Yes, those numbers are correct. Although I just use online calculators, less room for error.
I would go for a bite offset of 15mm tops. Even an offset of 10mm will give a huge single tooth effect, proven by how 720, for example, has just ~10mm deep teeth and obviously gets good bite. More than necessary and it's just dumping weight into the counterweight - mass which is better off in the sides of the beater.
Its good to know I got it right!
I am probably going to chicken out of the full 'Single tooth' thing and go with the offset teeth because it just makes things easier. The RMI goes up, the air resistance will drop and the counterweight mass can go into stiffening up the weapon itself.
Having the one side be 5-10mm longer than the other (that's what I mean by offset) will give you huge single tooth benefits and require a minimal counterweight. Be a shame to let the true single toothness go!
Unlike the crazy 37.5mm offset I had on the previous one. I will see what I can achieve in a real single tooth.
Conker will be travelling slower than you calculated. Even the best Lipo cells have a substantial voltage sag under load and you only ever see 4.2V per cell at no load. I get around 3.3V under load from my Thunder power 65C packs so assuming an optimistic 3.5V, Conker has a theoretical top speed of 3.63m/s. I like to factor in a 15% de-rating for friction losses so a real-world top speed of just over 3 m/s is likely.
Last edited by overkill; 21st August 2014 at 21:16.
I never realised the voltage drop was so significant... and I calculated it first time with 3.7v and then thought that I would get poked for it so I upped the voltage.
I have gone with 15mm of bite for now as anything more than 20 left me with a worryingly large overhang which I was concerned would mean another broken weapon.
Looking at this as the new design for Conker 3's weapon.
Conker 3.5 weapon design 01.PNG
The main body will be some kind of tool steel. D2, S7 or another type we are investigating. The inserts are intend to be Hardox or Toolox and held in with Titanium bolts.
A problem with the original weapon was that the arms were too thin. This was compounded by Hardox's fairly low yield strength at around 1000-1300Mpa, in comparison to D2's 1650-2200Mpa. With increased material thickness and a higher yeild strength the hope is that this will mean the weapon will never deform again.
However the tool steels are no where near as resistant to abrasion. The Hardox or Toolox inserts would be able to take the main hits and eventually be turned round before finally replaced.
I may not bother with the tips though as it is more money and both S7 and D2 have proven records with no additional modifications.
EDIT: The mass of the weapon is 2.8Kg for those who want to know. Up from 2.2kg.
Last edited by Eventorizon; 22nd August 2014 at 15:49.
Like!
Why titanium bolts?
Because I don't want the inerts to come flying off or for the heads to become so damaged I cant remove the bolts. I had a total B**** of a time removing the bolt on the back of C3 which had its hex hole completely removed by 720. Oh, and cos then I have Ti bolts in my weaponOriginally Posted by harry hills
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks