|
|
 Posted 3/29/2017 6:26:26 PM |
|
|
Has NO LIFE!!
Last Login: 12/4/2023 11:08:55 PM
Posts: 3,232,
Visits: 5,166
|
|
hey sly,
Forgot something.
I remember you saying you bought the 3D models for the gun pod and the full size Batmobile.
What do you think of them. Are they proving useful in your research, planning, and building? vertigo
|
|
|
|
| Posted 3/29/2017 8:03:32 PM |
|
|
Supreme Being
Last Login: 4/6/2024 5:28:59 PM
Posts: 1,684,
Visits: 5,334
|
|
| They are very detailed. It's awesome you can remove parts. For example, I could just remove the guns from the turret assembly and have those 3D printed if I wanted to. I actually haven't used it on any of the build yet though. So far just doing it with measurements from the Moebius model and some visual cues from the Jada model.
|
|
|
|
| Posted 3/29/2017 8:05:58 PM |
|
|
Supreme Being
Last Login: 4/6/2024 5:28:59 PM
Posts: 1,684,
Visits: 5,334
|
|
Thanks for the kind words friends. If nothing else I think this will make a cool driveway display on Halloween. 
|
|
|
|
| Posted 4/2/2017 11:58:53 AM |
|
|
Forum Member
Last Login: 3/31/2020 4:09:05 AM
Posts: 192,
Visits: 995
|
|
| Mate you are further into having a real car than you think. Because you are making the body from wood you are making yourself a brilliant mould to fibreglass over. I am totallly converted. I have used fibre glass for small repairs to bumpers etc before but forming large items and body panels is straightforward easy and fun. Its so forgiving just roll on the resin cut the roll of mat up and get shaping.
|
|
|
|
| Posted 4/4/2017 6:34:23 PM |
|
|
Supreme Being
Last Login: 4/6/2024 5:28:59 PM
Posts: 1,684,
Visits: 5,334
|
|
| Got the passenger side rear box put on today. I've done a little bit more work on the defensive weapons array. Plan on doing some work on the front of the car this week. It's been raining every day here so makes it hard.
|
|
|
|
| Posted 4/4/2017 6:52:12 PM |
|
|
Supreme Being
Last Login: 4/6/2024 5:28:59 PM
Posts: 1,684,
Visits: 5,334
|
|
I've been thinking about the idea of using a donor. So here's an idea I would like to run past the mechanic/car builder gurus here.
What if:
You take a pick up and strip it down.
Keep the motor, transmission, etc. intact
Take the suspension and switch it around so that the steering is opposite the motor. The frame humps up in the rear so that may need to be modified.
Now you have the motor in the back like it needs to be. Put in a V-drive transfer case and run the driveshaft back alongside the engine.
Attach swing arms to the end of the frame and attach the rear axle and suspension components to that.
Might need to cut and reform the frame in the front, but I think it might be an easy way to get the car to be rear engine.
Please, give me any thoughts. Positive or negative.
|
|
|
|
| Posted 4/5/2017 2:29:01 PM |
|
|
Forum Member
Last Login: 8/14/2021 5:54:38 AM
Posts: 496,
Visits: 2,058
|
|
I used Part of a truck frame on my build and if I were to do it over again I would just build the whole frame. It would be faster, easier, and the end result would be better. The factory frame has so many little bends up, down, in, and out that it ends up wasting space and it is a pain to measure off of. Once the body is stripped away there really isn't much holding the engine and suspension to the frame so fabricating those parts isn't a huge task especially if you have to change the suspension anyway. The added cost of steel would be negligible, steel is one of the cheapest parts of building a Batmobile.
"there ain't no bat!"
|
|
|
|
| Posted 4/5/2017 2:54:50 PM |
|
|
Supreme Being
Last Login: 4/6/2024 5:28:59 PM
Posts: 1,684,
Visits: 5,334
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted 4/7/2017 8:28:24 PM |
|
|
Has NO LIFE!!
Last Login: 12/4/2023 11:08:55 PM
Posts: 3,232,
Visits: 5,166
|
|
"I've been thinking about the idea of using a donor. So here's an idea
I would like to run past the mechanic/car builder gurus here.
What if:
You take a pick up and strip it down.
Keep the motor, transmission, etc. intact
Take the suspension and switch it around so that the steering is
opposite the motor. The frame humps up in the rear so that may need to
be modified.
Now you have the motor in the back like it needs to be. Put in a
V-drive transfer case and run the driveshaft back alongside the
engine.
Attach swing arms to the end of the frame and attach the rear axle and
suspension components to that.
Might need to cut and reform the frame in the front, but I think it
might be an easy way to get the car to be rear engine.
Please, give me any thoughts. Positive or negative?"
I think this is an excellent idea. Over the past month, or so, I
pretty much have come to almost exactly the same set of conclusions.
Thinking about this so much is why I have not jumped in and torn my
donor vehicle down yet. This method has been done before successfully.
I read about it being done in other types of build forums but they
didn’t have any photo images posted and they only generalized about
how they completed their conversions. I have been searching the web
for books on these “switch conversions” but have yet to find one.
Also currently studying low profile engines that could be mounted in the front that would allow for conventional driveshaft arrangements. High performance Subaru, VW, Porsche, Boxer, etc. engines have
definite possibilities as do various small and medium size bus
engine/transaxle systems. Also looking at some of the modular building techniques. vertigo
|
|
|
|
| Posted 4/7/2017 8:43:58 PM |
|
|
Has NO LIFE!!
Last Login: 12/4/2023 11:08:55 PM
Posts: 3,232,
Visits: 5,166
|
|
hey sly,
Might have to weight the front end on this vehicle a little to move the center of balance forward a little, so as to off-set some of the stability and potentially lethal characteristic issues?
Rear-Engine, rear mounted engines, and rear-wheel-drive layout.
The disadvantage to a rear weight bias is that the car can become
unstable and tend to over-steer.
In turns, this tendency is much more pronounced, to the point that
even letting off the throttle slightly while turning can cause the
rear tires to suddenly lose grip, and the vehicle to slide rear-first
(see lift-off over-steer).
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
RR layout
“In automotive design, an RR, or Rear-engine, Rear-wheel-drive layout
places both the engine and drive wheels at the rear of the vehicle. In
contrast to the RMR layout, the center of mass of the engine is
between the rear axle and the rear bumper.
Most of the traits of the RR configuration are shared with the
mid-engine rear-wheel-drive, or MR. Placing the engine near the driven
rear wheels allows for a physically smaller, lighter, less complex,
and more efficient drivetrain, since there is no need for a
driveshaft, and the differential can be integrated with the
transmission, commonly referred to as a transaxle. The front-engine
front-wheel-drive layout also has this advantage.
Since the engine is typically the heaviest component of the car,
putting it near the rear axle usually results in more weight over the
rear axle than the front, commonly referred to as a rear weight bias.
The farther back the engine, the greater the bias. Typical weight bias
for an FR (front engine, rear drive), is 55/45 front/rear; for MR,
45/55; for RR, 35/65. Rear weight bias reduces forward weight transfer
under braking, and increases rear weight transfer under acceleration.
The former means that traction is more evenly distributed among all
four wheels under braking, resulting in shorter stopping times and
distances. The latter means that the driven wheels have increased
traction when accelerating, allowing them to put more power on the
ground and accelerate faster.
The disadvantage to a rear weight bias is that the car can become
unstable and tend to oversteer when decelerating (whether braking or
lifting off the throttle). In turns, this tendency is much more
pronounced, to the point that even letting off the throttle slightly
while turning can cause the rear tires to suddenly lose grip, and the
vehicle to slide rear-first (see lift-off oversteer). When this
happens, rotational inertia dictates that the added weight away from
the axis of rotation (generally the steering wheels) will be more
likely to maintain the spin, especially under braking. This is an
inherent instability in the design, making it easier to induce and
more difficult to recover from a slide than in a less
rear-weight-biased vehicle. All cars, regardless of drivetrain layout,
obey the same laws of physics and can do this, but it is much easier
to do and harder to correct in MR and RR vehicles.
When not braking, the decreased weight over the front wheels means
less traction, resulting in the car having a tendency to understeer,
which is safer and more stable (further allowing a driver to get on
full throttle sooner) but is undesirable in cornering. To counteract
this, it is necessary to induce forward weight transfer to increase
front grip, but this significantly destabilizes the car and can be
hard to do properly, that is, without spinning. High-performance
driving necessitates inducing weight transfer, regardless of
drivetrain layout, but it is more important in MR and especially RR
layouts, and the greater effect from it is more difficult to handle.
In these respects, an RR can be considered to be an exaggeration of MR
- harder braking, faster and earlier acceleration, and increased
oversteer, but faster turning if it can be controlled.
In off road and low-traction situations, the RR layout has some
advantages compared to other 2WD layouts. The weight is biased towards
the driven wheels- as with FF vehicles. This both improves drive-wheel
traction and reduces the tendency for the undriven wheels to dig in.
In addition, the driving and steering requirements are split between
front and rear- as with FR vehicles- making it less likely for either
to lose traction. Many dune buggies successfully use a Volkswagen
beetle as the donor car for this reason. The relative simplicity and
light weight compared to 4WD can therefore sometimes outweigh the
disadvantage of only having two driven wheels.
Where RR differs from MR is in that the engine is located outside the
wheelbase. The major advantage of MR - low moment of inertia - is
negated somewhat (though still lower than FR), and there is more room
for passengers and cargo (though usually less than FR). Furthermore,
because both axles are on the same side of the engine, it is
technically more straightforward to drive all four wheels, than in a
mid-engine configuration (though there have been more high-performance
cars with the M4 layout than with R4). Finally, a rear-mounted engine
has empty air (often at a lower pressure) behind it when moving,
allowing more efficient cooling for air-cooled vehicles (more of which
have been RR than liquid-cooled, such as the Volkswagen Beetle, and
one of the few production air-cooled turbocharged cars, the Porsche
930).
For liquid-cooled vehicles, however, this layout presents a
disadvantage, since it requires either increased coolant piping from a
front-mounted radiator (meaning more weight and complexity), or
relocating the radiator(s) to the sides or rear, and adding air
ducting to compensate for the lower airflow at the rear of the car.
Due to the handling difficulty, the need for more space efficiency,
and the near ubiquitous use of liquid-cooled engines in modern cars,
most manufacturers have abandoned the RR layout. The major exception
is Porsche, who has developed the 911 for over 40 years and has taken
advantage of the benefits of RR while mitigating its drawbacks to
acceptable levels, lately with the help of electronic aids.
|
|
|
|