There Is also a torsion chassis 2.2S the DAHU........
-
Welcome to RCCrawler Forums.
It looks like you're enjoying RCCrawler's Forums but haven't created an account yet. Why not take a minute to register for your own free account now? As a member you get free access to all of our forums and posts plus the ability to post your own messages, communicate directly with other members, and much more. Register now!
Already a member? Login at the top of this page to stop seeing this message.
2016 RCCA Traditional Comp class rule updates
- Thread starter JohnRobHolmes
- Start date
There Is also a torsion chassis 2.2S the DAHU........
binaryterror
I wanna be Dave
Motor(s) mounting on an Axle is an MOA, be it 1 motor on one axle and one weird drive shaft or 1 motor per each axle. That's how I always read that rule, to be honest. It is Motor on axle, not Motors on Axles or Motor(s) on Axle(s).
Only 2.2P change I'd like to see is Bodiless cab, I still feel its dimensions are too small compared to available body options anymore. Especially as the crawling and mini vehicles have fadded from the bigger aftermarket options. But I doubt this going to change anyhow, I can accept that.
Only 2.2P change I'd like to see is Bodiless cab, I still feel its dimensions are too small compared to available body options anymore. Especially as the crawling and mini vehicles have fadded from the bigger aftermarket options. But I doubt this going to change anyhow, I can accept that.
ClassiCutCustoms
RCC Addict
Exactly! MOA is pretty clear to me!
Motor ON is clear ........... yes
The rig mentioned here is interesting, the one Zarizi was referring to. The chassis is mounted to the front axle with standoffs/spacers and the transmission/motor is mounted between the two vertical chassis plates.
Technically he is chassis mounted ...... not Motor On, just motor really really close to Axle.
The rig mentioned here is interesting, the one Zarizi was referring to. The chassis is mounted to the front axle with standoffs/spacers and the transmission/motor is mounted between the two vertical chassis plates.
Technically he is chassis mounted ...... not Motor On, just motor really really close to Axle.
I agree on the bodiless, but won't touch dimensions without a vote from clubs to ensure we aren't illegalizing packs of rigs.
first post updated a bit. I have considered various types of builds and will define the 2.2S gearbox and motor as chassis mounted. I will word it in a method where the gearbox can't be used to mount chassis to axle.
first post updated a bit. I have considered various types of builds and will define the 2.2S gearbox and motor as chassis mounted. I will word it in a method where the gearbox can't be used to mount chassis to axle.
energykarting
Newbie
Hello !
Is my shafty good for the new rules ?
the motor is fixed on the chassis and it's a rigid junction to the front axle.
www.rccrawler-france.com: Forum Dedié aux Crawler et Scales Radio-Commandé en France, Conseils, Astuces pour Créations Chassis Complet, News, Galeries Photos, Liens Utiles • Afficher le sujet - Le dahu sportsman losi
Is my shafty good for the new rules ?
the motor is fixed on the chassis and it's a rigid junction to the front axle.
www.rccrawler-france.com: Forum Dedié aux Crawler et Scales Radio-Commandé en France, Conseils, Astuces pour Créations Chassis Complet, News, Galeries Photos, Liens Utiles • Afficher le sujet - Le dahu sportsman losi
ClassiCutCustoms
RCC Addict
I had seen pictures of this one....... But haven't looked close. Basically in short it is a torsional chassis, Losi axles, out runner motor, no tranny! That is thinking outside the box.......
This would not be legal, as the motor mount is affixed to the axle.
The concept is that motor torque must be transmitted into chassis, thus chassis will have torque twist in relation to axles. The chassis cannot be removable while motor stays usefully attached to an axle. I realize this allows the possibility of very short torsion arms up front, so that motor is chassis mounted but the front chassis has no flex. So now we must find wording to prevent the simple workaround.
Because of the difficulty in defining this with so many custom possibilities, we will either have to define how chassis can be attached to the axle to eliminate possibility of fully rigid mount, or we will make a "judges call" where any style vehicle that is built to transmit motor reaction torque directly to an axle can be deemed illegal at the event.
ClassiCutCustoms
RCC Addict
There may also be a need for a definition of what is an "shafty axle". In other words..... What if a chassis mounted motor and gear up transmission is placed between two Berg/XR /Bully axles. The multi gear axles differ from standard ring and pinion Shafty axles. Dan's truck at World's worked very well but if allowed would impact the class. I have been asked if I would come up with an adapter to make it work..... But I consider it detrimental to the class and against the intended competitors.
Have to watch the 'ring and pinion' wording because then you can make the Losi illegal ;-)
Last edited:
ClassiCutCustoms
RCC Addict
True..... I had that thought too but wasn't sure if "two gears" was correct either! Lol
what about wording like was used to define bodiless ...... (my memories shot but) something where it said the cab had to be separate from the supporting chassis. You had to be able to remove the cab portion and still have the chassis remain supported.
Sorry that's vague but maybe something saying transmission must be connected to the chassis in a way that it becomes useless when the axles are detached from the chassis .... ?? Or something pertaining to how the axles are attached to the chassis like you mentioned.
'two gears' ......... that could be dangerous wording too lol. :ror:
That's what I'm getting at, but with a torsion chassis you can make a chassis/ tranny/ axle sandwich that would effectively lock the chassis and tranny to the axle yet still have independent components that would pass "chassis mounted tranny" wording.
tapped-out
I wanna be Dave
I seen no wording about cab/bodyless like described above in the usrcca rules.
[/URL]
35-51-1_zpsspgcmnxt.png.html]
Above is for 2.2 pro 2.2s body is 3" x12.5. I know this isn't the point of your post,
Sorry just need to know if I've missed something...
Last edited:
It was years ago I remember the definition had something to say about the cab being removed that the chassis had to support itself to be considered cabless. I cant really remember but it was something to do with shocks being mounted to cabs .... take the cab off the chassis drops.
I know what Im trying to remember lol ..... :ror:
I wanna say the old glossary of terms use to define what a 'chassis' was and that was where it was mentioned.
Last edited:
Solitaire
RCC Addict
"Chassis mounted tranny connected to the axles with articulating driveshafts."
This would eliminate any motor/tranny/axle sandwich...hopefully.
I was also thinking earlier that driveshafts with pivots would help the description. If anything, it at least pushes the tranny/ transfer back. The primary advantage of the moa Shafty is low forward cg.
The root of the torsion chassis design still Blurs the motor on axle concept. When is it rigid axle mounting, while stressed members all flex? Is it advantageous enough try and limit? The U.S. went through the phase of torsion rigs, and suspended rigs triumphed because of nimble handling and predictable traction.
I feel that the complexity of a chassis mounted motor and tranny/transfer with articulating driveshafts could be enough to even the class back out. If some clever person made a torsion sandwich with these rules, it would be more shafty than moa.
The root of the torsion chassis design still Blurs the motor on axle concept. When is it rigid axle mounting, while stressed members all flex? Is it advantageous enough try and limit? The U.S. went through the phase of torsion rigs, and suspended rigs triumphed because of nimble handling and predictable traction.
I feel that the complexity of a chassis mounted motor and tranny/transfer with articulating driveshafts could be enough to even the class back out. If some clever person made a torsion sandwich with these rules, it would be more shafty than moa.
chevotafun
RCC Addict
Well said Joel, I couldn't agree more."thumbsup""thumbsup"
Just make a set of rules and stick to them, the creative minds will always push the hobby forward.
But adding more classes you will just water down the classes we already have.
IMO the only rule change needed is to get the MOA Sporties out of the sporty class, even tho they are cool as hell, but as Joel said in another post this class was made to get beginners into the hobby not scare them away.
Yes the sporty rigs are very close in performance too the MOA rigs now, if you put dig on a sporty they would be very comparable in performance.