|
Post by Ember on Feb 20, 2018 1:14:50 GMT -5
Yes, but remember that Pigs get fat and Hogs get slaughtered !
Also, remember that your current set-up totals up to about 23.5 cubes, compared to the 24 cubes the typical 4 row X 6 set up has. Even so you have a bigger motor with 3 cubes in the very rear, and way better balance on the rear wheels. All else being equal you should win the race.
With moving 4 cubes to the very rear you have an even bigger motor, not quite as good of a balance on the rear wheels, but a leverage that could be iffy with light spongy wheels that could distort through the transition.
Personally, I'm not yet a believer that better rear weight balance at the cost of motor size is the way to go, but I've not done enough with weight bias to form a strong opinion one way or another. IMO however, the better weight balance would be more effective on light spongy wheels,than on heavy stock type wheels. A 50/50 balance would spread the heavy transition load equally, and possibly not overload the strength of either wheel. Imagine as an extreme having a 90/10 balance, you know that thin walled wheel on the 90 side is going to distort in all kind of crazy ways, and toss the car in directions most people have never heard of.
|
|
|
Post by Ember on Feb 20, 2018 15:09:34 GMT -5
For kicks I added a small slab weight to the back of the car to see if it would get loose with the added leverage, the slab = 3 cubes in weight.
The car never got loose, and went straight down the track... It ran great with a 12.5 leverage !
On a side note, the now over weight car was also quicker by .009 due to the added motor of 3 additional cubes in the rear.
|
|
|
Post by Professor Moriarty on Feb 22, 2018 23:40:47 GMT -5
I call my leverage calculator “Ember”... Ok buddy, What am I looking at here?
|
|
|
Post by Ember on Feb 22, 2018 23:57:21 GMT -5
You have a + 11 rear leverage...and a 199 motor when starting with a 10 factor. You also have an 11 cube bias toward the DW side.
For comparison a 4 row X 6 cube set-up has a 0 rear leverage, a 192 motor, and a 0 bias toward the DW side.
|
|
|
Post by Professor Moriarty on Feb 23, 2018 0:34:44 GMT -5
Ok... now THAT is sounding more like the “balls to the walls” type of motor that I am looking for.
|
|
|
Post by Professor Moriarty on Feb 23, 2018 0:38:42 GMT -5
Starting to wonder if Ember is just rattling off numbers though.
|
|
|
Post by Ember on Feb 23, 2018 0:44:47 GMT -5
LM, it's really pretty easy once you get the hang of it....Eagle has it down pat already.
The leverage values are really simple, just keep the seesaw in mind. If you had 6 cubes in the slot directly behind the axle, I could balance them with 1 cube located 6 slots in front of the axle, or 2 cubes 3 slots in front of the axle, or 3 cubes 2 slots in front of the axle, or 6 cubes 1 slot in front of the axle...etc
|
|
|
Post by Chuy on Feb 23, 2018 0:57:00 GMT -5
I'm okay with your leverage factors but I think the engine factors may have an opportunity for improvement. So if all my weight was on the first row, the engine would be 24, where as if they were on the sixth row, the engine would be a 144, correct? This implies to me that it would be 6x as fast or have 6x the energy when in reality it is only 1.3% more energy, not 600%. So if you used the following factors for their respective rows, it shows a more accurate relative energy. (1) 0.992 (2) 0.994 (3) 0.997 (4) 1 (5) 1.002 (6) 1.005 Maybe this is too complicated and that wouldn't be the first time I'm accused of that, but it is how this makes sense to me. There is beauty in simplicity though, so I understand that strength of your method. Here is the math I used to derive these imgur.com/eG9RLp6
|
|
|
Post by Chuy on Feb 23, 2018 0:58:31 GMT -5
This is using the energy method and it is late so pardon any mistakes
|
|
|
Post by Ember on Feb 23, 2018 1:11:48 GMT -5
I agree Chuy...that's why I think starting with a 10 is a bit more accurate. There has to be a number that would average the motor sizes close enough for a relatively accurate comparison.
To me the 6 value was just showing too much difference in motors with just a one slot change . The % of change in motors is much less when starting with a 10.I originally started with a 6 as an arbitrary number due to thinking I wouldn't place a weight more than 6 slots down from the rear.
|
|
Eagle
Goodfella
Posts: 2,228
|
Post by Eagle on Feb 23, 2018 1:19:13 GMT -5
Ember Do you need a vote? Or, are you just going to switch to 10's?
If we are going to switch to 10's then will you please make the page like you did before so that I can print it out and have it on my desk. My crossed out numbers one is a mess.
|
|
|
Post by Ember on Feb 23, 2018 1:32:55 GMT -5
Eagle....I'm still tweaking things a bit with it, but you're better off going with the 10 over the 6. It's really just a tool to compare various set-ups, so the final numbers don't really matter, it's more about how they compare to each other.
|
|
|
Post by Chuy on Feb 23, 2018 1:50:51 GMT -5
my rears 65.5g and 64g
|
|
|
Post by Ember on Feb 23, 2018 11:52:09 GMT -5
Chuy ....please check me out on this....going by the figures you posted, Joe's new motor would be about 2% larger than a typical 4 row X 6 cube set-up.
If so, to get to a similar % in engine size increase using the calculator, it looks like starting with a 13 value at the back of the car would best reflect actual increase/decreases in engine values, at least through the typical six slot area most folks place their weight.
|
|
|
Post by Ember on Feb 23, 2018 11:57:59 GMT -5
my rears 65.5g and 64g Looks like a wheel weight device on the DW side for better lateral balance....but what size motor and leverage ?......for simplicity starting with a 10 value.
|
|