PDA

View Full Version : Mrcg Awd...


color01
2008.05.31, 05:13 AM
I told Richard some time back I was cooking up an AWD design, so now that I have time (not really... but I can allocate my time to the point where I sleep at 6AM every day :D) I sat down and drew this up.

http://img93.imageshack.us/img93/4505/rd031amj1.jpg

This is the unorthodox version... great CG and weight balance but the final product of this wouldn't be user-friendly at all -- the last AAA is on the other side of the motor. :rolleyes: That's gonna make one helluva saddle pack, as I have been told. The motor would be hard to access as well since one of the screws is deep inside the car. I just stopped working on it because it's a bit too funky, lol...

Enter the orthodox revision.

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/7946/rd031ice2.jpg

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/5661/rd031jwx1.jpg

A proper AAA pack, M18-style sliding motor mount, decent weight balance (needs 8g more on the servo to be perfectly balanced) and very decent CG. Chassis is a reasonable 60mm wide and can accept 94 or 98mm wheelbase bodies. I haven't designed sway bar attachments yet but 1) I don't know if they'll be necessary on a chassis this low and 2) I haven't bought a set for myself yet so I have no measurements. :o

Why the layout is flipped relative to the MA010: originally, just for space constraints. Putting the servo on the right side of the car allows a tiny bit more room as I can indent the upper deck where necessary. However... I did some research and found that for almost all major manufacturers' shaft-drive cars (Xray M18, Yokomo MR4TC SD, Tamiya TB Evo series, list goes on...) the motor is on the same side of the car as the rear diff. As far as my qualitative analysis goes, I believe it's the best compromise of on-power vs. off-power stability (the motor torque affects the car differently on and off-power, as you guys probably figured). Oh well, it's usually safe to copy the companies that win. :D

Anyways, as of current this is just a design study. I'll flesh it out a bit more with properly drawn knuckles, CVD's and geartrain and fine-tune the geometries before attempting to produce parts for this bad boy. Please let me know if this is something I should look into producing in the future. ;)

Programmers
2008.05.31, 06:23 AM
That looks swish. There's a few things I wondered about but none you later covered! Great work. When's the prototype coming? :rolleyes:

But... One thing I thought. Is this a first?? I don't recall seeing a custom chassis for AWD?

arch2b
2008.05.31, 01:51 PM
pro-z actually made one long ago. check his website

Please let me know if this is something I should look into producing in the future. thats a silly question;) you know full well there are always people looking for a better awd platform! including me.

Flashsp-2
2008.05.31, 09:06 PM
...you know full well there are always people looking for a better awd platform! including me.

+1 on that. I will love to have a 28th scale version or a touring chassis, maybe two of them :D

Draconious
2008.05.31, 09:20 PM
See... making a chassis AWD is much harder :)

I gave in, and just put the motor above the batteries... the batteries weigh the most and have weight priority in my mind at least. I might be on my final version of mine, about to create the thread for it soon... (so dont anyone reply about mine in his thread, I hi jacked it enough). Any way my point is to try some concepts with the motor up top...

shimey
2008.06.01, 02:16 AM
Love it. (Orthodox Version) Hey that's actually a pretty cool Company/product title. Sub-50 to 75 bucks I'd be in for 2. Thought about body mounts yet?

cowboysir
2008.06.01, 12:15 PM
Thought about body mounts yet?

take a look at the top deck near the motor mount area...similar to mrcg rwd those protrusions fit the side clips of any autoscale.

great concept again, color01.;)

color01
2008.06.01, 09:24 PM
shimey- like cowboy said, I incorporated the body mounts to the upper deck. I haven't found an elegant way to put body posts on the upper deck though, so maybe they'll have to go on the lower deck (simple enough).

Highly unlikely that I can get it done for any less than $100 though. Almost twice the number of aluminum pieces but half the number of carbon/G10 pieces vs. the RWD MRCG, so the total cost should be around the same if I were to produce it.

Drac- between moving the 17g motor up 10mm vs. moving the 12g AAA up 9.5mm, I opted to move the AAA. ;)

Will have some more renders after Rhino stops throwing me a temper; managed to use the same bulkheads front and rear and they look pretty lightweight now too. :)

color01
2008.06.02, 03:25 PM
Shameless double-post, here are the motor mount and the redesigned bulkheads, which are now completely identical front and rear. :)

http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/3506/rd031kpa7.jpg

Kel
2008.06.02, 03:45 PM
Color0-this wouldn't be too difficult to make at all if it uses MA-010 diffs, knuckles, and axels. It looks like an awesome idea so far!

arch2b
2008.06.02, 03:47 PM
i'm not sure this has been asked yet, but will this incorporate adjustable wheelbase? if so, can you illustrate/explain how this would be done?

color01
2008.06.02, 09:45 PM
Pretty simple system, basically the same as the MA010's. There are two sets of holes, one for 94 and one for 98mm.

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/493/rd031nqd2.jpg

So you can do 94mm:

http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/1133/rd031mst6.jpg

Or 98mm:

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/4006/rd031lgt4.jpg

No I haven't drawn the gears yet, it's going to take a couple tries. :o

shimey
2008.06.05, 09:48 PM
Highly unlikely that I can get it done for any less than $100 though. Almost twice the number of aluminum pieces but half the number of carbon/G10 pieces vs. the RWD MRCG, so the total cost should be around the same if I were to produce it.

Wishful thinking..... :) Even at $100 i'd definitely be in for one, probably 2. Good question on using bulks/ pieces already available. Designing / manufacturing your own is definitely more sexy, but using atomic/pn pieces would definitely cut costs. Which are you planning?

color01
2008.12.28, 04:09 AM
Hi everyone,

As I mentioned in another thread, I got my MA010 so the MRCG AWD is back on the drawing board. :)

Firsty, I think I have figured out a tierod! I've drawn a modified center shaft bearing holder that leaves room under it for the front tierod (just like the MA010), so you can actually use MA010 tierods! No more complaining about lack of toe options. :)

Secondly, I am redesigning the upper arms in the name of cost. It will be a simple upper bar across the knuckles, no more fancy machined upper arms. I'll make sure they sweep back far enough for clearance underneath the bodies.

And finally, I would like to know how important the SAS Pro or SAS Pro II are to a current, up-to-date MA010 setup. For simplicity I'd like to keep my current rear end, but if the SAS makes the MA010 insanely faster, then I have no choice but to design the decks to be SAS-Pro-compatible.

Let me know what you think guys!

kenontap
2008.12.28, 12:29 PM
Hello Color0,
I also designed and built an awd chassie 2 years ago. i have tried just about every batt and motor cofiguration and the final design looks similar to what you have created. the hardest part has been coming up wtih a decent tie rod, bearing holder, servo saver combo. Im very interested to see what you come up with to solve that problem. It really makes you appreciate what kyosho has created and how they have crammed so much in such a small space. looking forwarded to your final design.

MrUnlimited
2008.12.28, 02:11 PM
Hello Color0,
I also designed and built an awd chassie 2 years ago. i have tried just about every batt and motor cofiguration and the final design looks similar to what you have created. the hardest part has been coming up wtih a decent tie rod, bearing holder, servo saver combo. Im very interested to see what you come up with to solve that problem. It really makes you appreciate what kyosho has created and how they have crammed so much in such a small space. looking forwarded to your final design.
Very interesting design. Who made the diff housings? PN-racing? Would it be possible to make a conversion kit so we can use our own electronics such as spinner esc?

kenontap
2008.12.28, 03:08 PM
Mrunlimited, yes pn made the diff housing. but you can use any aftermarket rear diff housing on the car. I'm only making the chassie top and bottom plates, motor mount, centershaft bearing holders and servo saver mounts. I started like color0 drawing and cutting all the parts but that eats up to much time. so i tried to use as many stock parts as i could. The conversion kit seemed to make the most sense and is the direction i'm going. The goal was to keep it as cheap as possible and fix all the problems i was having with the awd car. The spinner esc and spektrum micro reciever was the 1st thing i tested in the car. I only took it out because i can't run lipos on it.

color01
2008.12.28, 03:39 PM
Hey kenontap, good that you posted, I was literally just looking at pics of your chassis for inspiration. :D

For my chassis though I require a double-deck design, because of the way I plan to mount the center shaft bearings (to the top deck). Perhaps I can use PN's lower bulkheads like you have, but the upper bulkheads will have to be replaced by G10/CF parts. I'll have to counterbore the holes on the upper deck to get it to fit on the bulkheads properly. But you're absolutely right that it would save time and costs.

Servo saver is a tough one, and I'm really impressed with how you implemented yours. One way I've thought of at the moment is go 1/12 style and run a ball linkage from the servo saver to each knuckle. But with the MA010 tierod that doesn't seem possible. I might have to mirror my current layout to make more space for the steering assembly.

Old Crow
2008.12.28, 04:07 PM
Keep it up guys, would like to see a AWD platform like this.

eztuner12
2008.12.28, 07:47 PM
Hi everyone,

As I mentioned in another thread, I got my MA010 so the MRCG AWD is back on the drawing board. :)

Firsty, I think I have figured out a tierod! I've drawn a modified center shaft bearing holder that leaves room under it for the front tierod (just like the MA010), so you can actually use MA010 tierods! No more complaining about lack of toe options. :)

Secondly, I am redesigning the upper arms in the name of cost. It will be a simple upper bar across the knuckles, no more fancy machined upper arms. I'll make sure they sweep back far enough for clearance underneath the bodies.

And finally, I would like to know how important the SAS Pro or SAS Pro II are to a current, up-to-date MA010 setup. For simplicity I'd like to keep my current rear end, but if the SAS makes the MA010 insanely faster, then I have no choice but to design the decks to be SAS-Pro-compatible.

Let me know what you think guys!

Hi Brian
OH YEAH!!! :):):DI personally will certainly 100% go with the SAS.
About front end, I don’t mind if the regular upper plate is used, but an upper arm & lower arm would be nice, if you are considering on creating different wide and optional camber angle, which will have to include longer dog-bones and steering rod. I really don’t mind about the front end too much, I am more concern about weight distribution, fit autoscale body, 94/98 WB adjustability Material quality CF & CNC, lower CG to fit Pan shells, hobby servo for steering and definitely regular & SAS rear end for the preference of the buyer (many like reg- rear and many others SAS). Perhaps ball & link steering system.:eek:
Cheers

eztuner12
2008.12.28, 11:13 PM
http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/3506/rd031kpa7.jpg

Brian,
Perhaps a small platform (Tray) made of Composite G10/FR-4 Exposy on top of the motor and servo, were the electronic unit PCB would rest on, could be good, in line to prevent the motor heat to transfer to the PCB, as well as electric noise, plus it will add the bit of extra weight you need, in order to balance weight distribution.
Cheers

Action B
2008.12.29, 02:21 AM
Have you considered taking some ideas from the design posted in this thread- http://www.minizracer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=321231&postcount=39

Check the pictures in post 39 and 40 from samy.

eztuner12
2008.12.29, 03:47 PM
Sorry to cut in Action B
Btw, wish ya a very happy new year.:):):D
I bet that Brian definitely, will come up with something much better than that modified MA-010, which by the way is far to wide and still the same old quality junk Mini-z offers:rolleyes:
Trust this guy, he is an natural ingenious in the field, I haven’t read the 1st issue on his 1st design the MR-CG, to me a great design but 2wd.
The actual chassis on blueprint here, seems a good platform to begin with, and the idea of coming up with an chassis in which you have the option to choose between regular rear end and SAS, will be perfect to satisfied our needs of rear-end preferences, as well as, the possibilities of using the parts already available in the market.:):)
NO WORRY:cool:, perhaps Brian will evolutionize this design while in its course of development.
We have to be aware of Color0 questions, to provide him with our needs and demands, so that he can move on with it, while revising our input.
Thx for your time.;)
Cheers

atallfunguy
2008.12.29, 03:52 PM
Brian,

Looking forward to seeing the awd come along like your 2wd did.

You have time for this and being in school ?

color01
2008.12.29, 07:26 PM
You have time for this and being in school ?
No, not really. :D But I do have enough spare time in a day to do some CAD work, and then I can either machine my own prototype when I come back home again, or ask PN to make me one while I'm down in LA. :)

Judging on Richard's and TJ's feedback, it looks like I'll have to make accomodations for both stock/PN and SAS rear ends, which means I have to copy the stock MA010 mounting points. To do this I have to use nerf wings and then add adapter pieces to them somewhat like PN's 98mm extension kit, so the current design as it stands will have to be scrapped. That's fine, I scrapped 8 previous MRCG designs so this I'm used to.

The hack-and-stick MA010 design won't work because of the battery layout. Perhaps I could do that with battery clips, but I don't have any and so it's more user-friendly to have a pack on one side of the car. Although I agree, their idea was good (my first pic in this thread, now broken, had 3 AAA on one side and 1 AAA on the other).

