Quote:
Originally Posted by Xracer
I just wish Schumacher would now fix the slipping diff drive ring with the 'D' ring solution that has been around for donkey's years on LMP's! Yes my diff is built as instructed!
I'm sure others may be suffering some of the above niggles too.  |
Try this...
With some 400 grit 'wet 'n dry' paper, scuff up the side of the ring that contacts the aluminium hubs on the axle and wheel. Do the same to the those aluminium hubs, but just enough to remove the sheen of the anodising, not to remove it. Clean all surfaces well and re-assemble.
If that doesn't fix it, then clean those surfaces you just scuffed thoroughly and fix the washer to the hubs with superglue. They will come unstuck eventually so keep an eye on the diff and clean/reglue at each rebuild. That WILL fix it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xracer
Well all looks neat and organised but just one minor observation, why take the power leads all the way across the car? The shortest, lightest and most efficient route is to the left hand side surely!
Attachment 80543
Just to illustrate. |
It's not as simple as that. The cell has a gap where the connectors are so the weight is to one side. As the servo and receiver don't usually balance the offset of the speedo, it is usual to place the cell so that the connectors are on the left of the car.
That way, the offset of the cell in the casing helps to balance the weight across the chassis. It's standard practice in LMP12 for that reason.
No biggie, but if you check your chassis balance from side-to-side and it's off by a bit, swapping the battery position should fix it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xracer
Interesting and diverse views on the front end setup and a topic that has been discussed before but without a real conclusion I believe.
I am aware that experimentation with beam width to change the anti-roll stiffness has also been attempted by some drivers too, again inconclusive as far as I can determine but I have not been that close to the racing action for a few months.
I have always felt that the standard beam is a bit too stiff and possibly prone to tweaking after any impact, whereas the IFS I suspect should not suffer this effect.
I also suspect that this debate will remain polarised between drivers and we may never reach a conclusive state.  |
Prone to tweaking... a bloody great bit of CFRP like that? Let me put it this way - in gas turbines we use CFRP half that thickness under much more arduous conditions and it doesn't take up a new shape through static, dynamic or thermal loads.
That piece of the car is never going to tweak - ever. Even thinned down ones won't do that. CFRP is either going to take the loads, or break. That piece of the car is looking at you and saying "come on then, give me some load if you're hard enough!" So you crash it at 30 mph into a solid barrier and it says "you'll have to try harder than that!" You get the idea...
That is not a reason to go back to the beam. Views are only polarised amongst us mere mortals. The aces are quite clear - the beam is faster. So stick to your guns and run what makes you feel the car is giving you a big smile because in the end that's why we mere mortals do this stupid hobby!!
Stu, glad to hear the car is still giving you a challenge that you are clearly mastering. Who cares where we finish - did we have fun and did we have a great race against our mates - you bet ya! HTH
