Complete Newbie...
12 views
Skip to first unread message
whitney james
Nov 24, 2009, 8:06:28 AM11/24/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
Hey all!
Been a lurker here for more years than my pride would allow me to admit, but
I'm finally taking the plunge and beginning a build.
To start off with, the site is about tanks. That much is obvious. However, I’ve
seen a couple armored cars there, and I think that is where my interest lies. And
so, I present the B1 Centuaro. It’s got a nice bulky body to fit all those
moving bit’s that make it do cool things, as well as nice sloped armor that
will (in theory anyway) make up for a relatively weak armor rating (25mm up front: upgradable to 30mm). However, it does come with a 105mm main gun, so that puts us into Tank Destroyer territory. (evil little grin)
http://www.sbmodels.net/images/New_From/ModelVictoria/MV002/images/MV0002.jpg
Yup: it’s wheeled. I don’t know why, but in a place beyond all reason, I find a wheeled vehicle vastly easier to engineer than a tracked one. I know: I have issues. Still, what do you do?
Anyway. The site has made the comment that RC car parts simply do not stand up to the strains demanded of them in this sport. Well, being a complete idiot, I threw that advice out in favor of RC parts.
My basic plan is to scrounge Evil-Bay and dredge up some Nitro RC monstertruck parts, and build my driveline/suspension system from that.
The vast bulk will be taken from the Traxxas company, as they seems of a fairly reputable sort, and their T-Maxx and Revo trucks are both everywhere, and as any number of UTube videos will document, are nearly indestructible. I figure anything designed to leap 12 feet in the air, fly 25 horizontal feet, land on it’s head, and keep going is probably fairly tough. Additionally, parts can be had for fairly cheap, so there you go.
As the B1 has 4 sets of wheels, I’ll need parts from 2 RC monster trucks. I considered merely buying two of them, stripping what I need and Craigslisting/E-baying the rest of the bits off, but at ~$200 a pop, that was a bit too much of an initial investment. I’m on a bit of a budget here, as my better (and wiser) half has authorized around $20 a month to be put into this thing so that option was out. As mentioned, I’ve taken the plunge and purchased (won) 3 bulkheads (mounts for the swing arms: 2 rear, and 1 front), some swing arm pins (enough for 2 axles), and (hopefully) a set of A-Arms (2 axles worth). Assuming I am correct: that their description of a “complete set” of A-Arms included 4 upper, and 4 lower, I will be in possession of the above mentioned pieces for the grand total of $35.85. This is about half my suspension system.
“How to get the power to the wheels?” you might ask. Again, the commercial market comes to the rescue. I’ve seen differentials for the Traxxas Revo 3.3 going for around $10 plus shipping. Considering it costs 6 times that to build one from your local hobby shop, that’s on the menu for next month.
In total, I’ll need 6 (to be spread over a couple months, obviously): 2 for the front and rear most differentials, and 4 to be cannibalized into 2 through differentials for the two middle axles.
Now: Most of the tanks I’ve seen built on the website (Yes, I’ve looked through every page of every single one) don’t seem to take weight into account: building with materials such as solid plywood and steel. Note: I said “most”. (little winky emoticon)
My goal will be to build as lightly as possible: hence the commercial nylon parts (and my lack of fabrication skills…). My assumption is (and yes: this may end up making an a** out of me) is that the lighter the vehicle, the less power will be required to move it. Also, as I only will have need of 1 power source… well, my logic falls apart there, but it seems like those two things should be complimentary. Less power requirements means less battery requirements means less weight means less power requirements means less battery… you get the idea.
As a power source (remember, we’re going for CHEAP quality here) I’m planning on the tried and true drill motor setup. I’ve seen them tried on tanks, but the complains are that they just don’t have the power. An issue I hope to address with light weight. My plan is to find a trashed 18~24 volt variable speed cordless drill (preferably with a 2 speed planetary transmission) at some pawn shop or other place where such things are found. This way, I buy a second cheap replacement trigger, a couple light springs, and I’ll have a reversible, variable speed vehicle. This idea currently exists only as an idea in my head, so we’ll see how it works out in practice. Fortunately, many have said I have a very imaginative mind, so maybe I haven’t botched everything before it’s even begun. J
Regardless, that’s the plan anyway: what do you all think?
(as to criticisms: please refrain from throwing overly heavy or sharp and point objects as I have a rather soft head.)
Bing brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. Try it now.
Paul Hilton
Nov 24, 2009, 11:09:26 AM11/24/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
Welcome to the group! I was looking at building a B-1 Centauro myself! I think you should keep a couple of things in mind. Firstly, others will be shooting paintballs at your vehicle. This means that your hull will need to stand up to some pretty violent impacts. Secondly, your wheels will need to be in the neighborhood of 8” in diameter. I don’t know much about monster trucks, but I haven’t seen many with that size wheels. Thirdly, anything that you strengthen after you start your build will add weight. I would suggest going big from the start. And, finally…. Have a look at the rules for an armored car. No matter how large the gun, no matter how thick the armor the actual vehicle has, an arored car will always be at a disadvantage. Good luck!!!
Paul H.
--
You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group.
To post a message, send email to rctank...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat...@googlegroups.com
Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat
Derek Engelhaupt
Nov 24, 2009, 11:24:51 AM11/24/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
Whitney,
I know you have been lurking for sometime, but I still find it much easier to get a tank
running than a wheeled vehicle. Something having to do with all those A arms and CV
joints combined with steering....;) Having said that, I do plan on making a wheeled
vehicle sometime.
Derek
T065
I know you have been lurking for sometime, but I still find it much easier to get a tank
running than a wheeled vehicle. Something having to do with all those A arms and CV
joints combined with steering....;) Having said that, I do plan on making a wheeled
vehicle sometime.
Derek
T065
whitney james
Nov 24, 2009, 11:41:39 AM11/24/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
Thanks Paul!
Yup, I'm well aware of the tire size issue, and I've thought a lot about it.
I figured I could either go with lawn mower tires (hard plastic, and a very harsh ride even with fully independent suspension as well as the difficulty of adapting to an RC driveline), some relatively expensive (and heavy) steel hubbed semi-pneumatic tires (and add a LOT of strain to the driveline due to their weight), or... (drum roll please)
I found a niche RC market that has just what I was looking for: RC rock crawling.
They have tires from as small as you want, all the way up to 10 inch monsters.
For the purposes of scale, I think I'm going to go with RC4WD's 4.0 Rock Crushers. They're 8.26 inches outer diameter, and a pretty close approximation of the Michelin XZL: a common APC tire.
http://www.rc4wdstore.com/2/product_info.php?cPath=18&products_id=430
They're also fairly soft, as they're made for rock crawling: lending themselves to a softer ride and less impact on the frame (mixed with the suspension).
On the down side...
If you looked at the link I posted above, they're about $40 a pair. (Yea Gods! I can't believe I think I'm going to get away with that!!!). So, we're looking at around $120 just to put shoes on my beggar; but they are also admittedly the only stupidly expensive part of the build (as far as my simple brain has calculated anyway...)
As to hard hits: I'm fully aware of it. As an ex-avid paint-baller, I've got the scars to show it. (big toothy grin)
And so, I'm planning on building the basic framework of the monstrosity out of steel brakeline, brazed at the joints: probably something in the 3/4 inch range. I found a place locally that will sell 72 inches pieces of the stuff for $4 a length. I figure ~$25 for a cheap Home Depot brazing kit, and I should be able to patch together a rock crawler/baja rally style tube frame over a couple months for not too much. I get the light weight rigidity from a tube frame, plus the ease of repair as its been brazed together.
From there, I tack on some washers on the corners, and it's a simple matter of bolting on the plate sheet metal (or fiber glass/newspaper-woodglue mache?) skin. If we go the woodglue/newspaper route (which was an absolutely BRILLIANT idea, if you're out there), and it proves not strong enough to hold up, I simply unbolt (or cut it off), and redo with a layer of the thinnest plywood I can find to add tensile strength.
And I'm well aware of the disadvantage I'd be at given it's an armored car. Secretly, deep down, I'm hoping the light weight will give me a speed advantage. Soft tires, fully sprung suspension, and an AWD drive line should give me some impressive cross-country performance. I'm working off guestimates here, but some of the larger electric monster trucks have to speeds of 40+ mph. Granted, that is a MUCH lighter vehicle than I have planned, and that is going to only give a run time of maybe 10~15 minutes. But it does show what is possible. I figure if I can get a top speed in the high teens through gearing, and a higher torque motor than they run, mixed with 4~5 times as much battery capacity, I should be sitting well when it comes to the "Run Away!" part of the battle.
After all: I'll be in it to have fun, and drive a cool AFV. I'm in it for the fun: not to be the baddest tank killer on the field.
From: phi...@defnet.com
To: rctank...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [TANKS] Complete Newbie...
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:09:26 -0500
Yup, I'm well aware of the tire size issue, and I've thought a lot about it.
I figured I could either go with lawn mower tires (hard plastic, and a very harsh ride even with fully independent suspension as well as the difficulty of adapting to an RC driveline), some relatively expensive (and heavy) steel hubbed semi-pneumatic tires (and add a LOT of strain to the driveline due to their weight), or... (drum roll please)
I found a niche RC market that has just what I was looking for: RC rock crawling.
They have tires from as small as you want, all the way up to 10 inch monsters.
For the purposes of scale, I think I'm going to go with RC4WD's 4.0 Rock Crushers. They're 8.26 inches outer diameter, and a pretty close approximation of the Michelin XZL: a common APC tire.
http://www.rc4wdstore.com/2/product_info.php?cPath=18&products_id=430
They're also fairly soft, as they're made for rock crawling: lending themselves to a softer ride and less impact on the frame (mixed with the suspension).
On the down side...
If you looked at the link I posted above, they're about $40 a pair. (Yea Gods! I can't believe I think I'm going to get away with that!!!). So, we're looking at around $120 just to put shoes on my beggar; but they are also admittedly the only stupidly expensive part of the build (as far as my simple brain has calculated anyway...)
As to hard hits: I'm fully aware of it. As an ex-avid paint-baller, I've got the scars to show it. (big toothy grin)
And so, I'm planning on building the basic framework of the monstrosity out of steel brakeline, brazed at the joints: probably something in the 3/4 inch range. I found a place locally that will sell 72 inches pieces of the stuff for $4 a length. I figure ~$25 for a cheap Home Depot brazing kit, and I should be able to patch together a rock crawler/baja rally style tube frame over a couple months for not too much. I get the light weight rigidity from a tube frame, plus the ease of repair as its been brazed together.
From there, I tack on some washers on the corners, and it's a simple matter of bolting on the plate sheet metal (or fiber glass/newspaper-woodglue mache?) skin. If we go the woodglue/newspaper route (which was an absolutely BRILLIANT idea, if you're out there), and it proves not strong enough to hold up, I simply unbolt (or cut it off), and redo with a layer of the thinnest plywood I can find to add tensile strength.
And I'm well aware of the disadvantage I'd be at given it's an armored car. Secretly, deep down, I'm hoping the light weight will give me a speed advantage. Soft tires, fully sprung suspension, and an AWD drive line should give me some impressive cross-country performance. I'm working off guestimates here, but some of the larger electric monster trucks have to speeds of 40+ mph. Granted, that is a MUCH lighter vehicle than I have planned, and that is going to only give a run time of maybe 10~15 minutes. But it does show what is possible. I figure if I can get a top speed in the high teens through gearing, and a higher torque motor than they run, mixed with 4~5 times as much battery capacity, I should be sitting well when it comes to the "Run Away!" part of the battle.
After all: I'll be in it to have fun, and drive a cool AFV. I'm in it for the fun: not to be the baddest tank killer on the field.
From: phi...@defnet.com
To: rctank...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [TANKS] Complete Newbie...
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:09:26 -0500
whitney james
Nov 24, 2009, 11:49:01 AM11/24/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
Derek,
(It's James by the way, I set this account up in high school back in the mid '90's, and due to my own ineptness, put it in first name last, last name first.)
In every universe conceivable, your are more than likely correct.
However, in the cobwebbed recesses of my brain lurks something that says two motors, (and the associated electronics to coordinate them) are not worth it. I see things in my mind very physically. And the ability to get the simple "push" and "steer" bits to work are far easier for me to visualize and work out than trying to synchronize two motors. Plus, I think it'll be cheaper to go with a single motor instead of two: as if one blows out, I can simply replace with what ever is convenient, rather than (1) trying to match the remaining motor, or (2) having to buy a new set.
But then again, that's strictly my point of view and (as mentioned) I'm in it for the fun and the challenge of assembling my frankenstein.
Thanks for the insight though!
James
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:24:51 -0600
Subject: Re: [TANKS] Complete Newbie...
From: tan...@gmail.com
To: rctank...@googlegroups.com
(It's James by the way, I set this account up in high school back in the mid '90's, and due to my own ineptness, put it in first name last, last name first.)
In every universe conceivable, your are more than likely correct.
However, in the cobwebbed recesses of my brain lurks something that says two motors, (and the associated electronics to coordinate them) are not worth it. I see things in my mind very physically. And the ability to get the simple "push" and "steer" bits to work are far easier for me to visualize and work out than trying to synchronize two motors. Plus, I think it'll be cheaper to go with a single motor instead of two: as if one blows out, I can simply replace with what ever is convenient, rather than (1) trying to match the remaining motor, or (2) having to buy a new set.
But then again, that's strictly my point of view and (as mentioned) I'm in it for the fun and the challenge of assembling my frankenstein.
Thanks for the insight though!
James
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:24:51 -0600
Subject: Re: [TANKS] Complete Newbie...
From: tan...@gmail.com
To: rctank...@googlegroups.com
Windows 7: It works the way you want. Learn more.
Cold comfort
Nov 24, 2009, 12:38:19 PM11/24/09
to R/C Tank Combat
Hi James, I have been wanting to build a stryker for a while, so don't
think your all alone in wanting to build a wheeled vehicle.
So tell me guys, does anyone know what the scale size of a stryker
tire would be? I can only find the profile size etc which means
nothing to me as it is a ratio of this to that yada yada, just tell me
how many inches, centimeters, millimeters, it is and I'm good to
figure the rest out, but no where can I find out. ANY help would be
greatly appreciated except p280/r16/..... you know what I mean I may
have to get medieval on you behind.
Keep us updated James.
Greg
On Nov 24, 9:06 am, whitney james <me1y...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hey all!
>
> Been a lurker here for more years than my pride would allow me to admit, but
> I'm finally taking the plunge and beginning a build.
>
> To start off with, the site is about tanks. That much is obvious. However, I’ve
> seen a couple armored cars there, and I think that is where my interest lies. And
> so, I present the B1 Centuaro. It’s got a nice bulky body to fit all those
> moving bit’s that make it do cool things, as well as nice sloped armor that
> will (in theory anyway) make up for a relatively weak armor rating (25mm up front: upgradable to 30mm). However, it does come with a 105mm main gun, so that puts us into Tank Destroyer territory. (evil little grin)
>
> http://www.sbmodels.net/images/New_From/ModelVictoria/MV002/images/MV...
> _________________________________________________________________
> Bing brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place.http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MFESRP&publ=WLHMTAG&cre...
think your all alone in wanting to build a wheeled vehicle.
So tell me guys, does anyone know what the scale size of a stryker
tire would be? I can only find the profile size etc which means
nothing to me as it is a ratio of this to that yada yada, just tell me
how many inches, centimeters, millimeters, it is and I'm good to
figure the rest out, but no where can I find out. ANY help would be
greatly appreciated except p280/r16/..... you know what I mean I may
have to get medieval on you behind.
Keep us updated James.
Greg
On Nov 24, 9:06 am, whitney james <me1y...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hey all!
>
> Been a lurker here for more years than my pride would allow me to admit, but
> I'm finally taking the plunge and beginning a build.
>
> To start off with, the site is about tanks. That much is obvious. However, I’ve
> seen a couple armored cars there, and I think that is where my interest lies. And
> so, I present the B1 Centuaro. It’s got a nice bulky body to fit all those
> moving bit’s that make it do cool things, as well as nice sloped armor that
> will (in theory anyway) make up for a relatively weak armor rating (25mm up front: upgradable to 30mm). However, it does come with a 105mm main gun, so that puts us into Tank Destroyer territory. (evil little grin)
>
> Bing brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place.http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MFESRP&publ=WLHMTAG&cre...
whitney james
Nov 24, 2009, 12:56:45 PM11/24/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
I can probably help you with that one:
You're probably thinking of the Michelin XML.
"4. Tire Tread: XML
Global Part Number (CAI): 110510
Description: 395/85 R20 XML TL 161G
Rim Diameter: 20 inches (50.8 cm)
Comments: Principally used on Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle"
As per:
http://www.faqs.org/rulings/rulings2003NYJ81184.html
You've got a metric size there, so converting it to inches will give you (on the full size thing anyway):
-20 inch rim
-46.4 inches overall diameter
-15.6 inch width.
Hopes that helps!
Either way, glad to hear I'm not the only Loony-Toon here!
Maybe we'll have to swap ideas.
> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:38:19 -0800
> Subject: [TANKS] Re: Complete Newbie...
> From: gfc...@hotmail.com
> To: rctank...@googlegroups.com
You're probably thinking of the Michelin XML.
"4. Tire Tread: XML
Global Part Number (CAI): 110510
Description: 395/85 R20 XML TL 161G
Rim Diameter: 20 inches (50.8 cm)
Comments: Principally used on Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle"
As per:
http://www.faqs.org/rulings/rulings2003NYJ81184.html
You've got a metric size there, so converting it to inches will give you (on the full size thing anyway):
-20 inch rim
-46.4 inches overall diameter
-15.6 inch width.
Hopes that helps!
Either way, glad to hear I'm not the only Loony-Toon here!
Maybe we'll have to swap ideas.
> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:38:19 -0800
> Subject: [TANKS] Re: Complete Newbie...
> From: gfc...@hotmail.com
> To: rctank...@googlegroups.com
> --
> You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group.
> To post a message, send email to rctank...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat...@googlegroups.com
> Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat
> You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group.
> To post a message, send email to rctank...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat...@googlegroups.com
> Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat
Bing brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. Try it now.
Cold comfort
Nov 24, 2009, 1:28:16 PM11/24/09
to R/C Tank Combat
That would be exactly what I wanted to know, overall diameter and I'm
good to go. Thanks James, hope I can help you in the future.
Greg (T061)
On Nov 24, 1:56 pm, whitney james <me1y...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I can probably help you with that one:
> You're probably thinking of the Michelin XML.
>
> "4. Tire Tread: XML
>
> Global Part Number (CAI): 110510
>
> Description: 395/85 R20 XML TL 161G
>
> Rim Diameter: 20 inches (50.8 cm)
>
> Comments: Principally used on Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle"
>
> As per:http://www.faqs.org/rulings/rulings2003NYJ81184.html
>
> You've got a metric size there, so converting it to inches will give you (on the full size thing anyway):
> -20 inch rim
> -46.4 inches overall diameter
> -15.6 inch width.
>
> Hopes that helps!
> Either way, glad to hear I'm not the only Loony-Toon here!
> Maybe we'll have to swap ideas.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:38:19 -0800
> > Subject: [TANKS] Re: Complete Newbie...
> > From: gfcr...@hotmail.com
> Bing brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place.http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MFESRP&publ=WLHMTAG&cre...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
good to go. Thanks James, hope I can help you in the future.
Greg (T061)
On Nov 24, 1:56 pm, whitney james <me1y...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I can probably help you with that one:
> You're probably thinking of the Michelin XML.
>
> "4. Tire Tread: XML
>
> Global Part Number (CAI): 110510
>
> Description: 395/85 R20 XML TL 161G
>
> Rim Diameter: 20 inches (50.8 cm)
>
> Comments: Principally used on Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle"
>
> As per:http://www.faqs.org/rulings/rulings2003NYJ81184.html
>
> You've got a metric size there, so converting it to inches will give you (on the full size thing anyway):
> -20 inch rim
> -46.4 inches overall diameter
> -15.6 inch width.
>
> Hopes that helps!
> Either way, glad to hear I'm not the only Loony-Toon here!
> Maybe we'll have to swap ideas.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:38:19 -0800
> > Subject: [TANKS] Re: Complete Newbie...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Spitbraaicatering
Nov 24, 2009, 2:42:20 PM11/24/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
Now you know how to scale it look at lawn mower repair companies. You ought to find the right scale wheel at an afordable price.... I started building the rooikat 76mm however after dropping $500 and still was only 1/3 of the chasis cost... Too many custom parts to machine I decided to build a tank... Less parts and less hassels.
Icarus Zulu
Sent from my iPhone
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by Pinpoint Securemail,
and is believed to be clean.
Gregory Pwneror
Nov 24, 2009, 3:02:20 PM11/24/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
One of the main problems you would probably find with ACs is the steering linkage, as they are the most fragile bit. If possable I would suggest you get them milled out of some sort of metal.
-Gregory
-Gregory
whitney james
Nov 24, 2009, 3:10:40 PM11/24/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
Thank Icarus,
I'd be interested to see what you did/how you did it: maybe keep myself out of the frying pan...
What parts did you find yourself having to custom fab? I'm planning on running pretty much straight off-the-shelf parts, with maybe some upgrades here and there from McMaster Carr's.
For me it was a serious tossup between the Rooikat and the Centauro. Both amazing machines.
I had looked at the lawn mower wheels as well, but again: I wanted to get away from the hard plastic as much as possible. Both for grip, as well as for smoothing out the ride.
Thanks for the input!
From: nap...@icon.co.za
To: rctank...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [TANKS] Re: Complete Newbie...
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:42:20 +0200
I'd be interested to see what you did/how you did it: maybe keep myself out of the frying pan...
What parts did you find yourself having to custom fab? I'm planning on running pretty much straight off-the-shelf parts, with maybe some upgrades here and there from McMaster Carr's.
For me it was a serious tossup between the Rooikat and the Centauro. Both amazing machines.
I had looked at the lawn mower wheels as well, but again: I wanted to get away from the hard plastic as much as possible. Both for grip, as well as for smoothing out the ride.
Thanks for the input!
From: nap...@icon.co.za
To: rctank...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [TANKS] Re: Complete Newbie...
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:42:20 +0200
Windows 7: I wanted simpler, now it's simpler. I'm a rock star.
whitney james
Nov 24, 2009, 3:21:23 PM11/24/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
Gregory,
Yea, I've been worried about that. From what I've been able to read, the Traxxas Revo 3.3 steering linkage is about the beefiest one can find in the RC world. I'm planning a trip to the local hobby shop to take a look and see just how tough they appear.
If they look good, I can pat myself on the head, cause buying those via Evil bay will likely be the cheapest route. If not, I'll just have to go with threaded rod, and track down some ball links.
I'd rather avoid the milling/custom process as much as possible, as that can add up to a lot of $$ in not a lot of time.
Thanks!
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:02:20 +1300
Subject: Re: [TANKS] Re: Complete Newbie...
From: sockl...@gmail.com
To: rctank...@googlegroups.com
Yea, I've been worried about that. From what I've been able to read, the Traxxas Revo 3.3 steering linkage is about the beefiest one can find in the RC world. I'm planning a trip to the local hobby shop to take a look and see just how tough they appear.
If they look good, I can pat myself on the head, cause buying those via Evil bay will likely be the cheapest route. If not, I'll just have to go with threaded rod, and track down some ball links.
I'd rather avoid the milling/custom process as much as possible, as that can add up to a lot of $$ in not a lot of time.
Thanks!
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:02:20 +1300
Subject: Re: [TANKS] Re: Complete Newbie...
From: sockl...@gmail.com
To: rctank...@googlegroups.com
HV
Nov 25, 2009, 8:57:23 AM11/25/09
to R/C Tank Combat
A few thoughts:
1. It would be interesting to see an 8-wheel model. I agree they are
cool, regardless of suitability for paintball. I am surprised that no
one among the manufacturers of large scale RC tanks is offering a
model of the Stryker, given the number of people who have served in
that vehicle. I would think there is a market among vets for such a
toy. The only 8-wheel AC model I have seen is the WWII German Puma,
made by that Russian guy.
2. Before I got diverted into building a robot, I thought about
building an AC. I wound up building a couple of 4wd vehicles, which
were not scale models of anything. I thought about an 8wd, and
basically came up with a similar design you have: use large scale rock
crawler parts. The catch was cost. However you seem to have more
skills in scrounging.
3. My experience with 4wd shows, yes 8-inch wheels are better than 6-
inch, I used 8 inch solid lawnmower wheels on one vehicle and 10 inch
pneumatic lawnmower wheels on the second design. For my robot, I used
6-inch RC buggy wheels, which cost an outrageous $40 a pair. Compare
that with the $10 gearmotors.
4. Suspension is not really necessary, however, if you are using rock
crawler parts you are pretty much wedded to a suspension type design.
5. Skid steering is a lot simpler, and works well in my 4wd vehicles,
although these vehicles are less elongated than a scale AC. The length-
to-width ratio affects the sideways load in skid steering. Skid
steering might work for a 8wd vehicle if you can pack enough torque
into the 8 wheels to overcome the sideways load, which will be high in
grass. Light weight helps in reducing this load. With agile skid
steering you can turn in place.
6. Direct drive (wheel attached directly to motor) is also a lot
simpler and cheaper than distributing power with shafts,
differentials, universal joints, etc. These parts together are a lot
more expensive than gearmotors, from what I can tell.
1. It would be interesting to see an 8-wheel model. I agree they are
cool, regardless of suitability for paintball. I am surprised that no
one among the manufacturers of large scale RC tanks is offering a
model of the Stryker, given the number of people who have served in
that vehicle. I would think there is a market among vets for such a
toy. The only 8-wheel AC model I have seen is the WWII German Puma,
made by that Russian guy.
2. Before I got diverted into building a robot, I thought about
building an AC. I wound up building a couple of 4wd vehicles, which
were not scale models of anything. I thought about an 8wd, and
basically came up with a similar design you have: use large scale rock
crawler parts. The catch was cost. However you seem to have more
skills in scrounging.
3. My experience with 4wd shows, yes 8-inch wheels are better than 6-
inch, I used 8 inch solid lawnmower wheels on one vehicle and 10 inch
pneumatic lawnmower wheels on the second design. For my robot, I used
6-inch RC buggy wheels, which cost an outrageous $40 a pair. Compare
that with the $10 gearmotors.
4. Suspension is not really necessary, however, if you are using rock
crawler parts you are pretty much wedded to a suspension type design.
5. Skid steering is a lot simpler, and works well in my 4wd vehicles,
although these vehicles are less elongated than a scale AC. The length-
to-width ratio affects the sideways load in skid steering. Skid
steering might work for a 8wd vehicle if you can pack enough torque
into the 8 wheels to overcome the sideways load, which will be high in
grass. Light weight helps in reducing this load. With agile skid
steering you can turn in place.
6. Direct drive (wheel attached directly to motor) is also a lot
simpler and cheaper than distributing power with shafts,
differentials, universal joints, etc. These parts together are a lot
more expensive than gearmotors, from what I can tell.
Fred Thomson
Nov 25, 2009, 9:48:26 AM11/25/09
to R/C Tank Combat
Hi James and welcome...
First advice I got in this came from Frank P. and was valuable (even
if I had to repeatedly learn it the hard way):
**Over-engineering is not a bad thing.**
This advice has proven very valuable. I have broken many parts on my
Bulldog (T067) just driving it around. Sometimes what looks really
good on paper or in your mind's eye, doesn't always work in
practice. :-)
But having said that; It's a hobby and the point IS to have fun.
Cheers,
Fred
(T067)
First advice I got in this came from Frank P. and was valuable (even
if I had to repeatedly learn it the hard way):
**Over-engineering is not a bad thing.**
This advice has proven very valuable. I have broken many parts on my
Bulldog (T067) just driving it around. Sometimes what looks really
good on paper or in your mind's eye, doesn't always work in
practice. :-)
But having said that; It's a hobby and the point IS to have fun.
Cheers,
Fred
(T067)
IcarusZulu
Nov 25, 2009, 5:54:18 AM11/25/09
to R/C Tank Combat
One of your biggest problems and price(hobby shop prices) problems too
is you are going to require two sets of steering systems perfectly
aligned. Another problem is going to be the gearboxes you will need at
least 3-4 of them with slip traction control. By the time you finish
building your striker most of the parts will be no longer in
production as newer models come available as well as unless you are
merciless with writing every part and part number down you are going
to struggle to remember the part information when it breaks. You will
bring it into the hobby shop to repair and no one will know what part
you have in your hand. If I had to do it again I make my build as big
as a 1/6 tank and then fabricate all the parts except for the wheels.
Icarus Zulu
On Nov 24, 10:21 pm, whitney james <me1y...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ...
is you are going to require two sets of steering systems perfectly
aligned. Another problem is going to be the gearboxes you will need at
least 3-4 of them with slip traction control. By the time you finish
building your striker most of the parts will be no longer in
production as newer models come available as well as unless you are
merciless with writing every part and part number down you are going
to struggle to remember the part information when it breaks. You will
bring it into the hobby shop to repair and no one will know what part
you have in your hand. If I had to do it again I make my build as big
as a 1/6 tank and then fabricate all the parts except for the wheels.
Icarus Zulu
On Nov 24, 10:21 pm, whitney james <me1y...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> Gregory,
> Yea, I've been worried about that. From what I've been able to read, the Traxxas Revo 3.3 steering linkage is about the beefiest one can find in the RC world. I'm planning a trip to the local hobby shop to take a look and see just how tough they appear.
> If they look good, I can pat myself on the head, cause buying those via Evil bay will likely be the cheapest route. If not, I'll just have to go with threaded rod, and track down some ball links.
> I'd rather avoid the milling/custom process as much as possible, as that can add up to a lot of $$ in not a lot of time.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Gregory,
> Yea, I've been worried about that. From what I've been able to read, the Traxxas Revo 3.3 steering linkage is about the beefiest one can find in the RC world. I'm planning a trip to the local hobby shop to take a look and see just how tough they appear.
> If they look good, I can pat myself on the head, cause buying those via Evil bay will likely be the cheapest route. If not, I'll just have to go with threaded rod, and track down some ball links.
> I'd rather avoid the milling/custom process as much as possible, as that can add up to a lot of $$ in not a lot of time.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:02:20 +1300
> Subject: Re: [TANKS] Re: Complete Newbie...
> From: sockles...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [TANKS] Re: Complete Newbie...
> To: rctank...@googlegroups.com
>
> One of the main problems you would probably find with ACs is the steering linkage, as they are the most fragile bit. If possable I would suggest you get them milled out of some sort of metal.
>
> -Gregory
>
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Spitbraaicatering <nap...@icon.co.za> wrote:
>
> Now you know how to scale it look at lawn mower repair companies. You ought to find the right scale wheel at an afordable price.... I started building the rooikat 76mm however after dropping $500 and still was only 1/3 of the chasis cost... Too many custom parts to machine I decided to build a tank... Less parts and less hassels.
>
> Icarus Zulu
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> One of the main problems you would probably find with ACs is the steering linkage, as they are the most fragile bit. If possable I would suggest you get them milled out of some sort of metal.
>
> -Gregory
>
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Spitbraaicatering <nap...@icon.co.za> wrote:
>
> Now you know how to scale it look at lawn mower repair companies. You ought to find the right scale wheel at an afordable price.... I started building the rooikat 76mm however after dropping $500 and still was only 1/3 of the chasis cost... Too many custom parts to machine I decided to build a tank... Less parts and less hassels.
>
> Icarus Zulu
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> On 24 Nov 2009, at 19:56, whitney james <me1y...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I can probably help you with that one:
> You're probably thinking of the Michelin XML.
>
> "4. Tire Tread: XML
>
> Global Part Number (CAI): 110510
>
> Description: 395/85 R20 XML TL 161G
>
> Rim Diameter: 20 inches (50.8 cm)
>
> Comments: Principally used on Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle"
>
> As per:http://www.faqs.org/rulings/rulings2003NYJ81184.html
>
> You've got a metric size there, so converting it to inches will give you (on the full size thing anyway):
> -20 inch rim
> -46.4 inches overall diameter
> -15.6 inch width.
>
> Hopes that helps!
> Either way, glad to hear I'm not the only Loony-Toon here!
>
> Maybe we'll have to swap ideas.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:38:19 -0800
> > Subject: [TANKS] Re: Complete Newbie...
> > From: gfcr...@hotmail.com
>
> I can probably help you with that one:
> You're probably thinking of the Michelin XML.
>
> "4. Tire Tread: XML
>
> Global Part Number (CAI): 110510
>
> Description: 395/85 R20 XML TL 161G
>
> Rim Diameter: 20 inches (50.8 cm)
>
> Comments: Principally used on Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle"
>
> As per:http://www.faqs.org/rulings/rulings2003NYJ81184.html
>
> You've got a metric size there, so converting it to inches will give you (on the full size thing anyway):
> -20 inch rim
> -46.4 inches overall diameter
> -15.6 inch width.
>
> Hopes that helps!
> Either way, glad to hear I'm not the only Loony-Toon here!
>
> Maybe we'll have to swap ideas.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:38:19 -0800
> > Subject: [TANKS] Re: Complete Newbie...
> Bing brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. Try it now.
>
> --
>
> You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group.
>
> To post a message, send email to rctank...@googlegroups.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat...@googlegroups.com
>
> Visit the group athttp://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat
>
> --
>
> You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group.
>
> To post a message, send email to rctank...@googlegroups.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat...@googlegroups.com
>
> --
>
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>
> dangerous content by Pinpoint Securemail,
>
> and is believed to be clean.
>
> --
>
> You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group.
>
> To post a message, send email to rctank...@googlegroups.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat...@googlegroups.com
>
> Visit the group athttp://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat
>
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>
> dangerous content by Pinpoint Securemail,
>
> and is believed to be clean.
>
> --
>
> You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group.
>
> To post a message, send email to rctank...@googlegroups.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat...@googlegroups.com
>
>
> --
>
> You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group.
>
> To post a message, send email to rctank...@googlegroups.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat...@googlegroups.com
>
> Visit the group athttp://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
> --
>
> You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group.
>
> To post a message, send email to rctank...@googlegroups.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat...@googlegroups.com
>
> Visit the group athttp://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat
>
whitney james
Nov 25, 2009, 10:10:14 AM11/25/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
Henry:
A very much appreciated piece of writing!
Right, point by point:
> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:57:23 -0800
A very much appreciated piece of writing!
Right, point by point:
> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:57:23 -0800
> Subject: [TANKS] Re: Complete Newbie...
>
> A few thoughts:
>
> 1. It would be interesting to see an 8-wheel model. I agree they are
> cool, regardless of suitability for paintball. I am surprised that no
> one among the manufacturers of large scale RC tanks is offering a
> model of the Stryker, given the number of people who have served in
> that vehicle. I would think there is a market among vets for such a
> toy. The only 8-wheel AC model I have seen is the WWII German Puma,
> made by that Russian guy.
You're very correct in that there just isn't much out there. I've seen the SdKfz 234/2 you're talking about, and at over $2,000 a pop... Yea... Thanks, but no thanks. However... that very model was exactly what got me interested in building one of these. I remember thinking that was easily the sleekest, and coolest looking fighting vehicle I had ever seen, and wondered why no one had ever combined the mechanical simplicity of a wheeled vehicle with a big anti-tank gun: vuala! The Rooikat/B1/Stryker MGS, etc. There just don't seem to be be very many of them.
> 2. Before I got diverted into building a robot, I thought about
> building an AC. I wound up building a couple of 4wd vehicles, which
> were not scale models of anything. I thought about an 8wd, and
> basically came up with a similar design you have: use large scale rock
> crawler parts. The catch was cost. However you seem to have more
> skills in scrounging.
>
Hardly "skills": it comes more from being a tightwad and having planned (if such a word exists in my vocabulary) large portions of this project before ever even beginning. I had looked at going all RC Crawler parts, but they seem to be exclusively solid axle: excellent for building jeeps, trucks, etc. But I love scale. and the idea of trying to spring 4 solid axles with anything resembling a workable suspension system capable of any speed/off roading gave my headaches even more headaches.
So, I decided to go with independent, and was looking at trying to build my own swing arms out of electrical conduit, copper plumbing pipe, PVC pipe, cut and shaped sheet metal, and the list goes on and on far longer than I have patience to type.
I had thought about RC cars, but they had always seemed (1) far too weak, and (2) not worth buying for just a handful of suspension parts.
After years of searching, enter the Nitro, RC Monster Truck. They are heavily customizable/customized, so parts are easily available, heavy duty, and best of all, stock parts are always being swapped out for upgrades, so lightly used/new parts are dirt cheap. As mentioned, I've put together 3/4 of my suspension system for under $40 (just waiting fo the package to arrive), differentials will go for $10 a pop (was just checking out ebay for Revo Differentials this morning instead of working. Shhh! Don't tell my boss!), and all the U-Joints, shafts, and drive hubs (2 joints for each tire = 16 ujoints. Expensive to scratch build? Ugh yea!) for the entire vehicle can be had for $40:
http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-T-MAXX-3-3-E-REVO-DRIVE-SHAFTS-AXLES-DRIVESHAFTS_W0QQitemZ320453738368QQcmdZViewItemQQptZRadio_Control_Parts_Accessories?hash=item4a9c87ff80
So, I decided to go with independent, and was looking at trying to build my own swing arms out of electrical conduit, copper plumbing pipe, PVC pipe, cut and shaped sheet metal, and the list goes on and on far longer than I have patience to type.
I had thought about RC cars, but they had always seemed (1) far too weak, and (2) not worth buying for just a handful of suspension parts.
After years of searching, enter the Nitro, RC Monster Truck. They are heavily customizable/customized, so parts are easily available, heavy duty, and best of all, stock parts are always being swapped out for upgrades, so lightly used/new parts are dirt cheap. As mentioned, I've put together 3/4 of my suspension system for under $40 (just waiting fo the package to arrive), differentials will go for $10 a pop (was just checking out ebay for Revo Differentials this morning instead of working. Shhh! Don't tell my boss!), and all the U-Joints, shafts, and drive hubs (2 joints for each tire = 16 ujoints. Expensive to scratch build? Ugh yea!) for the entire vehicle can be had for $40:
http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-T-MAXX-3-3-E-REVO-DRIVE-SHAFTS-AXLES-DRIVESHAFTS_W0QQitemZ320453738368QQcmdZViewItemQQptZRadio_Control_Parts_Accessories?hash=item4a9c87ff80
> 3. My experience with 4wd shows, yes 8-inch wheels are better than 6-
> inch, I used 8 inch solid lawnmower wheels on one vehicle and 10 inch
> pneumatic lawnmower wheels on the second design. For my robot, I used
> 6-inch RC buggy wheels, which cost an outrageous $40 a pair. Compare
> that with the $10 gearmotors.
>
As mentioned, I've looked at lawn mower wheels, but the hard plastic...
If you have any leads on ~8" pneumatic wheels with plastic hubs PLEASE let me know, as I haven't been able to find anything. I fully agree: $40 for a pair of shoes, and $120 for the whole beast is a very tough pill to swallow.
If you have any leads on ~8" pneumatic wheels with plastic hubs PLEASE let me know, as I haven't been able to find anything. I fully agree: $40 for a pair of shoes, and $120 for the whole beast is a very tough pill to swallow.
> 4. Suspension is not really necessary, however, if you are using rock
> crawler parts you are pretty much wedded to a suspension type design.
>
Honestly, it's not really necessary. I had been trying for ever to figure out how to transmit the power to 4 axles (I was thinking solid, no suspension back then), and kept going back and forth between gears and shafts, #25 chains, 2X4 wheel drive, etc. However, if one is going with a wheeled vehicle, the articulation granted by at least SOME sort of suspension system dramatically increases the contact the vehicle can have with the ground: vastly increasing mobility.
Next up: if you're planning on playing with the big dogs, (tracked tanks) instead of simply running supplies, you're going to NEED that mobility given the inherent disadvantage of being an armored car.
Plus it's a fun challenge, looks REALLY cool, and if you can pick up the parts isn't really all that much more than buying chains, cogs, gears, shafts, etc. :D
Next up: if you're planning on playing with the big dogs, (tracked tanks) instead of simply running supplies, you're going to NEED that mobility given the inherent disadvantage of being an armored car.
Plus it's a fun challenge, looks REALLY cool, and if you can pick up the parts isn't really all that much more than buying chains, cogs, gears, shafts, etc. :D
> 5. Skid steering is a lot simpler, and works well in my 4wd vehicles,
> although these vehicles are less elongated than a scale AC. The length-
> to-width ratio affects the sideways load in skid steering. Skid
> steering might work for a 8wd vehicle if you can pack enough torque
> into the 8 wheels to overcome the sideways load, which will be high in
> grass. Light weight helps in reducing this load. With agile skid
> steering you can turn in place.
>
Agreed. However, then you get back to the problem of needed two, much higher torque motors, and the batteries to drive them: increasing weight and wear on the tires (assuming they're soft, grippy rubber). Then, you've got the issue of having to power 8 axles instead of only 4 (vs only 2 in a tracked vehicle), and that a major whoopla of problems to be sorted out with mounting bearings, shafts, chains/cogs/gears, etc.
> 6. Direct drive (wheel attached directly to motor) is also a lot
> simpler and cheaper than distributing power with shafts,
> differentials, universal joints, etc. These parts together are a lot
> more expensive than gearmotors, from what I can tell.
>
I couldn't agree with you more. But as each motor only has a maximum of two shafts (one at each end), you're either looking at (1) a 1~2X8 vehicle (only one or two powered wheels out of eight and that is just begging to get stuck on the first patch of wet grass), or the fun of trying to synchronize 2~4 motors. And as mentioned, I'd rather go for the simplicity of a single, moderately large motor.
Thanks and keep the comments coming!
:D
Thanks and keep the comments coming!
:D
> --
> You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group.
> To post a message, send email to rctank...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat...@googlegroups.com
> Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat
whitney james
Nov 25, 2009, 10:17:37 AM11/25/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
Thanks Fred!
(Isn't the Bulldog T064?)
If this will be one thing, it's over engineered. I've been ~3 years in the planning stage...
Ok, let's be honest: with out any money to work with, I've been forced to remain in the planning stage.
Still, its seen countless ideas tossed around, decided upon, investigated, and thrown out ever before getting onto paper.
And in building, I'm anticipating well over a year build time: both from budgetary constraints, and from my utter tightwad mentality which will keep me from purchasing ANYTHING unless absolutely necessary, and has been confirmed will fit/work/not have to be replaced.
Granted, accomplishing that in practice is a pipedream in this field, but dreaming is... well... done enough of that over the last few years... Ok, my logic is falling apart now, so I'll leave it at that.
Thanks again for the welcome!
James
> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:48:26 -0800
(Isn't the Bulldog T064?)
If this will be one thing, it's over engineered. I've been ~3 years in the planning stage...
Ok, let's be honest: with out any money to work with, I've been forced to remain in the planning stage.
Still, its seen countless ideas tossed around, decided upon, investigated, and thrown out ever before getting onto paper.
And in building, I'm anticipating well over a year build time: both from budgetary constraints, and from my utter tightwad mentality which will keep me from purchasing ANYTHING unless absolutely necessary, and has been confirmed will fit/work/not have to be replaced.
Granted, accomplishing that in practice is a pipedream in this field, but dreaming is... well... done enough of that over the last few years... Ok, my logic is falling apart now, so I'll leave it at that.
Thanks again for the welcome!
James
> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:48:26 -0800
> Subject: [TANKS] Re: Complete Newbie...
Frank Pittelli
Nov 25, 2009, 10:19:10 AM11/25/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
Fred Thomson wrote:
> First advice I got in this came from Frank P. and was valuable (even
> if I had to repeatedly learn it the hard way):
>
> **Over-engineering is not a bad thing.**
>
And don't forget the corollary:
> First advice I got in this came from Frank P. and was valuable (even
> if I had to repeatedly learn it the hard way):
>
> **Over-engineering is not a bad thing.**
>
*** Over-designing is the WORST thing ***
Evolutionary designs are always better than first-time designs,
regardless of the skill of the designer. Prototyping your sub-systems
is not only a better approach, but in the long run it saves both time
and money.
Frank P.
Clark Ward Jr
Nov 25, 2009, 10:28:26 AM11/25/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
On grass, dirt, etc... a differential is not needed; the wheels will
slide a bit in the rough. Many 1:1 scale military vehicles and Jeeps
as recent as the 80's (90's?) have proven this to be so :)
--
Clark in Georgia
slide a bit in the rough. Many 1:1 scale military vehicles and Jeeps
as recent as the 80's (90's?) have proven this to be so :)
--
Clark in Georgia
Frank Pittelli
Nov 25, 2009, 10:38:04 AM11/25/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
whitney james wrote:
> If this will be one thing, it's over engineered. I've been ~3 years in
> the planning stage...
Over-engineering typically means "building stronger than necessary".
> If this will be one thing, it's over engineered. I've been ~3 years in
> the planning stage...
Since you haven't *built* anything yet, you have "design paralysis", a
disease commonly associated with people who think that endless research
and scribbling is a substitute for actually building something.
Unfortunately, in the last 10-20 years, design paralysis has reached
pandemic levels because people think that "information" is "knowledge".
On paper, 3/8" threaded rod sounds pretty strong. But, actually put a
piece in a vice, bend it with your hands and you'll know that it's not a
proper axle. A simple "prototype" and some "bench-testing" increased
your knowledge.
So, then you think 1/2" solid will stand-up to the demands, until you
send a fully-loaded vehicle across some large ruts in the field and see
the axles bend. A more complex prototype and some "field-testing"
increased your knowledge to the required level for the job at hand.
Research only produces information, prototyping and testing produces
knowledge. Only knowledge creates good systems.
Frank P.
whitney james
Nov 25, 2009, 10:38:21 AM11/25/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
Icarus:
First prices: I couldn't agree more. I've spend plenty of time on the phone with hobby shop owners, and almost put a bullet in my own brain after hearing their prices.
So, we went to the internet. (huge toothy grin).
For my bulkheads, I paid $.95 a pair (3 of the 4 I need) compared to around $10 at any hobby shop. the bulk of the cost was shipping and the A arms (I'm kicking myself for paying $20 for a set of 4 = half of the number I need. But, I was over excited as this was my first parts purchase, and the combined shipping tempted me beyond what I could bear...)
The other set of 4 can be bought for around $10. Again, Evil Bay comes to the rescue.
Differentials: yup, they'd be a nightmare and a half to build. To piece them together from hobby supplies would be a bankrupt-er right there.
But...
as mentioned, I can get a complete Revo diff for around $10. That's input shaft, internal open diff gears, output shafts and case. Buy 6, cannibalize 4 into two for through diffs, (I've already looked at the exploded views, schematics, and read up on people who've done it; and it is possible), and for $60, I've got 4 open differentials (can be locked with hot glue or JB weld on the spider gears) two of which are through diffs, that already plug right in with my drive shafts ($40 for the whole set).
Parts availability/remembering...
Yea... a bit of a kicker there. So... I've decided to limit the number of vehicle models I take parts from (at the moment, I'm up to 2, they're both from the same very reputable company, and many of their parts are interchangable). The T-Maxx has been in production for years, is still a bench mark setter, and top seller truck in the market: they're not going anywhere any time soon. The Revo is a ground breaker, relatively new, and is both in massive demand and very widely available. I should be good for at least the next 5~6 years.
By then, I should be ready to upgrade whole drive line sections anyway, and may move to custom fabrication once I have (1) a better idea of what my vehicle demands are, and (2) a better idea of what works/doesn't work.
Steering...
Bunny Boogers! You had to bring that up! Yea... Still an issue on that. I've been looking at some other ideas for steering than servos. Running a servo would be the easiest, but then you need to worry about servo protectors, syncing them (if using two), etc. Plus, they're expensive,and a custom servo protector takes up a LOT of room as well as it a bit wobbly (yup, I've looked up AC004). I'm thinking about either doing a worm gear setup, or doing a threaded shaft/geared nut setup.
However, at my current rate of progress, it'll be a while before I need to worry about it.
> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:54:18 -0800
First prices: I couldn't agree more. I've spend plenty of time on the phone with hobby shop owners, and almost put a bullet in my own brain after hearing their prices.
So, we went to the internet. (huge toothy grin).
For my bulkheads, I paid $.95 a pair (3 of the 4 I need) compared to around $10 at any hobby shop. the bulk of the cost was shipping and the A arms (I'm kicking myself for paying $20 for a set of 4 = half of the number I need. But, I was over excited as this was my first parts purchase, and the combined shipping tempted me beyond what I could bear...)
The other set of 4 can be bought for around $10. Again, Evil Bay comes to the rescue.
Differentials: yup, they'd be a nightmare and a half to build. To piece them together from hobby supplies would be a bankrupt-er right there.
But...
as mentioned, I can get a complete Revo diff for around $10. That's input shaft, internal open diff gears, output shafts and case. Buy 6, cannibalize 4 into two for through diffs, (I've already looked at the exploded views, schematics, and read up on people who've done it; and it is possible), and for $60, I've got 4 open differentials (can be locked with hot glue or JB weld on the spider gears) two of which are through diffs, that already plug right in with my drive shafts ($40 for the whole set).
Parts availability/remembering...
Yea... a bit of a kicker there. So... I've decided to limit the number of vehicle models I take parts from (at the moment, I'm up to 2, they're both from the same very reputable company, and many of their parts are interchangable). The T-Maxx has been in production for years, is still a bench mark setter, and top seller truck in the market: they're not going anywhere any time soon. The Revo is a ground breaker, relatively new, and is both in massive demand and very widely available. I should be good for at least the next 5~6 years.
By then, I should be ready to upgrade whole drive line sections anyway, and may move to custom fabrication once I have (1) a better idea of what my vehicle demands are, and (2) a better idea of what works/doesn't work.
Steering...
Bunny Boogers! You had to bring that up! Yea... Still an issue on that. I've been looking at some other ideas for steering than servos. Running a servo would be the easiest, but then you need to worry about servo protectors, syncing them (if using two), etc. Plus, they're expensive,and a custom servo protector takes up a LOT of room as well as it a bit wobbly (yup, I've looked up AC004). I'm thinking about either doing a worm gear setup, or doing a threaded shaft/geared nut setup.
However, at my current rate of progress, it'll be a while before I need to worry about it.
> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:54:18 -0800
> Subject: [TANKS] Re: Complete Newbie...
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
whitney james
Nov 25, 2009, 10:41:25 AM11/25/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
Hence my decision to allow the commercial market do as much development of subsystem as I can: differentials, suspension systems, etc.
Then, I reap the benefit, and shop around for the cheapest possibility. Once I have begun fermenting an idea in my head of what I'm actually doing, I'll be in a much better position to begin making my own replacement/upgrade parts.
I'm trying to combine initial over-engineering, with an evolutionary design. Don't ask me how that's supposed to work: I have no clue. But now, that's the fun then, isn't it!
Thanks!
James
> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:19:10 -0500
> From: frank.p...@gmail.com
> To: rctank...@googlegroups.com
Then, I reap the benefit, and shop around for the cheapest possibility. Once I have begun fermenting an idea in my head of what I'm actually doing, I'll be in a much better position to begin making my own replacement/upgrade parts.
I'm trying to combine initial over-engineering, with an evolutionary design. Don't ask me how that's supposed to work: I have no clue. But now, that's the fun then, isn't it!
Thanks!
James
> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:19:10 -0500
> From: frank.p...@gmail.com
> To: rctank...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [TANKS] Re: Complete Newbie...
>
> --
> You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group.
> To post a message, send email to rctank...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat...@googlegroups.com
> Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat
> You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group.
> To post a message, send email to rctank...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat...@googlegroups.com
> Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat
whitney james
Nov 25, 2009, 10:55:48 AM11/25/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
Clark,
Well, what I'm doing leaves open the option. they come open, but unscrewing them, a bit of hot glue or JB weld later, and I've got a fully locked diff.
I'll probably leave the front two steering axles open, while locking the back two. Play with it a bit, and adjust if needed.
> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:28:26 -0500
Well, what I'm doing leaves open the option. they come open, but unscrewing them, a bit of hot glue or JB weld later, and I've got a fully locked diff.
I'll probably leave the front two steering axles open, while locking the back two. Play with it a bit, and adjust if needed.
> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:28:26 -0500
> Subject: Re: [TANKS] Re: Complete Newbie...
whitney james
Nov 25, 2009, 11:06:22 AM11/25/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
Frank,
A fact which I embrace wholeheartedly, and acknowledge with with as much self
depreciation as I can without getting dangerous. Will I break things, followed by me kicking myself for the stupidity which unveiled itself in the light of hindsight? Absolutely, and I fully expect it.
But I have to start somewhere, and without my own experience to go on, I have to rely on others in the initial stages. Hence my finally coming out, and sticking my neck out here.
Aside from this august group, I've talked with the people who own them and handled the RC cars I'm talking about. I've seen plenty of examples land on their faces at 30+ mph and come back begging for more. So will the parts hold up? I don't know: maybe not.
But, it's the best starting place I have. And the fact that it offers a relatively bolt-together kit from the outset will be a major boost up when it comes to building my own practical knowledge.
So, I'm all ears when it comes to construction ideas. I've developed my own ideas and plans, but until they're solidified in the third dimension, that's all they are: plans and ideas. If anyone has disproven them, PLEASE speak up and slap me until I realize my idiocy.
Thanks again for the input everyone!
James
> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:38:04 -0500
> From: frank.p...@gmail.com
> To: rctank...@googlegroups.com
A fact which I embrace wholeheartedly, and acknowledge with with as much self
depreciation as I can without getting dangerous. Will I break things, followed by me kicking myself for the stupidity which unveiled itself in the light of hindsight? Absolutely, and I fully expect it.
But I have to start somewhere, and without my own experience to go on, I have to rely on others in the initial stages. Hence my finally coming out, and sticking my neck out here.
Aside from this august group, I've talked with the people who own them and handled the RC cars I'm talking about. I've seen plenty of examples land on their faces at 30+ mph and come back begging for more. So will the parts hold up? I don't know: maybe not.
But, it's the best starting place I have. And the fact that it offers a relatively bolt-together kit from the outset will be a major boost up when it comes to building my own practical knowledge.
So, I'm all ears when it comes to construction ideas. I've developed my own ideas and plans, but until they're solidified in the third dimension, that's all they are: plans and ideas. If anyone has disproven them, PLEASE speak up and slap me until I realize my idiocy.
Thanks again for the input everyone!
James
> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:38:04 -0500
> From: frank.p...@gmail.com
> To: rctank...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [TANKS] Re: Complete Newbie...
>
> --
> You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group.
> To post a message, send email to rctank...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat...@googlegroups.com
> Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat
> You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group.
> To post a message, send email to rctank...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat...@googlegroups.com
> Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat
Steve Tyng
Nov 25, 2009, 1:06:13 PM11/25/09
to R/C Tank Combat
My this has turned into a lively discussion.
James, I look forward to seeing your build picks.
Regarding the components you are choosing to build from. Remember
these are from vehicles generally meant for racing and as such are
engineered to be light and "just" strong enough to stay together for
the environment they are meant for. You will probably be more than
doubling the weight these r/c "monster" trucks are designed for after
the addition of a turret, marker, co2 bottle, etc. If you go with
lead acid batteries instead of the lightweight nicad type packs you
will increase the load even more. In addition, you will need to
design for the higher center of gravity that a turret will add. I
can't see the long-throw soft and squishy suspensions of a typical
monster truck handling that very well. Figure some custom anti-
swaybar additions.
You made a comment stating you like scale. I've got no problem with
that but the typical battle site is anything but 1:6 scale (unless of
course were talking of the manicured battlelawns over in the UK ;).
Figure on scale features akin to modern MBT's battling at 60MPH over a
typical WW1 battle site and you'll get the idea.
Steve Tyng
James, I look forward to seeing your build picks.
Regarding the components you are choosing to build from. Remember
these are from vehicles generally meant for racing and as such are
engineered to be light and "just" strong enough to stay together for
the environment they are meant for. You will probably be more than
doubling the weight these r/c "monster" trucks are designed for after
the addition of a turret, marker, co2 bottle, etc. If you go with
lead acid batteries instead of the lightweight nicad type packs you
will increase the load even more. In addition, you will need to
design for the higher center of gravity that a turret will add. I
can't see the long-throw soft and squishy suspensions of a typical
monster truck handling that very well. Figure some custom anti-
swaybar additions.
You made a comment stating you like scale. I've got no problem with
that but the typical battle site is anything but 1:6 scale (unless of
course were talking of the manicured battlelawns over in the UK ;).
Figure on scale features akin to modern MBT's battling at 60MPH over a
typical WW1 battle site and you'll get the idea.
Steve Tyng
callum.kin...@googlemail.com
Nov 25, 2009, 1:21:14 PM11/25/09
to R/C Tank Combat
The fact that you are using RC parts may be an advantage cost wise.
Buy the cheap nylon parts at first. Break em. Because their hobby
grade you can buy more so you get steel ones as replacements. Tougher
car. You can buy aftermarket heavy duty diffs aswell. I was sitting
and thinking about a larger budget stryker in a similar way to you but
the main difference is the fact i was thinking hpi savage (some parts
of which fit the e/t maxx) and somehow creating new custom chassis
plates that support 2 front wheel assemblies and 2 rear. Buy 2 savages
for some of the parts. Only need one drivetrain in middle and theres a
company that sells an alternate engine mount for twin brushless
(brushed too i guess) motors. Fit that and mount the wheels. Mod it
for the through diffs and you should have a fairly rugged chassis with
8wd and 4 wheel steering. Expensive though. And would perhaps need a
few other mods to mount a stryker body. main advantage though is the 2
speed (or with hop-ups 3) transmission and the fact you can always put
normal mount in and use it with nitro power for bashing
On Nov 25, 4:06 pm, whitney james <me1y...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Frank,
>
> A fact which I embrace wholeheartedly, and acknowledge with with as much self
> depreciation as I can without getting dangerous. Will I break things, followed by me kicking myself for the stupidity which unveiled itself in the light of hindsight? Absolutely, and I fully expect it.
> But I have to start somewhere, and without my own experience to go on, I have to rely on others in the initial stages. Hence my finally coming out, and sticking my neck out here.
> Aside from this august group, I've talked with the people who own them and handled the RC cars I'm talking about. I've seen plenty of examples land on their faces at 30+ mph and come back begging for more. So will the parts hold up? I don't know: maybe not.
> But, it's the best starting place I have. And the fact that it offers a relatively bolt-together kit from the outset will be a major boost up when it comes to building my own practical knowledge.
> So, I'm all ears when it comes to construction ideas. I've developed my own ideas and plans, but until they're solidified in the third dimension, that's all they are: plans and ideas. If anyone has disproven them, PLEASE speak up and slap me until I realize my idiocy.
>
> Thanks again for the input everyone!
>
> James
>
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:38:04 -0500
> > From: frank.pitte...@gmail.com
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection.http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/
Buy the cheap nylon parts at first. Break em. Because their hobby
grade you can buy more so you get steel ones as replacements. Tougher
car. You can buy aftermarket heavy duty diffs aswell. I was sitting
and thinking about a larger budget stryker in a similar way to you but
the main difference is the fact i was thinking hpi savage (some parts
of which fit the e/t maxx) and somehow creating new custom chassis
plates that support 2 front wheel assemblies and 2 rear. Buy 2 savages
for some of the parts. Only need one drivetrain in middle and theres a
company that sells an alternate engine mount for twin brushless
(brushed too i guess) motors. Fit that and mount the wheels. Mod it
for the through diffs and you should have a fairly rugged chassis with
8wd and 4 wheel steering. Expensive though. And would perhaps need a
few other mods to mount a stryker body. main advantage though is the 2
speed (or with hop-ups 3) transmission and the fact you can always put
normal mount in and use it with nitro power for bashing
On Nov 25, 4:06 pm, whitney james <me1y...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Frank,
>
> A fact which I embrace wholeheartedly, and acknowledge with with as much self
> depreciation as I can without getting dangerous. Will I break things, followed by me kicking myself for the stupidity which unveiled itself in the light of hindsight? Absolutely, and I fully expect it.
> But I have to start somewhere, and without my own experience to go on, I have to rely on others in the initial stages. Hence my finally coming out, and sticking my neck out here.
> Aside from this august group, I've talked with the people who own them and handled the RC cars I'm talking about. I've seen plenty of examples land on their faces at 30+ mph and come back begging for more. So will the parts hold up? I don't know: maybe not.
> But, it's the best starting place I have. And the fact that it offers a relatively bolt-together kit from the outset will be a major boost up when it comes to building my own practical knowledge.
> So, I'm all ears when it comes to construction ideas. I've developed my own ideas and plans, but until they're solidified in the third dimension, that's all they are: plans and ideas. If anyone has disproven them, PLEASE speak up and slap me until I realize my idiocy.
>
> Thanks again for the input everyone!
>
> James
>
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:38:04 -0500
> Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection.http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/
whitney james
Nov 25, 2009, 1:42:11 PM11/25/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
My apologies if I'm clogging up the system. 
I'll get them up as soon as I receive the parts. :)
Evidently, the first series of my various bits were shipped out today. For now, I'm trying to decide on the base-plate (the skid plates in the original rc trucks): I'm thinking steel, but aluminum may work as well...
You bring up the point of weight. I wholeheartedly agree, and fully anticipate that I will most likely not be able to use standard hobby suspension. (I may, I just need to do some experimenting down at the hobby shop...) The parts I'm using from the RC trucks are the major moving pieces: a arms, a-arm mounts, differentials (which do use hardened steel gears and sealed bearings, by the way).
As to the practical strength of the parts: they are nylon rather than plastic, and are built not only to be "just strong enough" but to take a serious beating as well.
Meh, we'll see when I get my hands on them in a few day. If others are interested, I'll try my best to give a fair review of their suitability. If they do turn out to be utterly worthless... I'm only $40 into it thus far, and have no fear of throwing it away (well... selling them off on ebay...) and starting again with tougher stuff.
I already have a marker (and older spyder from my run-around-and-get-shot days), as well as two CO2 tanks. Not nearly enough, but it does give me an idea of weight.
Batteries: I've tried to do some reading up, and there is a whole series of opinions on that matter. Lead-Acid vs NiCad vs LiPo, etc. Cost vs power vs size, vs... Yea, I'm looking into options...
Scale...
Yup, that's the one constant I've noticed about you guys: scale is a relative term. (hastily adds:) With full respect, of course. I meant more in my build. I like the idea of keeping things not only looking accurate, but working accurately as well. Hence the fully independent suspension rather than simply bolting 4 axles to a frame. (there are practical considerations as well...)
Thanks again for the input, and as always: if I'm totally out to lunch, feel free to throw objects. (just nothing that would hurt too bad. :)
James
> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:06:13 -0800
I'll get them up as soon as I receive the parts. :)
Evidently, the first series of my various bits were shipped out today. For now, I'm trying to decide on the base-plate (the skid plates in the original rc trucks): I'm thinking steel, but aluminum may work as well...
You bring up the point of weight. I wholeheartedly agree, and fully anticipate that I will most likely not be able to use standard hobby suspension. (I may, I just need to do some experimenting down at the hobby shop...) The parts I'm using from the RC trucks are the major moving pieces: a arms, a-arm mounts, differentials (which do use hardened steel gears and sealed bearings, by the way).
As to the practical strength of the parts: they are nylon rather than plastic, and are built not only to be "just strong enough" but to take a serious beating as well.
Meh, we'll see when I get my hands on them in a few day. If others are interested, I'll try my best to give a fair review of their suitability. If they do turn out to be utterly worthless... I'm only $40 into it thus far, and have no fear of throwing it away (well... selling them off on ebay...) and starting again with tougher stuff.
I already have a marker (and older spyder from my run-around-and-get-shot days), as well as two CO2 tanks. Not nearly enough, but it does give me an idea of weight.
Batteries: I've tried to do some reading up, and there is a whole series of opinions on that matter. Lead-Acid vs NiCad vs LiPo, etc. Cost vs power vs size, vs... Yea, I'm looking into options...
Scale...
Yup, that's the one constant I've noticed about you guys: scale is a relative term. (hastily adds:) With full respect, of course. I meant more in my build. I like the idea of keeping things not only looking accurate, but working accurately as well. Hence the fully independent suspension rather than simply bolting 4 axles to a frame. (there are practical considerations as well...)
Thanks again for the input, and as always: if I'm totally out to lunch, feel free to throw objects. (just nothing that would hurt too bad. :)
James
> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:06:13 -0800
> Subject: [TANKS] Re: Complete Newbie...
> --
> You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group.
> To post a message, send email to rctank...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat...@googlegroups.com
> Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat
> You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group.
> To post a message, send email to rctank...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat...@googlegroups.com
> Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat
whitney james
Nov 25, 2009, 1:50:37 PM11/25/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
Yup. The HPI Savage is an excellent frame to build from. I was looking very seriously at them as well, but the aftermarket for Traxxas just seemed to be better.
And the heavier duty diffs: that was number 2 reason for going with the Revo 3.3: reputably the toughest RC monster truck on the market: nylon case, sealed bearings, steel gears, etc.
Your plan sounds identical to mine: just a different approach. I added up the cost of buying the trucks and then using the part, vs just buying the parts. going the parts route is the best for me. But I also know the Savage is cheaper than the E/T-Maxx. Single drivetrain, replacing the skidplates/chassis with a steel/aluminum plate, and you should be good to go.
I liked the idea of going with a Traxxas 3 spd transmission, but just wasn't sure it could take the driveline stresses. Then I hit on the idea of a 2 spd cordless drill (was planning to use a cordless anyway...), and a simply servo connected to the speed selector gives you 2 gears.
(credit to the Pink Barbie Jeep on the Scale 4X4 RC forum for the idea:) )
A short shaft locked in the chuck, single geared (or chain and sprocket) to run the power into the driveline, and you're ready to roll.
I was looking at the brushless motors (some very impressive numbers!) but the price tag is equally impressive.
> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:21:14 -0800
And the heavier duty diffs: that was number 2 reason for going with the Revo 3.3: reputably the toughest RC monster truck on the market: nylon case, sealed bearings, steel gears, etc.
Your plan sounds identical to mine: just a different approach. I added up the cost of buying the trucks and then using the part, vs just buying the parts. going the parts route is the best for me. But I also know the Savage is cheaper than the E/T-Maxx. Single drivetrain, replacing the skidplates/chassis with a steel/aluminum plate, and you should be good to go.
I liked the idea of going with a Traxxas 3 spd transmission, but just wasn't sure it could take the driveline stresses. Then I hit on the idea of a 2 spd cordless drill (was planning to use a cordless anyway...), and a simply servo connected to the speed selector gives you 2 gears.
(credit to the Pink Barbie Jeep on the Scale 4X4 RC forum for the idea:) )
A short shaft locked in the chuck, single geared (or chain and sprocket) to run the power into the driveline, and you're ready to roll.
I was looking at the brushless motors (some very impressive numbers!) but the price tag is equally impressive.
> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:21:14 -0800
> Subject: [TANKS] Re: Complete Newbie...
Fred Thomson
Nov 25, 2009, 5:12:12 PM11/25/09
to R/C Tank Combat
Hi James...
> Thanks Fred!
> (Isn't the Bulldog T064?)
Yeah. I was thinking about Ben's beast as I quoted it in another post
and the number just stuck.
The procedure Frank described above (build it, test it, break it) is
really going to become your friend. Trust me. The initial hull of the
Bulldog got modified many, many, many times until I cracked it. I'm on
version two of the Bulldog hull now and I already have a list of
"improvements". I'm on version four of the turret, my fourth design of
road wheels, it's been rewired twice...about the only things that
haven't been rebuilt are my drive train and my tracks. I got those
right the first time <whew!> because I read everything on
rctankcombat.com and a few other sites and decided to build strong. I
still think 3/4" drive axles might be a better idea than 5/8".
Don't get me wrong, planning, planning, planning is great BUT until
you actually build one you lack a couple of important pieces of
information. 1. The complexity of all the parts in the machine you are
building, it is very easy to under estimate this. And 2. Your own
skills. You only really understand the first after you finish your
first project. The second you become painfully aware of much, much
earlier. :-)
Of course this is coming from the guy who didn't know diddly about rc
tanks and just jumped in and built one. Needless to say, I don't
follow my own advice and neither should you. Follow my advice, I
mean. :-).
What I mean to say is that having built one, I now have a better
understanding of what works, what might* work, and what won't work.
The are design aspects in my Bulldog that I thought were brilliant
that simply WILL NOT be present in the Ariete MBT that I have just
started. I've learned from my mistakes.
But I am looking forward to seeing your build progress because as I
learned from all here, I am sure that you will have thought of
something that works better or is simpler than things I've thought of.
Building these monsters is fun and nothing beats driving one you've
built.
Cheers,
Fred
(T064) ( with apologies to Ben H.) :-)
> Thanks Fred!
> (Isn't the Bulldog T064?)
and the number just stuck.
The procedure Frank described above (build it, test it, break it) is
really going to become your friend. Trust me. The initial hull of the
Bulldog got modified many, many, many times until I cracked it. I'm on
version two of the Bulldog hull now and I already have a list of
"improvements". I'm on version four of the turret, my fourth design of
road wheels, it's been rewired twice...about the only things that
haven't been rebuilt are my drive train and my tracks. I got those
right the first time <whew!> because I read everything on
rctankcombat.com and a few other sites and decided to build strong. I
still think 3/4" drive axles might be a better idea than 5/8".
Don't get me wrong, planning, planning, planning is great BUT until
you actually build one you lack a couple of important pieces of
information. 1. The complexity of all the parts in the machine you are
building, it is very easy to under estimate this. And 2. Your own
skills. You only really understand the first after you finish your
first project. The second you become painfully aware of much, much
earlier. :-)
Of course this is coming from the guy who didn't know diddly about rc
tanks and just jumped in and built one. Needless to say, I don't
follow my own advice and neither should you. Follow my advice, I
mean. :-).
What I mean to say is that having built one, I now have a better
understanding of what works, what might* work, and what won't work.
The are design aspects in my Bulldog that I thought were brilliant
that simply WILL NOT be present in the Ariete MBT that I have just
started. I've learned from my mistakes.
But I am looking forward to seeing your build progress because as I
learned from all here, I am sure that you will have thought of
something that works better or is simpler than things I've thought of.
Building these monsters is fun and nothing beats driving one you've
built.
Cheers,
Fred
(T064) ( with apologies to Ben H.) :-)
Gregory Pwneror
Nov 25, 2009, 11:39:34 PM11/25/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
For the steering linkages, you might be able to get away with making them using Alu bar and bolts instead of having any ball bearings. I might draw up some plans tonight. Yes I mean draw, with a pencil and a drawing board, some of us have the dark knowledge of instrumental drawing, it's more fun than CAD in my opinion.
-Gregory
-Gregory
whitney james
Nov 27, 2009, 11:24:26 AM11/27/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
I couldn't agree more on the drawing vs CAD. Still, it's VERY convenient to have the measurements instantly available...
Not quite sure I follow you on the bolts/aluminum bar bit...
Did you mean ball linkages as opposed to ball bearings?
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:39:34 +1300
Subject: Re: [TANKS] Re: Complete Newbie...
From: sockl...@gmail.com
To: rctank...@googlegroups.com
Not quite sure I follow you on the bolts/aluminum bar bit...
Did you mean ball linkages as opposed to ball bearings?
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:39:34 +1300
Subject: Re: [TANKS] Re: Complete Newbie...
From: sockl...@gmail.com
To: rctank...@googlegroups.com
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
whitney james
Nov 27, 2009, 12:52:19 PM11/27/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:12:12 -0800
> Subject: [TANKS] Re: Complete Newbie...
> From: fr...@thomson-online.org
> To: rctank...@googlegroups.com
>
> Hi James...
>
>
> > Thanks Fred!
> > (Isn't the Bulldog T064?)
>
> Yeah. I was thinking about Ben's beast as I quoted it in another post
> and the number just stuck.
>
> The procedure Frank described above (build it, test it, break it) is
> really going to become your friend. Trust me. The initial hull of the
> Bulldog got modified many, many, many times until I cracked it. I'm on
> version two of the Bulldog hull now and I already have a list of
> "improvements". I'm on version four of the turret, my fourth design of
> road wheels, it's been rewired twice...about the only things that
> haven't been rebuilt are my drive train and my tracks. I got those
> right the first time <whew!> because I read everything on
> rctankcombat.com and a few other sites and decided to build strong. I
> still think 3/4" drive axles might be a better idea than 5/8".
>
>
> > Thanks Fred!
> > (Isn't the Bulldog T064?)
>
> Yeah. I was thinking about Ben's beast as I quoted it in another post
> and the number just stuck.
>
> The procedure Frank described above (build it, test it, break it) is
> really going to become your friend. Trust me. The initial hull of the
> Bulldog got modified many, many, many times until I cracked it. I'm on
> version two of the Bulldog hull now and I already have a list of
> "improvements". I'm on version four of the turret, my fourth design of
> road wheels, it's been rewired twice...about the only things that
> haven't been rebuilt are my drive train and my tracks. I got those
> right the first time <whew!> because I read everything on
> rctankcombat.com and a few other sites and decided to build strong. I
> still think 3/4" drive axles might be a better idea than 5/8".
Oh, I have no delusions that I'm any where near what this grotesque appendage of my imagination will look like when it's completed.
I'm fully expecting this to be an evolving project. Rather, I've simply got my fingers crossed that I haven't messed up so much that it'll end up driving me insane before it's gets chucked onto the rubbish heap.
(another benefit of using commercial parts: when I do finally get it beaten into my skull that I've really buggered it up, I can sell off the parts for more than I paid for them :D)
I'm fully expecting this to be an evolving project. Rather, I've simply got my fingers crossed that I haven't messed up so much that it'll end up driving me insane before it's gets chucked onto the rubbish heap.
(another benefit of using commercial parts: when I do finally get it beaten into my skull that I've really buggered it up, I can sell off the parts for more than I paid for them :D)
>
> Don't get me wrong, planning, planning, planning is great BUT until
> you actually build one you lack a couple of important pieces of
> information. 1. The complexity of all the parts in the machine you are
> building, it is very easy to under estimate this. And 2. Your own
> skills. You only really understand the first after you finish your
> first project. The second you become painfully aware of much, much
> earlier. :-)
1: Complexity of the machine. I can relate on this one. I still haven't worked out exactly how I'm going to do everything beyond a large over-structure... idea... concept... yea.
As to my own skills, well... unless we dig in and start somewhere, I'll remain an idiot. And we can't have that now...
As to my own skills, well... unless we dig in and start somewhere, I'll remain an idiot. And we can't have that now...
> Of course this is coming from the guy who didn't know diddly about rc
> tanks and just jumped in and built one. Needless to say, I don't
> follow my own advice and neither should you. Follow my advice, I
> mean. :-).
>
> What I mean to say is that having built one, I now have a better
> understanding of what works, what might* work, and what won't work.
> The are design aspects in my Bulldog that I thought were brilliant
> that simply WILL NOT be present in the Ariete MBT that I have just
> started. I've learned from my mistakes.
Uh... So do I follow your advice and not follow your advice? Or do I not follow your advice and do as you do? (My brain hurts!) ;)
And come now: I'm sure that the vast majority of your brilliant ideas were just that: brilliant ideas, and have carried on just fine. Just because the process doesn't work out 100% as the plan dictated doesn't mean the original premises and bulk of the original ideas were worthless.
