RC EVOLUTION - 遙控工房 - 香港RC遙控車討論區

標題: 1:10 F1 vs touring [打印本頁]

作者: gtimax 時間: 2010-2-17 22:31
標題: 1:10 F1 vs touring
點解真車是f1快, 1:10是touring快?(不限摩打)
似乎是因為touring風壓大的關係, 但真車點解唔得?
大家幫手分析下!

作者: bigman0712 時間: 2010-2-17 22:34

點解真車是f1快, 1:10是touring快?(不限摩打)
似乎是因為touring風壓大的關係, 但真車點解唔得?
大家幫手分析下!
gtimax 發表於 2010-2-17 22:31

登錄/註冊後可看大圖

咁點解真車撞車會死人.....1/10撞車唔會死人

.......

作者: f-16 時間: 2010-2-17 23:03
設計都吾同。

作者: tb03 時間: 2010-2-17 23:31
1# gtimax
兩種是完全截然不同車種很難作出比較,搖控模型車同真車亦是無得比較

作者: newkid 時間: 2010-2-18 01:33
本帖最後由 newkid 於 2010-2-18 01:58 編輯

May be Ching can look at the following departments to understand why, in the real world, F1 cars can go around a circuit much faster than touring cars (e.g. the Japan Super GT500 series). The 2009 best laptime at Suzuka for F1 is 1'32.569 while that for GT500 is 1'58.093.

1. Power-to-weight ratio
GT500: e.g. for the 2009 Lexus Petronas TOM's SC430, the power-to-weight ratio is estimated to be 500bhp/1100kg = 0.45bhp/kg
F1: e.g. for the 2009 Ferrari F60, the power-to-weight ratio is estimated to be 780bhp/600kg = 1.3bhp/kg

Hence, F1 has much better power-to-weight ratio and so it can provide better acceleration and can attain higher top speed given the same distance to accelerate.

Similarly, as F1 cars are much lighter, given the same braking force, F1 cars can brake much later and require much shorter braking distance.

2. Tire-grip
F1 has much wider tires which can create more grip than the narrower tires of touring cars. As such, F1 can go around corners at a much higher speed without skidding and it can accelerate/decelerate much harder.

3. Aerodynamics
The analysis isn't as straight forward as the previous two as:
1. F1 has a open-wheel design which causes turbulence and so such aerodynamics is not as efficient as GT500 which is close-wheel
2. on the other hand, the aerodynamic effect of wings and bodyworks of the two series are not obvious to me as:
a) large wing tends to create more downforce but, at the same time, it produces more drag
b) the body shapes between F1 and touring cars are largely different (e.g. F1 has pointed nose and large sidepods which touring cars don't have), so not exactly sure which one is more efficient aerodynamically

Yet, I tend to think the overall aerodynamic efficiency of F1 cars is better

Perhaps you can perform a similar analysis for 1/10 RC cars and try to understand why the interaction among these three aspects on 1/10 touring cars can make them go faster than 1/10 F1

For me, I think tire-grip and power-to-weight ratio dominate in 1/10 RC cars and tire-grip is the limiting factor. Besides, 1/10 RC touring is 4WD and you have 4-wheel-braking (assuming one-way is not use) while that for 1/10 F1 is RWD and it has rear-wheel-braking only.

作者: rc2006 時間: 2010-2-18 01:46
No. F-1 aerodynamic efficieny is worst than GT500 car. Just that the areodrag is transfer
into downforce and it makes F1 car corner much faster than GT500 car. But in a long track
(if F1 ever run at LeMan) side by side with GT500 I think GT500 will win.

作者: manhunt 時間: 2010-2-18 02:01
乜rc f1唔夠touring快架咩？

作者: tomatchinhk 時間: 2010-2-18 09:59
大家可以上 mms 留意下尾區快定四區快.... F-1 是需要很平，高traction 的路面才能發揮 !!

作者: ericho 時間: 2010-2-18 10:48

No. F-1 aerodynamic efficieny is worst than GT500 car. Just that the areodrag is transfer
into downforce and it makes F1 car corner much faster than GT500 car. But in a long track
(if F1 ever run at ...
rc2006 發表於 2010-2-18 01:46

登錄/註冊後可看大圖

F1 極速和加速都在gt500之上, gt500係因為波牙密,先有咁好加速

作者: gtimax 時間: 2010-2-18 11:35
嘩大家既分析好勁好pro, 我地繼續討論應該會找出原因!

作者: tc3driver 時間: 2010-2-18 11:59
本帖最後由 tc3driver 於 2010-2-18 12:04 編輯

上面有師兄說" Power-to-weight ratio"已經解釋了,
TOM's SC430 真車重量 = 1100kg
F1真車重量 = 600kg
如果以十份一比例計算
1/10 TOM's SC430 模型重量應該是110kg (242磅)
1/10 F1模型重量應該是60kg (132磅, 如果真係有架百幾磅的搖控車就會撞得瓜人

)
在真實世界F1重量只有一半,馬力又大,如果以這個重量比賽,F1一定快,
但在十份一的模型世界裹,車重相差不夠一半,亦只得一點幾kg,馬力又差不多,所以與真實世界不一樣
(在直路1/10 F1一定快過房車)

作者: babyboomer 時間: 2010-2-18 12:13
點解真實飄移要兩驅, 而1/10要四驅既?

作者: manhunt 時間: 2010-2-18 12:15
1:10車既長度係10分之1
體積同重量都係1000分之1

作者: sunday 時間: 2010-2-18 12:23
點解我的真車個馬達大小像一台冰箱

作者: sunday 時間: 2010-2-18 12:25
點解 1:10 模型噴射機不能超音速 ??

作者: newkid 時間: 2010-2-18 12:30
16# sunday

emm... do u think model plane can withstand the sonic boom as it goes thru the sonic barrier? i wonder if it will disintegrate

作者: gtimax 時間: 2010-2-18 12:43
"在直路1/10 F1一定快過房車"
how about cornering?

作者: rt476 時間: 2010-2-18 13:12
1:10 F1 膠呔有邊隻好咬過 sorex 36r...

作者: sunday 時間: 2010-2-18 16:49

16# sunday

emm... do u think model plane can withstand the sonic boom as it goes thru the sonic barrier? i wonder if it will disintegrate
newkid 發表於 2010-2-18 12:30

登錄/註冊後可看大圖

no~
in theory, we can craft a super sonic model. not even M.I.T. ..
but,
you cannot control such a fast moving object on the groud~~~~

hehe ~ ~
1:10 F1 vs touring
such a stupid question here ~~~~

作者: gtimax 時間: 2010-2-19 23:10
haha , would you point out which veiw is stupid?

作者: nick7 時間: 2010-2-20 05:51
f104 3000KV入大場都好鬼快

作者: Vista2007 時間: 2010-2-20 19:48
I don't think it is stupid in any sense but in fact it is a very good discussion going on here.
If more posts like this and less sarcastic in this forum it will be more readable and informative.

作者: xiang 時間: 2010-2-20 20:09

I don't think it is stupid in any sense but in fact it is a very good discussion going on here.
If more posts like this and less sarcastic in this forum it will be more readable and informative.
Vista2007 發表於 2010-2-20 19:48

登錄/註冊後可看大圖

I totally agree Vista2007. Good question and a great, well thought out response from newkid, who actually took the time to explain the reasoning in his response.

作者: gtimax 時間: 2010-2-20 23:57
點解12仔, pro10 可以快過touring 而f1唔得?會唔會f1 車架唔夠好?
好簡單,我以前用f103 leman gt1 殼跑棉呔在egr可以快過touring, 但用f1殼d灣就慢過touring好多好多....
咁問題在那裡? 是否f1殼不夠像真提供不到足夠風壓?

作者: littleboy 時間: 2010-2-21 00:34
本帖最後由 littleboy 於 2010-2-21 00:35 編輯

一般黎講, F1車的downforce大部分係靠車底 (even 係ban左ground effect之後) ge氣流, 而房車就主要靠車上面ge氣流... 咁我諗呢一方面 rc 有排都未模擬得到...
呢個未必係主因, 但係我諗都值得考慮下...

真實ge房車其實都有d款會用多d車底氣流做downforce, 最睇得出同RC ge 分別就係F430, 好多師兄同埋之前有一個post都講過F430殼非常無grip無downforce....
不過我估in general, 論o係RC vs 真實世界個分別, 點都無F1車咁大....
所以F1車殼個樣造得似, 其實都係得個樣... F1 teams 億億聲咁行個wind tunnel, 仲要keep住全年有update, 當中好多details野應該唔會係我地用幾百蚊買個殼就simulate得到~ 淨係個車底已經唔係果回事...

作者: librayiu 時間: 2010-2-21 00:39
我試下估下, 會唔會係 F1 車殼o係真車世界既高速下能產生強勁下壓力, 但係 down scale 落去 1:10 之後, 以 rc 車既速度所產生既下壓力並唔係依比例如想像中般強勁?

作者: littleboy 時間: 2010-2-21 00:44
再講... 而家我地d叫做touring car ge RC, 個設計跟本係正過"縮細十倍ge房車"~
rc touring個車架layout基本上仲racing-oriented過 rc F1個layout咁濟 (我未玩過rc F1, 但我見大部分師兄玩ge F1車架都係唔用尾獨立懸掛ge設計, 前軸個懸掛設計都係相對簡單)

咁多樣唔同, 好似好難用返真實世界個picture去比較咁~

作者: sunday 時間: 2010-2-21 00:54
if you compare toy car with 1:1,
you will get yourself into a cow horn point ~

well, some topic is " for discuss"," To discuss the discussion of ",
it always get to nowhere.

anyway.... interesting to read some freakish thoery

作者: gtimax 時間: 2010-2-21 09:50
sunday ching可否指點下d後輩?
討論區咪討論下羅!

作者: rcmodel 時間: 2010-2-21 13:08
ANYBODY試過同一犘打不同車架,係F1快定 /110快

作者: gtimax 時間: 2010-2-22 17:46
it is very hard to tell, F1 way fast on straight, touring fast at corner.....

作者: chiwingedwinlo 時間: 2010-2-22 18:00
I agree w littleboy c-hing !

作者: gtimax 時間: 2010-2-22 21:56
little boy 的分析一針見血! 討論區就係要有你們先有意思!
相信車架方面好肯定1:10touring比f1好很多,
車殼及風壓又如何?

作者: binary 時間: 2010-2-24 13:57
This is an interesting topic and I agree with what littleboy said. I think this discussion can be analysed from various angles.....

1. Engine difference - In 1:1, the difference between a F1 engine and a touring car engine is huge, no matter the touring car is WTCC or DTM, there's no way to compare it with the engine designed for the pinnacle of motorsport - Formula One!  Think about this, nowadays, a F1 engine could only need to last for around 1500km, then it can go to rubbish bin!  During 80s era when turbo engine was allowed, a 1500cc Honda turbo charged F1 engine can produce 1400bhp during qualifying trim!!  But the engine could last for less than 20 laps which its life was purely designed for that qualifying session!!  1:1 touring car will not burn money like this, so 1:1 F1's engine is surely better and faster than touring car.  But in RC, we'll only put on the same motor (say TeamPower 4000kv) to a F1 or touring car, so power-wise, RC F1 has no advantage over RC touring car!

2. Tyre difference - Remember the rule of how to setup a car in motor racing... the first priority should be the tyre, if you get your tyres right, your car setup is 90% there!  In 1:1, F1 tyre produce vast amount of grip, more than what touring car's tyre can produce!  In RC, form and rubber tyres can be used in both RC F1 and touring car, so RC F1 will not have an upper hand in this aspect!  As you all know, Sorex tyres that we used in RC touring car is so good that RC F1 rubber tyre has no way to compare with it!

3. Aerodynamics - 1:1 F1 is specially designed for pure racing, 1:1 touring car has some sort of limitation that it mostly bases on a road-going version although you can add more wings, spoiler to it.  However F1 is basically an aeroplane upside down!!  Tonnes of downforce is generated purely by that super sophisticated rear wing!  Air strategically flows through the car body to produce various downforce by different spoilers, winglets, diffuser, badge board etc.  Touring car is also sophisticated in aerodynamics, but still miles behind a F1 car!  In RC, we must not forget the rule - air doesn't scale!  In 1:1 F1, wings shape is the same as aeroplane but upside down, downforce is generated when air flows faster in the lower part of the wing (due to curved surface) and becomes a low pressure area, upper part of the wing has higher pressure which produces downforce.  Since air doesn't scale, this theory has no (or just little) effect on RC because wings are scaled to 1:10, but air doesn't!  So we'll only see RC car's rear wing is 90 degree and just force the air goes upward to produce downforce.  This is effective to generate downforce as you should feel it when using racing bodies such as Protoform shells' rear wing.  But RC F1 has to maintain its outlook to looks like real F1 car, the wing cannot use those 90 degree wing, those real-looking wing cannot produce downforce for RC F1 car!

4. Weight difference - 1:1 F1 is much lighter than 1:1 touring car (due to race rule), everybody knows that lighter race car is always better, at least from power to weight ratio perspective.  How about RC?  I haven't played RC F1, so I don't know how light it is, but comparing to RC touring car, it could be just a bit lighter, but the weight advantage will not be as huge as in 1:1 F1.

5. Chassis difference - 1:1 F1's chassis is purely designed for racing, designer can forget about practicality, it can be JUST for racing.  But 1:1 touring car is mostly based on road-going version, which has lots of limitation there!  Also, the centre of gravity in 1:1 F1 is much lower than touring car, which enables the car has better handling around corners.  In RC car, since all eyes are on touring car (or buggy) in the market, the RC touring car chassis is more well developed than RC F1, and RC F1 has to maintain it's "real looking" feel to 1:1 F1, so a lot of limitation hinders its performance design!

6. Economic theory - "Value for money", I can't say it is 100% true, but at least 95% true!  How much money invested into developing a 1:1 F1 car?  How much does it cost? It's a billions dollar thing... surely much more expensive than running a 1:1 touring car team!  So, it's reasonable that F1 goes quicker and have a better lap time!  How about RC, it could be the other way around.... consider a high end touring car chassis like 416X, T3, it's well over $3,000, how about a high end RC F1 chassis?  I don't know how much it is, but surely cheaper than this.  Pay more money to have a better thing, reasonable and expected!

My 2 cents.

作者: gtimax 時間: 2010-2-25 16:48
quote"1。發動機的區別 - 在1:1，區別一個 F1引擎和房車的引擎是巨大的，無論房車是房車錦標賽或數字地面模型，沒有辦法比較它與引擎設計的賽車運動的頂峰 - 一級方程式！想一想，現在，一個 F1引擎將只需要為期約一千五公里，那麼它可以去垃圾桶！在80年代時，渦輪增壓發動機，不准一1500cc本田車隊增壓發動機可以在排位賽中產生 1400bhp裝飾！但是，發動機可能會持續不到20圈的生命純粹是設計的排位賽！ 1:1房車賽不會燒錢這樣，所以1:1車隊的發動機無疑是更好，更快的比房車賽。但是在鋼筋混凝土中，我們將只放在相同的電機（例如TeamPower 4000kv）到F1或房車，所以，功率計，鋼筋混凝土F1已經沒有優勢了遙控車賽！

2。輪胎的區別 - 記住的規則如何設置一個汽車賽車 ...第一優先應該是輪胎，如果你的輪胎正確，你的車安裝有90％！在1:1，F1的輪胎生產大量的抓地力，更比房車的輪胎會產生！在鋼筋混凝土，形成及橡膠輪胎可用於兩局F1和房車賽，F1將會使區局沒有一個上風，在這方面的！大家都知道，鼩輪胎，我們使用的遙控車賽是太好，區局橡膠輪胎的車隊無法比擬的！

3。空氣動力學 - 1:1 F1是專為純粹的比賽，1:1房車賽有某種限制，它的主要基地，在公路版，但您可以添加更多的翅膀，擾流它。不過 F1的飛機基本上是倒！噸的壓力產生純粹的超精密的尾翼！空軍戰略流經車身下壓力，以生產各種不同的破壞者，翼梢小翼，擴散，徽章板等房車是非常成熟，在空氣動力學，但仍遠遠甩在後面 F1賽車！在區局，我們決不能忘記的規則 - 空氣沒有規模！在1:1，三亞，翅膀的形狀是相同的飛機，但上下顛倒，壓力時產生的空氣流動速度在較低部分翼（由於曲面），成為一個低氣壓區，上半部分的翼較高的壓力產生的下壓力。由於空氣不規模，這種理論還沒有（或只有很少）鋼筋混凝土的影響，因為翅膀縮放為 1:10，但空氣不！因此，我們將只能看到遙控賽車的尾翼是90度和正義的力量去向上的空氣產生壓力。這是對產生壓力，你應該覺得這比賽時使用機構，如Protoform砲彈'尾翼。但遙控 F1已經保持其前景看起來像真正的F1賽車，機翼不能使用這些右翼90度，那些真正的前瞻性翼不能產生下壓力的鋼筋混凝土的F1賽車！

4。重量差異 - 1:1 F1是輕得多1:1房車賽（由於比賽規則），大家都知道，輕賽車總是更好，至少從動力重量比的觀點。怎麼遙控？我還沒有鋼筋混凝土的F1比賽，所以我不知道這是光線，但鋼筋混凝土相比，房車，它可能只是有點輕，但體重優勢將不會像巨大的車隊在1:1。

5。底盤的區別 - 1:1 F1的底盤純粹是為比賽，設計師可以忘記的實用性，它可以是公正的比賽。 1:1房車賽，但主要是基於公路版，它有許多的限制！此外，重心在1:1 F1是遠低於房車，使汽車具有較好的處理轉彎。在遙控車，因為所有的目光都集中在房車（或馬車）在市場上，區局房車底盤更發達的F1比鋼筋混凝土和鋼筋混凝土車隊要保持它的“真正的希望”的感覺，1:1，三亞，所以很多限制，阻礙了其性能設計！

6。經濟理論 - “物有所值”，我不能說這是100％真實，但至少95％的真！多少錢投入開發一個 1:1 F1賽車？多少錢？這是一個數十億美元的事情...昂貴得多，肯定比運行 1:1房車車隊！因此，它的合理的車隊去更快，有更好的圈速！怎麼樣遙控，可以反過來 ....考慮高端房車底盤像416X，北京T3，它遠遠超過 3000美元，怎麼樣一個高端遙控 F1的底盤？我不知道是多少，但肯定比這更便宜。支付更多的錢有更好的東西，合理的和預期！"quote

好多謝binary師兄指點,如果英文ok的網友應十分滿足他的分析, 真係智慧型本色!

作者: gtimax 時間: 2010-2-25 16:56
哩d先係討論! 我地係需要這般有見地的討論!
唔係走出黎鬧d post有幾低b, 你有料就寫d野出黎教下我們d後生, 你睇唔起我地可以唔出聲,但唔駛鬧啦,仲要唔止鬧一次. 如果你做板主可以刪除個post啦,你又唔係.

作者: billgate803 時間: 2010-2-25 18:59
本帖最後由 billgate803 於 2010-2-25 19:01 編輯

其實1/10TOURING 隻尾翼 "DOWNFORCE設計"~ 如1/1隻尾翼係用同樣形狀是超大下壓力的~

所以1/10TOURING下壓力~ 一定比1/1真車的外殼更大~

1/10的F1隻尾翼是模仿真車~ 所以下壓力很接近真車~
所以1/10F1的下壓力~ 不會比1/1F1的下壓力大~
而且1/10F1的尾下壓力不勝1/1~ 有很多模型廠商都有出"尾底繞流" ~ 可改善1/10尾下壓力不足問題~

作者: billgate803 時間: 2010-2-25 19:07
另外車速~
我們的1/10 TOURING 1/10 F1都OVER 60KM/HOUR~

如1/1來比例~ 已去到時速OVER 600KM/HOUR~

1/1 F1現實也不能以RWD的情況下走 600KM/HOUR~

而現實中的GT500 都是RWD~ 由於GT500車體較 F1重~ 所以 GT500 在賽道上不會比F1快~ ~

作者: memberbilly 時間: 2010-2-25 19:10

哩d先係討論! 我地係需要這般有見地的討論!
唔係走出黎鬧d post有幾低b, 你有料就寫d野出黎教下我們d後生, 你睇唔起我地可以唔出聲,但唔駛鬧啦,仲要唔止鬧一次. 如果你做板主可以刪除個post啦,你又唔係.
gtimax 發表於 2010-2-25 16:56

登錄/註冊後可看大圖

講得好 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 自己有料收收埋埋只係走出黎鬧同一d冇料扮勁亂吹,係冇分別

作者: billgate803 時間: 2010-2-25 19:12
但為何1/10 TOURING 比1/10F1 在賽道上有更佳圈速, 而大直路則1/10 F1較 1/10TOURING優勝?

是因為1/10 TOURING 是4WD, 而F1 是RWD & LIGHTER.

作者: GARY^^ 時間: 2010-2-25 19:16
本帖最後由 GARY^^ 於 2010-2-25 19:30 編輯

1:1F1閒閒地都過250KPH, 聼聞呢種速度所產生既DOWNFORCE可以令F1倒吊在天花板行都仲得(理論上), 但1:10F1平均速度只有幾十KPH, 就算笠個像真殼, 都冇咩可能話產生同速度成比例既超大下壓力, 我諗將頭尾翼SET到超斜來加強DOWNFORCE都係可行. 但下壓力同速度要取都好好既平衡先會令1:10F1發揮到最好, 因為下壓力太大會令直路車速減低(阻力大)... 仲有大把影響相信唔使我講各位師兄都會知.
至於1:10TOURING點解快到好似同真車唔成比例, 我諗一來車架設計問題, 加上個壓風殼產生超強DOWNFORCE, 加埋輕身, 4驅, 超強動力來源, 跑呔等等, 先有咁驚人既速度.

(以上所言'部份'係小弟睇30蚊車書學番來, 有錯輕力插)

補充一下: 小弟打字比較慢,所以發言前未有出現billgate803師兄在39同41樓既發言, 小弟無意執billgate803師兄口水尾.

作者: billgate803 時間: 2010-2-25 21:31
本帖最後由 billgate803 於 2010-2-25 21:34 編輯

1:1F1閒閒地都過250KPH, 聼聞呢種速度所產生既DOWNFORCE可以令F1倒吊在天花板行都仲得(理論上), 但1:10F1平均速度只有幾十KPH, 就算笠個像真殼, 都冇咩可能話產生同速度成比例既超大下壓力, 我諗將頭尾翼SET到 ...
GARY^^ 發表於 2010-2-25 19:16

登錄/註冊後可看大圖

GARY兄~~你說了很多好例子~ 我也沒有提到~

而且知識的價值不在乎本書的印刷貴與平~

作者: gtimax 時間: 2010-2-25 21:43
thanks memberbilly, billgate, gary!
好開心有大家有"真料"的討論!
全靠大家我地可以返回討論的正軌,
唔會比d人鬧又話我地stupid.......

作者: librayiu 時間: 2010-2-25 21:57

This is an interesting topic and I agree with what littleboy said. I think this discussion can be analysed from various angles.....

1. Engine difference - In 1:1, the difference between a F1 en ...
binary 發表於 2010-2-24 13:57

登錄/註冊後可看大圖

講得好好, 中晒 point, 唔同角度分析晒 d factors, 勁!

作者: billgate803 時間: 2010-2-25 21:59
本帖最後由 billgate803 於 2010-2-25 22:06 編輯

thanks memberbilly, billgate, gary!
好開心有大家有"真料"的討論!
全靠大家我地可以返回討論的正軌,
唔會比d人鬧又話我地stupid.......
gtimax 發表於 2010-2-25 21:43

登錄/註冊後可看大圖

其實GTI你的題問頗有意思~

I ALSO THINK "binary" & "newkid" 說得很好~

經過一番討論後~ 你會明白喜歡玩 TOURING / F1 是各有原因的~

作者: gtimax 時間: 2010-2-25 22:31
其實整哩個post是有原因的, 因有次玩車同班車友講開電車討論, 他們話現在冇咩野睇, 我地話D人唔係無料,可能係冇一個好的討論氣氛及環境,所以整D有討論空間的POST出黎, 但可能太深令有D人無料答唔倒要鬧我(只是可能)

好在有大家! 我可以同班車友講電車討論區是有料到的!
多謝大家!

作者: 小芮芮 時間: 2010-2-26 01:15
hehe 潜水这么久...终于等到了喜欢的话题  言归正传, 小弟结论: 在现有模型结构,设计的基础上使用相同动力组合的 1/10 scale,  F1 整体定慢过 TOURING CAR
模型中性能称得上F1的, 电的叫作1/12 on road (使用7.4v lipo); 4驱的叫作1/8 on road
理由:
1) rc F1气动完全没有办法跟真实F1相提并论, 既没有高效率的使用空气(比如仿真shell的热交换器,引擎inlet 都提供的是100%阻力和湍流),更没有F1赖以生存的地效应(前面没有整流过的气流, 底盘全是洞, 后面的diffuser 根本是个...) ;1/12 on road+shell 本身就是个扩散器 diffuser 哈哈

2) 和TOURING CAR相比完全没有优势的trust/weight ratio(包括前面大大提到的轮胎面积etc)
1/12 on road (使用7.4v lipo)重量可以控制在800g以下  动力, 后轮接地面积和TOURING CAR相当;

3)可怜的后轮电机(2轮)制动, 外加珠差的打滑天性让2wd最后的一点优势也大打折扣
这一点1/12 on road 可谁叫它要和F1比呢, 就是要好场地养着!(TOURING CAR 不外加论述)

综上所述, 想要体验极速的玩家们可以试试12仔了  但小弟一直都是个rc F1狂热者,以前是
以后...还是...可它不够快呀?  呵呵这不是关键 ,关键是它很美! 开着它,让我心花怒放...这不就我要的吗

作者: ericho 時間: 2010-2-26 02:06

其實整哩個post是有原因的, 因有次玩車同班車友講開電車討論, 他們話現在冇咩野睇, 我地話D人唔係無料,可能係冇一個好的討論氣氛及環境,所以整D有討論空間的POST出黎, 但可能太深令有D人無料答唔倒要鬧我(只是可能): ...
gtimax 發表於 2010-2-25 22:31

登錄/註冊後可看大圖

你唔了這個論壇的玩家層面我唔怪你
可能大家都覺得車應該係實戰唔係紙上談兵, 但有讀工程的玩家應該知,真正的技術研發係先觀察, 後假設,再實驗, 即係話紙上談兵和實踐各一半, 冇紙上談兵冇提升,冇實驗冇數據
RC也如是, 有些理論你可能覺得紙上談兵, 但事實上第一個把前束,外傾角,可調油壓技術投放到RC的設計人員都曾經紙上談兵, 只係他成功了, 大家沒留意,當然人家有實驗, 但大家有玩RC其實也不知不確成為實驗對像, 何不分享一下經驗?
不得不否認, 這裡也有出現少許"老屎忽"的問題, 原因我唔知,我的理解係,因為以前資訊未發逹, 所以上一輩的對新事物的接受能力不同我們, 但由玩具接受到"半專業化"的嗜好其實已經行了一大步, 只係唔知點解停止了.....
我好希望以上的論點係錯的, 因為這樣會改變新一代玩家的想法, 到頭來嚇走一大堆玩家

作者: george02 時間: 2010-2-26 10:33
雞蛋同蛋ge 問題,冇得答

作者: binary 時間: 2010-2-26 13:48
Thanks billgate803 C-Hing's comment. However, I've a concern about this statement.... 1/10的F1隻尾翼是模仿真車~ 所以下壓力很接近真車~

Indeed RC cars never use aerofoil wings (except RC F1 which needs to have the same look-and-feel as real 1:1 F1), whilst 1:1 cars and planes do. The reason is.... Very simple... RC cars go too fast and are too small...

Air is actually fluid, both has inertia, of course air isn't as dense as fluid so it can move up and down a few centimetres flowing over a wing of a 1:1 plane, or indeed a few metres long. However in 1:10 RC car, you can only have a wing a few centimetres long, which means making air move up and down over a wing only a few centimetres long at say, even 80km/h, is just impossible because air doesn't oscillate that fast! For example, a bee don't use aerofoil wings, its wings are flat because it doesn't work at that scale....

From various studies, 17 degrees seems to be the maximum angle of attack for aerofoil wings, if higher than that angle, it stalls.... In fact, only 20% downforce comes from the increased pressure at the top of the wing, while 80% downforce comes from the low pressure on the underside of the wing. It's obvious that 17 degrees is not sufficient to produce downforce with a scale-looking wing (The one we saw in 1:10 F1) because of why? Still remember what I said? Air doesn't scale!!

Furthermore, as I said above, most downforce is generated from the low presure on the underside of an aerofoil wing, which means the wing has to be mounted high up, well away from the body to get clean air (dirty air will not work great in aerofoil type wing!). However, due to RC car race rule which doesn't allow your wing to be higher than your car body's ceiling; and also RC car always crash and upside down which damages your high mounted wing easily, so you can hardly collect all needed clean air for aerofoil type wing in RC. But those 90 degree wing is ok because you don't have to worry about joining the streams above and under the wing back together, although it is not as efficient as an aerofoil wing, it will produce some downforce at least. Moreover 90 degree type RC race wing can be fed with dirty air because air is air, doesn't matter it's clean or dirty as you just force it to go upwards!

其實1/10TOURING 隻尾翼 "DOWNFORCE設計"~ 如1/1隻尾翼係用同樣形狀是超大下壓力的~
所以1/10TOURING下壓力~ 一定比1/1真車的外殼更大~
1/10的F1隻尾翼是模仿真車~ 所以下壓力很接近真車~
所以1/10F1的下 ...
billgate803 發表於 2010-2-25 18:59

登錄/註冊後可看大圖

作者: littleboy 時間: 2010-2-26 14:17
Exactly... the car is scaled down, but the fluid itself has not...
The general properties of air interacting with the wing in a 1:1 car and a scaled rc is in no doubt different.... just imagine the air particle size and the "stickyness" between air particles themselves, and between the air and your wing, has not been scaled down accordingly...

The aero performance of the whole wing/body design should never be in the same story in a scaled model car...

作者: GARY^^ 時間: 2010-2-26 16:20
睇緊明珠台@@
BTW多謝2位師兄無私貢獻, 小弟又學到野~~

作者: defcone 時間: 2010-2-26 19:18

Thanks billgate803 C-Hing's comment. However, I've a concern about this statement.... 1/10的F1隻尾翼是模仿真車~ 所以下壓力很接近真車~

Indeed RC cars never use aerofoil wings (except RC F1 which ...
binary 發表於 2010-2-26 13:48

登錄/註冊後可看大圖

How about cutting those holes in 1/10 protoform touring car wings, what effect does that have?

作者: gtimax 時間: 2010-2-26 20:31

點解12仔, pro10 可以快過touring 而f1唔得?會唔會f1 車架唔夠好?
好簡單,我以前用f103 leman gt1 殼跑棉呔在egr可以快過touring, 但用f1殼d灣就慢過touring好多好多....
咁問題在那裡? 是否f1殼不夠像真提供不到足 ...
gtimax 發表於 2010-2-20 23:57

登錄/註冊後可看大圖

好簡單,我以前用f103 leman gt1 殼跑棉呔在egr可以快過touring, 但用f1殼d灣就慢過touring好多好多....
咁問題在那裡? 是否f1殼不夠像真提供不到足夠風壓?
(有實際測試的)

作者: gtimax 時間: 2010-2-26 20:33

Thanks billgate803 C-Hing's comment. However, I've a concern about this statement.... 1/10的F1隻尾翼是模仿真車~ 所以下壓力很接近真車~

Indeed RC cars never use aerofoil wings (except RC F1 which ...
binary 發表於 2010-2-26 13:48

登錄/註冊後可看大圖

翻譯
由於 billgate803 ç -興的評論。但是，我擔心對本聲明 .... 1 / 10的車隊只尾翼是模仿真車〜所以下壓力很接近真車〜

事實上，使用遙控汽車從來沒有機翼的翅膀（除區局車隊，需要有相同的外觀和感覺車隊的真實 1:1），1:1，而汽車和飛機做。原因是....很簡單 ...遙控車走得過快，並太小...

空氣實際上是液體，都具有慣性，當然並不像空氣密度的流體因此它可以上下移動幾厘米的流量在一個機翼飛機的1:1，或什至數米長。然而，在1:10遙控車，你只能有一個機翼數厘米長，這意味著使空氣向上和向下移動了一翼只有數厘米長的說，即使八零公里每小時，是不可能的，因為空氣 doesn'噸振盪那麼快！例如，蜜蜂不使用機翼的翅膀，它的翅膀是單位，因為它不工作的規模 ....

從各種研究，17度，似乎是最大迎角機翼的翼型，如果高於這個角度，這檔 ....事實上，只有20％的壓力來自於增加的壓力在頂部的機翼，而80％的下壓力來自於低壓底部的機翼。很明顯，17度是不夠的產生下壓力的規模看翼（我們看到的一個車隊在1:10），因為為什麼？還記得我說的？空氣沒有規模！

此外，正如我前面所說的，大部分壓力是產生壓力的低的下部翼的機翼，機翼這意味著要安裝高了，而且遠離身體得到清潔空氣（污染的空氣是不會工作的重大在機翼型機翼！）。然而，由於遙控賽車比賽規則不允許你的翅膀，以高於你的汽車車身的上限;及遙控車也總是毀倒，損害您的高翼安裝容易，所以你很難收集所有需要的潔淨空氣機翼型的機翼在RC。但這些右翼90度，是確定，因為你不用擔心加入上述流機翼下到一起，儘管這不是一個有效率，機翼翼型，它會產生一些壓力，至少。另外90度機翼型遙控比賽可以餵臟空氣，因為空氣是空氣，沒有關係是乾淨的還是臟你正義的力量，是繼續向上

作者: gtimax 時間: 2010-2-26 20:35

Exactly... the car is scaled down, but the fluid itself has not...
The general properties of air interacting with the wing in a 1:1 car and a scaled rc is in no doubt different.... just imagine the a ...
littleboy 發表於 2010-2-26 14:17

登錄/註冊後可看大圖

翻譯
沒錯 ...汽車是按比例縮小，但流體本身並沒有 ...
一般性質的空氣相互作用與機翼以1:1的車和規模區局是不容懷疑的不同....試想空氣粒子的大小和“粘度”他們之間的空氣粒子之間，以及空中和你的翅膀，卻沒有得到相應縮小 ...

在空氣動力學性能整個機翼 /機身設計絕不能在同樣的故事在縮小模型車

作者: gtimax 時間: 2010-2-26 20:41
無錯1:12好可以是世上最快的電車, 可能是因它的風壓最好,
PROTOFORM TOURING 殼無左隻尾亦, 大直路加速都有困難!
1:10F1 風壓實在不足應付比例時速600KM/HR 可能是模仿不倒真車的風壓!

作者: binary 時間: 2010-2-26 22:14
本帖最後由 binary 於 2010-2-26 22:16 編輯

Yes, 1:12 has the best aerodynamic RC car!! Why? Can you see how it looks like? Think about it! Imagine it! Get it? The answer is..... it's actually a diffuser! Yes, the whole car body shape act as a real car's diffuser!!! So, it has the best ever aerodynamic!

無錯1:12好可以是世上最快的電車, 可能是因它的風壓最好,
PROTOFORM TOURING 殼無左隻尾亦, 大直路加速都有困難!
1:10F1 風壓實在不足應付比例時速600KM/HR 可能是模仿不倒真車的風壓!
gtimax 發表於 2010-2-26 20:41

登錄/註冊後可看大圖

: 登錄/註冊後可看大圖

: 登錄/註冊後可看大圖

作者: defcone 時間: 2010-2-26 22:18

Yes, 1:12 has the best aerodynamic RC car!! Why? Can you see how it looks like? Think about it! Imagine it! Get it? The answer is..... it's actually a diffuser! Yes, the whole car body shape ac ...
binary 發表於 2010-2-26 22:14

登錄/註冊後可看大圖

But I thought it's quite different, as in a real car, majority of the air flows underneath the diffuser whereas in a wedge shape rc body, the air flows ontop of the diffuser shape?

作者: binary 時間: 2010-2-26 22:36
61# defcone

Of course it's not 100% identical to what a real car's diffuser is doing, but air still coming out from the rear end of 1:12 car underneath (or inside) the body shell, however since the car is so close to the ground, air has to come from (and suck into) the bottom of the chassis very quickly to become a low pressure area.

作者: gtimax 時間: 2010-2-26 22:57
原來d有料師兄唔識打中文

作者: manhunt 時間: 2010-2-26 23:36

But I thought it's quite different, as in a real car, majority of the air flows underneath the diffuser whereas in a wedge shape rc body, the air flows ontop of the diffuser shape?
defcone 發表於 2010-2-26 22:18

登錄/註冊後可看大圖

touring racing body and 1/12 boby have a big hole at "patpat" or have no "patpat", air come/suck out at there, so pressure is low inside the body

作者: ericho 時間: 2010-2-26 23:45

原來d有料師兄唔識打中文
gtimax 發表於 2010-2-26 22:57

登錄/註冊後可看大圖

你夠唔識翻譯啦, 用機翻連睇都唔睇下直接貼上來錯灟百出

作者: swkchow 時間: 2010-2-26 23:45
i think 1:12 / 1:8 body shell provided the best aerodynamics because of its wedge shaped outlook.  When air is pushed to the body, it gets deflected upward and according to Newton's 3rd law, it generates a reaction force pushing the body and thus the car downwards to the road.

Diffuser works not because of its wedge shape.  It works because of the channels underneath.  Air moves faster through these slots and thus help sucks air out from the underneath the car.  With lower air pressure underneath, the car is thus sucks to the ground and generates more grip.

Diffuser works better with a smooth underbody.  I doubt how much effect the diffuser can actually generate in an RC F1 car.  Any suggestions?

Just my 2 cents.  Feel free to correct if I'm wrong.

作者: littleboy 時間: 2010-2-27 01:10

How about cutting those holes in 1/10 protoform touring car wings, what effect does that have?
defcone 發表於 2010-2-26 19:18

登錄/註冊後可看大圖

I guess it is to feed in more fast-flowing air underneath the wing's main profile, and hence increase downforce.

Well, but bare in mind that it is just the theory stuff... whether it has significant effect on the Protoform Speed 6 rear wing, I am not quite sure..... and have never compare them too, I cut out those holes in my every speed 6 body... =P

作者: gtimax 時間: 2010-2-27 11:15

你夠唔識翻譯啦, 用機翻連睇都唔睇下直接貼上來錯灟百出
ericho 發表於 2010-2-26 23:45

登錄/註冊後可看大圖

係既,我只是用google translation, 只係希望多d人睇倒.....

作者: binary 時間: 2010-2-27 13:35
64# manhunt

Exactly!!

作者: newkid 時間: 2010-2-27 16:17
本帖最後由 newkid 於 2010-2-27 16:22 編輯

35# binary

binary ching, your thorough analysis is very much appreciated

kudos goes to you!! regarding the front and rear wings in 1:10 F1, agree that they are there just to act as the bumpers.. , while in the real world they are soooo fragile that they will fall apart even with the lightest collison. i think the downforce generated by 1:10 F1 wings is negligible.

作者: binary 時間: 2010-2-28 13:44

35# binary

binary ching, your thorough analysis is very much appreciated kudos goes to you!! regarding the front and rear wings in 1:10 F1, agree that they are there just to act as the bumpers ...
newkid 發表於 2010-2-27 16:17

登錄/註冊後可看大圖

Absolutely!! Wings in 1:10 F1 acts as bumper more than anything else as aerofoil wings won't work in this scale! Moreover, I really doubt that these scaled wings really has aerofoil design or indeed it's just a piece of symmetrical plastic!

作者: herbert1 時間: 2010-2-28 15:34

35# binary

binary ching, your thorough analysis is very much appreciated kudos goes to you!! regarding the front and rear wings in 1:10 F1, agree that they are there just to act as the bumpers ...
newkid 發表於 2010-2-27 16:17

登錄/註冊後可看大圖

i think the downforce generated by 1:10 F1 wings is negligible<-----

都唔係話完全negligible，行動最實際，我用我架F1做下實驗，加大定風翼對快灣係好有用

唔夠touring快，因為rc上 touring既馬力超大，仲要4驅，個殼風壓又勁

相對地真F1都無咁大馬力，rc F1仲要得後驅，風壓唔夠勁，無得比較

: 登錄/註冊後可看大圖

作者: rc2006 時間: 2010-2-28 18:34

Diffuser works not because of its wedge shape. It works because of the channels underneath. Air moves faster through these slots and thus help sucks air out from the underneath the car. With lower air pressure underneath, the car is thus sucks to the ground and generates more grip.
swkchow 發表於 2010-2-26 23:45

登錄/註冊後可看大圖

Totally agree with your point.

歡迎光臨 RC EVOLUTION - 遙控工房 - 香港RC遙控車討論區 (https://jk.rc-evo.com/xbbs/)