QAV-S 2 is here! The one thing I hated about my frame--finally fixed!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ก.ค. 2024
- Uncertain about what to buy? Check out THE ULTIMATE FPV SHOPPING LIST: www.fpvknowitall.com/ultimate...
SUPPORT ME ON PATREON at: bit.ly/2Ep5Sia
THIS IS MY FULL TIME JOB. Here are other ways that you can support me: www.fpvknowitall.com/support-me/
---
I receive a commission (at no extra cost to you) if you make a purchase after clicking one of the affiliate links below.
Buy the QAV-S JB Edition V2 at:
* GetFPV - bit.ly/3DQI6Ji
Custom 3D prints for the QAV-S JB Edition are available for purchase at Noozle3D:
www.noozle3d.com/collections/...
STL files for all prints are available at:
www.thingiverse.com/thing:487...
MANDATORY DISCLAIMER: I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
---
00:00:00 - The QAV-S 2 is finally here!
00:00:11 - The goal: 700 grams with a GoPro
00:02:00 - Reasonable durability, to save weight
00:02:50 - Front FC mounting
00:03:19 - Rear mounting
00:03:56 - Will Vista, O3, Walksnail, HDZero fit?
Why it's ok to mount your gyro away from the Center of Mass - • Why it's ok to mount y...
00:04:53 - 20mm high slammed-deck design
00:05:29 - New metal front end fits O3 air unit camera
00:06:19 - These M2.5 screws are NOT correct
00:06:47 - Innovative GoPro mount
Thingiverse album of QAV-S parts - www.thingiverse.com/thing:487...
00:07:51 - Grippy battery pad?
00:09:18 - The most exciting new part of this frame!
00:12:16 - The one downside: weight
We are really excited about this new frame, it is the best one yet! Thanks Joshua for all your hard work on helping bring this to market for all the FPV flyers out there.
I really liked the look the V1 frame but unfortunately I got rid of it because sometimes you guys did not have stock of replacement parts for up to three months. Have those issues been resolved? Nothing worse than not being able to fly for months because you’re waiting on the replacement part.
@@aerialimagery3216supply and demand. If this frame doesn't sell as well as expected. The same thing will happen. It's not worth Lumenier to produce, and for GetFPV to stock small volumes of replacement parts that rarely anyone will buy
@@aerialimagery3216 Yes spare parts for this frame are already in stock on the store and we plan to have replacement parts available for a long time.
It says "optimized for O3"
However as we all know by now the O3 requires soft mounting to avoid vibration issues in the footage.
I can not see how this frame qualifies to be labeled "optimize" if the O3 footage is not usable due to vibration issues.
Please share your thoughts how you plan fixing this.
As long as this is not resolved how about changing the description to "This frame fits the O3 unit but is NOT optimized and vibration issues will compromise the usability of your O3 footage"
Thank you!
@@MattShonan Thanks for your feedback, the website description has actually already been updated since early yesterday. I disagree that the vibrations will compromise the usability of the O3 footage however. The footage looks great actually, and many users should be fine. Whether it works or not is highly dependent on the settings and parts used, and whether you want to stabilize your footage or not. But in general this frame wasn't designed for recording footage from the FPV camera, which the product description now reflects accurately.
The GoPro mount is basically impossible to get on. Sanding it down in a few places fixed it but there was no way I was going to get that thing on, carbon fiber was too thick for the slot.
I haven't seen a jb video in weeks ! Now i came and ! checked ! To se if you ! Were still ON THE air !
Regarding the battery sticky pad, TBS Source One V5 includes it in the package as a separate component (with a sticky back), so the user can choose whether to apply it to the frame or not.
The arm tensioning design is unnecessarily complex.
There are far simpler ways to achieve the same thing.
But it is very impressive that they are able to include so much custom CNC aluminum without making the frame super expensive. And I don't know how that weight is even possible, that's incredibly lightweight considering 3mm bottom plate and so much aluminum.
Everybody is looking for a frame that, "does something new", but all I want is for ONE SINGLE COMPANY to come out with a frame that doesn't try to do anything "novel" and simply WORKS.