Anyways, let me get some measurements from the 010, and transfer my CAD software to my new computer, and we'll get started. :)

defcone
2009.01.03, 10:00 PM
Looks great and Lipo ready.

flat 4
2009.01.03, 10:48 PM
Looks great , I do have one odd thought. How hard would it be to do an SAS system on the front end? That my 2 cents

XMDrifter
2009.01.05, 02:13 PM
it'd be pretty hard. you'd have to design upper/lower arms, a new steering system, tierod, and front bodyclip mounting point.
basically, it'd be a total pain to do. results would be good though, so that the front suspension can keep up with the rear suspension.
but then think of all the redesigning that color01 would have to do.
meh, there's always a second version later.

color01
2009.01.05, 04:23 PM
I'm probably not going to go that all-out with this chassis, as the AWD chassis has been pretty well sorted out already and it wouldn't be cost-effective. What I am planning to do, as of a few days ago:

Front end:
Custom lower bulkheads with attachment points for upper deck
Compatible with MA010 upper bulkhead
Custom tierod, hopefully 1/12 style

Center:
Battery/motor layout as shown earlier in thread, mirrored if necessary
Center shaft mounted to upper deck
Nerf wings off to the side, body clips just in front of the nerf wings
MA010-style rear end mounts, mounted on nerf wings, reaching back inwards
94 and 98mm mount holes
MRCG-style motor mount



What I need to ask about is the possibility of an MR02-offset front end (+2.5mm). We would need a new upper bulkhead and longer CVD's, but it would be extremely worth it from a handling standpoint. It also frees up more room for the servo and tierod(s). Let me know guys!

eztuner12
2009.01.05, 04:48 PM
What I need to ask about is the possibility of an MR02-offset front end (+2.5mm). We would need a new upper bulkhead and longer CVD's, but it would be extremely worth it from a handling standpoint. It also frees up more room for the servo and tierod(s). Let me know guys!

HI Brian, nice to see your back.:):):D
I would go with the Mini-z regular off set to save $ and to have the possibilities of using any of the optional front ends parts all ready in the market. Perhaps according to the # of chassis sold, and based on those owners demand, you can come up later with an optional wide front end kit. I’m totally been objective with this comment.;)
Cheers

EMU
2009.01.05, 07:16 PM
I am more interested in a wide track front end than just a conversion chassis. Honestly, without the entire wide offset deal that you have to do on the AWD is what is keeping me away from AWD. I just dont feel that the response is there. Maybe if you make the wide track compatable with the MA-010 as well as the MRCG AWD, it can be sold as a seperate upgrade and everyone can benefit from it without having to use the conversion.

I am assuming that most tracks, and events will not allow the MRCG AWD in the stock classes, so it may be better to have it as a stand alone upgrade compatable with both. This way, the people that use the MA-010 can still use this in the stock and modified classes, and use the MRCG AWD in an open class.

color01
2009.01.05, 08:29 PM
Just to clarify, if I do go wide front end it will be using the MA010 WTF parts that Reflex was working on. So I can technically release just the bare conversion kit, and leave the front and rear end up to the user, whether they want standard, WTF, SAS, etc. Cheaper that way too. :)

Aurora
2009.01.05, 09:18 PM
Wow! Cool work and do look forward to your final product!

The pictures ActionB shown earlier in post(from Samy) are from a friend of mine, basically it was to modify the original AWD chassis and fusion it with MR02 chassis. I like the idea of laying all the 3 batteries flat and moving the last battery to the motor side to keep the weight lowest as possible.


1) As for the new MRCG AWD, it'd be cool to see it with lipo and normal AAA option(or let user choose), since it probably will not be mixing with normal AWD chassis to race. And the removable motor mount is totally an open invitation for using brushless motor!


2) As for the SAS compatibility, I have used both original version and Pro version. The original plastic one is crap, and the new version do see significant improvement. But durability wise, after a month worth of racing and practicing, some parts of the SAS Pro did see severe slack and the replacement rate was a little surprising to me.(never had any hard collision or flipping, only occasion rubbing, all wheels are 'retracted' under the shell)

So, in short, I do suggest not to use SAS pro design as a blue print/base package, but allowing people to choose the rear end might be a sound thing to do.


3) I sometimes do see wear and tear of the front knuckle hole, which it will enlarge over a period of time(sometimes people even broke the lobe).
Will it be possible to allow just the front lower chassis to be replaced(just like the rear lower chassis) but without replacing the whole main body?


4) As for servo saver, I have used a micro servo saver(made by JR?)for a mini servo used in Micro T(got saver from atomicm@ds), maybe it is worth while to look at its design or even adapt to use it?


Keep up the great work! :)

eztuner12
2009.01.05, 09:19 PM
Brilliant suggestion EMU, Indeed. I personally prefer wider, even I don’t know how it will perform on a 1/28 AWD. The experience on larger R/C scales has been very satisfactory, we don’t have wheels with offset on larger scales but “pivot balls” which allows you to set camber too. Any ideas Brian!?.
If at the end front wider end is the final decision, why not make it with adjustable camber, which will definitely improve ride performance thru a more smoothness reaction plus active-camber, perhaps this will maintain a low production coast since no deferent camber degree knuckles will be need, only 0-degree knuckles with longer dog-bone, plus longer steering rod.

As I said, my previous comment is based on objectivity. Considering the production cost and final selling price, in today’s financial and high unemployment crisis that certainly wont stop for a few years, as they say, it is in the middle, on its way to the bottom.:eek:

Brian I guess you are in the right direction, giving the consumer the right of making their choice. thru taking advantage of the great selection of optional parts all ready available in the market certainly you will have a lower production cost and a lower selling price.
Cheers

color01
2009.01.05, 10:28 PM
1) As for the new MRCG AWD, it'd be cool to see it with lipo and normal AAA option(or let user choose), since it probably will not be mixing with normal AWD chassis to race. And the removable motor mount is totally an open invitation for using brushless motor!
There's certainly space for LiPo and Xcelorin, if you decide to go nuts. :p

2) As for the SAS compatibility, I have used both original version and Pro version. The original plastic one is crap, and the new version do see significant improvement. But durability wise, after a month worth of racing and practicing, some parts of the SAS Pro did see severe slack and the replacement rate was a little surprising to me.(never had any hard collision or flipping, only occasion rubbing, all wheels are 'retracted' under the shell)

So, in short, I do suggest not to use SAS pro design as a blue print/base package, but allowing people to choose the rear end might be a sound thing to do.
Good to know, thanks! I had planned on using an SAS Pro II rear end when I finally get around to prototyping and testing the car, but maybe simpler is better. Any MA010 rear end will bolt right on though, so I can get some PN pieces to test with.

3) I sometimes do see wear and tear of the front knuckle hole, which it will enlarge over a period of time(sometimes people even broke the lobe).
Will it be possible to allow just the front lower chassis to be replaced(just like the rear lower chassis) but without replacing the whole main body?
Definitely, I'll be designing the chassis with replaceable lower suspension arms.

4) As for servo saver, I have used a micro servo saver(made by JR?)for a mini servo used in Micro T(got saver from atomicm@ds), maybe it is worth while to look at its design or even adapt to use it?
Probably not exclusively. The Micro-T saver is pretty small anyways, so if I can fit a normal (for example, RC18) micro saver, the Micro-T one will certainly fit.




Richard-- pivot balls at this scale is almost out of the question, it would be massively complicated, even more so than SAS. :confused: While I would love to CAD and make a car like that for my own enjoyment, the time required would put me finishing the project around the time the economy's already coming back up. :eek:



One 'active camber' idea I'm pursuing right now (for both MRCG AWD and as an upgrade for the MRCG) is the use of flex plates on top of the knuckles, instead of springs, to create a 'dynamic strut' setup a la 1/12 pan cars. I'd have to play around with 0.5mm G10 to get the right range of spring rates, and have to cut a LOT of prototypes to make sure the alignments (static camber and caster, and maybe dynamic caster too) are correct, but by taking away a point of sliding friction we can get better traction and response out of the suspension. I'll talk a bit more about this when I have some of my ideas solidly drawn in 3D. :)

XMDrifter
2009.01.06, 08:50 PM
for that flex plate idea, wouldn't you need some kind of damper to control the motion?
if you make the flex plate upper, then will it be a direct replacement for the regular upper (is it deck or tower or plate?) pieces? like a rear flex plate system and a front flex plate system?
for the rear end, would you be making it just use the owner's existing ma10 rear or will you be machining a more CG intensive peice?

color01
2009.01.06, 09:49 PM
True, I'm not sure what to do for damping if I use a front flex plate a-arm. If I do it though, I should be able to make it compatible with the regular MA010 bulkhead, so now that I have an 010 I can try it out on that first. I don't know how necessary front damping is to AWD performance so testing will be necessary. :)

I have figured out a front a-arm suspension for the MRCG (RWD) though so I'll be CADding some more of that as well. Sigh, there goes all my time. :D

eztuner12
2009.01.06, 10:07 PM
Hi Brian
Are you referring to an swings lower A-arm as the Xmods Evo, and a shock with spring attach to the lower A-arm and a rigid upper bar or
plate?:confused:
Thx
Cheers

Slipstream
2009.01.07, 01:08 AM
edit

One 'active camber' idea I'm pursuing right now (for both MRCG AWD and as an upgrade for the MRCG) is the use of flex plates on top of the knuckles, instead of springs, to create a 'dynamic strut' setup a la 1/12 pan cars. I'd have to play around with 0.5mm G10 to get the right range of spring rates, and have to cut a LOT of prototypes to make sure the alignments (static camber and caster, and maybe dynamic caster too) are correct, but by taking away a point of sliding friction we can get better traction and response out of the suspension. I'll talk a bit more about this when I have some of my ideas solidly drawn in 3D. :)

Brian I think the 12th scale dynamic strut is active caster not active camber.

Aurora
2009.01.07, 06:31 AM
I was having lunch with some old-timer-RC drivers(20+ years), and one thing did pop into mind about designing chassis. Definitely in 1/10 scale EP cars, we do see different design/ability/durability of the chassis; and it was mentioned to me that some chassis, though a proven chassis in big races, are a little more prone for breakage than the others.

I guess what I was trying to get to was Mini-z is fun to drive, partially because the down and maintenance time is low; especially compared to larger scale cars. And as MRCG being a more sophisticated chassis, it'd be great to see it being more capable/tunable while without forgoing too much stability/durability of the original chassis.

Btw, from my personal experience, front dampening is rather important...just as much as the rear. It will totally changes the driving characteristic of the car, so it probably is a wise thing to continue to allow this option open to drivers(being able to use original bulkhead/knuckle, and ppl able to apply grease onto the top pin) :)

color01
2009.01.07, 07:59 AM
1/12 is dynamic camber as well as caster. I just designed version 1 of this kind of suspension, attached to an MRCG, but it's way too complicated to put on the AWD. I designed custom WTF knuckles to go with it too, but having finished the 1st design, I know this won't work out costwise. Plus if front dampening is important, then I should totally scratch this idea for AWD because there's no room for damper lube. Back to standard bulkheads. :)


As for durability: with the MRCG this was tricky and I think I've found a good compromise, but with the AWD version I can make it a tank with no effects on performance. So no need to worry here. ;)

marc
2009.01.07, 11:47 AM
Hi guy's, awesome stuff there. Great to see two people working on similar designs. I recall a German company I think called Carbon-Techniques or something like that of which made some really sweet carbon-fiber chassis for the Mini-Z chassis, even a killer chassis kit for the Monster truck! However, I think they used Xmod parts for the AWD as this was done just before the MA010 came out. If I can find their web site, I'll post their link here. I've always wanted one of their kit's, but was way to expensive to complete a chassis, plus wasn't sure how to order from their site as it was all in German.

Red Team
2009.01.07, 03:59 PM
I think you're talking about http://www.carbo6cell.ch/ , it's a suisse site but it's offline since long time !
Awesome stuff you could see there...carbon and alloy only :D on some very interesting and smart design chassis for all types of small scale cars, on & off road !

atallfunguy
2009.01.07, 05:19 PM
Brian,

One suggestion for your AWD would be to get some high level drivers to test it for you and give you feedback.

In AWD a few names come to mind like

TJ and Hernandez.. Both of these guys are current PN World Champs in AWD and could give you some great feedback.

In my opion front damping is very important, we have different springs currently and this is a must.

Slipstream
2009.01.08, 12:25 AM
1/12 is dynamic camber as well as caster. I just designed version 1 of this kind of suspension, attached to an MRCG, but it's way too complicated to put on the AWD. I designed custom WTF knuckles to go with it too, but having finished the 1st design, I know this won't work out costwise. Plus if front dampening is important, then I should totally scratch this idea for AWD because there's no room for damper lube. Back to standard bulkheads. :)


As for durability: with the MRCG this was tricky and I think I've found a good compromise, but with the AWD version I can make it a tank with no effects on performance. So no need to worry here. ;)

Haha my bad there is some camber gain during compression. :p

mk2kompressor
2009.01.08, 05:22 AM
and also toe...

eztuner12
2009.01.08, 10:39 AM
Hello
SAS Is camber and toe active.
Brian I think there is good interest in a 4WD design by you here, and lots of good ideas too.
I guess rear end & main chassis are figured out by now, right? I’ll definitely go with front springs on a 4WD.
My question. Why complicate so much about front-end design, the min-z 4wd front works fine. Is there a problem with it???:confused::confused:
I would
1. Go simple.
2. Good quality material.
3. Good weight distribution & balance.
4. Rear end to accept regular K rear-end and SAS.
5. As much low CG so we can fit most auto scale shells.
6. Auto scale mounting clips.
7. Front end based on the Mini-z so we can fit the available parts in the market or similar to your previous MR-CG 2WD.

Hey MK2 long time, don’t hear from you, hi!!!

Cheers;)

XMDrifter
2009.01.08, 10:01 PM
Hello
SAS Is camber and toe active.
Brian I think there is good interest in a 4WD design by you here, and lots of good ideas too.
I guess rear end & main chassis are figured out by now, right? I’ll definitely go with front springs on a 4WD.
My question. Why complicate so much about front-end design, the min-z 4wd front works fine. Is there a problem with it???:confused::confused:
I would
1. Go simple.
2. Good quality material.
3. Good weight distribution & balance.
4. Rear end to accept regular K rear-end and SAS.
5. As much low CG so we can fit most auto scale shells.
6. Auto scale mounting clips.
7. Front end based on the Mini-z so we can fit the available parts in the market or similar to your previous MR-CG 2WD.

Hey MK2 long time, don’t hear from you, hi!!!

Cheers;)
SAS doesn't have active camber or toe. you have to set it. the camber/toe/caster does not change according to compression of the suspension since it is a double a-arm setup. now if the a arms are different lengths and it was built as a unequal length double a-arm suspension system, we'd see some camber, toe and caster change as the suspension compresses.
he already has most of what you suggested
the fps would be a direct drop in on the chassis.
and color01, how about a small damper that runs across the chassis from 1 tip of the flex plate to the other? it could provide the damping that an fps system would need.
also, an fps system is very simple. it's like the corvette. it uses a traverse leaf spring. only 1 spring that takes the role of 2 springs. and also acts as anti-roll as well
all you need is some way to damper it

eztuner12
2009.01.08, 10:34 PM
Hi XMDrifter
SAS is an unequal length double a-arm suspension system. Lower arm is @2mm longer than the upper arm. Lower arm is positioned @1.5mm further out than the upper arm too, from the pivot that holds it to the main frame. If you place the SAS over a flat surface and compress it down you will note the camber change to higher negative degree.
Use a camber gauge and do the exercise, you will appreciate the negative degree increase very clear.
Cheers

XMDrifter
2009.01.09, 11:10 AM
my bad. i've never actually owned an SAS, so i assumed it would be equal length a-arms.
but the front of the ma10 would need some way to keep up with the rear SAS's performance.
for simplicity's sake, i'd just use flex plates in the front and find some way to incorporate damping

color01
2009.01.09, 02:56 PM
Actually, for simplicity's sake, I'd rather wait for Reflex to come out with their MA010 WTF system, then I can take advantage of it. :)

There's no major problem with the Kyosho front end, I've just always been trying to find better ones. However, after struggling with the design even on the RWD MRCG, it now seems that it's not worth the effort.

I'm still waiting on PN to reply to my email so admittedly I haven't designed much of the new car yet. :o

eztuner12
2009.01.10, 12:35 AM
Actually, for simplicity's sake, I'd rather wait for Reflex to come out with their MA010 WTF system, then I can take advantage of it. :)

There's no major problem with the Kyosho front end, I've just always been trying to find better ones. However, after struggling with the design even on the RWD MRCG, it now seems that it's not worth the effort.

I'm still waiting on PN to reply to my email so admittedly I haven't designed much of the new car yet. :o

Yes lets wait for reflex’s wide front bars.:)

Perhaps some nice CNC part to hold down the front diff to the lower main chassis, in which the front upper plates can be attached to.;)

No problem It will give the time to save $ in line to buy it when its done hehehe.:D
Cheers

color01
2009.01.11, 04:04 AM
Well, talked to PN today in person about this, and we came to a conclusion that the current MRCG AWD design, even the new one I'm working on, is not radical enough and doesn't promise enough potential to be worth producing.

So knowing that the parts for a better suspension are way too expensive to produce, it looks like I will have to scrap this design like I did all my other AWD designs years ago. :(

For the MA010 junkies that had high hopes for this project: this doesn't mean that I can't design hop-ups for the standard MA010 though. Already looking into a few ideas. :)

EMU
2009.01.11, 04:25 AM
The adjustable gear mesh, better battery balance, lower CG, isnt radical enough :eek:

I guess PN has some stuff that he may be working on himself... I asked PN about an aftermarket chassis at the PNWC in 2006, with a lower CG and fine tuned gear mesh... Ive been waiting for a long time for something like this.

I do understand where he is coming from, he is rather conservative with his production. Although he has a lot of breakthrough parts, he rarely has a part that flops on its face. If you look at GPM, they have a lot of parts dating back the MR01 that were completely useless.

I do think that this chassis is an enthusiast chassis, as is the MRCG 2wd. Mainly geared towards the junkies in this hobby that just cant satisfy themselves with the standard chassis...

eztuner12
2009.01.11, 10:10 AM
I totally.... agree with EMU.
Man what kind of advice they give you at PN. Sorry for he who ever said that your design is not drastic:eek::eek::eek:, perhaps “ the absolutely not radical is the disproportionate, extremely low quality min-z AWD "little plastic TOY r/c car”
I guess that your 4WD chassis will be even less production costly than your 2WD. You won’t have to spend on a rear end nor front end. Considering your design will use any of the al ready rear & upper front end parts in the market. You practically only need to invest in the
1. CF Main chassis, body mounting clips& accessories
2. CNC Motor mount.
3. Composite G10/FR-4 Exposy PCB tray.
4. CNC Center shaft mounts.
5. CNC Font end diff mounts.
6. Composite plastic or CNC Servo mount.
7. Steering system.
8. Rear end CNC mounts. If you decide not going with the existent ATM or PN 98 extension, which can be installed forward or backward on the main chassis to accomplish 94-98 w/b.
Un less you decide to go full on the chassis design you posted in this thread.
Cheers

CristianTabush
2009.01.11, 01:54 PM
The reason behind Philip's lack of interest in the AWD is that the parts are more expensive and complex to produce over the MR-02 and they sell a lot less. The market currently is about 4 to 1 in terms of MR-02 vs. AWD. AWD parts just don't sell as much and there is a ton of options out there already that really show no improvement over the stock and Kyosho parts, therefore tying up valuable capital makes little sense on a project like this.

color01
2009.01.11, 03:29 PM
The reason behind Philip's lack of interest in the AWD is that the parts are more expensive and complex to produce over the MR-02 and they sell a lot less. The market currently is about 4 to 1 in terms of MR-02 vs. AWD. AWD parts just don't sell as much and there is a ton of options out there already that really show no improvement over the stock and Kyosho parts, therefore tying up valuable capital makes little sense on a project like this.
^ I think you put it best, Cristian. I also don't feel like looking elsewhere for production because while I have some time, it's not enough to deal with another PITA like I had with MRCG production.

Richard-- 8 items is not "just" the following, lol, it's a pretty big investment. I hope you don't take this personally against PN because I do (albeit reluctantly) agree with his decision. It probably won't stop me from making a few prototype G10/Delrin cars for myself, but if Philip thinks it's not worth the effort then I'm not going to push it.

marc
2009.01.11, 03:57 PM
I think you're talking about http://www.carbo6cell.ch/ , it's a suisse site but it's offline since long time !
Awesome stuff you could see there...carbon and alloy only :D on some very interesting and smart design chassis for all types of small scale cars, on & off road !

I can't recall the companies name, but I can't find it either. I think Carbon-Technuiqes was the name of that 1/32 scale kit, not the 1/28 scale guy's.
Wish I could find their site, but I think their out of buisness or no longer making them selves public. Perhaps they were too expensive and didn't make any money off their products. Wish I was able to get'em while they were around as they were the best looking chassis around!

eztuner12
2009.01.11, 04:28 PM
^ I think you put it best, Cristian. I also don't feel like looking elsewhere for production because while I have some time, it's not enough to deal with another PITA like I had with MRCG production.

Richard-- 8 items is not "just" the following, lol, it's a pretty big investment. I hope you don't take this personally against PN because I do (albeit reluctantly) agree with his decision. It probably won't stop me from making a few prototype G10/Delrin cars for myself, but if Philip thinks it's not worth the effort then I'm not going to push it.

No problem Brian, Perhaps a prototype could be much better than the Mini-z I have now.
Hey Delrin parts no problem to me, much better than the actual plastic chassis I have. Delrin parts is not a bad idea, if the platform is solid firm as CF chassis plate; only a cnc motor mounts for heat dissipation & resistant maters, but not necessary it could be delrin too. Man 1/8 and 1/5 cars are made 90 of composite plastic and they take much, much more punishment than 1/28 right? They go thru forces that an 1/28 won’t even dream of.
So I will be looking forward for your prototype.:cool:
About taking it personal, never man, this is just a hobby to me no more no less.:)
Thx
Cheers

danieluki
2009.01.12, 06:58 AM
Hi , I admire your work with the MRCG...
In my modest opinion I feel the need of a better damping system in the front of our AWD , do you think a new front configuration would be so hard to develop ..?
I see the 1:10 RC chassis and I dream my AWD could have a front SAS like system... Ok its only a wish but why not? what is the problem with that..?
I think it would improve a lot the function and the settings.


Maybe this could inspire you a bit... this is a man who handcrafted its own 1:24 awd design...
http://xemet.altervista.org/

Take a look at this smart front design..:
http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/2116/barilottopd2.jpg

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/7752/mvc822fib9.jpg

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/1629/mvc837fax9.jpg

eztuner12
2009.01.12, 09:25 AM
Hi , I admire your work with the MRCG...
In my modest opinion I feel the need of a better damping system in the front of our AWD , do you think a new front configuration would be so hard to develop ..?
I see the 1:10 RC chassis and I dream my AWD could have a front SAS like system... Ok its only a wish but why not? what is the problem with that..?
I think it would improve a lot the function and the settings.


Maybe this could inspire you a bit... this is a man who handcrafted its own 1:24 awd design...
http://xemet.altervista.org/

Take a look at this smart front design..:
http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/2116/barilottopd2.jpg

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/7752/mvc822fib9.jpg

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/1629/mvc837fax9.jpg

WOW!!!:eek:
Cheers

hrdrvr
2009.01.12, 10:23 AM
Thats a sweet looking set up, but transfering it to 1/28th, then designing and manufacturing all the custom machined parts that go along with it would make it expensive to prototype. Remember, at a smaller scale, tolerances are tighter, and parts are far more complicated to machine.

color01
2009.01.12, 03:02 PM
Hi Dan, I'm very familiar with the suspension of the M24, in fact I was trying to use it as a base a long time ago. But it takes a LOT of custom-machined parts to pull it off, which means really, really expensive. So I didn't even consider it when designing this car.

If I get a hold of an injection molding machine sometime later in life, then this project perhaps would work because I can machine the molds pretty easily and could probably find a suitable plastic fairly easily too. Till then though the price of so much stuff is :eek:.

XMDrifter
2009.01.12, 11:48 PM
well, i hope you can get a hold of that injection molding machine soon.
can derlin be injection molded?
if this design just used molded plastic parts, the chassis would still be the most handling enhancing thing for the MA10

maybe you could try talking some other people like 3racing or something

if this chassis has to be scrapped, i hope that you somehow get the chance to make it later on.

Aurora
2009.01.14, 01:02 AM
Hmmm....not radical enough?

I guess this really is a subjective call, but observing from 2 previous released versions of custom AWD that I know, going to the extreme of stand-alone chassis(which hardly compatible with original AWD parts) leads no where. Those products hardly gain popularity, might be something to do with publicity, but mostly probably due to high price and doubtful spare parts availability.



************************************


I think by introducing:

1) lower CG and better weight management
2) Slide-in motor, allow possibility of brushless
3) 3rd party electronics possible
4) Potential better performing parts, but compatible with original parts

Those are already pretty radical, and the fact that it works with original parts is actually a way to guarantee spare parts availability. It will appeal to both AWD junkies and ordinary AWD customers, since the upkeep can be low and the parts used can be switched between original and new MRCG chassis.


The only one improvement I could think of...just off top my head is the idea of HPI E10 where a 'drift' and 'touring' car weight distribution could be reversed easily and moving the last fourth battery to the motor side to achieve even lower CG.


************************************


I am sure when Kyosho first release AWD, extensive research and test driving has been done to ensure the product is competitive and has appeal to customers. Think about it, it is already a pretty amazing machine that allows a decent degree of tuning to perform even better. And it might be wise to not stay too far away from this original blue print, since the R&D time and cost is not likely to be justified by a small production.


If we look at our cousins, 1/18, say Associated RC18T, which is a rather popular truck in US. There are quite a few 'conversion kits' successfully released. But did we see many custom 1/18? Those conversion kits are not be cheap, but yet hardly anyone is willing to take the plunge in making a brand new design.


Anyway, I am rambling now, and the post might not do much to improve the situation; but I do hope PN or parts maker get to read what's written here.

Cherub1m
2009.07.17, 12:27 PM
I told Richard some time back I was cooking up an AWD design, so now that I have time (not really... but I can allocate my time to the point where I sleep at 6AM every day :D) I sat down and drew this up.

http://img93.imageshack.us/img93/4505/rd031amj1.jpg

This is the unorthodox version... great CG and weight balance but the final product of this wouldn't be user-friendly at all -- the last AAA is on the other side of the motor. :rolleyes: That's gonna make one helluva saddle pack, as I have been told. The motor would be hard to access as well since one of the screws is deep inside the car. I just stopped working on it because it's a bit too funky, lol...

Enter the orthodox revision.

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/7946/rd031ice2.jpg

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/5661/rd031jwx1.jpg

A proper AAA pack, M18-style sliding motor mount, decent weight balance (needs 8g more on the servo to be perfectly balanced) and very decent CG. Chassis is a reasonable 60mm wide and can accept 94 or 98mm wheelbase bodies. I haven't designed sway bar attachments yet but 1) I don't know if they'll be necessary on a chassis this low and 2) I haven't bought a set for myself yet so I have no measurements. :o

Why the layout is flipped relative to the MA010: originally, just for space constraints. Putting the servo on the right side of the car allows a tiny bit more room as I can indent the upper deck where necessary. However... I did some research and found that for almost all major manufacturers' shaft-drive cars (Xray M18, Yokomo MR4TC SD, Tamiya TB Evo series, list goes on...) the motor is on the same side of the car as the rear diff. As far as my qualitative analysis goes, I believe it's the best compromise of on-power vs. off-power stability (the motor torque affects the car differently on and off-power, as you guys probably figured). Oh well, it's usually safe to copy the companies that win. :D

Anyways, as of current this is just a design study. I'll flesh it out a bit more with properly drawn knuckles, CVD's and geartrain and fine-tune the geometries before attempting to produce parts for this bad boy. Please let me know if this is something I should look into producing in the future. ;)

Any update on this chassis color01?

color01
2009.07.17, 04:41 PM
Actually yes.

Just yesterday I finally located and ordered some reasonably sized battery clips, which means -- drumroll please -- that if I am to use them,

1) I can put the batteries anywhere I want, and
2) Loose cells can be used instead of soldered packs!

I haven't worked much on the design since the last update, but just finding the battery clips is a significant step forwards.

So there are really just a few issues remaining before I hunker down and finish the design:

1) Gearing... without much space to move the motor around (assuming I put the 4th battery on the motor side), using the stock MA010 gears may be a challenge. Of course, I could always limit everyone to using the smallest spur (27t) but avoiding that compromise would be nice.
2) Servo/steering/tierod: I know approximately what I need to do, but shoving it all into a few cubic centimeters isn't easy, lol. I think I will have to design a servo "clamp" to keep the servo in place, since it is likely to be mounted vertically.
3) Bulkheads/suspension: the AWD is a major candidate for a dynamic strut suspension at all four corners, and I still think about it. The other possibility is to wait for PN to finish up the AWD A-arm suspension, and then just bolt that on. With my design's low CG we could definitely take advantage the additional grip provided by either type of suspension.

Haven't given up yet, but please don't forget that the original MRCG took nearly 3 years to get to the marketplace. ;)

eztuner12
2009.07.17, 06:51 PM
Hey Brian.
Yes the new PN Racing front & rear unequal double -A-arms that Ben is working on for the 4wd chassis, could be a great suspension option for this project:D. Certainly, we would have to wait until PN release it, to know what it is about right!
Cheers;)

Cherub1m
2009.07.17, 07:06 PM
Actually yes.

Just yesterday I finally located and ordered some reasonably sized battery clips, which means -- drumroll please -- that if I am to use them,

1) I can put the batteries anywhere I want, and
2) Loose cells can be used instead of soldered packs!

I haven't worked much on the design since the last update, but just finding the battery clips is a significant step forwards.

So there are really just a few issues remaining before I hunker down and finish the design:

1) Gearing... without much space to move the motor around (assuming I put the 4th battery on the motor side), using the stock MA010 gears may be a challenge. Of course, I could always limit everyone to using the smallest spur (27t) but avoiding that compromise would be nice.
2) Servo/steering/tierod: I know approximately what I need to do, but shoving it all into a few cubic centimeters isn't easy, lol. I think I will have to design a servo "clamp" to keep the servo in place, since it is likely to be mounted vertically.
3) Bulkheads/suspension: the AWD is a major candidate for a dynamic strut suspension at all four corners, and I still think about it. The other possibility is to wait for PN to finish up the AWD A-arm suspension, and then just bolt that on. With my design's low CG we could definitely take advantage the additional grip provided by either type of suspension.

Haven't given up yet, but please don't forget that the original MRCG took nearly 3 years to get to the marketplace. ;)

4th battery on the motor side would be nice. Good luck, I know its a challenge :D

Tinytacohead
2009.11.15, 10:03 AM
Just ran into this thread - very interested! (especially in using PN's upcoming front end, with your chassis)

/subscribed :)

AddictiveRC
2009.11.16, 07:02 AM
Actually yes.

Just yesterday I finally located and ordered some reasonably sized battery clips, which means -- drumroll please -- that if I am to use them,

1) I can put the batteries anywhere I want, and
2) Loose cells can be used instead of soldered packs!

I haven't worked much on the design since the last update, but just finding the battery clips is a significant step forwards.

So there are really just a few issues remaining before I hunker down and finish the design:

1) Gearing... without much space to move the motor around (assuming I put the 4th battery on the motor side), using the stock MA010 gears may be a challenge. Of course, I could always limit everyone to using the smallest spur (27t) but avoiding that compromise would be nice.
2) Servo/steering/tierod: I know approximately what I need to do, but shoving it all into a few cubic centimeters isn't easy, lol. I think I will have to design a servo "clamp" to keep the servo in place, since it is likely to be mounted vertically.
3) Bulkheads/suspension: the AWD is a major candidate for a dynamic strut suspension at all four corners, and I still think about it. The other possibility is to wait for PN to finish up the AWD A-arm suspension, and then just bolt that on. With my design's low CG we could definitely take advantage the additional grip provided by either type of suspension.

Haven't given up yet, but please don't forget that the original MRCG took nearly 3 years to get to the marketplace. ;)

I would Like to Carry Both Kits on My New Site Coming very Soon.
www.addictiverc.com
www.addictiverc.ning.com
I sent you an Email.
Cheers, JohnW

AddictiveRC
2009.11.17, 10:21 PM
I am running a 2S 7.4v Li-Po conversion in my 1.1 Chassis and it really flies!
I just finished a 2S conversion for my AWD car.
I think it would be smart to make the New AWD Chassis be Li-Po Friendly.
Cheers, JohnW

eztuner12
2009.11.18, 01:41 AM
Hi Brian
Hope this note finds U well.:)
Any up-date on your 4wd?
Thx;)
Cheers

wildthing
2009.12.07, 04:29 AM
I would have to agree on the lipo or li-Ion... the ICR10440 Lithium Ion will have a 10mm diameter and 44mm length just like a AAA but a piece will produce about 3.10V at least... so putting two in series will be producing the same power (or more than) as 4 AAA nimh.

I like the design!!! I think I can fit my moped v16 bravo esc and 2.4Ghz rx module in that unit :)

color01
2009.12.07, 04:45 AM
Still got nothing for you guys yet... the basic chassis layout is very simple, but there's the front and rear suspension to be determined and a problem of enclosing a Mini-Z servo on the chassis. I'm probably going to wait till Kyosho updates their AWD with the new servo, then approach this project again. :)

wildthing
2009.12.07, 05:16 PM
can a pico or micro servo fit in that space?

color01
2009.12.07, 05:29 PM
Of course it can, the problem is that I don't want it to. ;) All of us working on the MRCG and 1.1 have come to the conclusion that there's no better steering servo for 1/28 than the Mini-Z ASF servo, and we'll need that in the car for any future products. It'll also make the "conversion chassis" selling point a lot easier, since people can just fit their existing Mini-Z servo assembly right into the car and have it work perfectly the first time around. :)

Tinytacohead
2009.12.07, 07:52 PM
...All of us working on the MRCG and 1.1 have come to the conclusion that there's no better steering servo for 1/28 than the Mini-Z ASF servo, and we'll need that in the car for any future products...

Wow, didn't realize it was that highly praised/well designed. I was under the impression that a "real" servo would be better as well. I thought wrong. :o

Cherub1m
2010.07.27, 10:12 PM
I told Richard some time back I was cooking up an AWD design, so now that I have time (not really... but I can allocate my time to the point where I sleep at 6AM every day :D) I sat down and drew this up.

http://img93.imageshack.us/img93/4505/rd031amj1.jpg

This is the unorthodox version... great CG and weight balance but the final product of this wouldn't be user-friendly at all -- the last AAA is on the other side of the motor. :rolleyes: That's gonna make one helluva saddle pack, as I have been told. The motor would be hard to access as well since one of the screws is deep inside the car. I just stopped working on it because it's a bit too funky, lol...

Enter the orthodox revision.

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/7946/rd031ice2.jpg

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/5661/rd031jwx1.jpg

A proper AAA pack, M18-style sliding motor mount, decent weight balance (needs 8g more on the servo to be perfectly balanced) and very decent CG. Chassis is a reasonable 60mm wide and can accept 94 or 98mm wheelbase bodies. I haven't designed sway bar attachments yet but 1) I don't know if they'll be necessary on a chassis this low and 2) I haven't bought a set for myself yet so I have no measurements. :o

Why the layout is flipped relative to the MA010: originally, just for space constraints. Putting the servo on the right side of the car allows a tiny bit more room as I can indent the upper deck where necessary. However... I did some research and found that for almost all major manufacturers' shaft-drive cars (Xray M18, Yokomo MR4TC SD, Tamiya TB Evo series, list goes on...) the motor is on the same side of the car as the rear diff. As far as my qualitative analysis goes, I believe it's the best compromise of on-power vs. off-power stability (the motor torque affects the car differently on and off-power, as you guys probably figured). Oh well, it's usually safe to copy the companies that win. :D

Anyways, as of current this is just a design study. I'll flesh it out a bit more with properly drawn knuckles, CVD's and geartrain and fine-tune the geometries before attempting to produce parts for this bad boy. Please let me know if this is something I should look into producing in the future. ;)

Any update on this AWD chassis color01?

color01
2010.07.28, 06:36 AM
Don't really want to do it anymore. :o For all the racing I've done and seen, I haven't seen an MA-010 outhandle an MR-03, and especially not with the new servo in the 03.

When Kyosho updates the Mini-Z AWD with the same servo guts (or better), I'll reconsider the project. Still very expensive though and for a very small market (there are probably at least 5-10 times more 2WD Mini-Z's than AWD Mini-Z's in existence...).

Cherub1m
2010.07.28, 08:01 AM
Don't really want to do it anymore. :o For all the racing I've done and seen, I haven't seen an MA-010 outhandle an MR-03, and especially not with the new servo in the 03.

When Kyosho updates the Mini-Z AWD with the same servo guts (or better), I'll reconsider the project. Still very expensive though and for a very small market (there are probably at least 5-10 times more 2WD Mini-Z's than AWD Mini-Z's in existence...).

That's to bad, but I understand.

I've seen a few AWD that outhandle 02's and 03's. I guess not having an AWD class of its own is not helping at all.

ROBG
2010.07.28, 09:39 AM
I'll race AWD with you Cherub, I think it's so much fun.:cool:

eztuner12
2010.07.28, 03:14 PM
Hi there Color1
First I hope Ur doing well all @
One thing I think you should take into account is the unequal double A- arm suspension system, both front & rear.
NO matter how low the CG is an S-bar would definitely improve the traction by providing additional assertion that the tires will be kept on the track surface, as well as, the side to side chassis balance at a turning point.
I guess Kyosho has a good design on its MA-010 in line to come out with a totally new main chassis design, just an objective point of view. At this point investing time and $ on what is good to make it great, considering the MA-010 4WD is the lowest sale chassis of the Mini-Z series might not be a good idea, just “speculating” On the other hand, coming up with a new suspension system design as an unequal wish-bone suspension is more viable for Kyosho, in my book. Perchance a better quality material on the main chassis could be possible if we don't consider that all this mayor branded R/C car manufactures finances depend in a high % on the sale of parts. Let’s remember always that Kyosho has no competition on the Mini-Z series to come up with new designs only if there is a high customer demand for new changes or to make obsolete old design and “sale” new designed chassis as a target to increase its revenues.
Certainly I’m looking forward to your new design of the 4WD chassis:)
Cheers

Cherub1m
2010.10.24, 03:41 PM
Hey color01

Any change of mind regarding the AWD project? I dont know if this was mentioned but if you use the 4th battery motor side you could have the motor slide out under the chassis and still put it on a mount where you could slide it left and right to adjust for gearing. Hope that makes sense.

Anyhow, any news?

color01
2010.10.24, 05:10 PM
Nah, haven't been working on it lately.

However, I am very curious about the new 1/28 AWD chassis shown at iHobby. Double-A-arm suspension front and rear would be great if the parts are of decent quality -- the MA010 drivetrain could be ported over to work with the new suspension and an AWD MRCG could be viable, parts-count wise. We'd still have to get around the servo speed issue though, the fastest modular radio system I could come up with is only about equal to the MR-02 in response time, and not even close to the 03.

As I have warned you guys for the last year and change though, I need to see people REALLY interested in AWD before something like this will make sense from a business standpoint. If every track in America goes to the Kyosho carpet, maybe... otherwise RWD will still be the more popular racing platform.

eztuner12
2010.10.24, 07:00 PM
Nah, haven't been working on it lately.

However, I am very curious about the new 1/28 AWD chassis shown at iHobby. Double-A-arm suspension front and rear would be great if the parts are of decent quality -- the MA010 drivetrain could be ported over to work with the new suspension and an AWD MRCG could be viable, parts-count wise. We'd still have to get around the servo speed issue though, the fastest modular radio system I could come up with is only about equal to the MR-02 in response time, and not even close to the 03.

As I have warned you guys for the last year and change though, I need to see people REALLY interested in AWD before something like this will make sense from a business standpoint. If every track in America goes to the Kyosho carpet, maybe... otherwise RWD will still be the more popular racing platform.

You are absolutely right Brian. But if by any chance you decide to come up with a few prototype 4WD that demonstrate to be competitive, count me in. I trust your ingenuity, as well as, the material quality you use.
It is always good to read your writings….
Cheers

arch2b
2010.10.24, 08:29 PM
i don't see all the clubs moving to kyosho carpet. just saying.