ThunderbirdJunkie

My Feedback: (3)

Cool, bro. Perhaps now you can try getting a life?

You have yet to mention once how 2.4 DSM performs better than 75PCM. You can (and obviously have done so) go back and see all of ThunderbirdJunkie's posts and know his position.

Being a condescending punk will get you nowhere.

Slo-V Flyer

Hmm, so apparently a 2.4 Ghz radio not glitching where 75 Mhz FM would glitch, is not better performance in TBJ's book? If that is TBJ's logic, then there is no point in attempting to clarify anything any more on the subject with TBJ, as it is evident TBJ is unwilling or incapable of recognizing any advantages.

downunderdog

Downunderdog will defer to ThunderbirdJunkie's no doubt vastly superior body of experience on that subject.

Enjoy the glitching, frequency conflicts, and repeated antenna replacements with ThunderbirdJunkie's obsolete equipment.

Haddi Taha

let tbj be tbj

tbj knows that 2.4ghz is better but he doesn't find the issues of breaking antenners ect a problem for hm,

but if tbj didn't like his fm he wil get 2.4ghz

but he has no problems so why does he need it.

redfisher1974

What your forgetting is TBJ is the one who starts this every time, and a handful of times someone calls his bluff and out does him. His own fault really.

bobbucko

If your driving a car or a rock crawler gliches and interference may be more a nuisance than a killer, if you are in competion it will take you out of contetion, but if your flying a plane a 300 ft off the ground it can be disasterous. I've moved most everything over to 2.4 and will continue to do so.

Eman77

Haven't checked this thread in a bit, thanks for the link! But I don't get it - is this just a regular old FM receiver you swap xtals into as needed, or does it have fancy xxtra-like powers?

Either way, $25 is nice and cheap.

oliveDrab

My Futaba 7C 72 MHz has been rock-solid reliable since 2003 (knock on wood). And I've got an Airtronics VanGuard that's older than the Futaba - also rock-solid reliable. Why should I fork over $ to change to 2.4 ghz? If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Slo-V Flyer

Yeah, I don't think it's necessary to switch over if you don't have any issues in your application. For most who need a new radio, they seem to be buying the newer tech, 2.4 GHz. For those who already have what they have (FM) they can do what they wish. In my case, I had to move to 2.4 in order to get rid of the RF related glitching in AM/FM.

At my LHS, just last weekend I went to buy a 6ch full range receiver for my Fut. 6exa. Unfortunately all they had was 80% 2.4 Ghz stuff so I kinda got annoyed that they didn't have much in any decent FM full range 6 ch receivers any more. Time to go to Tower.

Ttam Says Blarg

Im just jumping in without reading the thread [&:]

There are two pluses in my book that count

No antenna to rip off (when your a crappy driver like me with a slash or anything top heavy I tend to break antennas. No antenna no worrys)

Range. You shouldnt have a problem at all.

oliveDrab

Right - when my 72 MHz radios crap out....then I'll be happy to buy a 2.4 ghz.

ThunderbirdJunkie

My Feedback: (3)

Where has ThunderbirdJunkie's 75mhz FM radio glitched[sm=confused.gif]
Enjoy your latency and bind-and-drive ability for a theif stealing your car off your pit table while you're racing a different class[&:]

Only replaced one transmitter antenna on the 3PM, and replaced one on the JR XR3. The 15 year old glitchless AM Futaba 2PCKA which a friend is currently running in his Savage has never had the antenna replaced. Haven't had a frequency conflict in almost six years[8D]

Dropping a 2.4ghz DSS FM transmitter results in broken antennas, too, in case you weren't aware

Oh, and guess what the US Military uses for drones like the Predator?

dual conversion FM. So, what was that you were saying about range? Did you know you can communicate with somebody on the moon with AM if you so desire? Don't see many HAMs using DSS for transmitting and receiving.
Just sayin'
If 2.4ghz range is so good, why is it ThunderbirdJunkie's bluetooth on his phone quits working when he walks six feet away from his phone?

2.4 is still FM, like it or not.
Crystals, good sir. Not sure if Hitec has a synth 75 positive conversion FM receiver, but it'll be worth checking into. Performance Devices sells the crystals for $6/pair on their website. Too bad Novak discontinued the XXTra receivers But they were $80 new, anyway.

Eman77

Yeah, the only reason I use the xxtras is I got em used and cheap on ebay. Hard to get now, it seems.

For a temporary workaround, I might try the $25 HiTec and just stick a crystal in it to match one of my 2 Tx. Cool, thanks.

ThunderbirdJunkie

My Feedback: (3)

Hitec's put up with a whole season in the SC10...despite somebody ELSE'S best efforts and it now having a broken case and tweaked servo plug terminals[&:]

Slo-V Flyer

Just because you haven't experienced glitching with 75 mhz FM doesn't mean it doesn't happen to others. Again, it helped me and other folks here who have stated its benefits over FM

HAH! How does having 2.4Ghz make it easy for someone to steal your car? Makes no sense. He can just as easily do so if it was FM. All he has to do is replace the receiver or change crystals in order to use it. That's a moot point.

Bluetooth devices, most that I know of are not designed for 100 ft range. An earpiece is not designed for and probably not have enough power for that first of all.

Also, as I mentioned FM does give plenty of range depending on its use, but in my particular ground r/c it didn't do. I have no doubt the military uses it for extended range for UAV. Most probably due to the LOS problems a 2.4 GHz can have. Or the military, like all government branches, is behind in catching up, due to extensive trial and tribulation every little upgrade goes through. Or perhaps like you, they do no have a problem with their current system so they don't see a need to "fix" it with DSS.

AM and FM no doubt is used for long distance communication. But we're not talking about HAM radios or military UAVs. We're talking about R/C cars and the benefits of 2.4 Ghz radio for them, not if the bluetooth devices, military or HAM community gets any use from it. Stay on topic.

ThunderbirdJunkie

My Feedback: (3)

Radio waves is radio waves, dude. As you stated, it's the power of the device that affects range, not the frequency; right there debunks anybody that's claiming there is a range advantage to DSS over PCM FM.

Any radio can glitch. It's not always, or even usually, caused by interference. It's caused by a crappy radio, period; no exceptions. A high end FM radio will exhibit fewer problems than a low end 2.4ghz DSS radio. There are plenty of Traxxas Slashes at the track with the stock 2.4ghz radio stuff that stutter off in the far corners of the track. It's not because they have a 2.4ghz DSS system, it's because they are a crappy radio.

Of all of you guys using 2.4ghz DSS systems, how many have been using your stuff for several years? Not two, not 3, but upwards of five?

AM also often carries further than FM; In southern Michigan you can pick up 700 WLW (a Cincinnati radio station) on your AM dial. Try it, you're no further than Kalamazoo, MI. This is because AM stations are allowed to use (you guessed it) more power than FM stations by the FCC.

None of the frequencies carries any genuine advantage over another. Period. Each has their pros and cons. Go to the boat section and ask how many of those guys are running a 2.4ghz DSS system.

Also, yes, that car stealing thing was an inane argument. Just as inane as some folks saying 2.4 is better because their $200 2.4ghz DSS radio is better than the RTR FM junk that came in their car.

inteva6184

why cant we all just get along?

ThunderbirdJunkie

My Feedback: (3)

As far as ThunderbirdJunkie knows, we are getting along. There's no animosity over here.

Slo-V Flyer

Crappy radio? So I guess my Futaba 2PL FM is a crappy radio that I paid $90 for along with its receiver. That's about $10-$20 less than I paid for my 2.4 Ghz Futaba T3PM.

No. In my case, when used in my Rustler, and Emaxx, the FM radio as well as stock AM just wouldn't stop glitching, despite using twisted wires, distancing the rx on the car from wires, Novak glitchbuster cap on rx, none of that helped more than a few feet. The 2.4 Ghz worked like a charm with non of that troubleshooting required, as skeptical as I was when I hooked it all up for the first time. In this scenario, it does give more usable range, doesn't it? It is better than the FM/AM radios I tried, as it is not susceptible to RF interference from the R/C car's wiring mess.

Also, the reason why TRX 2.4G radios suck is they apparently use only 4 AA's batteries. For some ingenious reason Traxxas thought that since the 2.4 GHz would cut back on RF interference and all the usual issues with AM, that they don't need the extra power their AM counter parts use (8 AA's powering those AM radios). I would bet that is a good part of the issue you see people having with their RTR Traxxas 2.4 GHz systems.

SyCo_VeNoM

yup
I'm guessing alot of the 8 AA battery 2.4ghz put that extra power they save into transition power to give the superior range.
Just my guess though seeing I don't have a setof the schematics sitting in front of me.

ThunderbirdJunkie

My Feedback: (3)

Interesting. Wonder why your Futaba FM radio doesn't work well, but ThunderbirdJunkie's does? If you've got receivers you'd like to ditch ThunderbirdJunkie would be more than happy to have them.

And usable range? All the radio stuff ThunderbirdJunkie has (apart from the one HPI RTR radio that came with the Savage, which has never been used since it was pulled in favor of the Futaba setup before the truck was ever fired) will go as far as ThunderbirdJunkie can see, which really gives him no reasonable desire for more range. Same goes for the old 2PCKA AM setup, and 2PC, a JR XR3, and some other radios that have been in the stable over the years.

It's interesting that you had issues with your 2PL FM, since ITBJRC it comes with the same R153F rx as the 3PM which ThunderbirdJunkie posseses a few, the same one being in the Savage taking a thrashing for years, and the other that has been in nothing but 2w 1/10 gas trucks (RC10GT and XXX-NT AD2) for almost seven years, which are arguably two of the most punishing platforms for a receiver to reside...especially with the owner of them being who it is [&:]

downunderdog

Actually, ThunderbirdJunkie must have had ThunderbirdJunkie's Mini-me (who loves chocolate) do his research, as in actual usage higher frequencies tend to suffer effects of distance more than lower frequencies. Downunderdog thinks it's due to the shorter wavelength in higher frequency transmissions - more attenuation by atmospheric factors or things that get between source and receiver. Just have a look at the FPV pilots - for a given transmitter power output and antenna gains, 900mhz will have better range than 2.4ghz or 5.8 ghz video links. Downunderdog's research has indicated that lower frequencies both penetrate obstacles better (that's why they use ULF for communication with submarines) and is attenuated less due to atmospheric factors (i.e. humidity, etc.). So, for ultimate range of RC transmitters and receivers, Downunderdog believes that the lower frequency spectrums (i.e. 27 Mhz AM, 72 Mhz) are THEORETICALLY better. However, as it's rare that Downunderdog would be operating a RC vehicle on the moon, ultimate theoretical range is neither here nor there... but I'm surprised that ThunderbirdJunkie and ThunderbirdJunkie's Mini-me did not bring it up. ThunderbirdJunkie has brought up a lot of irrelevant things in defense of 72/75 MHz, such as:

- RC jets using 2.4 gig and crashing (then ThunderbirdJunkie backs away from this statement and says that any frequency can be interfered with)
- Reliability (ThunderbirdJunkie has yet to clarify how 2.4ghz is less reliable than FM)
- Ease of service (ThunderbirdJunkie has yet to clarify what this means)
- Latency (first ThunderbirdJunkie brings up the fact that RC Jet flyers use 2.4 Gig, then ThunderbirdJunkie says that 2.4 Gig suffers from "Latency" issues. Curiously, ThunderbirdJunkie did not supply a link or any supporting information, as is usually the case.)
- "bind-and-drive ability for a theif…" (actually with all of the different spread spectrum 2.4 gig formats out there, Downunderdog believes that it would actually be easier to steal a 72 or 75 Mhz equipped vehicle - the RX's are interchangeable between brands, aren't they? Just change a crystal and off the theif goes. With 2.4 gig, most TX/RX combinations are brand specific.)

ThunderbirdJunkie is lucky that ThunderbirdJunkie's Mini-me's research did not lead him to throw in the old "signal attenuation affects range" argument in there. Downunderdog actually believes that the fact that AM DOES travel a long way is one of it's major weaknesses. A transmitter on the same frequency that is VERY far away (maybe even on the moon, if one cares to pursue hyperbole like ThunderbirdJunkie has been known to) can cause interference with an AM user right here in a park on earth. The real truth is that the all of the available frequency spectrums that have been allocated for RC model use have enough theoretical range to go beyond what any of us would normally need (except maybe FPV pilots who fly beyond visual range). What sets 2.4 gig apart is the extra bandwidth that is available at the higher frequency. That bandwidth can (and is) used to differentiate the signal from the noise. The TX can send a lot more data to the RX, and the RX can process the data to determine what is being transmitted by what it is bound to and what is noise or interference from other, unwanted, sources. So, while 27 Mhz or 75 Mhz may have more theoretical range, 2.4 gig actually has more USEFUL range because it filter out the interference, and the model does NOT do what 5 (or even just 2) different things that are all within range are telling it to do. It just does what the one transmitter that it is bound to tells it to do.

redfisher1974

This is a epic thread, Any odds on the winner[&:]

ThunderbirdJunkie

My Feedback: (3)

It's so cute that downunderdog remembers all of ThunderbirdJunkie's posts from other threads nearly verbatim. Or has the time to kill to go back and look at them, whichever.

He doesn't actually like chocolate that much anymore, it aggravates his acid reflux.
As many of ThunderbirdJunkie's statements you can recall off the top of your head, it's shocking that you don't notice him saying just that (albeit in different words; IE it can go as far as vision will allow, so who cares)
No, was just using this as an example of DSS/FHSS not being immune to a radio hit, as many others have claimed
First off, 2.4ghz DSS and FHSS are FM. So it's not possible for DSS/FHSS to be less reliable than FM.
Your normal PCM/otherwise one-frequency-bound radio, however, has been proven over the decades. DSS/FHSS has not yet been shown to be so as of yet, and with the lower and lower quality goods being pumped out because people want everything for next-to-free, it'll be shocking if we ever see the true potential in longevity.
Any Caribbean Jerk (or Queen, now we're sharing the same dream) that has a modicum of radio knowledge can diagnose and repair your average PCM FM or std AM RC radio in the event of a failure. Can you say that about DSS/FHSS?
If you don't believe it, that's fine. Do your own research and prove ThunderbirdJunkie wrong if you really wish to debunk his every statement. It's something that can be felt in two similarly equipped cars.
That was simply thrown in there as an illustration of the silliness in some of your posts. Again, you must be slacking on reading every single post ThunderbirdJunkie makes, since that was actually mentioned in this very thread.
Cool. It's pretty neat that you learned how to use lots of big words to make yourself sound smart, yet never learned not to end a sentence with a preposition.

SyCo_VeNoM

I know who the winner is already...



The people who got out of the argument long ago and are just reading the posts

Sorry for the derailment please continue.