 | | Site updated
|
|
After finishing my site I felt it was lacking in demonstrating the trucks potential so I've added a trailer. The truck can now fulfill it's purpose as a tank transporter. To see it goto (URL) (23 years ago, 28-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Site updated
|
|
(...) Nice job Steve, it is especially good to see the suspension on the tank working as it boards the trailer. I also liked how the tank lurches on the suspension at startup on the tank video, which is something I've never really thought of before (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Site updated
|
|
(...) I'm particulary proud of my suspension because it's fully independant and hardness adjustable. (...) I suspect they do too. I notice in war films the track, just before it feeds back onto the rear drive sprocket, actually travels in a slight (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Site updated
|
|
(...) The truck is pretty slow-movin' (i.e. it's got a lotta power). I'm guessing that the gear ratio is something around 1:1000. Your drive train must be really well built. My experience with my crawler crane (1:1080 ratio on the tracks) taught me (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Site updated
|
|
(...) I'm a big fan of showing my models in action, file size and avaiable web space being major restrictions. (...) I'll say, but not as bad as it could have been. (...) I'm not sure what the ratio is, chassis and drive trains are my speciality as (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Site updated
|
|
(...) I've been thinking about this question again today and after 2 minute's research at: (URL) found out that the speed difference between the gear motor compared with a non-geared motor geared down by a factor of five is only 33%. Therefore you (...) (23 years ago, 18-Aug-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Site updated
|
|
(...) Excellent, we need some real science in this stuff for sure :-) My hunch is still that when geared down to the same rpm the ungeared motors deliver the greater torque, although admittedly I have never done a proper test to establish this. As (...) (23 years ago, 20-Aug-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Site updated
|
|
(...) I think so too! I think it is generally better to use the ungeared motor for applications where you need a quickly spinning thingey. For the small compressor, I usually gear the ungeared motor down using a rubber band and the large pulley, and (...) (23 years ago, 20-Aug-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Site updated
|
|
(...) I think this is the ideal ratio, probably similar to the 1:5 gearing I used by using an 8 tooth onto 40 tooth gear which coincidentally fits into the same space as your pulleys. I found that using gears instead of pulleys made the compressor (...) (23 years ago, 20-Aug-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Site updated
|
|
(...) Sorry, I think it was just something in my mail correspondence with him. He used to have the motors connected to an amp meter, to check for stalling and so on. He compared the power consumption of each motor type under various loads, and (...) (23 years ago, 20-Aug-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Site updated
|
|
(...) I didn't carefully read the rest of this thread, so the following may be redundant. I've been collecting links to info about Technic motors. I too have been pondering the age-old question, "which motor is better?". Anyway, here are a bunch of (...) (23 years ago, 20-Aug-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Site updated
|
|
(...) Well' I wouldn't consider my approach particulary scientific :-). I've fitted the 2 gear motors and it's a big improvement but not in the way you would expect. I repeated the pulling test and the transmisson gives in long before the motors do, (...) (23 years ago, 20-Aug-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