The goal of my designs have always been to start with what just works. This iteration is actually a pretty significant simplification of arm retention. If you look at the core of designs I've done over the years I tend towards simplicity and usability over complexity. The arm design wasn't an effort to do something new for the sake of being different it was an iterative solution to the design goals and mechanical needs. This design not only simplifies the arm joint and assembly, it also provides lateral clamping force on the arms. If there are simpler ways to accomplish the same thing I would love to see someone put that design out there, because it doesn't exist anywhere I've seen, and I've looked.
Keeping the weight down was definitely a challenge, but that's why we stayed with 5mm arms for the Bardwell version. Also the front plate is 2.5mm not 3mm, but we gained back the strength by modifying the cage and how it connects to the frame to allow more carbon around high stress areas and use the aluminum to reinforce the front end. It is actually stronger than the original 3mm plate design with side carbon plates, while being simpler and easier to install.
YOU GOT A WINNER MY FRIEND.......DEFINATELY NEED 2.....ITS PERFECT
Can’t wait to try this out. I started building and pretty much flying real FPV with the V1, and after so many crashes, that drone is still going strong. 💪🏼
Cool shirt, just noticed the tiny quad in it!
The QAV-250 v1 was my first frame ever back in 2014. I have done multiple builds using Lumenier frames which have been my favorite ever since. I’m going to buy your exact setup.
Looking forward to your build video please include your betaflight tune!!!!! Thanks
Wow awesome! Thanks for all your years of support! The QAV250 was one of the first mini quads back in the day, good to see some people are still around that remember it :)
Looks pretty good, hopefully some EU stores pick this up.
Its a little shame there's no O3 soft mounting though.
my thought exactly wheres the soft camera mount . TPU at the very least . silicone if at all possible . wonder about the camera vibrations
Official video response to the hard/soft mount controversy coming any time now.
The aluminum thingy is just brilliant, Joshua! Fantastic work!!! 😃
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
Nice work on the arm mounts!
I just bought mine!
Looks nice great work
I think this will be my first quad build, great job guys.
Any chance we will see a 3.5in version?
Nice. Can't wait to get my own.
Ya know those insanely great ideas that make everyone feel dumb for not thinking of them? The structural engineering and applied forces of that arm lock feel like an epiphany 😮. Hats off to everyone who had a hand in the design 👏
My question is though about the screws that lock the aluminium pieces... Won't they just come loose because of vibrations? And can you apply loctite to aluminium?
@DroneAcharya9 only time will tell lol. They are accessible without removing anything so even if they did they would be quick and easy to tighten. And yes, loctite is fine for aluminum
I truthfully think this deisgn is terrible. Its the only time in my life ive paid that much money to replace 1 screw. Truly impressive.
@BergeronFPV well that raises an eyebrow. Mind if ask how much it was and if you were able to buy it individually?
I would buy this if it had a soft mount for the camera!
Nice
This is probably my next forever frame. Madtechs hateing right now because the word optimized. It doesn't need silicone for the 03. The speedy bee introduced vibration for having 2 top plates. Johnnyfpv se had zero issues with rock steady. It had arm slop from the wedge shifting around. This is brilliant. The bottom plate is super important with qav-s. I really like the gopro mount thats huge believe it or not. The arm wedge before had holes in them anyways, I think this will help arm slop. 💪
Absolutely LOVE IT!! You guys killed it with this frame! Bravo 👏
I just saw this video and i had to purchase the frame right away, thanks for being who you are, your video’s help me a lot in this hobby
TEAM GRIPPY BATTERY PAD.
Very cool design, Joshua.
Love the innovation of your arm mount
Looks like a really good frame. I really like the aluminum arm locking mechanism
Its literally a terrible deisgn , If that lynchpin falls out you MUST pay getFPV $70+ CAD to get a new screw and lynchpin.
This looks awesome - will you be doing a build video with your standard components and what you have chosen ?
looking forward to getting this!
Gonna have to grab this one and put my gold jb popo motors on it 🔥
Share photos, we love those motors! Collectors item now :)
@@GetFPV definitely will do😎🙌🙌😎
I can't find the build video for this drone
Beautiful frame. Unfortunately broke after 1 minor crash. The bottom and top plates are really weak. Not recommended for freestyle.
The parts of the frame that I don’t like are the cut-outs in the arms. There should just be a round hole there. I think the sharp edges create a stress riser and I have seen a picture of one failure that occurred exactly where I predicted. The slots look like they would scoop dirt under the motor if you “landed” in dirt. It looks like it would be worse than the round hole you usually see on the arms. It does look like th Johnny FPV arms would fit though. The aluminum camera cage should really have been designed with 3D printed inserts to work better with the O3 camera. If you were running a GoPro though I guess this wouldn’t matter as you could turn stabilization off on the O3.
There's some interesting stuff here. So TPU is actually hard enough that the damping it provides is not significantly different from simply hard mounting. You can see this progression in a lot of frames that started with 3D prints and then had to switch to silicon. Even silicon is only effective when it's approached correctly. Many of the silicon mounts on the market are only marginally more effective than TPU. Again, a lot of folks have issues with stabilization even with the silicon inserts on some frames. We'll definitely be addressing this on other future models in the QAV-S line that are more focused on cinematic use cases where actually filming with an O3 is desirable rather than simply using the O3 as an FPV feed, which is the target for this frame. We went through a lot of iterations to find something that works well.
As far as the arms go, this is the same design that's been out on the original Bardwell QAV-S for three years. We have thousands of frames in the wild and I don't think I've ever seen a break at the motor mount. Probably there are few just from the simple volume of frames in circulation, but it definitely isn't a common failure mode. The original Bardwell frame was probably one of the highest sales volume frames in the FPV market, so if it was an issue it definitely would have shown up. There were two failure modes we specifically addressed with the new design, one being the front end right at the camera plates, and the other being the arms shearing at the X plate. The new aluminum parts and changes to carbon solve both those issues. The new frame should be a good bit tougher than the original, though it's still designed to be a balance between weight and durability. We really tried to take everything we learned from feedback on the original and use it to improve the 2.
@@QuadMcFlyFlies There’s a lot I like about this frame. The arm design just isn’t one of those things. Having the motor attached at that point probably reduces the chances of the arm breaking where I think there is a stress riser but I don’t think the cut out gives any advantage and definitely has some disadvantages. The fact that it’s going to direct dirt into the bottom of the motor is the bigger issue for me. I have another frame with 3D printed camera mounts and it really helps. Would love if they had silicon inserts for that frame instead but it’s almost perfect the way it is. Using an arm as a prop wrench just doesn’t seem like a good idea. I always bring a prop tool with me when I fly.
@@TechnicallyTom to be honest I didn't even think about the cutout being the same size as the prop nuts! The cutouts were actually to save weight. I removed as much material as possible in the parts of the arm that have no structural impact to reduce the weight. Across four arms I think it shaved almost 3 grams from the frame, and the further from the center of rotation the weight is the more impact it has. Can't say I've really noticed it picking up dirt, but different folks fly in different ways so if that's a concern for you I totally get it. With Bardwell's weight target though I had to get pretty creative to get the weight down to the point we did. That's a big part of why we didn't ship with the horned arms as well, it added a good bit of material out near the ends of the arms. Unfortunately no design is going to be perfect for every user. As you say though the Johnny arms absolutely fit, so you have some options. Pretty nice to be able to mix and match. Unfortunately they won't fit in this frame without shaving 1.5mm off the tips of the arms. A couple minutes with a belt sander should do it though if you want.
Where can I get a new gopro holder for this frame?
Congrats on your new frame. The arm mount design looks great!
Great material selection there on the x plate, forcing the arm to break first saving the others.
Good compromise on the grippy battery pad. Ill buy a few frames, but probably only 1 grippy pad.
Good looking frame Bardwell!
Radiomaster pocket review? 🥺
Very cool frame.
Has anybody done a speed test on this yet?
Perfect frame if it had soft mount inserts for the DJI O3 camera!!! Until that changes the Quadmulla Siren F5 frames are keepers
Come on - please make new CNC camera plates with soft mount inserts - and sell them as extra parts until hard mount plates are sold out😉👍🏻
To be honest I'm still pretty confused why anyone would want a soft mount in this frame. Even with a soft mount you won't really be able to use stabilized footage from this frame with the O3 due to the props being so heavily in view from the FPV camera. Also I highly recommend not using stabilization for general freestyle footage anyway, it looks bad and prevents you from improving your piloting as it messes with your understanding of what is actually happening on the quad.
The frame looks amazing
That gopro mount looks real questionable 😅
It's the same mount system that's been working great on the QAV-Pro line for quite a while now. It's already been proven already by top tier professional pilots in the commercial environment, we're just bringing it to the consumer line frames.
that x plate is a novel design and i do hope it works but there is a but here which is that's not enough threads for the steel bolt to lock into the aluminum plate, we've all stripped out 3M threads in aluminum standoffs even with much longer contact 8+ mm. There are slots cut out of the x plate that could have been left in and had a much longer threaded section for the bolt to make contact. It would even simplify the machining of that piece and hardly add any weight it could still have 2 holes drilled at either side just not be a full slot.
I ran the original bardwell edition qav-s for some time and eventually just got tired of snapping arms that were so expensive to replace and often out of stock. replacement arms should be $4 not $7 thats just to much for such thin arms.
There are two things happening at the standoff end of things that make standoffs more likely to strip. The first is often not fully tapped. Regardless of the standoff height some standoffs only have about 3-4mm of depth actually tapped, we actually ran into that issue on an early batch of standoffs on one of our frames where the part from the supplier wasn't what we had specified. We went back to the supplier immediately and made sure the standoffs were fully tapped. Weirdly it's not something you notice unless you're specifically looking for it since it's internal to the standoff, so it's hard to catch. If you shine a light through the standoff from one end and look through from the other you can see where the threaded section ends.
The second reason standoffs are more likely to strip is because they often deform before they strip. Standoffs typically only have about 1mm of material outside the threads, and a fairly long lever arm. This means that as they stress the threads actually loose grip as the aluminum tolerances shift. When you look at the stripped standoffs you can usually physically see the deformation as the hole is stretched and becomes out of round. Even with only 3-4mm of thread depth, I don't think I've ever seen a quality aluminum standoff strip that wasn't deformed in this way. If you can keep the standoffs from deforming and they're made of quality material they are actually really hard to strip. Even 3mm of depth into aluminum is surprisingly strong when you can keep the integrity of the shape intact (think motor mounts), and we've gone with over 4mm in the X plate design. I'm not going to say it will never strip out, because you can test something for an infinite number of hours and as soon as you get it into mass production someone will surprise you, but I can say in our stress testing the arm will actually break before the threads strip, even with force being applied to both arms simultaneously in opposite directions. In addition, also keep in mind that a lot of the force is actually being applied laterally onto the screw and transferred through to the opposite arm due to the lever angle, the flat surface of the arm along the screw length and the angle of the wedge. Not a lot of the force is applied directly out from the thread. Also the impact forces on the front two arms which are most likely to take significant crash damage are putting the force into the X plate, not away from the X plate and into the threads.
As far as the holes go, interestingly enough those holes are there out of manufacturing necessity not only to lighten things. Even without them you'd get at best another mm of of thread depth, and tapping the holes becomes much more difficult without a through hole. Tapping full depth in a closed end hole requires a different machining process and you can't have the screw use the full depth of the hole anyway, because you have to leave room for material flex in the carbon during clamping and screw length tolerances. Also screws in odd 1mm lengths are difficult and expensive to source, so we really would have had to shoot for 2mm longer screws, which doesn't really leave the room needed for the machining processes. As it is there's actually 4.5mm of thread depth, and again keep in mind your motors exist on pretty much only 3mm at most, often 2.5mm of thread depth with the same aluminum. I will say 2.5mm is really pushing the limits for aluminum though, and I prefer motors with 3mm thread depth.
Again, I'm not saying this design will never strip, but I am saying a lot of thought, planning, and crash testing was put into this design.
My x-plate arm wedge unscrewed itself the other day. After every crash I check all the screws. I had to buy a new x-plate for $25
If you do a full build with all components required for remote I.D. I will buy one and I will also finally make the jump to walksnail with your frame. looks like a winner.
wow. Amazing. Hi Tech frame. Unfortunately, not available in China.
The aluminum center key is a great idea; makes putting the frame together way easier than holding the arms just right like on an apex. Also my 3.5” flyfish volador frame came with a sticky and regular battery pad so they’re listening lol
I feel like you could of ditched the GoPro mount thing and used that cost to add a kick ass battery pad.
The GoPro mount already existed from other frames, so it was almost no cost to include. It also means one less print to get in the in the air for a significant number of users. This is the same mount we've used in the Pro line of frames, and it's been very popular there.
@@QuadMcFlyFlies it just sucks because I’m going to buy this frame and have to toss the battery pad and the mount and spend more money on a good battery pad. That I’m going to have to cut to fit which won’t look as good as machine cut. Who in freestyle FPV is using a GoPro mount like this? I haven’t seen anyone use this type of mount for a camera. Maybe guys that don’t fly freestyle use this mount but this is a free style frame so the mount is moot.
@@jtcustomknives if you can wait a few more weeks, the sticky pads should be ready. Unfortunately the sourcing and manufacturing on those has taken longer than we would have liked. They're definitely coming soon though!
Do Motors with a 16x16mm mounting pattern fit on this frame? (XING2 2306 1755KV)
The aluminum X plate design is REALLY cool. Super convenient for an arm change.
Looks like a very nice frame. Congrats JB. 😎
I love the frame! I’ve had 2 decent crashes with it. Nothings broke. After every crash I make sure all the screws are tight. Today I noticed my back left prop was hitting the frame. The aluminum arm wedge from the x-plate unscrewed itself and flew away. I ordered a new x-plate for $25, a little pricey. I am gonna use lock-tight from now on. Hopefully this won’t be a reoccurring issue!
So the screw does fly away with too many vibrations huh? Very nice to know, thanks for sharing this!
Frame looks awesome! The aluminum x plate is a great idea. I have the Johnnyfpv version qav-s. I really like even though it is a bit heavy.
I got the v1 and its one of my top two rigs I got to have the v2 its important I need It!!... well thats what im going to tell my wife!
Who provides the mounting screw for that Gopro mount? I recently purchased both this kit and a gopro 10 bones, but neither seem to come with that final connecting screw.
Woooooooowww. I had that issue with the arms, but in the johnnyfpv edition. Glad it got solved
I have the V1 already and I just got the V2 and I'm building a water resistant drone with it. Where do we get the grippy battery pad from, though?
I have the v1 and I love it now I need the V2 just I have to wait that will be available in Europe 😊
Hey JB. Long time. Your audio doesn’t sound like your usual production. Just sharing, not trying to be a prick.
Damn, I was looking for my first 5 inch frame to build and I bought the aos evo 5 when I woke up this morning. I might need to build 2.
This frame will not work for the DJI 03 unit. 03 must be soft mounted or you will get jello and vibrations.
The O3 air unit only needs soft mounting if you are using stabilization. If you're flying a GoPro or don't use stabilization it is fine.
Then I guess this frame is different than every other new frame out there.
I own 12 quads all have 03 which I had to add soft mounts.
@@taylorowen7558 without stabilization? I've run the O3 on 4 or 5 quads without soft mounts so far without issues. In fact it's hasn't been an issue once. Was this all with the same air unit? I wonder if you've got a loose element in the lens, or something otherwise damaged?
@@QuadMcFlyFlies maybe if you have a really clean build and never crash. But i have about 8 O3 quads now and the only one that hasn't got the gyrojitter is the aos 3.5 (without softmount 96khz)
And they even came up with a softmounted version. So yeah. People are going to buy this and then need to buy another camcage after.
And let's face it... Big reason to buy the O3 is to have the option to stabilize.
It’s a bit pricy so a discount code would be great.
Really cool arm mounting/ securing design! Our Reflex racing frame utilizes something similar but more simple, with just one countersunk screw applying pressure between each pair of arms.
I just looked it up, nice concept! I really like your design. Some nice techniques there with the vertical lock plate and countersunk screw. Should be pretty dang secure especially with the countersink wedging against the arms. It's not quite the same though as the clamping force is still on the same plane as the arms. As far as I am aware the S 2 is the only frame on the market that provides fully lateral clamping on a plane perpendicular to the arm. It is amazing how much additional rigidity adding some lateral tension to the system makes though. I bet even with just the countersink providing the force like you're doing there's a good bit more rigidity. Great concept and super light weight for a race frame. I'd be curious to see how it potentially impact delamination on certain kinds of impact, that's always been my issue with countersunk screws, but given it's internal constrained by the outer plates I bet it holds up pretty well.
@@QuadMcFlyFlies Thanks, arm breaks are few and far between. It's a nice compromise between lots of durability and still being lightweight. I think delamination will always be an issue with layered carbon, but we used this countersunk pressure design to eliminate slop/ wiggle after wear from crashes. The arms never get loose, even if the screw holes wear a bit. Just keep the countersunk screw tight, and everything is alright :)
@@skyreadyrc5873 Nice! that's pretty much what I expected from looking at it. Very cool.