And I know I have a great deal to learn about this business (and embarrassingly great deal, but we won't publicize that.)
So, once I get it functionally built, (most likely with a handful of rebuilds and re-works along the way), I can look back at what a clod I was, and start all over again.
And come now: I'm sure that the vast majority of your brilliant ideas were just that: brilliant ideas, and have carried on just fine. Just because the process doesn't work out 100% as the plan dictated doesn't mean the original premises and bulk of the original ideas were worthless.
And I know I have a great deal to learn about this business (and embarrassingly great deal, but we won't publicize that.)
So, once I get it functionally built, (most likely with a handful of rebuilds and re-works along the way), I can look back at what a clod I was, and start all over again.
>
> But I am looking forward to seeing your build progress because as I
> learned from all here, I am sure that you will have thought of
> something that works better or is simpler than things I've thought of.
> Building these monsters is fun and nothing beats driving one you've
> built.
>
> Cheers,
> Fred
> (T064) ( with apologies to Ben H.) :-)
>
As am I! (looking forward, that is), and I highly doubt that your ideas were any worse than mine. Besides: Bulldog... B1 Centauro... we're talking apples and oranges here, so comparison is hardly a worthwhile occupation. ;)
Now, if only the post office would speed things up...
James
Now, if only the post office would speed things up...
James
> --
> You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group.
> To post a message, send email to rctank...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat...@googlegroups.com
> Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat
Gregory Pwneror
Nov 27, 2009, 5:47:49 PM11/27/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
I was thinking that to join the pieces together, instead of using balls, you could use little bolts. It would give you almost no lateral movement, only yaw. I'll upload the images sometime.
-Gregory
-Gregory
Frank Pittelli
Nov 28, 2009, 10:48:19 AM11/28/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
whitney james wrote:
> Still, it's VERY convenient to have the measurements instantly
> available...
Hmmm ... let's consider that statement in more detail.
> Still, it's VERY convenient to have the measurements instantly
> available...
Time to read a measurement using a ruler:
1) Place ruler on drawing - 2 sec
2) Read measurement from ruler - 2 sec
Total Time: 4 sec
Time to read a measurement using a CAD program:
1) Power up PC - 1 sec
2) Wait for Windows to boot - 1 min 23 sec
3) Wait for Anti-Virus software to stop hogging CPU - 2 min 37 sec
4) Wait for CAD software to start up - 10 sec
5) Open CAD project and find desired drawing - 15 sec
6) Read measurement using ruler - 2 sec
Total Time: 4 min 28 sec
Yep, I can see now what you mean by "instantly available" :-)
Frank P.
callum.kin...@googlemail.com
Nov 28, 2009, 11:07:17 AM11/28/09
to R/C Tank Combat
Ah. But what if you where to keep the cad drawing open in which case
you have every individual line available instantly as and when needed.
constantly booting up and shutting down a computer isn't a practical
way to do things. A computer uses more power booting up than leaving
it idle for approx 1h dependant on exact cpu and psu models. Also you
have the ability to instantly scale a model (or using google sketch
you can at least) to your desired size. More precision makes it more
practical to use CAD in my opinion. Just type a value in and press
enter. It draws the line to your desired size without the possibility
of the line being 0.1mm longer. As everyone here probablly knows, It
may not sound like much but over a large drawing/build, you may have
many tolerances building up to make massive offsets. Of course using
CAd wont completely offset these but its still abit simpler
you have every individual line available instantly as and when needed.
constantly booting up and shutting down a computer isn't a practical
way to do things. A computer uses more power booting up than leaving
it idle for approx 1h dependant on exact cpu and psu models. Also you
have the ability to instantly scale a model (or using google sketch
you can at least) to your desired size. More precision makes it more
practical to use CAD in my opinion. Just type a value in and press
enter. It draws the line to your desired size without the possibility
of the line being 0.1mm longer. As everyone here probablly knows, It
may not sound like much but over a large drawing/build, you may have
many tolerances building up to make massive offsets. Of course using
CAd wont completely offset these but its still abit simpler
Bill Hamilton
Nov 28, 2009, 11:09:42 AM11/28/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com, rctank...@googlegroups.com
On Nov 28, 2009, at 9:48 AM, Frank Pittelli <frank.p...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> whitney james wrote:
>> Still, it's VERY convenient to have the measurements instantly
>> available...
>
> Hmmm ... let's consider that statement in more detail.
>
> Time to read a measurement using a ruler:
> 1) Place ruler on drawing - 2 sec
> 2) Read measurement from ruler - 2 sec
> Total Time: 4 sec
You forgot:
0.1) Find drawing - 2 min
0.2) Find ruler - 15 min
:)
-Bill Hamilton
wrote:
> whitney james wrote:
>> Still, it's VERY convenient to have the measurements instantly
>> available...
>
> Hmmm ... let's consider that statement in more detail.
>
> Time to read a measurement using a ruler:
> 1) Place ruler on drawing - 2 sec
> 2) Read measurement from ruler - 2 sec
> Total Time: 4 sec
0.1) Find drawing - 2 min
0.2) Find ruler - 15 min
:)
-Bill Hamilton
Clark Ward Jr
Nov 28, 2009, 11:43:18 AM11/28/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
You TURN OFF your computer?!
--
Clark in Georgia
--
Clark in Georgia
callum.kin...@googlemail.com
Nov 28, 2009, 11:50:37 AM11/28/09
to R/C Tank Combat
Mines been turned off once in the past 2 weeks. And that was this
morning to install updates. Normally I hibernate my laptop which has
advantage of keeping all my documents open. Or just leave it on. Gets
hot and does it no good though
morning to install updates. Normally I hibernate my laptop which has
advantage of keeping all my documents open. Or just leave it on. Gets
hot and does it no good though
Frank Pittelli
Nov 28, 2009, 11:57:23 AM11/28/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
callum.kin...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Ah. But what if you where to keep the cad drawing open in which case
> you have every individual line available instantly as and when needed.
> constantly booting up and shutting down a computer isn't a practical
> way to do things.
Almost a good point, but let's consider that scenario as well:
> Ah. But what if you where to keep the cad drawing open in which case
> you have every individual line available instantly as and when needed.
> constantly booting up and shutting down a computer isn't a practical
> way to do things.
1) Leave PC powered up in the workshop while working on project - 0 sec
2) Extinguish fire in power supply when sawdust clogs fan - 30 sec
3) Purchase new power supply - 2 days 7 min
4) Install new power supply - 15 min
5) Reboot PC and read measurement - 4 min 28 sec
Total Time: 2 days 26 min 58 sec
Sorry, but I think that a set of drawings and a ruler still remains the
most effective way to read measurements while *actually building something*
Frank P.
callum.kin...@googlemail.com
Nov 28, 2009, 12:14:49 PM11/28/09
to R/C Tank Combat
mini itx, fanless psu and a massive amount of heaft sinks. And put it
under the extractor fan
On Nov 28, 4:57 pm, Frank Pittelli <frank.pitte...@gmail.com> wrote:
under the extractor fan
On Nov 28, 4:57 pm, Frank Pittelli <frank.pitte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Odyssey...@aol.com
Nov 28, 2009, 1:14:20 PM11/28/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
why not just draw in, show it's profiles, and any finer detail info. give
it an overall length, and let the builder figure out the size of things pending
on their build scale? unless you want to go through 2 or 3 sets of drawings
where one would be in 1:6th scale and another in 1:7th scale but with all the in
scale measurements so then all they have to do is print it out and tae the
measurements from the print out - no need to keep going back to the pc once you
have it on paper in front of you on your work bench.
oh and someone put something about spending 14 minutes trying to find the
ruler - you forgot to note how much more time is spent once you realize the
ruler found is in metric and the drawings are in standard
Chris,
Odyssey Slipways
Odyssey Slipways
Clark Ward Jr
Nov 28, 2009, 1:37:10 PM11/28/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
I mix the two methods... draw in Alibre so I can fiddle with sizing
and let the PC do all the numbercrunching, and then print pics with
measurements on them to take out to the shop. My shop computer is not
man enough to run Alibre and my dark tower of power (2x Radeon 4870
1GB cards in crossfire mode, 12GB system RAM, etc etc overkill etc)
will never see the shop. 8D
I like having a paper drawings to scribble on, as well. Last time i
did that with a computer screen, I had to buy a new one! lol :)
--
Clark in Georgia
and let the PC do all the numbercrunching, and then print pics with
measurements on them to take out to the shop. My shop computer is not
man enough to run Alibre and my dark tower of power (2x Radeon 4870
1GB cards in crossfire mode, 12GB system RAM, etc etc overkill etc)
will never see the shop. 8D
I like having a paper drawings to scribble on, as well. Last time i
did that with a computer screen, I had to buy a new one! lol :)
--
Clark in Georgia
Mike Mangus
Nov 28, 2009, 3:53:19 PM11/28/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
Once a week. It gets a reboot from total power off. Just one way to try to keep windows from clogging up and clean up any lingering updates that requires additional restarts.
From: Clark Ward Jr <ki4...@gmail.com>
To: rctank...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, November 28, 2009 11:43:18 AM
Subject: Re: [TANKS] Re: Complete Newbie...
You TURN OFF your computer?!
--
Clark in Georgia
callum.kin...@googlemail.com
Nov 29, 2009, 5:37:48 AM11/29/09
to R/C Tank Combat
UK, metric is pretty much standard but for those rare occasions when
its imperial thats why you keep a calculator and remember
imperialx25.5=metric mm and metric mm/25.4=imperial. My laptop seems
to be fine being left on or hibernated for long periods of time. When
leaving it on all you have to do is make sure its cool. No easy task
when the intake is on the bottom and often gets partially covered. But
then i tend to leave it upside down when im not using it to keep
endless supply of cool air to bottom. and when i use it to watch telly
to get a signal i have to have the window open and the aerial cable
means the laptop ends up being quite close to the window and simply
wont overheat. unless i try playing music in one program, watching
video in another and watch telly in another
its imperial thats why you keep a calculator and remember
imperialx25.5=metric mm and metric mm/25.4=imperial. My laptop seems
to be fine being left on or hibernated for long periods of time. When
leaving it on all you have to do is make sure its cool. No easy task
when the intake is on the bottom and often gets partially covered. But
then i tend to leave it upside down when im not using it to keep
endless supply of cool air to bottom. and when i use it to watch telly
to get a signal i have to have the window open and the aerial cable
means the laptop ends up being quite close to the window and simply
wont overheat. unless i try playing music in one program, watching
video in another and watch telly in another
Ben Holko
Nov 30, 2009, 3:51:02 AM11/30/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
Don’t run Windows and you wont have a problem. My machines are always on, 24x7x365, monitor wake-up time ~1 sec. Reboot about once a month or two for updates.
As for pencil vs. mouse, you cannot compete with the speed of drawing in cad, or copy/paste, or of making modifications or fixing mistakes. CTRL+Z is faster than an eraser. Not to mention the fact that if you want drawings at hand during workshop build you can actually print them out, complete with measurements.
Anyone who thinks they can draw finalized MILLIMETER accurate tank plans on paper faster than can be done in CAD is kidding themselves.
Clark Ward Jr
Nov 30, 2009, 9:47:02 AM11/30/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
Ben, I agree with you in every respect, but I will be the last
'craftsman' among us to claim that I cut or drill millimeter accurate
;)
And I have done acceptable work with my pencil prior to discovering CAD :)
But I love Alibre Express and won't give it up :)
--
Clark in Georgia
'craftsman' among us to claim that I cut or drill millimeter accurate
;)
And I have done acceptable work with my pencil prior to discovering CAD :)
But I love Alibre Express and won't give it up :)
--
Clark in Georgia
Clark Ward Jr
Nov 30, 2009, 9:49:56 AM11/30/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
Note: I put craftsman in quotes because I feel that I myself fall
short of what I would call a true craftsman. I wouldn't want anyone
to think I was slandering them :) Just meself!
--
Clark in Georgia
short of what I would call a true craftsman. I wouldn't want anyone
to think I was slandering them :) Just meself!
--
Clark in Georgia
Frank Pittelli
Nov 30, 2009, 10:19:33 AM11/30/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
Ben Holko wrote:
> Anyone who thinks they can draw finalized MILLIMETER accurate tank plans
> on paper faster than can be done in CAD is kidding themselves.
Of course, anyone who thinks they need finalized MILLIMETER accurate
> Anyone who thinks they can draw finalized MILLIMETER accurate tank plans
> on paper faster than can be done in CAD is kidding themselves.
tank plans to build a 1:6 scale model is kidding everyone else.
In fact, "plans" don't need to be accurate at all, only "measurements".
Surveyors *never* draw accurate diagrams in the field, they draw fast,
crude diagrams and then indicate accurate measurements on them.
Every hour you spend making plans look nice is an hour you can't spend
actually building and perfecting the vehicle.
Frank "Build More, Plan Less" Pittelli
callum.kin...@googlemail.com
Nov 30, 2009, 12:30:08 PM11/30/09
to R/C Tank Combat
Well. I support cad. More accurate as you can put the motors in aswell
and my laptop which i run SU from can be taken about anywhere. Pencil
and paper: well i cant draw well but ive seen technical DRAWINGS and
they will get you where you want i
guess. Back to actual topic of
the APC. Suspension: if you cant find space in budget for commercial
suspension parts could you not make the build so its possible to mount
commercial parts and then use some cheap DIY setup. When some of it
fails replace with heavy duty commercial because by then the main
build will be out of the way so your budget should be freed up again
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows 7: It works the way you want. Learn more.http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/windows-7/default.aspx?ocid=PID24727...
and my laptop which i run SU from can be taken about anywhere. Pencil
and paper: well i cant draw well but ive seen technical DRAWINGS and
they will get you where you want i
guess. Back to actual topic of
the APC. Suspension: if you cant find space in budget for commercial
suspension parts could you not make the build so its possible to mount
commercial parts and then use some cheap DIY setup. When some of it
fails replace with heavy duty commercial because by then the main
build will be out of the way so your budget should be freed up again
> Windows 7: It works the way you want. Learn more.http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/windows-7/default.aspx?ocid=PID24727...
whitney james
Nov 30, 2009, 12:46:53 PM11/30/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
I personally support me having enough money to get a decent CAD program. :D
As to the suspension parts: I suppose I have the "budget", it's just a matter of spreading it out over time. That, and I'm not sure if the made-for-it springs will handle the weight. They have different stiffness ratings, so I'll most likely wait until I have the basic structure assembled, throw in some weights to simulate the final B1, and then just weigh the whole thing, divide it out to weight per tire, run those numbers against the stiffest things I can find at a hobbie shop, and if they work: it's back to Ebay. If not... well, I'll have to find something else. Unfortunately, springs are a bit of a mystery to me.
I have no clue how they're rated, distance of travel, compression rates, etc.
So, it'll be very much a trial and error thing...
Thanks!
> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:30:08 -0800
> Subject: [TANKS] Re: Complete Newbie...
> From: callum.kin...@googlemail.com
> To: rctank...@googlegroups.com
As to the suspension parts: I suppose I have the "budget", it's just a matter of spreading it out over time. That, and I'm not sure if the made-for-it springs will handle the weight. They have different stiffness ratings, so I'll most likely wait until I have the basic structure assembled, throw in some weights to simulate the final B1, and then just weigh the whole thing, divide it out to weight per tire, run those numbers against the stiffest things I can find at a hobbie shop, and if they work: it's back to Ebay. If not... well, I'll have to find something else. Unfortunately, springs are a bit of a mystery to me.
I have no clue how they're rated, distance of travel, compression rates, etc.
So, it'll be very much a trial and error thing...
Thanks!
> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:30:08 -0800
> Subject: [TANKS] Re: Complete Newbie...
> From: callum.kin...@googlemail.com
> To: rctank...@googlegroups.com
> --
> You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group.
> To post a message, send email to rctank...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat...@googlegroups.com
> Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat
> You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group.
> To post a message, send email to rctank...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat...@googlegroups.com
> Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
Doug Conn
Nov 30, 2009, 1:09:44 PM11/30/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
Here’s a great spring calculator
http://icrank.com/cgi-bin/pageman/pageout.cgi?path=/data/spring/spring.htm&t=2
If you enter the spring parameters (wire diameter, length, etc.) it will tell you how much weight is required to cause a given spring deflection. Play around with it, you’ll see what I mean. After you get a rough idea of the size of springs you’ll need, you can search McMaster for something close to those to values. You can make compression springs yourself, but it’s tricky. Torsion and extension springs are much easier.
Of course, you’ll need a rough idea of the weight of your vehicle. The motors and batteries will comprise the lion’s share of the weight. I’d start by summing those weights. The marker and CO2 bottle will probably be next in line. You should be able to weigh those yourself or get approximations from the group.
- Doug
callum.kin...@googlemail.com
Nov 30, 2009, 1:11:03 PM11/30/09
to R/C Tank Combat
most companies offer springs as hard soft medium etc. I dont think
they quote actual rates all the time. HPI quote rates i thinkk and
most of the savage shocks mount on a t-maxx. Not sure on revo. Which
one is it your using again? check out http://www.rctech.net
On 30 Nov, 17:46, whitney james <me1y...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I personally support me having enough money to get a decent CAD program. :D
>
> As to the suspension parts: I suppose I have the "budget", it's just a matter of spreading it out over time. That, and I'm not sure if the made-for-it springs will handle the weight. They have different stiffness ratings, so I'll most likely wait until I have the basic structure assembled, throw in some weights to simulate the final B1, and then just weigh the whole thing, divide it out to weight per tire, run those numbers against the stiffest things I can find at a hobbie shop, and if they work: it's back to Ebay. If not... well, I'll have to find something else. Unfortunately, springs are a bit of a mystery to me.
> I have no clue how they're rated, distance of travel, compression rates, etc.
> So, it'll be very much a trial and error thing...
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:30:08 -0800
> > Subject: [TANKS] Re: Complete Newbie...
> > From: callum.king.underw...@googlemail.com
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141665/direct/01/
they quote actual rates all the time. HPI quote rates i thinkk and
most of the savage shocks mount on a t-maxx. Not sure on revo. Which
one is it your using again? check out http://www.rctech.net
On 30 Nov, 17:46, whitney james <me1y...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I personally support me having enough money to get a decent CAD program. :D
>
> As to the suspension parts: I suppose I have the "budget", it's just a matter of spreading it out over time. That, and I'm not sure if the made-for-it springs will handle the weight. They have different stiffness ratings, so I'll most likely wait until I have the basic structure assembled, throw in some weights to simulate the final B1, and then just weigh the whole thing, divide it out to weight per tire, run those numbers against the stiffest things I can find at a hobbie shop, and if they work: it's back to Ebay. If not... well, I'll have to find something else. Unfortunately, springs are a bit of a mystery to me.
> I have no clue how they're rated, distance of travel, compression rates, etc.
> So, it'll be very much a trial and error thing...
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:30:08 -0800
> > Subject: [TANKS] Re: Complete Newbie...
> Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141665/direct/01/
whitney james
Nov 30, 2009, 2:02:49 PM11/30/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
Oooo!
That's a fun little toy! I'll definitely be keeping that link, Thanks!
I could go with a torsion spring, but it would require an additional piece of setup to angle the upward movement of the swing arms inward 90 degreed, to where it could then be channeled into a torsion spring.
I guess the same could be done using an extension spring (extending the motion inwards, with the spring connected to the bulkhead) but that's getting into some pretty funky geometry.
No, if I can keep it a simple compression spring, that'd be the easiest. No need to go German here...
From: dwco...@comcast.net
That's a fun little toy! I'll definitely be keeping that link, Thanks!
I could go with a torsion spring, but it would require an additional piece of setup to angle the upward movement of the swing arms inward 90 degreed, to where it could then be channeled into a torsion spring.
I guess the same could be done using an extension spring (extending the motion inwards, with the spring connected to the bulkhead) but that's getting into some pretty funky geometry.
No, if I can keep it a simple compression spring, that'd be the easiest. No need to go German here...
From: dwco...@comcast.net
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:09:44 -0500
Bing brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. Try it now.
whitney james
Nov 30, 2009, 2:13:06 PM11/30/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
The suspension a arms and bulkhead are T-Maxx: a much simpler setup than the Revo (with their odd, horizontal, parallel mounted short-travel shocks/springs...)
And I was under the impression that there was a lot more than soft/medium/firm...
Here's a few for the Revo (not what I'm using, but you get the idea):
http://www.integy.com/st_prod.html?p_prodid=4404&p_catid=73
> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:11:03 -0800
And I was under the impression that there was a lot more than soft/medium/firm...
Here's a few for the Revo (not what I'm using, but you get the idea):
http://www.integy.com/st_prod.html?p_prodid=4404&p_catid=73
> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:11:03 -0800
> Subject: [TANKS] Re: Complete Newbie...
Steve Tyng
Nov 30, 2009, 4:00:59 PM11/30/09
to R/C Tank Combat
I find this CAD versus pencil discussion quite interesting. On one
side we have the CAD advocates you prefer to fully realize their
creations in the virtual world before putting blade to wood. This
type of designer/builder attempts to foresee and design for every
conceivable possibly that their design will have to overcome. The
other side is advocating an approach where basic and usually less
detailed drawings (or no drawings at all) are used as a general guide
to get one started sooner in constructing a project. With this option
the assumption is that the builder will adapt and modify said project
as the build progresses and as expertise and experience warrants. IMO
both design and build philosophies are perfectly valid and both will
produce perfectly fine R/C Tank Combat vehicles. It is true that one
can become fixated in the design process and not ever get to building
an actual vehicle but I can (and have) experienced this in both paper
and CAD. I don't see the design medium being the issue in not
starting a project but the wherewithal of the designer/builder to
complete a project.
I guess I am solidly in the CAD side. All my vehicles have to some
degree or other started as first paper doodles and then transferred to
the computer as the design became more complex and I wanted to start
"test fitting" components together. The Cromwell was 95% designed on
the computer before blade hit the wood. It was designed to a 1/16"
grid with all components modeled and fitted virtually. Dimensioned
drawings where printed for the workshop phase. I attempted to
anticipate all design issues beforehand and I am proud to say that
there have been no significant modifications to the design since it
first rolled onto that first battlefield back in 05. I guess in this
regard (being virtually untouched as far as modifications go) the
Cromwell is one of the "oldest" designs currently operating.
Steve Tyng
side we have the CAD advocates you prefer to fully realize their
creations in the virtual world before putting blade to wood. This
type of designer/builder attempts to foresee and design for every
conceivable possibly that their design will have to overcome. The
other side is advocating an approach where basic and usually less
detailed drawings (or no drawings at all) are used as a general guide
to get one started sooner in constructing a project. With this option
the assumption is that the builder will adapt and modify said project
as the build progresses and as expertise and experience warrants. IMO
both design and build philosophies are perfectly valid and both will
produce perfectly fine R/C Tank Combat vehicles. It is true that one
can become fixated in the design process and not ever get to building
an actual vehicle but I can (and have) experienced this in both paper
and CAD. I don't see the design medium being the issue in not
starting a project but the wherewithal of the designer/builder to
complete a project.
I guess I am solidly in the CAD side. All my vehicles have to some
degree or other started as first paper doodles and then transferred to
the computer as the design became more complex and I wanted to start
"test fitting" components together. The Cromwell was 95% designed on
the computer before blade hit the wood. It was designed to a 1/16"
grid with all components modeled and fitted virtually. Dimensioned
drawings where printed for the workshop phase. I attempted to
anticipate all design issues beforehand and I am proud to say that
there have been no significant modifications to the design since it
first rolled onto that first battlefield back in 05. I guess in this
regard (being virtually untouched as far as modifications go) the
Cromwell is one of the "oldest" designs currently operating.
Steve Tyng
Mike Mangus
Nov 30, 2009, 6:49:40 PM11/30/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
There is also a third side: people who use detailed drawings. A well drafted drawing will have the details a CAD will. Just because it is on paper does not mean that the designer hasn't planned out and put to ink a working design that does not require on-the-fly modifications during the build. A great example of this is pre-CAD era model aircraft designers like myself. I put a lot of thought, planning, and details into a new aircraft design, then transfer the ideas to a pencil and paper draft drawing. Like a CAD designer, some details will get changed during the drafting process. The end result is a design that fits together, holds together, and works well.
I agree that it isn't the design medium that makes a design. It is the energy and perseverance the builder puts into the project to finally bring it to fruition.
Mike
I agree that it isn't the design medium that makes a design. It is the energy and perseverance the builder puts into the project to finally bring it to fruition.
Mike
From: Steve Tyng <stev...@gmail.com>
To: R/C Tank Combat <rctank...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Mon, November 30, 2009 4:00:59 PM
Subject: [TANKS] Re: Complete Newbie...
Mike Mangus
Nov 30, 2009, 6:58:53 PM11/30/09
to rctank...@googlegroups.com
Take out the word "millimeter" from that last sentence and the answer would be "yes." :)
Mike
Mike
From: Ben Holko <b...@holnet.net>
To: "rctank...@googlegroups.com" <rctank...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Mon, November 30, 2009 3:51:02 AM
Subject: RE: [TANKS] Re: Complete Newbie...
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages