Very nice video concept! I use the second (loosing) design in my Mocs a lot, especially off-road racers. But with my cars I put the two parallel motors inside the chassis (not above it like you did but in the same line as the diffs), and that reduces the amount of gears. To only about 3. Maybe if you do do another vid on a similar topic you could try that? :D
Thank you! Feel free to steal the design of these cars :D One small thing. Both of these have almost none ground clearance. The first one (winner) has like half a stud of ground clearance. I was thinking about redoing this video will more efficient designs. I think the true 4x4 (with central driveshaft) failed only because of the amount of gears.
@@Michalloyd I agree. I usually use 3 L motors though, so the concept is a little different for me. In terms of driveshafts, I think the best is 2 buggy motors each mounted straight onto the differentials (thanks to the L shape) and that makes it so that there are absolutely no extra gears needed. I’m planning on getting some buggy motors and that formation is probably exactly what I am going to do.
I totally agree with the buggy motor thing. I used it in one of my MOCs but it's no good for high torque use. The gear just slips and if it slips too much it damages itself.
Really what you're testing here is buwizz (and it's extra amps and volts) Vs power functions (and the 150g or so more weight over the axles). Or maybe the efficiency of knob wheels versus regular gears. Best look up the scientific method before the next video: change only one variable at a time.
That's one way of looking at it. What I tried to test is if it is worth having a central driveshaft between the two axles or not. I'm actually considering a remake of this video with 2 more similar chassis
@@Michalloyd it is an interesting question. Theory: With separate drivetrains you simulate the effect of an open differential. Benefit: the transmission won't wind up as you go round a bend, and it won't tend to push itself straight on. Downside: the end with more traction will stall its motor, then you're out of luck as the spare power from the end without traction can't be shared. With a solid central driveshaft, the load can be better spread across the 4 wheel. But plenty of downsides if it's to be used on a surface with good traction.
Exactly! I'm definitely going to do the remake. 2 chassis that have the same weight, number of gears, weight distribution. Only difference will be the central driveshaft.
Lots of methodology problems. A big one in my eyes is traction. The wheels aren’t being cleaned before every test and the test track isn’t clean. Even a tiny bit of dust on them changes traction enormously, which is a lot of what’s being tested. Another variable is weight placement relative to the axles.
Im going to do more fair tests and basically a redo of this video. I think it was really unfair for the chassis that lost because it had way too many gears
shoulda seen what i tried to do cause i didnt have a differential i tried to make a extender so i can have power and since both wheels were having issues i tried to make both lock but unlock when turning safe to say better to use the normal way
putting the weight on the car on the rear to get more traction is not good put it in the middle that gives most traction to both Wheels putting it on the rear gets the rear tires more traction making the test unfair because the car with two Motors makes the rear have more traction
Can't say I disagree. I am considering considering remaking this video with more similar cars and better (or more) tests. Also both of the cars have 2 motors
@@biggycheese5751 oh that car. Yea that's true. Also thank you. As a small creator I don't get that many comments so replying relatively quickly to them is quite easy.
