Notices
 

Thread: I have now released a picture of my car

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 101 to 119 of 119
  1.  
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrewg
    Eddie
    I am annoyed with your rudeness.
    Your approval is not required..

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrewg
    Sigge is very well regarded in speed circles - his equipment is innovative and fast. Sigge is very easy to get along with and has a great ability to laugh at himself and with others.
    Sigge along with his team, may be very good at this but the
    fact is I am just not interested in %99 the stuff on that web site...
    Its was just today there are real pics of real cars.. Many weeks
    after the original clam of "I have now released pictures of my car".

    Now that there are pics of the a working car, I have no problem.

    Eddie Weeks
    http://www.corpcomp.com/weeks1/car/car.html
     

  2.  
    Hello,

    I am running 32 cells. At say 100 Amps I would get approx 1 / cell, so that is 32 V. The GP3300s I have from Hopf in Germany are pushed and matched and have verly low IR.

    Now, the Voltage is not everything. Power is.
    The batteries that Chris used are with today's standards not good at all.
    I am amazed that Chris could go this fast with his old fashioned equipment!

    With today's best of the best GP3300 one could actually get around 5-6000 Wats of power. That is around 6 - 8 HP!
    I use a lower estimate of 5 HP for my setup.


    Sigge

    Quote Originally Posted by mgs9
    Hey sig I was just wondering, how many volts are you running through your car? I think that Cris guy that broke the record was running 17 volts or so.
    Last edited by Sigurd Ruschkow; 09-21-2004 at 03:14 AM.
     

  3.  
    Eddie

    You are right you dont need my approval, however as I was not giving it I am unsure why you mentioned it.

    You seemed so desperate for a photograph rather than a picture and you had to wait all this time. Perhaps a more diplomatic approach would have got it sooner and given you access to more information.
    Last edited by Andrewg; 09-21-2004 at 05:51 AM.
     

  4.  
    Looks good!

    I have a question - What motor and controller is that? Looks nice and I think the length will help to make the car easier to control.

    Looks very cool.
     

  5.  
    Join Date
    05-23-2004
    Location
    Hanover, MD
    Posts
    3,675
    Sigurd, I finally got back to your site and saw your almost finished product of your car. You said earlier that you had some steering sensitivity problems on your test run. How fast did you get to go? I'm also wondering about those vertical stabilizers and high speeds. Granted, I don't have the simulation software and I'm just a couch potato hack, but won't those have a negative effect on your steering making it want to drift at high speeds with a cross wind?

    Lastly, I along with many others, would like to see some video of it running at speed.

    Great work, and viel Glueck dabei!!
     

  6.  
    Join Date
    04-18-2004
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,538
    I would also like to see some video.
     

  7.  
    Hey Sig, i was sitting in school today, board to death thinking. I thought of a theory for some of your traction problems you were talking about. I dont know how accurate they are or if you have already though about this. Ok on your average touring car the there is space between the chassi and the body all the way around, like 2cm or more, so when air passes under the body the air that dosnt make it out throught he back goes up through thoes spaces. It seams your car has no real way for the air pressure underneith to escape so it pushes it up, not alot but enough to lose a little traction. I relize that with no place for the air to go underneith it gives you more arrow dynamics but it could be coasting you some traction. I dont know if that makes cense or not but thats my input.
     

  8.  
    Join Date
    04-01-2003
    Location
    paso robles ca
    Posts
    1,768
    i'm not surprised that vehicle has handling issues. the lack or rear down force has got to cause it to become squirrely. i've ran a car i built a few years ago. went well over 80mph. but it took a lot of trial and error with rear toe and wings (yes, multiple wigs)for down force before i had a car that you can control at high speeds. rear toe in is a must for stability. sig has everything in the right place, but i think that solid axel with no toe adj and the lack of down force will be an issue. jeeze, just buld a flexable wing that will fold down after it has a set amount of force excerted on it.

    here's a pic of my old speedster
     

  9.  
    Join Date
    04-01-2003
    Location
    paso robles ca
    Posts
    1,768
    a naked shot for the curious
     

  10.  
    Join Date
    12-19-2002
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    3,653
    What's your gearing for that car @cool head? Is that a OFNA .26 Engine also?
     

  11.  
    Join Date
    04-01-2003
    Location
    paso robles ca
    Posts
    1,768
    if i recall the gearing was a 22 clutch bell with a custom 40 tooth spur. the engine was a ported omega/pico 21. it was funny how the tirs acted like a second gear. as you got up to full speed, the tires would balloon and it would keep going and going. it usually got about out of sight before it got to full speed.

    sorry didn't mean to hi-jack your thread sig!
     

  12.  
    Hey Sig why do you have your antennae sticking out like that? Dosn't that creat aerodynamic distortion and disrupt the clean flow on top of your body. Could you take the antennae through to the rear of the car and just have it stick barly out the back or would that be worse?
     

  13.  
    Hi,

    go to the web site and there is an almost complete spec of the car.



    Sigurd

    Quote Originally Posted by studysession
    Looks good!

    I have a question - What motor and controller is that? Looks nice and I think the length will help to make the car easier to control.

    Looks very cool.
     

  14.  
    Hi,
    the vertical stabilisers have the same purpose as the vertical wings on jet air planes. To create a momemtum around the CG.
    Too much side wind and I might need to counter steer with the front wheels. If it is stormy I will not race of course.

    Maybe the wings are not optimised for my speeds as they are not wing shaped, but they are a good compromise.

    Rain and more rain has stopped me from doing any speed measurements with the radar gun, but as soon as there will be dry roads I will be at the track!

    Video is low prio at this time.


    Sigurd

    Quote Originally Posted by Piggy89373
    Sigurd, I finally got back to your site and saw your almost finished product of your car. You said earlier that you had some steering sensitivity problems on your test run. How fast did you get to go? I'm also wondering about those vertical stabilizers and high speeds. Granted, I don't have the simulation software and I'm just a couch potato hack, but won't those have a negative effect on your steering making it want to drift at high speeds with a cross wind?

    Lastly, I along with many others, would like to see some video of it running at speed.

    Great work, and viel Glueck dabei!!
     

  15.  
    Good question and the answer I had a while back was that an antenna (be it piano wire or a plastic tube) mounted on the front would bend at the speed we wanna travel, so
    I made the antenna inside a plastic tube so I would know what
    position the antenna would be in at any time.Also, the max length for the Irwindale speed comp is 40" and my guess is that that includes teh antenna at speed.

    The receiver and antenna must be as far away from the speed controller and the motor as possible. The electromagnetic fields those create wil for sure disturb the receiver's functionality. if one mounts the receiver too close to the controoler and motor.

    So far so good,
    but now I have range problems partly due to the fact that the antenna is bent so much.Today I will make another antenna that is higher vertically. Problem is to get the antenna mount strong enough...

    I am not worried about aero dist as I have so much power available.


    Sigurd



    Quote Originally Posted by mgs9
    Hey Sig why do you have your antennae sticking out like that? Dosn't that creat aerodynamic distortion and disrupt the clean flow on top of your body. Could you take the antennae through to the rear of the car and just have it stick barly out the back or would that be worse?
     

  16.  
    You have a point Mr Cool Head.

    At speed I have the diffusor that will create downforce, but at low speeds the diffusor is not creating much downforce at all, so I have to rely on the downforce from the weight of the car.

    Now, the last time I was out I used toe in on the front wheels and also heeted the rear wheels, and the car is now much more stable.

    My problem now is that at say 80 mph I must still continue to accelerate and sometimes one of the rear wheels looses grip due to a bump or a hole or some sand or whatever, and then the car spinns around in a circle.

    At these speeds there is not much time nor visibility to control the car so I am happy if the car just tracks in the direction that I have started the car in.

    Sigurd


    Quote Originally Posted by cool head
    i'm not surprised that vehicle has handling issues. the lack or rear down force has got to cause it to become squirrely. i've ran a car i built a few years ago. went well over 80mph. but it took a lot of trial and error with rear toe and wings (yes, multiple wigs)for down force before i had a car that you can control at high speeds. rear toe in is a must for stability. sig has everything in the right place, but i think that solid axel with no toe adj and the lack of down force will be an issue. jeeze, just buld a flexable wing that will fold down after it has a set amount of force excerted on it.

    here's a pic of my old speedster
     

  17.  
    Join Date
    04-01-2003
    Location
    paso robles ca
    Posts
    1,768
    hay sig, you know, a front heavy car will have way too much over steer. why dont you try moving your battery supply closer to the back of the car. another way i was able to control my car at high speeds was to put some hard compound (less traction) tires on the front so the car doesn't react so violently when you try to correct it. one other thing i found through trial and error was trying a solid rear axel. that made the car way worse to control. i think the use of a torsion diff will help handling and allow you to give the car some rear toe adjustment. you'd be surprised how much some rear toe in will help the car remain stable as it gets above 80mph.
     

  18.  
    Thanks for your input, cool head.

    We have chosen a CG around in the middle of the car so it will not lift in the front of the car. The CG was planned ot be even more to the front but that was not possible due to the weight distribution that the components gave us (could not move some parts too much to the front due to physical limitations).

    Our CG and our vertical wings (fins) will keep the car stable at very very high speeds.

    No problem to go straight anymore.
    At today's racing I went straight for 500 m


    Sigurd

    Quote Originally Posted by cool head
    hay sig, you know, a front heavy car will have way too much over steer. why dont you try moving your battery supply closer to the back of the car. another way i was able to control my car at high speeds was to put some hard compound (less traction) tires on the front so the car doesn't react so violently when you try to correct it. one other thing i found through trial and error was trying a solid rear axel. that made the car way worse to control. i think the use of a torsion diff will help handling and allow you to give the car some rear toe adjustment. you'd be surprised how much some rear toe in will help the car remain stable as it gets above 80mph.
     

  19.  
    How do you feel about my theory up there, dose it make sence or is that not enought space under the car to worrie about it or what.


    Quote Originally Posted by mgs9
    Hey Sig, i was sitting in school today, board to death thinking. I thought of a theory for some of your traction problems you were talking about. I dont know how accurate they are or if you have already though about this. Ok on your average touring car the there is space between the chassi and the body all the way around, like 2cm or more, so when air passes under the body the air that dosnt make it out throught he back goes up through thoes spaces. It seams your car has no real way for the air pressure underneith to escape so it pushes it up, not alot but enough to lose a little traction. I relize that with no place for the air to go underneith it gives you more arrow dynamics but it could be coasting you some traction. I dont know if that makes cense or not but thats my input.
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •