Some very interesting principles here. The bevel gears and the highly complex crown being of note. Someone once spoke about a "perfect solution to a non-existent problem": the 10 piece (!) crown certainly seems to have some of that... Reminds me of the old adage: if it ain't broke don't fix it: what's wrong wrong with a straightforward Slot.it crown?
It looks like the highly complex crown would permit rather fine adjustment of gear mesh, and therefore backlash. That said, one cannot argue with your thoughts on the matter.
The crown is probably the biggest advancement in general, but the bigger advancement in regards to "plastic" chassis 1/32 scale slot cars is the on-purpose implementation of "flex" into the chassis to mimick some 1/24 chassis.
It seems from the pictures that the pod is able to float on its own mounts, but the difference is that the pod rests on a sub-frame that is connected only at the front of the main chassis plate via what looks like two main connecting members on the left/right and a 3rd center member. It's hard to exactly tell what's going on from the pictures, but that is what I'm seeing.
If that is the case, what you get is a pod that can float independently from a sprung sub-frame. The subframe only moves in the Z-axis (up down) and not left/right - front/back. You can look at it as a 2-link or ladder bar type suspension system with the actual bars being the springs (like leaf springs) rather than having coil overs or springs over the rear axle (on a 1:1 car). Instead of placing the springs on the pod mounts which allows the pod to move in all directions (front/back, left/right, up/down), you can limit the travel to just up/down if you so choose.
This may be very nice chassis to run on wood. Many have come to the conclusion that the suspension systems currently in place for podded slotcars have really not helped handling on wood tracks, and some have even stated that suspensions proved to be detrimental to a car's handling on wood tracks until some tape is used to secure the pod - well what you're doing with the tape is allowing movement of the pod up and down, but limiting or dampening movement front/back and left/right. This chassis will do that for you - to an extent.
It would be interesting to see what material they use for that sprung sub-frame. The rear bushing holders are very close to each other - it would have to be very stiff especially for high grip situations, but at the same time, the subframe does support each rear mounting ears of the pod which adds support.
The crown is probably the biggest advancement in general, but the bigger advancement in regards to "plastic" chassis 1/32 scale slot cars is the on-purpose implementation of "flex" into the chassis to mimick some 1/24 chassis.
It seems from the pictures that the pod is able to float on its own mounts, but the difference is that the pod rests on a sub-frame that is connected only at the front of the main chassis plate via what looks like two main connecting members on the left/right and a 3rd center member. It's hard to exactly tell what's going on from the pictures, but that is what I'm seeing.
If that is the case, what you get is a pod that can float independently from a sprung sub-frame. The subframe only moves in the Z-axis (up down) and not left/right - front/back. You can look at it as a 2-link or ladder bar type suspension system with the actual bars being the springs (like leaf springs) rather than having coil overs or springs over the rear axle (on a 1:1 car). Instead of placing the springs on the pod mounts which allows the pod to move in all directions (front/back, left/right, up/down), you can limit the travel to just up/down if you so choose.
This may be very nice chassis to run on wood. Many have come to the conclusion that the suspension systems currently in place for podded slotcars have really not helped handling on wood tracks, and some have even stated that suspensions proved to be detrimental to a car's handling on wood tracks until some tape is used to secure the pod - well what you're doing with the tape is allowing movement of the pod up and down, but limiting or dampening movement front/back and left/right. This chassis will do that for you - to an extent.
It would be interesting to see what material they use for that sprung sub-frame. The rear bushing holders are very close to each other - it would have to be very stiff especially for high grip situations, but at the same time, the subframe does support each rear mounting ears of the pod which adds support.
It looks as if the sub-frame is the body mount, too. So the entire drivetrain is free to stay flat (the pod keeps the rear tires planted, and the 'spine' that the pod is mounted on can keep the guide vertical in the slot, ala TSRF). This assembly is then loosely attached to the body mounting piece. Should be really good for damping body vibration. It also looks like a simple matter to change the amount of flex in the chassis from the front to the rear. Nice adjustability up front, too. The potential here is really nice, without being overly complex.
I must have missed that: where do they say they keep constant pinion pitch for different # of teeth? The adjustable spacing on the crown would certainly allow that: I just did not read anywhere that this is what they will be doing.
I assumed they would. I can't see any other reason for the spacers.
Perhaps in my nitpicking it did not come across that I am really, really impressed with the fact that we have a manufacturer here that did not just go and do "more of the same" as everybody else: they have obviously given the whole chassis design a lot of thought and came up with some novel and unique approaches to some known beneficial principles. As mentioned before: they have engineered in some very interesting concepts: I am very curious to see how the whole package performs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Autorama
I can't see any other reason for the spacers.
I believe this is probably primarily to adjust the mesh. Not sure if the design would be able to accommodate the number and thickness of spacers required for a big-ish difference in pinion diameter.
I may have to order one of these! Not sure the extra engagement of the gear teeth is really needed on such a low power motor... (compared to much faster and more powerful 1/24 and 1/32 commercial slot motors. It could mean more drag in the drive train. What interests me is the chassis! It has features of some modern 1/32 Euro Sport steel open chassis and if right could make it very fast and in a class by itself. I could see if they work that well..... them being outlawed to run against current crop of Slot It and NSR stuff.
Last edited by HarVWallbanger; 06-29-2012 at 08:17 AM.
I may have to order one of these! Not sure the extra engagement of the gear teeth is really needed on such a low power motor... (compared to much faster and more powerful 1/24 and 1/32 commercial slot motors. It could mean more drag in the drive train. What interests me is the chassis! It has features of some modern 1/32 Euro Sport steel open chassis and if right could make it very fast and in a class by itself. I could see if they work that well..... them being outlawed to run against current crop of Slot It and NSR stuff.
That is an interesting thought, and one that is quite valid. With a higher powered motor as standard, most who run this against anything else will at a minimum have to replace the motor to one that is able to compete against others. Or have everyone else upgrade their car's motors, though 28.5k is a rather unusual motor rpm rating that I do not think is shared by many others.
While 28.5 k is a pretty 'slow' motor compared to some, there are folks who run Falcon I/II motors with some regularity and they generally operate in that range. It is too much motor for my track and that of most of my friends, but not for others.
Does this design still use the motor shaft to align the gears? It looks like it; if so, that is retrograde. On the other hand, the chassis design looks interesting.
I was not thinking about how fast the motor was but how well they engineered the chassis was. We run Falcon II powered brass and wire cars on wood no glue and foam tires and they rock. I think they are 48k motors. If they are working good I would expect them to handle and drive more like our scratch cars then current "plastic" cars we race as well even if they had the same motor power.
Check out this scratch race with brass and wire cars and Fal.II powered..... HERE Thats my little March F1 on yellow.
I believe this is probably primarily to adjust the mesh. Not sure if the design would be able to accommodate the number and thickness of spacers required for a big-ish difference in pinion diameter.
I have asked about the gears pitch more than a week ago ... no reply yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rallymaster
This seems interesting, i like the idea, just one question. Any idea if/these cars might be released for purchase in the us? Also, an word on cost?
I like the isolation of the pod to guide triangle in a separate piece. This allows the body and any weight that is added to be separate. No weight might be necessary but some drivers use that as a tuning agent. I would hope the pod/triangle piece would be stiff front to back and will flex torsionally. If we find a distributor here in the States, maybe they will be available here soon.
Linear Mode
