Fanatec CSW/CSR Elite Modders Thread *UPDATE February 2014*

  • Thread starter eKretz
  • 3,600 comments
  • 585,421 views
Looks like i'll have to wait till next week tdo teh fishscale test.

My scale came but as its cheap and digital it does'nt update very fast so setting my wheel to crash in its ffb test it all happens too fast for the scale.

So done the next best thing with what i have and pulled teh wheel past its soft lock by 1cm and measured its resistence instead of ffb, when ffb is weak from use the softlock is allso very weak, i'm waiting on none digital scales so they should work better than the cheap tat i got.

Average at cold 8.3lbs
Average after an hours nonstop racing 4.5lbs

This was at 60% power in tm controll panel, 100%ect does'nt effect teh softlock strength ;)
But m sure if id set it to 80% power teh wheel would of been around 3.5lbs but thats a gues, i'll be able to prove more once i have better scales.
Once non digi scales are here i'll do a better test usng ffb and a camera to capture the exact lbs.
 
To add a little more specificity to my own scale numbers, every scale reading I give henceforth will be using the method in my earlier pic. This reading will be lower than my previous reading since it's farther out from center, and should be more accurate since it will pull directly perpendicular to wheel centerline. My latest cold reading (on an all stock wheel) gave me 8.5 lbs. @5.38" from C/L.

So about 3.8 lbs./ft. (5.2 Nm) of torque.
 
The wheel was at 520 and was pulling down on the center spoke wich was taking it past its soft lock.
The scales i got really are poor cheap scales with a pionter should be better, there only a few £.


I played a few hours of pcars the other night in multiplayer, so thats about 15 min racing and 10 min in lobby ect waiting for race start, the loss of feeback i was experiencing with single player games and constant use are nowhere tobe seen.
As i used the fishscale all night after a race i was finding my torque/strength to be virtually the same as when the race started, i do however have the added 3 fans on top of the wheel that does something but not alot ;)
I do race at 60% power in tm control panel nowadays though as f i set it to 80% which is my preffered level the wheel goes pretty weak n about 20 min and then gets worse as tme proggresses.

The t500rs held up very well to my nightly session because the lobby gave it chance to cool down, still, after an hours back to back its weak so single player games ( time trial,career ) dont sound all that fun because theres no way i could accept the ffb strenth one and a half hours in.
 
See why eK and I are both messing with MOK (massive overkill) liquid cooling?
Click to expand...

@ Ek and Racerxx, since you seem to be the more adavance in both testing and MOK cooling( as you state it, I like the acronym, :-) )
It appears that the combination of the Firmaware limiting current to the motor and the natural behavior of those electric motor to loose efficientcy as their temperature rises, is a deadly combination toward their performance.
It would be interesting to see, when you have advance with MOK cooling, in a similar test as previously published, how much performance is available after a certain amount of time. I understand the goal is 100%, will be fascinating what is exactly required, MOK cooling wise, to get there.
 
I am planning on coil wrapping my motors and using 2 water blocks on the PCB, (one on each side of the board) and using a heat exchanger with a fan, as well as reversing the fans in the wheel housing. If that doesn't accomplish it, I'll be trying out a Peltier on the heat exchanger or next to it. Or both.

I will definitely be doing the same tests afterwards. That is one reason I wanted I do them at all, for comparison to the modded wheel. I could already tell it was losing power just by feel when stock. RacerXX is right though, it's a lot better to have an objective way to show it.
 
To be honest, I think the T500 when warmed up is a nicer drive than cold. Kinda like with my car really, ones the engine and gearbox are warm it becomes smoother. I feel as if the T500 is the same, it feels a bit smoother yet still powerful enough.
 
Well, wouldn't it be nicer if you could just set it and forget it and not have to wait for it to "warm up" to be optimal? That is one of my goals is to get the wheel to the point that it performs at the level I set it to right from the start and I don't have to worry about it warming up and changing from where I want/like it. You may find that on certain games or when pushed harder it will "warm up" too far and get weak.
 
Indeed it will. This is especially noticible in the summer or if you life in a warm climate by default. In the typical cold and wet Dutch/English style weather it won't become an real issue until the height of summer.

The problem comes with setting up the wheel I guess. Any wheel basically. As most people will setup their driver strength settings or game settings prior to doing any lap with the wheel to warm it up a bit. Though if you adjust it when warmed up, you might adjust it too far at which point the wheel warms up too much and loses strength significantly.

So I wonder, what would the best practice be?
Do 5 laps with stock driver and game settings of the game you want to play, then adjust the settings in both accordingly. By not going further then a 10% increase or decrease and doing another 5 laps, then repeat that process 5 times. Let the wheel cool down completely while plugged in (until fan shuts off). Then do 5 laps to see if the FFB is still correct, but if not satisfied try to adjust again in 5 times and do a cool down.
 
I'm thinking you need to open up the groove at the bottom a bit to compensate for the belt's v-profile bulging at the small radius, yes? Has modifying this had any effect on anything other than slippage?

My new bench power supply shows up tomorrow finally!
 
eKretz
I'm thinking you need to open up the groove at the bottom a bit to compensate for the belt's v-profile bulging at the small radius, yes? Has modifying this had any effect on anything other than slippage?

My new bench power supply shows up tomorrow finally!
Click to expand...

I'm just finding little things to perfect. The more you get rid of the small imperfections, the less belt tension you can run. Belt tension should be run as low as possible commensurate with reasonable/limited belt slip. That is all part of my goal of lots more FFB torque combined with better steering feel. The stock as-machined motor pulleys also need a radiused edge at the top of the grooves. You can add one directly or get it as a side effect if you media blast the pulleys.

Yay on your PSU. I hope you've been working out so your arms are ready for the Killer Bees!! (Twin Buhlers for those catching up in this thread). You'll also be able to read amperage demands live, and so find more things to improve since current corresponds to torque production.

I am still pondering pulley groove angles. Since I have had many setups in place using stock, modded, and cogged pulleys there have been too many variables for the moment. But conceptually the belt geometry does change when bent around smaller radii compared to large.

Belts-On-Small-Pulleys_zpse84cac40.png
 
Last edited:
RacerXX
Here is one of the layouts I've grown fond of FWIW. Bearing-mounted, motor-decoupled belt pulleys. The drive drag/friction is nice and low. The motor shafts couple with the pulleys such that they see zero side loading. Since the pulleys and their bearings deal with all of the side loading. The belt tension is trivial to adjust via the wingnuts (which need to be blackened cuz they're ugly). Yes just two bolts hold the (low) belt tension just fine. I use the presently vacant plate-slots to hold my motor mount. I have several other layouts which also have some merit.

On the upper pulley, notice the magic markered pulley grooves. That is part of an effort to optimize the pulley geometry. See, under tension the belt's rubber changes shape, and so it turns out that the angles of the sides of the pulley grooves are a bit off from optimal among other things. That effect grows as pulley diameter drops. So the large driven pulley is just fine.

IMG_1330_zps3b042fad.jpg


IMG_1335_zps025718ae.jpg
Click to expand...

This is nice to look at. But. How are you mounting motors? You are using bracket holes which hold the bracket for motors... Motors will be very close to case and how will you be holding them then? If you have made a bracket, please show us. Thank you. I do not see room to place the motor bracket in the slots on the left fully

For reference, this is showing how the motors mount stock

C53D9181-A0B8-47EE-A1CD-9465CB7363BF-680-0000007D3DB1A834_zps406fab3f.jpg
 
I think he means to connect another belt with another set of pulleys on the motors.. Adding another belt and more pulleys will create some more drag. This may be offset by the reduced side load on the bronze bushings in the motors.
 
Heh, adding more belts to the side and extra pulleys would totally negate the benefit of floating/decoupling the drive pulleys, and then would introduce side loads again, which is exactly what he is trying to eliminate. The new mount doesn't have to take any side load whatsoever, and the mount would only need to stop the motor from rotating and hold it up. IOW wouldn't need to be very strong. RacerXX are you just using the OE setscrews to drive the pulleys? BTW did you radius your pulley grooves? I am thinking I will grit blast my drive pulleys. BTW you are a Fana-Puns lately, heh.
 
I see what you saying now as it is as I thought with a new bracket. As I asked, can we see a bracket or two? I am interested to see you machining skills. :D

What do you have for machine tools?
 
That was a poor assumption on my part. I assumed that because no bracket was shown, the stock bracket was being used. I would like to see the bracket as well for comparison.

We have a Comten Digital Force gauge at work with USB logging, I'll see if I can borrow it long enough to graph some of the data as the forces decrease. This graphed with the motor temp would be interesting to see.

My son will wonder what in the world I am doing! haha
 
Well, mine already has the 3-rib belt, and I was looking through a Carlisle power transmission selection guide, it spec'ed a 3-rib for the amount of power and the tiny pulley we have. Actually it recommended a minimum pulley dia. of 1.5" on the drive pulley but it gave the formulas still to calculate for smaller pulleys. It didn't think much of the 1/4 turn belt wrap on the pulleys either. Curiously it didn't give different sheave angles for different poly-v pulley dia's like they usually do on the v-belt pulleys.

I don't feel like slip is a major issue at stock power levels with new belts, but it will drop off over time. I'm going to pop my belt wrap mod on and see what it does to feel anyway, just to test it.

I also discovered that I still have an old aquarium chiller down in the basement...hmmmm. Do you have a good source for decent TEC's?
 

Latest Posts

Back