TA#3 'Cycle Control System Size Question

[R_Kane]

Hi there, I was just trying to design a hovercycle and was using TA3 as a guidline since there are scooters & motorcycles in it.

I noticed that the control systems allocated to each of the "bikes" in TA3 is 110vl.

It is true that in general that controls require 20% of a vehicle chassis with a minimum of 110vl. However, in the T20 handbook design sections is says, "If the operator is to ride on the outside of the vehicle, (e.g. on a motorcycle or grav bike) the control space size and cost is the same as for a remote-control system."

Under Remote Control systems, it indicates that the controls are 10% of the vehicle chassis, with no minimum size required.

Unless there is errata changing this, that means that these TA3 bikes now have quite a bit of space to allocate to cargo or fuel or to other systems.

BTW, by no means take this as an attack, overall I find the Aide very handy. I just noticed this discrepancy while trying to design a bike on my own.

 

[tjoneslo]

As the author of the book, I guess this is my question.

I used the larger (110vl) control system because it made the design process simpler. As a hyper-accurate gearhead I felt the vehicle must include the weight of the driver to get accurate performance numbers. You can build the cycle with a remote control system + Driver as passenger, remembering not to include the driver/passenger(s) (if any) in the chassis size. I could then argue the chassis needs to be larger to encompass the weight of the driver.

So after running this around in my head for a few days, I copped out and built the bikes using the default 110vl control system. If you don't care about being as accurate as I am with the engine size, chassis size and the rest of it, go right ahead and use the rules as written.

Here is an example of a grav cycle build using the remote control rules. It actually ends up being larger than one built usual control systems.

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Design Specifications
Installed Components Size Cost EP
330vl Chassis -330 330 -
Controls 33 165 -
Grav Drivetrain 3.96 45,540 -0.99
Adv. Fuel Cells 7.575 1,515 +5.05
Fuel 42.42
Passenger Saddle (2) 220 25 -
Headlight (6m beam) 0.4 10 -0.02
Two way Radio 1 150 -0.04
Cargo 21.645

Subtotals 0 Cr47,735 (Cr38,188 with 20% production model discount)</pre>[/QUOTE]

 

[cmdrx]

This thread has interested me since I have been building grav devices in which the operator sits on the vehicle and not necesarily 'in' it. Such as grav boards, broomsticks, and grav bikes

It bothered me a bit (yes, gearhead) that such a device would maintain full thrust and speed even when a 100vl/kg being was placed on it. I didn't like the idea of adding more space, that would mean making the vehicle larger, but what I dicided to do is take the 100vl into account when factoring the thrust and speed.

For example, Lets say my grav bike design is a 250vl craft with 200 units of grav thrust. By itself it would do 200/.25 = 800kph. When you add the human/vargr/whatever (but no K'kree) operator it would operate as a 350vl craft. 200/.35 = about 570kph. An additional passenger would drop this 200/.45 = about 444kph. In a way what I am doing is just adding mass, not volume. 1kg is equivalent to 1vl.

This way you can keep 'ride upon' vehicles small and economical withough adding cost for more chassis material.

And if you realy want to get nitpicky, you can use this the opposite way. Say you want to go faster by droping weight. Get rid of your cargo and just subtract the empty cargo space from the vl of the craft. Or if you're ethicaly challenged, throw your passenger(s) overboard for 100vl per!