oOple.com Forums

oOple.com Forums (http://www.oople.com/forums/index.php)
-   Schumacher (http://www.oople.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=46)
-   -   SX in action (http://www.oople.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9344)

YZ~10 26-03-2008 03:47 AM

nice vid, seems to go pretty ok there. but did i spot the wing break off at the end there though? shame Schumacher haven't gone with a different design on the wing mount.

BORMAC 26-03-2008 05:26 AM

I reckon driving on indoor circuits was fun when I used to do it. There was very little debri that would make it into the drivetrain. Take running these cars on dusty loose tracks though,every last ounce of dust makes its way into all kinds of unwanted places. Case in point,aside from handling characteristics drivetrain reliability amongst the elements is definately an issue for many drivers. I like belt drive cars but the majority of drives prefer shaft drive cars with their sealed gearboxes. This 'WILL' play a part in the popularity of the car throughout the world. Personaly i dont care how intricate,open or out of the ordinary a car is,if its designed with top level competition in mind I'll give it a real good look.

bender 26-03-2008 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Lowe (Post 106733)
when I raced out in Florida late last year once the groove started to appear the grip was higher than a typical grass track. When the groove was fully up it was higher grip than anything I've ever experienced, the Worksop surface is very similar in grip levels to a well groomed dirt track before it grooves.

Re the bumps:- Worksop is a smooth surface, but thats because it's indoors. A grass track getts rutted after it's had a couple of rounds on it at a big meeting, there might not be many jumps usually but it's certainly not glass smooth ;)

I agree that a blue-groove dirt track would offer similar grip levels to grass but there are still a lot of dirt tracks around the world that aren't close to being blue groove.

If you think about the 05 worlds track in Collegno - that's what I'm talking about - very rough and slippery with sharp jagged ruts through the corners.

These style tracks are the biggest test for a buggy's drivetrain in terms of durability and reliability and are also a good test of a cars handling ability - as often the car is sliding into sharp ruts.

I think at somepoint Schumacher need to (if they haven't already) test the car on a rough dirt track - just to be sure that the car does work everywhere ;)

Robbiejuk 26-03-2008 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BossCat_Works (Post 106973)
nice vid, seems to go pretty ok there. but did i spot the wing break off at the end there though? shame Schumacher haven't gone with a different design on the wing mount.

I could have done with the crash back wing mount system on my B44 at worksop on sunday I managed to split a wing mount and split the wing going over that tabletop :)

Remember though these are close production "prototypes" so if they find that the wing mounts are an issue I am sure they could probably re-design them before release :)

I think the only breakage on the two cars that I saw was when Matt managed to rip the front wishbone off before a qualifying run but hey thats could have happened with any car as it was quite a big off :) Watching both cars though they looked as good if not better than anything on the track which simons run in round 4 proved.

Looking forward to seeing a few more in action :thumbsup:

Lee 26-03-2008 02:04 PM

But it was still lapped after a minute or so :lol::thumbsup:

Mossy 26-03-2008 02:27 PM

No wonder after my out lap!

Was as quick as Rich after i moved over for him. Regarding the wing mounts, that the first time we have damaged them but to be fair, i couldt of landed any harder on them.

Gaz_Stanton 26-03-2008 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCM (Post 106728)
we started going metric in 1971, year of decimlaisation Ash.... some things are still done in Imperial due to the sheer cost of changing, like distance and speed, but for the most we work in metric, especially engineering.

Errr... nope. I'll actually stick up for CRashley on this one. :o

Just got back from a day of design work on a new aircraft not due in service for another 5 yrs. Largest european aircraft manufacturer and we still work in imperial. (though we do seem to mix & match the units, depending on whether we're trying to show something as being a high or low number :lol:)

P.S. DCM, i know you're speaking to ash but that attempt at spelling is awful! :p

Anyways, back to the car with looks only a mother could love... :D

DCM 26-03-2008 09:12 PM

my spelling has ben terrible this week, but I do have all the kids off school for easter lol.

I know aircraft run a mix of imperial and metric, more it is in maintenance, the fact that some fastenners are no longer available in imperial, but, in saying that, any repair drawing I worked from was in metric, nothing in imperial except maybe material thickness.

TRF_Tastic 26-03-2008 09:24 PM

Bloody rivets, repair drawings with both imperial and metric on!! God how I love not working on aircraft anymore.

pesky badger 26-03-2008 09:31 PM

Well, I've worked on the fastest passenger jet until recently and that was bloody imperial. Don't ask me what relative sizes the nuts and bolts are as my mind wokrks in metric (most were 11/32 that I needed to use, with a few 3/8ths thrown in for good measure). Still, I suppose you can't complain about it as its 40 years young and still going.

Any guesses as to what it is? :eh?:

Chrislong 26-03-2008 09:40 PM

Here's me thinking you Ozzys raced around kangaroo's, and here's me not racing on grass tracks with wooden jumps ... (tongue in cheek :lol:)

We have a lot of very different tracks in the UK, some smooth, some bumpy, some with flowing & rolling shapes and jumps, and some with obstacle after obstacle. Then there are surfaces - some tracks are completely high grip, some have a big variety.

Id be confident in any car going well on rutted dirt or blue groove if it is a good allrounder on English outdoor tracks. I will reserve judgement until I have seen it go on other tracks than Worksop, as lets be honest - Simon & Matt are quick drivers and they'd be in the top 10 at Worksop with a Cat XLS even today.

Chris

Chrislong 26-03-2008 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesky badger (Post 107293)
Well, I've worked on the fastest passenger jet until recently and that was bloody imperial. Don't ask me what relative sizes the nuts and bolts are as my mind wokrks in metric (most were 11/32 that I needed to use, with a few 3/8ths thrown in for good measure). Still, I suppose you can't complain about it as its 40 years young and still going.

Any guesses as to what it is? :eh?:

Concorde?

pesky badger 26-03-2008 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrislong (Post 107301)
Concorde?

Well, when flying it was the fastest, but now it's been retired, leaving The Queen Of The Skies.

Anyone else for a guess?

glypo 26-03-2008 11:34 PM

Cessna Citation X....... easy. *edit* - I'm confused. Concorde roughly that age, and was retired just 2-4 years ago I assume now, but fastest civilian aircraft for the last 14 years is the Citation X (M 0.82, damn efficient too. I would love to get the aerofoil co-ordinates for that plane!). If you mean fastest commercial, I am guessing a 747 as that's only a few mph off the Citation X IIRC?????

As for Gaz_Stanton, what? Largest aircraft manufacturer in Europe by far is EADS, so I am assuming you are talking about the XWB. It's being designed in metric, as with all Airbus. What part of the aircraft are you talking about?

Of course sub systems for the aircraft which are sub contracted out (which there are an awful lot of) are designed to that companies standard. But Airbus design in metric using the Airbus system to define components, which is a mix between BS and ISO/DIN. I am really interested to know what was designed in imperial :S

I f'kin hate imperial. 98% of the worlds countries use Metric, why can't the states just wake up. Change sucks, I know, but it's soooooo much better. I also love the way the Americans refer to it as English units too.

Gaz_Stanton 27-03-2008 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glypo (Post 107345)
As for Gaz_Stanton, what? Largest aircraft manufacturer in Europe by far is EADS, so I am assuming you are talking about the XWB. It's being designed in metric, as with all Airbus. What part of the aircraft are you talking about?

XWB yep. Although the CAD monkeys mostly use metric the aircraft is a mix of both. Eg some std pipework and equipment is only available in imperial sizes and with the $ price we're putting a lot more workpackages out to dollar zones. Plus a lot of the engineers have been around the various aerospace companies where imperial is the norm so often work in old money. You just have to be fluent in both.

glypo 27-03-2008 12:25 AM

Indeed, knowing both is a pain though. I'm glad aerodynamics is my thing. Mainly working with coefficients, no units, hurray! :D

How's the XWB looking?

bender 27-03-2008 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrislong (Post 107300)
Here's me thinking you Ozzys raced around kangaroo's, and here's me not racing on grass tracks with wooden jumps ... (tongue in cheek :lol:)

It's those pesky Koalas you have to worry about and the digeredoo's used for track edging ;) :lol:

pesky badger 27-03-2008 12:23 PM

Ahem, well done Glypo for noticing my deliberate mistake (about fastest passenger jet). Didn't realise the 747 was so quick. The Queen Of The Skies is the majestic (and still flying the originals from 1966-68) VC10.

Still, you live and learn :D

Chrislong 27-03-2008 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bender (Post 107424)
It's those pesky Koalas you have to worry about and the digeredoo's used for track edging ;) :lol:

:thumbsup: :lol:
Got any pictures of the tracks you race at, or link to pictures? Not for the purpose of this thread, I am interested in general really.

Lee 27-03-2008 01:14 PM

First one round the Emu and back:lol::thumbsup:


http://imagecache2.allposters.com/im.../BN15273_8.jpg


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
oOple.com