G-Force Longview, a 40,000 square feet indoor trampoline and ninja complex in Texas, announced on Facebook that its building was sold and the business had to close effective December 31, 2023. The language of the agreements may not include permission for anything other than the beta, as someone in management at Nvidia assumed wrongly that it did. GForceNow went gold under the old agreement that only gave them the rights to the game.
G-force Entertainment, a Canadian music group that gained international popularity after appearing on America’s Got Talent season 14, announced that two of its original five locations will be closing permanently. The company has been closed due to excessive spending and not selling enough of their products. The company had tracks for the RC cars at Blue Diamond Park, which was what kept them open.
A viral video posted to TikTok may shed some light on what seems to have taken the “Hobby” out of Hobby Lobby, according to viewers. The company had tracks for the RC cars at Blue Diamond Park, which is what kept them open.
G-Force Hobbies Rockingham is now in a much bigger store joining the old toyshop. They now sell a massive range of R/C and hobby items, as well as toys and projects for sale. G-Force Hobby Australia is excited to announce that from next week until the end of November they will be accepting drivers resume for the 2016 season.
In summary, G-Force Longview, a 40,000 square feet indoor trampoline and ninja complex, has closed permanently due to excessive spending and insufficient sales.
📹 G Force Hobby Genova Shakedown and Final Thoughts. NEW 2WD RC Buggy from Japan
This is the third and final part of my experience with G Force Hobby’s debut RC assembly kit – the Genova. If you haven’t seen …
📹 How Much G-FORCE Does an FPV DRONE Pull?!
The results were surprising…. ROTOR RIOT! Want a frame you can crash into the ground? Try the Tanq!
Oh, man, that was a joy to watch, and your narration was spot on. Plus I believe you are talking to the right audience, the enthusiasts. I think I’m in the least nostalgic end, the least puritan. I love that matt black plastic, way better than blue anodised from Tamiya, ha ha! If it wasn’t for the damned price, it would have been fun to have this. Thanks for showing this machine to us!
The wheelbase is huuuge! As shown, it looks like quite stable in the bump. I believe that the closest buggy you can compare it is the Kyosho Ultima rerelease or Shcumacher latest Cougar. But both cars have a pedigree. The Genova, for a first try as a company to bring out a kit, you have quite nice features: CVD, threaded shock, turnbuckles everywhere, all metal gear. You have a fair argument: will it create the same enthusiasm among the public as some rerelease? I don’t think so also, but I do appreciate Gforce’s effort to offer such a product! And I would love to get one!
From the article, it is clear that this buggy is an excellent performer in it’s class. Looks so composed and planted going over the bumpy terrain. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the Genova for all of us outside of Japan. I too am rooting for them. It’s not easy for a small new player to succeed in the established rc world. 🤞👍
Great review! Your buggy looks really good and seems to handle very nicely. I didn’t notice the similarity to a Colonial Viper until you mentioned it. Maybe you can get a spare body and paint it white with an orange stripe down the front. 😃. Do you plan to keep this in your collection or move it along to make room for something else?
Hey David, that buggy looks fantastic and the composure of it over the bumps is awesome! I think your conclusion on the price point and support is interesting but I would buy one here in the UK in a heart beat. However, I think the export price would push it too far up against the competition buggies. If they could get it around the price point of a TD2 on export I would certain get one. Thanks for sharing 👍🏻🙌🏻
I agree that that low slung and sleek design really screams retro 2WD buggy racing and I think it looks fantastic. For what I can get one for it is too much money but if actually sold in the US for a reasonable price I would probably lean towards getting one. It is not too often you can get a 1St release buggy from a company and I hope they succeed and can make some more kits. I think your assessment of the price is dead on. Not a high end race car you would be able to compete with and not a cherished re-release so the folks that can afford this may not jump on it right away. It is a little too much for an entry level buggy and you can get other 2WD buggies RTR for less and many people are not building kits anymore unless they are racing or collecting. I am not sure where it fits in but it does look great and I would love to have one if the price is right!
Great article again David, cheers for sharing your thoughts and insight into this buggy. I think one problem is for a lot of buyers it’s an old school race type buggy released in the wrong era of mid motor buggy’s and people may see it as a step backwards, vi rage fans may not buy into it because they didn’t exist back in the days of Losi xx’s and rc10b2/b3s so like you said there’s no emotional connection. Having said that I love it 🙂
Wonderful car. For me, price is not the decisive factor in this case. Considering what Tamiya is charging for the TD02 and what you get for it, that’s a bargain. From what I’ve seen of this buggy so far I’m really impressed. Too bad there is no distributor in Europe. The problem is certainly not getting it from Japan, but rather the spare parts. The Battlestar Galactica comparison is very funny. Maybe you should add Captain Starbuck as a driver 😂
To see your different buggies handle the bumps and waves was my highlight! The depiction was really clear. Would be interesting to see different setups in comparison. You have a nice camera setup to keep the running buggy in frame over quite a long drive time. Not sure how you do that… – Where did you get the neon yellow camping plates? I am just looking for somthing like that, my prefered size would be around 12-15cm in diameter. –
One thing you can usually count on with a vintage buggy is interesting decals and box art.I think that the emotional connection comes from a distinct character that Tamiya and Kyosho were so good at instilling into their products.Although the looks of this are mid school retro,I feel more effort on the decals and packaging would have made a big difference.It has that modern buggy blandness unfortunately.But good luck to them on their next efforts,and maybe the brand will gain a following and ship over here to the Uk.
this was a extremely well put together article review from specs to speaking about it and yes i think this would be very competitive in the race scene from the little running footage ive seen it seems to handle extremely well and i think i will be adding this to my very well loved two wheel drive rc car collection and a huge thank you for such a great,well spoken article 🙂
you can also count the G force by dividing the velocity difference by the time of crash. Velocity was probably around 170 kph so around 47 mps, time was around one frame (probably less) looking at 30 fps youtube. We get 47mps divided by 1/30 of a second, so we get 1410 m/s^2 of acceleration which is around 144 G
I’m pretty sure you can put G force in your OSD from your flight controller in betaflight… so maybe thats an option to get the data of crashing into concrete, by recording your DVR/OSD? Of course there will be a slight delay to transmission, which may be too long but maybe another option to explore. Thanks for this experiment and your quad Shawn 😉
The highest recorded g-force experienced by a human who survived was during the 2003 IndyCar Series finale at Texas Motor Speedway on October 12, 2003 in the 2003 Chevy 500 when the car driven by Kenny Bräck made wheel-to-wheel contact with Tomas Scheckter’s car. This immediately resulted in Bräck’s car impacting the catch fence that would record a peak of 214 G At Holloman John Paul Stapp made history aboard the Sonic Wind I rocket sled on December 10, 1954, when he set a land speed record of 632 mph in five seconds, subjecting him to 20 Gs of force during acceleration. The “record” far from 9G.😃
If I had to take an educated guess, I’d say your final impact was over a thousand G. The TPU GoPro mount and battery/tape amalgam probably had a lot more deformation than the aluminum and carbon quad frame, so it increased your deceleration time, but I can’t imagine much energy attenuation before the rest of the rigid parts contacted. The bolts and spacers in the flight stack probably ate up a little more energy, but it had enough force to bend and break the FC within the flight stack, so it was still a crazy high amount of impact. That would be cool to repeat the experiment with a “shock watch” type G meter onboard as an additional analog collection device!
14+ G @ 180-200 MPH Punch outs @ 45k ermps/ 100amps spikes 10000 W im guessing…. I’ve been so waiting for a article like this Thanks Guys love the content. My morgoth build was Inspired by bardwell and stinger 160MPH article. I have the article back up if you like to see it in action. Drag Drone -Maiden flight LOOK at the very start of the article for the stats on the OSD. Moore FPV 38 subscribers Analytics
Depending on the speed at impact, this instant deceleration can easily exceed 1000+G. You can do the math yourself. The moment you add a time of deceleration smaller than 0.5 second, the G-force gets through the roof. The most extreme race car crash pulled 214G and the driver survived. The deceleration happened in seconds, not milliseconds.
Bardwells look over at 1g his was one of the best articles in awhile. Between the editing of cut scenes, talk and fly balance and subject overall- loved it. Also love when bardwell is in the articles with Bubby. Great contrast of “screw it let’s just fly and have raw talent” (Bubby)…. And the “hold on let’s dive into the details” (bardwell)
I did the math: Assuming the drone was at 75 meters high, which would allow it to accelerate to roughly 50 m/s while propelling itself downwards vertically. Also assuming that it took 0.1s to transfer its velocity from 50 m/s to 0 m/s. It would have pulled roughly 51 g’s of deceleration. That is well enough to kill someone if exposed to for longer than one or two seconds at most. That is a similar number to what very extrieme car crashes are btw. (Due to inaccuracies, leave ~10-15 g-s of force to be accounted for)
In addition to Gs (acceleration, or the derivative of speed) you should also calculate and display “jerk”, which is the rate of acceleration (or derivative of acceleration), which is also VERY important to know for humans being exposed to high variations of accelerations (the moment were the drone goes from 1G to 10G almost instantly would 100% kill you I guess). There is even a third term, “snap”, which is the rate at which the jerk varies, or derivative of jerk.
Looks like you guys were having some great fun… kind of one of the main points of this hobby. I have yet to produce a single article myself but I think I found a goodly second or 2 of this article that I can “review”. Would be funny. Thanks for doing this, does go to show just how amazing these drones are and just how much punishments they can take, it is remarkable. Man, some of my old foam RC planes could not survive you even being mean to them, just look at them wrong and boom, a broken stabilizer or wing… and helis – they also don’t take hits very well. Cool as heck, just a bit easier to damage. RC Cars can take a good hit, at least some can. I can’t help but always feel it and say it – we are lucky as all heck and spoiled to have this kind of tech available to all of us, truly a gift as far as I am concerned as I started flying back aroun the late 70’s – AM radios, about 1000ft range, NO Failsafes, run times of only a min or 2 on NiCd electrics, a bit better with NiMh. Batteries were heavier I think, power to weight definitely much better nowadays. One of my first planes had zero throttle control – it flew until it was out of batteries – very stressful but tons of laughs and fun with my friends back then. But one thing that I really like is that there is something for just about everyone – planes trains, cars, boats, even submarines… all very cool stuff. So glad you guys all had a fun day while the rest of us “suckers” are stuck in gray, drab office environments or gray, drab production environments, etc.
My High Speed Taz (Tasmanian Devil at 7.6 rev/sec) pulls 17G’s youtube.com/watch?v=VWkXR5B6Ajo I have been flying a Raptor quad for 5 years till he stopped selling them a couple years ago. I came up with a preformance test to test props/motor/batteries. Simply enable BB log in a hover and punch out for 2 sec. My tanker pulls 9G at the center of the quad. Changing props/motors/batteries its simple to compare, and its comparable to anyone else numbers. Going wot and carving a turn I hit a little over 16G. The max of most gyro/acc is +/-16G and i can see the G’s clip in a hard WOT carving turn. My tanker is 430g AUW with 4s-1300. In rcg the mini tube frame guys were building lighter frames and hit 15G punchout and carving is way above what the acc can handle. I prefer the icm 20601 (not 20602) because I alway fly at 1950 rates (at 1750 it feels like a dead battery, just not snappy). This 20601 gyro/acc does 4000d/s roll rates and +/-32G acc, it does not get confused like all the other gyros do on my aggressive tricks at my rates. After 5 years I still haven’t seen anyone do my trick, quadmover has tried, but no cigar. I am a little surprised you guys did know about this since BB was created, missing out on a great preformance testing tool.
This week a one fellow asked if he can build a four inches quad with 1404 motors to fly with a 3000 mAh bat. He did the calculations based on the Iflight motor table. And he did not get why I say it will not fly at all. This article has opened his eyes 😂🎉 The mass and the weight are two different values and the weight depends on the G force.
For maximum G-forces, the is actually 2 different moments we see high G forces. 1 is in the fighter pilots, yes they can take somewhere 9G and stay composed and keep flying, a normal person will have hard time breathing and staying awake after 3-4 G’s. The second type of G force is in an accident, like in F1 max Verstappen hit 53G in a crash, after this type of force you will need a full check up. P.S : 53 G for an 80 kg (176,37 lbs) person is 4240 kg (9347,6 lbs)
Well you can estimate the G forces on the impact, that being said with a lot of assumptions. As far as I know, fpv drones can go above 100mph, let’s say that is about what you were doing at the time of impact. You can see about 2 frames of the impact in the article, the first one on the ground and the second as it already bounces up. I’d say the impact itself took about half a frame (possibly less) a= (v-u)/t – I assume u is 0, so we can take it out of the equation g= 9.81m/s^2 So, v =100mph = 44.7 m/s t = 1/30s * 0.5 = 0.0167s a = 44.7m/s / 0.0167s = 2676.6 m/s^2 = And there you have it. I would say the average acceleration you pulled during the impact is roughly at Though I wouldn’t be surprised if at peak during the impact it was in the thousands. If you have any more accurate data, feel free to substitute into the equations and share what did you get. Great article guys!
The highest Gs a human can survive is MUCH more than 9 Gs. In F1, high Gs (usually from deceleration) is what usually kills drivers. In fact, the last fatality in F1 was during the 2014 Japanese Grand Prix when Jules Bianchi endured 254 Gs. The highest amount of G forces ever survived by a human although was during the 1994 Monaco Grand Prix when Karl Wendlinger suffered 360 Gs.
Hey guys, physicist here. All you need to do is measure the velocity (v) of your quad before the impact and the “deceleration distance” (x), that is, the distance your quad took to stop, that is, the deformation-distance of the battery. Then you can use simple physics. Let’s say, your quad had a speed of v=40 m/s (yes, we need metric units) and your battery was around 3 cm (x=0.03 m) shorter/flatter after the crash. Then your deceleration calculates simply like this: a = (v²)/(2*x). In the above example it would be around 26666 m/s². Since 1 G = 9.81 m/s², that converts to 2718 G. Even when it was a little slower I would say: no wonder your battery exploded 😉
This was some nerdy awesome fun to watch! A cool followup to this would be to setup a high jump mat or some matresses and fly as fast as possible into that. You’d get your G’s but the deceleration would be less intense and maybe it’d save the fc or the gopro datalogs. These things are so fast and overcome the 1g from gravity so easily that horizontal G’s into a mat would be pretty much as high as a vertical acceleration into the mat. Horizontal may be easier to aim too.
Your thrust-to-weight ratio IS your max G force. If you have a thrust to weight ratio of one, you can only hover, which is one g. If you have a thrust to weight ratio of 10:1, you will accelerate at 9 g + 1 for gravity. Crashes excluded. A crash is not a very accurate thing to measure because every component will experience a different g-force. If you figure the some part of the drone decelerates in about 3 inches on soft soil, coming from 100 feet up and a 10:1 thrust ratio, it should accelerate at true 11g, and obtain 266 fps at impact. In 3 inches, that’s about 5,300 G.
F=ma, thus for a given mass (the drone) the maximum acceleration happen when the maximum force is applied. The maximum force will be applied when all 4 motors give maximum output together. Take the drone, check the max weight it can hover, divide my the drone’s weight, you have the max G the drone can apply by itself. No need for any gyro… Give or take a minimal practical aerodynamical flaw in reality due to complexities of turbulence added by the initial velocity of the drone when the props start to scream if you let it fall before you apply max power to all 4 motors… I’m old, tired and english isn’t my mother language, feel free to correct any error in my reasoning.
I think the quad copter theme is completely finished for this website. They began to shoot bullshit and break their copters. You guys should rethink your concept and be respectful to your audience. There are plenty of websites on YouTube showing clowns and jokers, why should we have another one here?
Well, trying to measure the G-force of crashes like this is a joke. Even if you will have a number it will not make any sense with a piece of equipment like this. You really need another grade of the accelerometer to do that. It should have several orders of magnitude more data rate, and working range. There will be several hundred Gs
You could approximately simulate the G-force of that last crash putting the same LiPo into a hydraulic press. Take a reading of how much weight is being pressed on the battery at the moment when it will look similar to the crashed battery. Then just divide that weight by weight of the quad (being 800 grams was it?). My guess is it will be something like 200-300G.
So I’ve been learning to fly FPV firstly by using sims like liftoff and i’ve been finding it quite tricky. I was really confused by all the laughter when you turned your rates up because on the sim, mind flips like that 😂 I’m guessing this is not normal, and I have been making things harder for myself haha!
technically going straught down towards the ground cancels out acceleration due to gravity. also accelerometers might saturate at some point. the easy solution is to film in front of a striped pattern as you acclerate upward. the mythbusters method. by analyzing the frames you can get pretty exact data on velocity over time
it’s not hard to max Gforce when it’s IMPACT gforces… those are easily 3-4x stronger then your FLIGHT g forces… without wrecking the thing…. that’s a no brainer … so what’s the point of wrecking just to max the gforces? speaks nothing to build quality… speaks nothing frame design… board design… speaks nothing to soldering ability… speaks nothing to tuning quality… there’s no safety factors built/designed into these frames like crumple zones of the automotive industry… so what’s the point?
The best way other than crashing, to pull G force is to punch full throttle. Regardless of the direction it’ll theoretically let the quad use it’s full potential in terms of pulling G’s. You can do it while drawing a banked turn if you wanna sustain the G’s rather than slowly losing it and eventually hitting a terminal velocity. And one thing to note, more G’s you pull, faster the battery juice is gonna drain
actually all you need to do is just calculate the speed you were going to the ground and there are already enough data on the internet that can tell you the amount of G’s it would create if you would have crashed to a wall… There is even an online calculator called omnicalculator, just search google for it… A normal weight person would face 150 G’s with a 30mph crash in a car so you can imagine it is ridiculously a high number 😉
16g or 32g is typically the most that gyros can read. So that’s what you hit at the end of the flight. Btw if you measure raw gyro itll bump up to 3+g pretty regularly in hover just due to normal craft vibrations. So technically most your flying was regularly above 3g (except for the low throttle portions)
Lol the record is 9g Bardwell? No high performance mono wing plane pilots pull will get insanely fast G onset as high as 12-13… sustained Gs yes go to fighter pilots at around 9. The record tho is the fella survived was an nascar driver in a crash that was 216g.. of course that’s for milliseconds and data logging showed he sustained over 50g in the crash for a total of 1.4 seconds. Science believes 16g sustained for 1 minute would be lethal to 90% of the population.