Pirate 4x4 banner
21 - 40 of 222 Posts
I am guessing he is referring to Armada engineering's new collaboration with Lazernut. I have only seen a small amount of pictures on Instagram and fbk.
What's the IG account name? Is it under Armada?

edit: I believe it's under ARMADAENGINEERING
 
ifs, irs, portals, lots of hp, lots of polished parts, lots of cool details
No kidding...just saw the IG photos...Man that is PIMP! I feel I need to torch my build! :mr-t:
 
Goals from current IFS car:
More ground clearance
Lighter
Low COG
Stronger drivetrain
More HP
Neat that both rigs are trying different ways to accomplish the above.

Deciders may be which skids better and which can survive the 40"er wanting to stop instantly while at 5k RPM. A lot has been learned about A-Arm mounts in the last couple years. It will be interesting to see what survives with the new arm positioning and outboard gearing. One of the Pirate threads last year looked at this minimally and the differences were significant. I am thinking that learning from 2wd TT's/CL1 only slightly applies in 4wd..
 
As a note there are already cars with single speed cases in Ultra 4. Yes they are less than 1 to 1.[/QUOTE]

What are they using for gears? Some Land Rovers have an under driven high range, 1.2 or 1.3/1 I believe. Gears and t-cases are beefy.
 
Tube Works High tech parts

Very cool to see the designs come together on this project. I was looking at the frontend on Wednesday and it's a massive front unit. The lower arm pivoting on the same plain as the center of the tire is Way Cool for lower arm clearance and axle plunge!! Very cool to see this new tech in U4.

OCB
 
Ahhhh, the catch. Might use a "generally unused" set of buried planetary gears for the guys who can afford, and see the efficient racing value in single wide/profiled gears or silent chains. Maybe that rule can be modified for the unlimited class. (It is not a safety issue.)

I think Tubeworks, Weismann, and Fortin are after the almost 50% efficiency drop to the ground that current Ultra4's have. (Vs a Corvette at about 10% or less). Lots of thoughts around this which have been played out in F1, Bonneville, Dakar/rally, and now entering TT & Pro4. The shock loads in Ultra4, however are considerably greater....but this build is sneaking into it.

Anyone who has seen or lifted a 40+ spline axle has to wonder WTF? Fixing the symptom instead of fixing the cause. Since these suppliers are into low volume total systems they are more adept at working toward the DNA cure. Pretty neat that there is a venue to create the opportunity and the sport which has grown to support it.

Our top racers are also searching everything. One of our top 10 found 75Hp in tires alone. Not in size.......Aero..... That is a 10% right there.

Lots more going on in this build than just clearance. Cheers for pioneers.
With aired down heavy tall tyres and beefy axles/gears, efficiency will always be a problem in ultra4.
By using bigger tyres year after year, it will only get worse.
 
hell the aerodynamics of a big tire, big radiator car at 100 mph have to suck pretty bad.
i know a class 1 truggy that gain 10-15mph of top speed by laying the radiator down 15-20* from vertical. so it does play a part, but in the extreme end of things.
 
roughly 60% of the entire drag on an Indy car is the tires hitting open air making for the ramp up in Cd (Drag Coefficient)

Here are some typical drag coefficients from the March 2006 HOT ROD magazine:

Flat plate ......................................... 1.15
Indy car .......................................... 0.75
“Bad” production sedan ...................... 0.50
“Average” production sedan ................ 0.43
“Good” production sedan .................... 0.35
Late ‘80s C4 Corvette ........................ 0.32
NASCAR Cup superspeedway car ......... 0.30
Perfect sphere ................................. 0.15
LandSpeedRacing streamlin................ 0.11
Airfoil ............................................ 0.05


Now we are talking about a 40" tire, wait I mean four 40"s tires. That is some serious resistance and takes mega HP to go faster, but that doesnt mean anything if you cant control it due to the wind pushing the car around as it slices the air.

My experience:
I have an open wheel landspeed car F/BFRMR (29" slick tires), I've been in the high 200's with it. At 275mph its like driving a cadillac in the slow lane. 100% control, no buffetting, no breaking rear traction as you would as you push on the wind resistance "The Wall" as you max out your aero package. So that means one thing I havent yet reached the limits of my aerodynamics. I'm just out of HP.
Now take my old C1/U4 the Unicorn. This examples from pavement as I never went over 132mph on dirt. Anything over 120mph the car would begin to buffett ever so slightly in the rear. You could feel the car slipping left and right, by 130mph the nose would start to slowly follow suit. 135mph and the car had some pronounced left and right shifts. Somewhere just over 140mph the entire car would finally come into its own of feeling light at all 4 corners. I hit 144 and my balls said no more. Gearing and HP were still there, just couldnt control it enough to feel safe pushing further. Drinking beer later we probably could have pulled the headlights and side fiberglass, and laid some lexan on for a windshield and gotten a few mph better but...that was just some f-ing around.

So yes, if you could do something to help your tire aero, anything would be something. Might look like those Europe mudflap/tire covers, or just look at Dakar.....
 
One of our top 10 found 75Hp in tires alone. Not in size.......Aero.....
OK> I was not present but the story relates as it was told. This was specifically from actual tire testing on a Dyno. Which means there was no actual moving air resistance against the tire...

I think we can all relate to the recent comments while running 70-140mph. I relate to Bonneville also with the Markley brothers in the high 300-400 mph speed range. No tread and the tires are rented instead of bought so that they will be positively retired by MT at the end of their service life. No messing around.

The dyno pulls were all about tire resistance. Aired comparably with the same vehicle weight. So basically it could be roller contact patch, tire deflection, possibly durometer, and the TREAD PATTERN. The test was between a popular CRAWLER tire and one now popular to U4 short tracks and KOH. The aggressive tread patterns of crawler tires are paddling the air like a fan...and sucking HP at speed. At Offroad Expo this weekend, that thought was confirmed with a TT driver who said that the tire manufacturers will make them tires with minimal tread depth (Weight AND aero) or they will purposely cut them down. Standard procedure for fast desert racing apparently.

KOH: Won in the desert. Lost in the rocks... KOH 1&2 was arguably the other way around.

Back to the build but good discussion on consumable choices.

Perhaps CHARGED can give us a full bump, full turn, front view with 5-10' of outside body roll. (The Achilles heel of IFS vs SA Camber issues to the ground during a turn. Making sure that the camber never or minimally goes positive to the ground is a designers nightmare. What goes on in the rear can have serious results in the front (Wayne I.)...anti-roll bar.) Is all this THAT important??? Maybe not as IFS cars are winning without this thought. Edit: Cars with big positive camber in a turn close to lock will make for great bicycling pictures...
 
Discussion starter · #40 ·
I don't want to give out all the numbers but the front suspension was specifically designed for this application. It has very high negative camber gain to make up for the large amount of body roll found in a U4 car. The approach angle under the IFS bulkhead is tipped back to allow better absorption on big hits since the tire will move back to absorb some of the impact, plus gives it a better ramp for rocks under the A arms. The reduction from the 10" ring gear size and the outside arm pivots traveling at the wheel center height gives more ground clearance and also allows for more bump wheel travel. Most IFS cars right now are setup with the front suspension jacked way up for clearance reasons which has a large effect on the roll center, and this also doesn't allow for much droop travel. This new IFS will have 4"+ more clearance under the ring gear than my current IFS car without sacrificing the geometry. I am designing the frame jig fixtures for the table now. I am hoping with all the CAD design time it will speed up the process of the build.
 
21 - 40 of 222 Posts