Gen7 Pro CVDs for Everest 10?

[Everest10Dad]

Hey, has anyone tried to put Gen7 Pro CVDs in an Everest 10? Just thinking about potential future upgrades for my sons E10. I see folks putting in SCX-10 stuff but was wondering if this was ever tried. Seems if it was possible then it might be easier than replacing the chubs, spindles, locker from a SCX-10 etc...

[Jim85IROC]

The chubs & knuckles are the same, and as far as I can tell, so is the axle housing, so there should be no reason why the CVAs won't fit.

[Everest10Dad]

Originally Posted by Jim85IROC

The chubs & knuckles are the same, and as far as I can tell, so is the axle housing, so there should be no reason why the CVAs won't fit.

That's some great news. After Christmas I will give it a try it and post my results. Thanks!

I think I'm going to try the CVDs in conjunction with the series of mods outlined in this video to improve my son's E10 steering as well in my own (hopefully) Gen7 Pro. This guy posted a video of it and I wanna give it a shot unless someone tells me otherwise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOMPsHpXpbg

[Jim85IROC]

Originally Posted by Everest10Dad

That's some great news. After Christmas I will give it a try it and post my results. Thanks!

I think I'm going to try the CVDs in conjunction with the series of mods outlined in this video to improve my son's E10 steering as well in my own (hopefully) Gen7 Pro. This guy posted a video of it and I wanna give it a shot unless someone tells me otherwise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOMPsHpXpbg

That's my video.

Those modifications are very easy, cost virtually nothing, and had a very positive improvement in the overall steering. The truck still doesn't steer as well as my Bomber, but I've taken it to the point of diminishing returns. More steering is going to start getting expensive.

[Everest10Dad]

Originally Posted by Jim85IROC

That's my video.

Those modifications are very easy, cost virtually nothing, and had a very positive improvement in the overall steering. The truck still doesn't steer as well as my Bomber, but I've taken it to the point of diminishing returns. More steering is going to start getting expensive.

Just did these mods to both My Gen7 Pro and my son's E10. Made a big difference, cheaply and easily. The Gen7 Pro is likely at the where it's gonna stay but the Everest could go further after I do the Vader skid plate mod (lower links moved inward) and have some 8mm wheel wideners coming to hopefully make the tires not hit the springs. Maybe then I can reap the full value of your mods. Though it may require the upgrade to CVAs from the stock dog bones.

Does anybody know if upgrading to aftermarket Vanquish or knock-off SCX10.2 chubs and spindles change any of the geometry (for either vehicle) to yield even tighter steering possibilities in conjunction with the above mods?

Ahh the upgrade/modding disease has me in it's clutches...

[hillbillyrc]

Scx10.2 won't work since the housings are splined.

You want scx10 or ax10 those are similar to the e10 axles.

As far as getting steering out of it with axial parts most c-hubs are the same and the knuckle is where things are different stock scx10 knuckle are the same as to what you would be replacing you would need a knuckle with zero ackerman and either cvd axle shafts or cut down xr10 Universal shafts. That is the less expensive way but a new tie rod and drag link is needed.

Only other way is to xr10 mod the axle housings but even I using stock plastics from xr10 it gets expensive.

[Jim85IROC]

Another option is the upcoming chub/knuckle/link kit that Redcat is releasing. It's a high-steer kit that improves the Ackermann. For the money, this is going to be tough to beat.

180090S | Redcat Racing

[Everest10Dad]

Originally Posted by Jim85IROC

Another option is the upcoming chub/knuckle/link kit that Redcat is releasing. It's a high-steer kit that improves the Ackermann. For the money, this is going to be tough to beat.

180090S | Redcat Racing

I saw that and actually called about 20min ago and talked with them about the kit. They weren't able to answer me if the kit was a true zero-ackermann kit or not. He said he was going to talk to the engineering or R&d dept and get back to me later today. I'm pretty excited about this option to be honest.

I'll post what I find out.

[Jim85IROC]

Originally Posted by Everest10Dad

I saw that and actually called about 20min ago and talked with them about the kit. They weren't able to answer me if the kit was a true zero-ackermann kit or not. He said he was going to talk to the engineering or R&d dept and get back to me later today. I'm pretty excited about this option to be honest.

I'll post what I find out.

When Ryan Whatshisname (Redcat employee) mentioned these on Facebook, he referred to them as "improved Ackermann" so they may not be a true zero-Ackermann design, but should at least be... um... improved.

[Rocking]

I have the Gen7 CV's in my E10. Easy install works great.

[hillbillyrc]

Originally Posted by Everest10Dad

I saw that and actually called about 20min ago and talked with them about the kit. They weren't able to answer me if the kit was a true zero-ackermann kit or not. He said he was going to talk to the engineering or R&d dept and get back to me later today. I'm pretty excited about this option to be honest.

I'll post what I find out.

Those look pretty close to zero ackerman. The hole for the tie rod is close to being inline with if not inline with the mounting holes for the knuckle which is zero ackerman. And for the price I'm very interested for my scale build with e10 axles.

[Everest10Dad]

Okay so here's what I was told by Chris @ Redcat:

The stock Gen7 setup has a -19deg angle while using the above mentioned aluminum steering arm and link setup brings that number down to -7deg angle. Not true 'zero ackermann' but closer to it.

Now I've read a bunch of stuff online and watched some videos too but I have failed to figure out exactly what those angle values are referring to.

I understand what 'true ackermann' steering looks like in concept but I'm confused as to what the numbers given by Redcat are saying.

Also, almost all of the explanations illustrate vehicles with steering arms and linkages rear of the front axle, not in the front like ours. With my minimal understanding of the concept the imaginary lines created by passing through the kingpin pivot point and then steering link mounting point would never converge towards the rear of the vehicle. They would converge in front of the vehicle.

Anyone wanna take a shot at cluing my dim mind in?

[number9]

Ackerman is a popular topic in the karting world. Lots of discussions from guys doing DIY chassis, etc. On a kart with a solid rear axle (like a locker in an RC truck), it makes steering MUCH MUCH better.

As you've likely found, basically you want a line from the kingpins to the center of the rear axle to intersect with the steering knuckle / tierod point.



This allows the inside tire to turn a little sharper and help "pull" the vehicle around the turn.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...urning.svg.png

When you have the steering setup in front of the axle, things get a little less simple.




I don't have time right now, but do some searching on kart forums or google for ackerman on karts and you'll find lots of discussion, diagrams, etc.

[Everest10Dad]

Originally Posted by number9

Ackerman is a popular topic in the karting world. Lots of discussions from guys doing DIY chassis, etc. On a kart with a solid rear axle (like a locker in an RC truck), it makes steering MUCH MUCH better.

As you've likely found, basically you want a line from the kingpins to the center of the rear axle to intersect with the steering knuckle / tierod point.



This allows the inside tire to turn a little sharper and help "pull" the vehicle around the turn.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...urning.svg.png

When you have the steering setup in front of the axle, things get a little less simple.




I don't have time right now, but do some searching on kart forums or google for ackerman on karts and you'll find lots of discussion, diagrams, etc.

So in the second diagram would the shown ackerman angle be considered a positive or a negative angle? Redcat says the stock measurement is a -17deg and the steering arm/tie rod attachment point is significantly towards the inside of the vehicle (way inboard of the wheel) so I'm deducing the diagram is depicting a situation with a significantly POSITIVE ackermann angle.

If this is the case then the aluminum arms offered by Redcat should move the tie rod/knuckle attachment point much more outward, towards the wheel and closer to a zero-ackermann setup.

Sorry to be a pita, but I am truly trying to understand this so I'm not going forward with mis-information and commprehension.

[TheLetterJ]

If it makes you feel any better, my VP AR60 "zero ackerman" knuckles were not even close. Tie rod hole directly in front of the kingpin is NOT what "zero" ackerman means, nor is it ideal for any application that I can think of... fortunately, those have removable arms so I was able to make my own that moved the tie rod holes ~5mm (!) outboard on each side for true ackerman on my 14" wheelbase.

Let's be honest though, with spools in both ends, being dead nuts on your ackerman angle isn't terribly important. You can also cheat it a bit by running a little bit of toe out to get your inside tire turning sharper. It seems that most 1:1 crawlers feel that it's more important to get as much angle out of BOTH tires as possible i.e. parrallel steering.

What will make a bigger difference on our crawlers is a knuckle/c-hub combo that has greater king pin inclination. VP uses 8° kpi, my 1:1's have all had 10°. That helps in a couple ways, it reduces your scrub radius when using negative offset wheels (like pretty much all of our crawlers do) which means less "pushing" the tires sideways when turning, and less force required to turn. The other benefit is that it causes camber gain when turning, so your tires lean into the turn and your contact patch digs in vs sliding... you can also cheat that a little by running more caster, just watch your pinion angle, or clock your c-hubs. That's why a stock XR10/AR60/AR44 can hold a line through a turn much better than an SCX10 (which our Redcat's are copies of) even when turned at the same angle. You could perform the "XR mod" to the Redcat axles if you were willing to invest the time/money, but at that point I would suggest building something AR44 based from aftermarket parts.

Long story short: the new Redcat high steer setup should give a noticeable improvement for very little money, but if you're after better, start building a different axle.

[Everest10Dad]

Originally Posted by TheLetterJ

If it makes you feel any better, my VP AR60 "zero ackerman" knuckles were not even close. Tie rod hole directly in front of the kingpin is NOT what "zero" ackerman means, nor is it ideal for any application that I can think of... fortunately, those have removable arms so I was able to make my own that moved the tie rod holes ~5mm (!) outboard on each side for true ackerman on my 14" wheelbase.

Let's be honest though, with spools in both ends, being dead nuts on your ackerman angle isn't terribly important. You can also cheat it a bit by running a little bit of toe out to get your inside tire turning sharper. It seems that most 1:1 crawlers feel that it's more important to get as much angle out of BOTH tires as possible i.e. parrallel steering.

What will make a bigger difference on our crawlers is a knuckle/c-hub combo that has greater king pin inclination. VP uses 8° kpi, my 1:1's have all had 10°. That helps in a couple ways, it reduces your scrub radius when using negative offset wheels (like pretty much all of our crawlers do) which means less "pushing" the tires sideways when turning, and less force required to turn. The other benefit is that it causes camber gain when turning, so your tires lean into the turn and your contact patch digs in vs sliding... you can also cheat that a little by running more caster, just watch your pinion angle, or clock your c-hubs. That's why a stock XR10/AR60/AR44 can hold a line through a turn much better than an SCX10 (which our Redcat's are copies of) even when turned at the same angle. You could perform the "XR mod" to the Redcat axles if you were willing to invest the time/money, but at that point I would suggest building something AR44 based from aftermarket parts.

Long story short: the new Redcat high steer setup should give a noticeable improvement for very little money, but if you're after better, start building a different axle.

Awesome:
Sometimes I get way too myopic and keep diving deeper and deeper into a very specific topic or direction when all I really need to do is back up and look into a slightly different direction. The end result I desire is to have the best steering I can short of switching to an AR44 axle (that's likely coming down the road). I'm also enjoying learning more on the science of suspension and steering design/theory along the way. I'll either do the Redcat high steer arms and their aluminum chubs (Already got an email sent off to Redcat asking the caster angle of their aluminum chub set, 180003S) or VP Stage 1 kit for SCX-10.

Thanks so much for all your guys' help.

[Everest10Dad]

Referencing my last post...

Chris @ Redcat says...

"I have been advised that is approx. 15 degrees."

Meaning the aluminum Redcat chubs have a 15deg caster angle.

Don't know if that's good or bad but that's what he says.

[hillbillyrc]

Originally Posted by TheLetterJ

If it makes you feel any better, my VP AR60 "zero ackerman" knuckles were not even close. Tie rod hole directly in front of the kingpin is NOT what "zero" ackerman means, nor is it ideal for any application that I can think of... fortunately, those have removable arms so I was able to make my own that moved the tie rod holes ~5mm (!) outboard on each side for true ackerman on my 14" wheelbase.

Let's be honest though, with spools in both ends, being dead nuts on your ackerman angle isn't terribly important. You can also cheat it a bit by running a little bit of toe out to get your inside tire turning sharper. It seems that most 1:1 crawlers feel that it's more important to get as much angle out of BOTH tires as possible i.e. parrallel steering.

What will make a bigger difference on our crawlers is a knuckle/c-hub combo that has greater king pin inclination. VP uses 8° kpi, my 1:1's have all had 10°. That helps in a couple ways, it reduces your scrub radius when using negative offset wheels (like pretty much all of our crawlers do) which means less "pushing" the tires sideways when turning, and less force required to turn. The other benefit is that it causes camber gain when turning, so your tires lean into the turn and your contact patch digs in vs sliding... you can also cheat that a little by running more caster, just watch your pinion angle, or clock your c-hubs. That's why a stock XR10/AR60/AR44 can hold a line through a turn much better than an SCX10 (which our Redcat's are copies of) even when turned at the same angle. You could perform the "XR mod" to the Redcat axles if you were willing to invest the time/money, but at that point I would suggest building something AR44 based from aftermarket parts.

Long story short: the new Redcat high steer setup should give a noticeable improvement for very little money, but if you're after better, start building a different axle.

There isn't adjustable camber on a sold axle like in our 1/10 crawlers and 1/1 rigs. only castor and toe are adjustable. Camber either make your wheels look like \-/ or like this /-\ if out of adjustment. Only time there is camber on a solid axle is if an axle tube is bent.

On to castor which when you describe what camber does that's castor. Which is the rotation of the ball joints or kingpins forward/ twisting down aka positive castor or backward/ twisting up aka negative castor. This is the idea behind clocking you c-hubs backward. The angle of the kingpins will look like (/) from the side and help turn in to things or making that turn at the top of a climb and such. Your upper and lower links will affect the castor angle and pinion angle if you go crazy with them which is why most clock the c hubs to get a more desirable pinion angle without losing steering angle. In the 1/10 world this is easier to do than in the 1/1 world. 1/1 is cutting welding and making sure things are set right or it won't last long or keep going through parts. Unless you buy an axle set up the way you want but that is big bucks.

[TheLetterJ]

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. You are thinking 2 dimensionally, you have to visualize 3 dimensionally to smell what I'm cookin'. I have a very clear understanding of camber/caster/trail/toe/king pin inclination/pinion angle/ackerman/ etc.

Running more caster WILL make your tires gain camber when they are turned. As an extreme example: imagine that you roll your caster back to the point that the king pins are horizontal instead of vertical (which you'd never actually do) when you turn the steering wheel, the tires will lean over to the left or right instead of pivoting around their contact patch. The steering would also be extremely heavy that way as you'd actually be lifting/lowering the vehicle as the tires lean side to side and your trail dimension would be infinity. Caster is generally adjusted to get the desired trail setting (the distance between 2 lines, one drawn 90° to the road surface through the hub, and the other drawn through your upper and lower king pins , as viewed from the side, all the way to the ground. The greater the distance between those 2 points, the greater the stability at speed... to an extent) Running taller tires requires less caster to maintain the same trail. That is what I meant about "cheating" by running more caster than necessary to cause BOTH steering tires to gain camber when you crank the wheel while having zero camber when pointed dead ahead.

Adding any amount of king pin inclination to the mix will cause the inside tire to lean into the turn (camber gain) even further than it would have with vertical/0° kpi, or caster alone, but the outside tire may not lean into the turn (camber) unless the caster angle exceeds the kpi. Think about how the top "arm" of the knuckle is longer than the bottom "arm", when you turn left, the top of the left knuckle will swing towards the back of the vehicle more than the bottom of the knuckle will, that is camber... the right tire (while still turning left) would push the top of the knuckle outwards trying to stand it up straighter (how far will depend on both kpi and king pin separation distance), but again, as long as you're running enough caster to offset that amount, all will be well with that one setting. Maybe I'll revisit this to add scrub and self-centering to the equation.

While it would be best to use a combination of caster and kpi to get the tires to "bite" while turning, having 15° of caster built into the c-hubs is a great starting point that will allow us to keep the front pinion angle in check, most of the aftermarket SCX10 c-hubs have 11° or less of built in caster. Our servo-steered, low speed rc's should have no problem overcoming laid back caster angles and the little bit of steering angle that we'd give up/lose to the tires leaning over (camber) should more than make up for it with increased bite.

That covers most of why I said that if you're looking to get the absolute best steering possible, start building off of a different axle design... but adding the new Redcat high steer knuckles with improved ackerman angle along with c-hubs with more built in caster and a little "cheating" of toe and caster settings ought to make a hell of an improvement! Cheap and easy too!

[Everest10Dad]

Originally Posted by TheLetterJ

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. You are thinking 2 dimensionally, you have to visualize 3 dimensionally to smell what I'm cookin'. I have a very clear understanding of camber/caster/trail/toe/king pin inclination/pinion angle/ackerman/ etc.

Running more caster WILL make your tires gain camber when they are turned. As an extreme example: imagine that you roll your caster back to the point that the king pins are horizontal instead of vertical (which you'd never actually do) when you turn the steering wheel, the tires will lean over to the left or right instead of pivoting around their contact patch. The steering would also be extremely heavy that way as you'd actually be lifting/lowering the vehicle as the tires lean side to side and your trail dimension would be infinity. Caster is generally adjusted to get the desired trail setting (the distance between 2 lines, one drawn 90° to the road surface through the hub, and the other drawn through your upper and lower king pins , as viewed from the side, all the way to the ground. The greater the distance between those 2 points, the greater the stability at speed... to an extent) Running taller tires requires less caster to maintain the same trail. That is what I meant about "cheating" by running more caster than necessary to cause BOTH steering tires to gain camber when you crank the wheel while having zero camber when pointed dead ahead.

Adding any amount of king pin inclination to the mix will cause the inside tire to lean into the turn (camber gain) even further than it would have with vertical/0° kpi, or caster alone, but the outside tire may not lean into the turn (camber) unless the caster angle exceeds the kpi. Think about how the top "arm" of the knuckle is longer than the bottom "arm", when you turn left, the top of the left knuckle will swing towards the back of the vehicle more than the bottom of the knuckle will, that is camber... the right tire (while still turning left) would push the top of the knuckle outwards trying to stand it up straighter (how far will depend on both kpi and king pin separation distance), but again, as long as you're running enough caster to offset that amount, all will be well with that one setting. Maybe I'll revisit this to add scrub and self-centering to the equation.

While it would be best to use a combination of caster and kpi to get the tires to "bite" while turning, having 15° of caster built into the c-hubs is a great starting point that will allow us to keep the front pinion angle in check, most of the aftermarket SCX10 c-hubs have 11° or less of built in caster. Our servo-steered, low speed rc's should have no problem overcoming laid back caster angles and the little bit of steering angle that we'd give up/lose to the tires leaning over (camber) should more than make up for it with increased bite.

That covers most of why I said that if you're looking to get the absolute best steering possible, start building off of a different axle design... but adding the new Redcat high steer knuckles with improved ackerman angle along with c-hubs with more built in caster and a little "cheating" of toe and caster settings ought to make a hell of an improvement! Cheap and easy too!

Dude, awesome writeup. I actually understood about 90% of it after re-reading about 10 times! I've always dreamed of mastering the understanding of suspension and steering geometry. You just got me a little bit closer to that goal, though I'm still far, far away. I've got camber, caster and toe individually fairly well but often lose how they interact and affect each other in different situations. I think the Redcat aluminum hubs and high steer knuckles are the way to go for me now. If later I still want more and have learned enough about everything I think I'll build an AR44 setup. Thanks again.