Mobile Driving/Flying Cockpit with Motion and Tactile ( Build )

[RCHeliguy]

That it the design I mistakenly first thought you were doing when you added the isolators, i.e. the whole tower on the isolators.

My only personal worry about that is the large lever created by the inverted pedals mounted to the top of the tower translating to more movement of the springs. My pedals are mounted on a tray directly on to the isolators and there is movement, as you would expect. It doesn't worry me but I fear there would be too much rocking of the platform if they were in that configuration.

I could definitely see that possibility. I'm running 55kg for 100% brake. Where are you currently?

I could also see needing to go to blue or even back to the red springs. I'm currently running yellow up front.

I've still not decided if I'm going to attempt this. If I do this, it will be an experiment that I can keep if I like it, or go back to how I have it setup now.

 

[metalnwood]

I am on 80kg for 100% but of course you are not on 100% a lot of the time with most braking for me 10-80% on the cars I drive. My pressures would certainly compound the problem more.

It will be interesting to hear your thoughts, not so much about the movement but having the tactile coming through the whole thing rather than just the heel plate. I was quite happy with the vibes the tst could send direct through the pedal faces that I dont think I would feel from just the heel plate, especially because as as I press harder on the brakeI have less contact with the heel plate.

 

[RCHeliguy]

I've not seen or felt any issue at all with the springs on my seat, I'm also less worried about seeing a small amount of visible flexing as long as it feels right in use. My thoughts are that if I could feel any difference in brake pedal travel from spring flex that reducing the travel in the pedal with stiffer spacers should allow me to compensate to get a similar feeling.

The NLRv3 limits the brake pressure I can use. I'm pretty happy with 55kg, but I don't have much of a choice. At about 70kg sustained the NLRv3 will feel overpowered and shutdown. That may be less of an issue for me now that I'm not using the surge/tilt forward effect under braking anymore, but I haven't tested it.

Still tinkering with this idea.

 

[Atak_Kat]

Just a thought and perhaps not feasible, but as you have it now, all the force of braking is going to the back of the plate. So leverage is working heavily there. Is there some way to move the columns more frontwards? There will always be force at the back I guess, but if you can move the point of contact re the uprights to the base, would that make it more balanced and spread the force more across the entire plate rather than fully at the rear?

 

[RCHeliguy]

The upper pedal deck frame is a rigid body and no matter what the structure is that supports the pedals the force will be the same at the springs unless the frame is flexing.

The key issue is that the horizontal profile that supports the pedals needs to remain in back. Otherwise I would have to move my steering wheel structure and seat backwards.

The only way to make an effective change would be to extend the overall geometry of the base forward That would require extending base of the pedal deck behind the pedals like the picture below. That would allow centering the uprights such that the pressure is applied more front to back vs rotating the pedal deck counter clockwise in the image below. This would require creating a longer chassis to fit.

 

[blekenbleu]

only way

Triangular structures on either side that would allow
relocating the forward pair of RaceBass isolators near the top of the pedal hanging frame,
perhaps tipped 30 degrees or so,
would offer more mechanical advantage to resist braking forces.

 

[RCHeliguy]

Triangular structures on either side that would allow
relocating the forward pair of RaceBass isolators near the top of the pedal hanging frame,
perhaps tipped 30 degrees or so,
would offer more mechanical advantage to resist braking forces.

If I were to relocate the isolation up higher, that would change the geometry and could improve the potential flex quite a bit. Unfortunately there is enough complexity involved to make me initially cringe. This could get bulky.

If the pedal deck was static and I didn't slide it forward and backwards for guests or remove it completely for flight mode this might be more feasible.

That is an interesting suggestion though. I'll give it some thought and see if there is any way to bring down the complexity and not interfere with how my sliding pedals work.

This is my first simplified approach idea to changing the isolation points in back.

I don't think rotating the angle of the isolation works because it would fight the transducer action. Now if the all the isolation was angled and the transducers were too, all would be good. However the 429 and BK prefer to be up or down but not sideways at angles.

Edit: Just realized that my dead pedal would be a casualty of a design like this. I would either need this outboard or on the back to keep that functionality. I'm leaning towards not adding this much complexity. I'm still on the fence about making this change.

 

[blekenbleu]

initially cringe

I was mostly reacting to your use of "only way" and in fact applaud your philosophy:

I'm also less worried about seeing a small amount of visible flexing as long as it feels right in use.

By eyeball, it is hard to estimate suspended pedal tray's center of mass and the amount that possibly uncentered shakers may provoke rocking. Perhaps rotating front suspensions pillars around to the front of the chassis would restore dead pedal clearance?

 

[RCHeliguy]

In terms of fore/aft rocking, a couple linear bearings should pretty well eliminate that.

For that matter linear bearings could work well even with the isolation back at the bottom.

40-6816

40 Series 3 Slot Mount - Single Flange Long Standard Linear Bearing

8020.net

 

[blekenbleu]

linear bearings should pretty well eliminate that

Rocking would yield tactile stimulation both vertically and longitudinally,
wanting forward suspensions off vertical for best isolation.

 

[RCHeliguy]

Still playing with this design. No closer to deciding if it is worth doing.

 

[cnhoff]

Can't help you with that decision, but my personal experience having a pedal setup that shakes both the pedals and the heel rest, is, that a lot of the sensation is transferred via the pedal faces, to a lesser degree by the heel plate. Not surprising, if you think about contact area and body sensitivity. So for me having the whole pedal setup shake is a must, while the flex is a non-issue for me running a 100% pedal weight of around 60kg. Raising the rear springs should also mitigate that quite a bit.

 

[Atak_Kat]

Not surprising, if you think about contact area and body sensitivity. So for me having the whole pedal setup shake is a must,

I’ve often thought about that. But in that situation wouldn’t it be better to just mount a small puck right to the brake? Just learning. Thanks.

 

[cnhoff]

I’ve often thought about that. But in that situation wouldn’t it be better to just mount a small puck right to the brake? Just learning. Thanks.

Well some do that, but those smaller shakers might not be able to generate the whole spectrum people are aiming for. I was neglecting the pedals for a long time due to that area being harder to isolate because of less weight on it and a tendency to rattle etc. when effects are set to high. After fine-tuning the effects and volumes i would not wanna miss the pedals now, i am even running things like gear shift on the pedals and it would feel kind of strange now to only feel that on the seat.

 

[blekenbleu]

just mount a small puck right to the brake

With increasing brake pedal pressure, tactile effect from attached 40W exciter is less felt;
boosting power simply burns up the exciter - ask me how I know.
Consequently, I employ brake tactile that decreases with increased braking.

 

[RCHeliguy]

This solution could easily be done piecemeal as needed.

1. Setup the isolation at the bottom.
2. Setup the offset isolation left side below (if needed)
3. Add linear bearing right side below (if needed but seriously doubt it)

However now that I'm thinking about this. When both isolator are on the bottom the potential hinge will work for the springs. They are compressed in back and decompressed in front.

If I raise the top isolator than I'm pushing on the springs in a much more sideways manner.

I think either keep it simple with just isolation on the bottom, or if I offset the isolation the support may actually be needed.

 

[blekenbleu]

compressed in back and decompressed in front

About that:
assuming these isolators are effective when partially compressed, at least in theory ;
retaining bolts in tension otherwise transmit vibrations between brackets...?
Isolation with no or low static load would seemingly want
neoprene bushes and spring pairs sandwiching the vibrating plate.

 

[RCHeliguy]

With the pedals inverted there is a rotational force forward compressing the rear isolation and stretching the rear isolation. In the picture below that would be a counter clockwise torque.

However because the brake hinges the opposite direction of upright pedals there is also a clockwise force upwards in the back pulling on the springs and partially cancelling the other.

So I don't think that there will be as much force twisting this as I originally thought and I don't think the linear bearings UHML sliders in this case will be under any extreme forces.

Edit: I just realized that using a linear bearing should also allow me to use a lighter spring.

I tried to reduce the number of parts I would need to fabricate, simplify and move the rear isolation further back to effectively move the brake hinge further forward.

This is about $350 in additional parts upgrade.
I'm using LT 40x40 for the base frame sides, UL side to side and solid 4040 for vertical members.

I'm considering doing this even though it is extreme overkill. I also believe it could withstand much higher pressure than I'm using with my pedals without much of any twist what-so-ever.

 

[RCHeliguy]

With the foot plate now mounted directly to pedal deck it is effectively lowered about 20mm relative to the pedals. As a result my 510mm uprights now have more clearance and with the extension to the horizontal pedal support below, I could mount a set of HE Ultimate+ pedals now pretty easily. I noticed that their mounts are very flexible since the rear mount isn't part of the front mount. So I can easily add a spacer to the clutch pedal if I want.

 

[blekenbleu]

if I want

I find your quest fascinating, despite feeling like Peabody's janitor