Prototype 2 in perspex

Side skirts? I think you may have me confussed with someone else. Maybe you should look at the other thread where dazzler has put forward his idea of the chassis and lay out. That is the way you need to go with your new chassis.

So build it then

Well i have sat back and thought long and hard about Mr shepps negative comments and i thought to myself how did the wright brothers ever get off the ground people thought they was mad how did the first wheel ever get invented because people had vision so before you haste to condem the chassis along with Mr Dranfield who by the way on facebook said he liked it.
Its easy to be negative harder to be postive nothing like well chaps it looks ok lets hope it runs ok for you guys but know straight kick in the arse from the said Now do tell me just ifthis chassis does go really well you chopped off your nose to spite your face we have the benfit after testing it if we remove some of the side wings what do you have a blob of alloy thats 20 years old
its nice not to knock the those who try but hey we dont all live in the same street drive the same car wear the same clothes and work at the same place how boring would that be!!!!
THINK ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!!

Paul/Gazza

I have thought about it, thats why i have put across my point of view, IMHO the only point on "re-making" this chassis should be to make it superiour. I know there have been issues with screws pulling through, hence the start of all of this, but why not hit the Dave up with some more modern thinking.

The proposed new chassis is a step backwards, Unquestionable, the pictures of what james has done IS something that would have a performance increase and offer further tuning, i had proposed running the servo reversed, that again is another option to look at when doing the testing for better wieght distribution.

I am not being negertive, i am ACUTALLY GIVING POSERTIVE comments to help your project move forward, now take the blinkers off, look around and do some research before you jump in and waste a load of time and effort

If you dont want coments.. dont publish them publically.....

And why dont i make one? because i have no interest in Mardaves..... i think they are a bit edit!

Not a problem mate. . MAKE ONE AND RUN IT tell me how it goes

Then you cant really comment on it can you mate

so what makes it run good / bad / rolls jumps you have no idea as you dont race them but seem to think your chassis is good

So ill say again take your blinkers off mate & make one and run it and TELL ME what works

Love your feed back Daz keep it coming the chassis is not a step back look how long the mardave has stood dead for 25years so we will try the chassis its only going to be track tested before any final things are done and im sure with your knowledge you can see where we are going with XXXXXXXX as for publishing them public the only place they are published is on my site here.
So lets just wait and see what the track results are before we hang draw and qauter the chassis as said before we have the abilty to reduce rework the chassis just like any real car is tested.

WHOOPS FRYING PAN FIRE as you can see its just not been a brainstorm but loads of other options just give us time

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It would be great to see it in action. Would love to see the stealth tc thing in action aswell but still havnt seen it trackside.

So get the chassis on track, show some
Pics and videos with times etc and get it to the national at Hereford if it does well then you have your answers.

Thanks Tomo can you ever see Chris letting this run mate wishfull thinking tho mate

Gazza said in chat he had chatted to someone from the brca and they said he couldn't see any reason why he couldn't run it.
Probably best to ask Gazza for clarity.

thats true as per Russ Giles the 12th chairman

ok guys lets see its a prototype and if its right first time it would be a fiirst it can take years ask any car firm so lets give it a go and it may be it will be a bit of all ideas to get it there but can see paul & gazza are going in the right direction lets improve the car not stand still

Thanks Bindy someone with vision as well

A Bit of R&D for you all. . . . I guess these where all wrong as well PMSL

So the Likes of Parma / Associated / AYK /Corally etc did not know what they where doing

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


I can dig out more if you want but there all based on a wide chassis

And the old Schumacer "C" car this could be the contender to the Dave
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]



Thinking about it I was also the first person to have Disc brakes on a 12th car LOL that's a blast from the past ill have to dig it out

I think those manufacturers had other reasons to run a wide chassis. They had to get around restrictions of what was being run at the time - heavy 6-cell NiCd battery packs and modified, brushed motors and almost every single one used a t-bar rear suspension system too. With this configuration a realtively wide chassis was really the only way around it I think.

Even still, my Associated RC10 was only about 135mm wide (or there abouts) across the chassis. OK, so there were little graphite supports on the back edges but these were to prevent the shell folding under and were not a structural part of the chassis plate.

Don't forget that the 1/10 class that you have shown above

Edit Gazza
No mate these are all 1/12th cars when we ran 6 cell so most of below is in correct

also ran to 235mm wide wheel track and (if I remember correctly) we also had a 5mm minimum ride height. Both these meant that you can 'get away' with having a wider chassis and having the weight further from the centre - the wider track will give more leverage to get over the stiffer side springing needed to stabilise the heavy cells and the higher ride height can allow greater chassis lean before the sides touch the carpet.

From what I remember, Trinity's Evo 10 chassis was the first with a centre pivio and tie-bar rear pod - and it ran its cells down the centre on a very narrow chassis. Associated, X-Ray, Corally etc all now have that system.

These days we are running completely different gear. Our 1s LiPo cells are smaller and lighter, our brushless motors are also a different weight and have different torque reaction characteristics and our 'Daves have a much narrower track and (usually) we run them a LOT closer to the ground. Even still, spy pictures of the new prototype Associated 1/12 car seem to indicate they are planning their 1s LiPo cells to be mounted lengthwise down the chassis rather than across it, but offset slightly to compensate for weight balance.

As I said, Gary and Paul, I'm not knocking your ideas and I am sure your 'top secret' reasons will become clear once this chassis is completed. Have fun with it!

J

lol

i think Gaza and Paul with there combind age of 250 are trying to recreate there youth!

honestly i think the only forethought to the design is so it doesn't look like the original so you don't get into any copying battles with mardave. I really don't want to knock you for trying so this will be my last post on the subject


have fun and good luck

Gazza wrote:A Bit of R&D for you all. . . . I guess these where all wrong as well PMSL

So the Likes of Parma / Associated / AYK /Corally etc did not know what they where doing

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


I can dig out more if you want but there all based on a wide chassis

And the old Schumacer "C" car this could be the contender to the Dave
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]



Thinking about it I was also the first person to have Disc brakes on a 12th car LOL that's a blast from the past ill have to dig it out

Ok now find a modern design with this layout. They may well have had this layout but put them up against a modern 12th car and they'd get crushed. Simple race car dynamics dictates that you want the weight as close as possible to the centreline of the car to reduce excessive yaw. That was all I was saying.

ginnnga wrote:
Ok now find a modern design with this layout. They may well have had this layout but put them up against a modern 12th car and they'd get crushed. .

Ok heres one by serpent any thing else you want me to find

.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]



A modern 12th Karl Yes but your missing ONE thing and ill say it again . . . its not a 12th its a 20yr old Mardave thats being done

ginnnga wrote:
"Simple race car dynamics dictates that you want the weight as close as possible to the centreline of the car to reduce excessive yaw. That was all I was saying. ".

And as you have seen the finished car with all the gear in please post a picture of it because I would love to see where I put every thing


So this lay out is better than the Old Dave yes . . . can you see it now

@ Jimbojames

Thanks its all down to my theory and getting it tested

@ Dazler

combind age of 250 is in fact our IQ henc the reason you cant grasp or have no idea on what we are doing but dont worry it will all be revealed soon. . .

Anyone who quotes an I.Q figure as reason for them being right automaticaly loses the arguement by rule of being a cock

I prefer results as proof of an idea being good.
Gazza has many years of experience to draw from so I am sure it wont take him long to achieve what ever the maximum this new chassis can give, whether that be better or worse laptimes.

Just let Gazza bring the chassis to the national and race it next week and if he kills everyone then its clearly quicker because he wasnt top three with the new mardave ce chassis at the last national so then if the only thing that has changed is his chassis and not anything else it must be that the chassis is making the difference.


SOoooooooo lets wait and see guys the clock is going to be the best judge

Oh yea I forgot you hate my IQ and intelagance and for being Cock sure PMSL

Thanks for that Tomo but as he says and I think he may know what im up to . . LOL

Curse you Tomo but Mums the word Shhhh LOL

Well said Tomo well said mate unlike how a lot of people would like we have not put all our eggs in one basket we have room for this that and the other and the big bit we are not telling you guys well you will just have to wait and see. there is a lot more to this chassis than is being shown but all will be on the prototype.
Im glad you are throwing your backing into this Tomo and we take on board all comments.
Now dazzler 250 whoooooooooooooo you need to buy a calculater mate miles off the mark we may look old foggys just we had a hard life as kids as for @copyright well the p2 looks nothing like a copy of the Mardave.
But dazzler i have word that spec saves are doing a great line in buy one get one free glasses maybe if you get some you will just see how good looking me and Gazza are.
At the end of the day its cost me and gazza money time and effort and all we are trying to do is move on. so now lets wait and see them on the track being tested

I will support anyone who puts effort into trying to improve something but all the arguing is pointless as the clock won't lie at the end of the 5min everyone will know if it's any good or not.

Gazza the I.Q doesn't fuss me infact I find you hugely entertaining in many ways but saying on a forum essentially I must be correct as I am super smart is, in itself very stupid. But of course I fully expect a daft reply to this.
Pmsl I do hope you go to the extreme with what we spoke about the other day on the chassis as you will need to, to make it work at a low enough speed to make it worth while having the "wings"
Anyhoooo Karl if you read this, you racing Hereford Sunday?

LOL I knew you would bite on the I.Q thing yo do so make me Laugh by saying things I did not write LOL

Tomo wrote: I do hope you go to the extreme with what we spoke about the other day on the chassis as you will need to, to make it work at a low enough speed to make it worth while having the "wings"

Yep thats it PM me any thoughts or drawings to incorparate it

well firstly Tommo, if there was a quote this year that has made me proper PMSL its
"Anyone who quotes an I.Q figure as reason for them being right automaticaly loses the arguement by rule of being a cock"
you sir are a god! lmfao!!!!

right my 2 coppers worth.

i have seen this flagging up in my news feed on Face tube and been trying to find time to jump on here and have a nose at the plan,

firstly i think that negative opinions are as helpful as positive opinions as long as they are not con-descending.

from what i can tell is this is a project to replace the standard chassis of a local antique RC formula, XXXXXXX (please correct me if wrong ) if this is the only goal then you go guys, if it works then major bonus.
i personally have gone down the route of the making my own cars to my own design, and glad to say they have worked (really well with the WGT 10R5 shep.1) WHICH WAS my best work to date! and my 1/12th Tyrell tribute ran out of steam but the majority is ready to carry on with if can be arsed

what i trying to say is, if you know what you want to accomplish and you can do that then fair play to ya!! hats off etc but if it dont work then you have found another way not to do something!!

right, now from an engineering side, another opinion.
as seen my Gazz's vintage RC Porn the cars of yester-year were on the 'wide' variety but as correctly stated this was to house 6 cell saddle packs so the only way to put em was either side of a 'T'bar for the suspension. but i cant help agree with the 'Bobby' Dazzler if the chassis was to be narrow it would allow for better COG along with better assisting in roll centres. if it dont need to be wide then dont do it.
alot of the off-road kit now (electric and nitro) have moved everything to the middle of the chassis and my main concern is the chassis dragging into the corners causing the weight to be lifted of the wheels causing poor traction and in turn spinning out. on the plus side it does looks the bollocks and fingers crossed it works, i would hate to see you guys loose money on this.
from a racing point of view i would look at going the other way and that is with an adjustable front end and a very narrow chassis with maybe a lipo brace/top deck with flex'vary' ability to mount your ESC and receiver on, reverse the servo and run a lipo length ways and a less medieval rear suspension. but then is it then a 'Mardave class' car ( i own the rights on this narrow chassis plan and royalties will need to be paid in beer tokens )

so can i ask what you are aiming to achieve?

Mensa 182