I have no data, just my feeling that the hole, especially at the bottom is quite close to the edge.
My solution is probably over engineered to be on the safe side. The industry standard is M5 bolts and either a 50.8mm or 70mm hole pattern.
You have fantastic strength in the grade of Auluminium and the thickness of the part that clamps to the shaft. In my opinion it just needs to be wider at the bolt end and use standard M5 bolts. Your 3x M4 bolts are not even on the same diameter. I’m sure they will be ok but I feel the design could be better.
I have one of your adapter Simon and I have to say it’s perfect. Glad they came along when they did. Have added some dummy bots just for aesthetic reasons.
Well, if you design something, it’s better not to over engineere it too much that adds costs and wastes time in production.
Even if the “hub” part would be made out of high quality plywood (stacked and glued & screws tightened vertically through the plywood, and if we are limiting the forces to the screw pullout forces ie. not thinking what happens when we have the cone clamp inside), it would function just fine with 3-6 screws (especially if high bending forces are not applied). Having 3 screws in aluminum will for sure hold enough as every single screw can be loaded with thousands of newtons of force before material deformation happens. I am not saying that this is unbreakable. If it breaks, the user has applied way too much force & bending torque to the shaft and having something broken before larger damage is caused to the motor is actually beneficial to the user but maybe not a cheerful moment for the user. Having the hub over engineered and allowing the user to load the product in ways that it is not designed to last is not beneficial, it adds costs to the product also. Nevertheless, the 3 screws come from the shape of the SQR as it does not beautifully support more than 3 screws, but it does not need more than that.
So just curious poke…
Are your saying you created your mounting solution as a fuse?
Also, if the case you stated it true then why don’t Momo, OMP, Sparco etc. Just use an irregular 3 hole M4 mounting on all of their wheels and QR if that is all that is needed?
At the end of the day, these solutions, over engineered or not, serve the main purpose to add different QR systems which isn’t possible with an irregular M4 3 hole pattern that you use.
No glue what’s on their mind and design and why they do this or that. The “irregularity” comes from the shape of the SQR dovetail or whatever the word is in English. Having them in equal sided triangle shape would break the dovetail.
The design went through structural FEM analysis. We know it to be reliable for the purpose it is made for. However this is not mentioned anywhere as we do not market such things but the overall product itself.
No drama, there is nothing wrong to add choices to end-users if they desire something else. Nothing wrong with that and your product offers that to the end-users. However, I know that there is no need to make that part any stronger than it currently is eventhough it may seem weak to the bare eye and that is actually the reason why I wanted to go through this conversation . I just hope that when other companies make these replacement parts they would not market it between the lines that “official” SC2 solution is not strong enough, “buy this because it is stronger” when such is not actually needed. To me it just does not sound “fair” kind of marketing. Not towards to us and not towards the end-user who may not know as much.
I don’t like changing posts but have added an edit to my original post to make it clear that I am not in any way saying that the standard 3 bolt design is not strong enough.
Another question, Will be receiving a formula style wheel soon which is 50.8 instead of 70mm.
Can i just buy a extra sqr wheel side adapter and be done? (Already using the one provided with the simucube2 for a GT rim)
hi all, I am currently mounting a hrs xero play on my sc2 sport, but I would like to give q1r a try.
anybody here tried both and can share his experience?
i am mostly interested in the long term reliability of the q1r, like i said i use the xero play and since i got it - less than 4 months ago - i already had to take it apart 2 times to re-adjust the internal mechanism of the clamping conical cilinder; that is the main reason for which i want to try the q1r, which seems to have less mechanical parts involved in the functioning so that it should be a more “stable” system in my opinion.
Xero-play is better in the long term, yes, it needs tiny adjustments every once in a while, but it is a very good qr. Plus it allows a tight fit all the time.
QR1 pretty good, but using 3 or 4 wheel-sides with one servo-Side, I could never rid it of play on some of them. I had it so tight at one point, to try and eliminate the wiggle, that the retaining bolt let go at ~38NM torque around Mt Panorama once, almost ripped myself a new arse that time. Wasn’t fun.
Not saying they are not good, currently only bested by the Xero Play.
