice , forgot to mention bearings;-), John btw i haven't received the invoice. |
Looks like a great idea to me, but will definitely need to have a servo mount of some type. Are you going to use a clamp style lower link capture sort of like the WK's that clamps onto the tube, or will it be more like Clod axles and need to have screws protruding out through the back of the C? Only other thing I forsee, is that they will only be able to run a 400 series motor can...this could limit the target sales base. All those that have 540 or 550 cans, but don't want to have to buy new motors may veer from them due to that reason. If it is possible to make the trans cases able to work with the larger can sizes, it may help in that regard. |
Awesome! I see you selling alot of these! Even thought I don't wnat to see it happen this will probably be the end of the 2.2 shaftys. |
Quote:
I don't see any reason why not to include mounting for large motors, if they will fit. The 400 size will be better suited, but if people want to use something they already have, we will have to do some prototype testing with the larger motors. I would like to see the adjustable motor mounts for the 400 size motor incorporated into the tranny. The 400 motor shouldn't be too expensive, so getting two for this type of build, may be the way to go. We have some custom 400 and 540 size brushed motors being wound now. We hooked up with one of the leading rc motor manufacturing companies and they are winding motors in both sizes in a variety of turns. We will be testing the motors next week. Once we have determined the best set up, we will put both the 400 and 540 size into production ASAP. Production will take 6 ~ 8 weeks, but once they are here, there will be plenty to go around. |
Isnt it going to get stall just like the clod axles? |
Um, I like the idea a whole lot, It's about time someone did this. If you flatten the top for a link mount, how about a flat spot on the back, so we can clock the motor up and over and bolt a torsion spine right to it? (Pokes JP) I would also like to see 8 screw holes in the geabox per side for the tubes so we can clock it 45 degrees AND 90 degrees. I am wondering how easy it will be to pull the tubes out of the gearbox by maybe binding a wheel and stripping the 4 screws. It should be OK in a 2.2, but I still wonder. One last thing, please, please don't make a nice sleek sexy axle and then a huge abortion of a servo bracket that hangs down under it like, um, oh, you know, some other company does. |
I have been thinking about this a bit and have a question. Is this gearbox big enough that you could drill 2 holes in the off motor side and screw the stock TLT servo mounts right to the side of it? Then set your gear mesh, and drop the servo in. Use a nice long arm, to reach out in front of the axle for the shown lay down "motor-back" clock, or a short arm pointed back with the motor for the vertical "motor-up" clock. Does anyone want to set 2 400 size motors against a 2.2 Clod? It seems like that would be more of a basher than a comp truck. |
A snow cone maker on one for the summer and an espresso machine on the other for winter driving. Perfection!!!! |
maybe the dumbest question ever, here goes. Why hasnt anybody made an axle that you can just poke the motor into the pinion ? maybe with some sort of planetary coupler for reduction and ability to clock it. Might work good with a smaller brushless. |
Quote:
|
What about keepin it real or are the shafty`s goin towards the scaler`s.Should there be 3 classes shafty`s clod`s and now 2.2 motor driven 2.2`s dont forget txt shafty`s,twinforce 2.2`s? |
Quote:
What are we supposed to be keeping real? As for the 2.2 motor driven axle, bring it!"thumbsup" |
Quote:
|
i too would like to see the clocked axles on the "AXLES OVER EASY" lol sounds good.mmmmmmmmm like they will got over the rocks easy."thumbsup" |
Quote lunchbox Does anyone want to set 2 400 size motors against a 2.2 Clod? It seems like that would be more of a basher than a comp truck.[/quote][/ I believe that a 2.2 comp crawler that weighs less over all, will out perform a heavier truck that uses clod axles and a 12 1/2" wheel base. This is why I think a smaller, lighter motor driven axle assembly that uses 400 size motors will do well. Turning radius on the more narrow axles will also be an advantage over the heavier clod axles. Don't forget that with two motors on a 2.2 rig, the use of two esc's and an airplane stick radio will now play into the mix. With this combination, 2.2 drivers will have rear and front dig, side to side crawling ability and the typical clod stall effect will be eliminated by the ability to apply power to rear and front motors at will. |
Quote:
I see where your going with this. ;-) |
i have a tuber i just bent up that would work killer with thesse! goood job RCP you guys are spoiling us!:lol:"thumbsup""thumbsup" |
Having seen a 4 channel Clod based Super built on a Pimp Cane in Reno I have to say it's just plain wrong what they can do. But side to side crawling ability is moot here with no rear steer in 2.2 (Unless my noobishness caused me to misunderstand you there). A 4 channel and the ability to split your power at will is a huge advantage to any crawler. I agree that the missing weight should offset the missing torque, but if you offer both 400 and 540 size, where is the advantage then? I guess my real question is, Why make them both? |
Quote:
Yep, your right. No rear steer. Side to side crawl is out. Got a little ahead of myself.;-) |
My only suggestion is make a straight axle version for the rear. I know you guys don't make a straight axle conversion, but I'd imagine that it could be done to accommodate stock parts just without the knuckles and associated hardware. |
Quote:
|
I just noticed feature #7 w/ the custom 400 size motors. I dont know but that be a turn off for some buyers if they are running a brushed motor setup. |
I like the idea, but I think it will kill a lot of things on the market right now if these work out. I personally wish the 2.2 class would just nail down a shaft driven rig only rule. The 2.2 clods are really not a dominate rig, and never will be, too heavy, simple as that. But these axles do look promising, time will tell, and so will the scores in competitions in the end. ;-) |
Quote:
I just wish people would get off the 2.2 is a shafty thing. |
Quote:
I guarantee you a 2.2 clod will not hang with the iron we run up here. ;-) It's been done and determined to be not good. :lol: |
Quote:
|
any cad updates yet with motor mounts and motor attacted, would like to see how they ended up!! |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:14 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2004-2014 RCCrawler.com