What happened to the horned arms?
Sweet frame!!! I use velcro from Family dollar. No more sticky pads for me!!!
Why no silicone dampening for o3 camera?
Soft mount shouldn't be necessary unless you are stabilizing footage and this is more a freestyle frame than a cinematic setup. Soft mounts increase the complexity of the front end quite a bit. This is only the first release in the QAV-S 2 line though, so keep an eye out, you might see something you like coming along before too long!
@@QuadMcFlyFliesso not yet for O3.
Cam fits but gyro is unusable.
Alot of people are going to buy this and then going to find out that their stabilized footage is crap.
That’s a nice frame. 😊
Hi Josh!. So im building mine now (this new and upgraded one) and I just added my FC on top of the ESC. When i put the FC on top of the stack, I noticed that I am very limited on space and things seem fairly tight, compared to that of your original video where you put everything together and had a bit more screw space. Im able to put the screws on but I can only turn it a few cycles. Is this right with the new iteration? Im just worried that my flight controller is sitting too close to my soldering on the ESC. Just a little confused cause im new and was following along with the original QAV video and this is a lil different. Cheers!
What size camera fits in this frame.
mmm. maybe the next freestyle VTX will fit. Ryan has been teasing about that for a while now.
The new race V3 VTX fits great!
Yeah, if it's anything like how they did the Race V3, the board will be thicker but it will fit within the space. So fear not, we won't have to trash our HDZero equipment and go to DJI or Walksnail to fly this frame!
May I suggest adding a small notch on the arm going towards the tightening screw and then you can get rid of the side screw holding the arm in and then it’s truly a single screw swap. That same screw you loosen is all you need to swap both arms on that side.
Looks nice, im still fly on old qav-r frame but with shorter stands 😁. Maby its timer to change
Kind of disappointing new frames are still being made that can't fit the HDZ freestyle without compromises. It was the #1 thing I was looking for when I bought my latest frame.
So softmount for the 03 camera?
No soft mount for this frame at the moment, but soft mount shouldn't be necessary unless you are stabilizing footage and this is more a freestyle frame than a cinematic setup. Soft mounts increase the complexity of the front end quite a bit. This is only the first release in the QAV-S 2 line though, so keep an eye out, you might see something you like coming along before too long!
@QuadMcFlyFlies I am a freestyle pilot but since getting the 03 I'm enjoying flying without the weight of a gopro, I'm afraid to say I do stabilise my footage so I'd need a softmounted camera and no frame it shot. The frame does look superb 👌 apart from the 03 specific parts. I look forward to what might be coming.
Aluminum being involved in the bottom is an interesting choice. Heavy crashes…I would be afraid of that screw getitng stripped out and the aluminum block needing replaced because then it wont hold in the second arm in as well.
Keep in mind the this is the same combination used to mount your motors to the arm, and you typically see bells and motor bases bend before the screws rip loose from the motor base. I will be very surprised if the wedge screws rip out. It would take a tremendous amount of force. There is almost 5mm of threaded segment, so it is much more likely the arm is going to break before the threads break loose. In testing it's been ridiculously strong.
This is some nice commentary. I appreciate the time taken to layout everything from a builders perspective. I have some mixed feelings about some of the things on this new version though. The base design is awesome and the introduction of the new retention mechanism is pretty genius, but there are a few things that feel a bit bumpy to me.
The rear 25.5x25.5 mounting is m1.6, which cuts out mountable support for the Avatar v1 vtx system, as well as the overwhelming majority of other 25.5x25.5 boards (which are m2). I know you addressed the M3 20x20 rear mounting (which makes sense), but in contrast with the 25.5x25.5 mounting, it's an awkward gap in design ideology.
It's advertised as being an O3 system optimized design, but that feels like somewhat of a false promise because it doesn't really have full support for the system with the hardmounted camera. I'd get it if the marketing said "mounts the O3 camera and air unit," but by advertising it specifically as optimized for the O3 system, that should mean that this frame will work seamlessly with the system and all of it's features, including the EIS feature that many users expect to be able to use on on a "O3 optimized design." Even though this is indeed "more a freestyle frame than a cinematic setup," I know I as a user, as well as many others, would be incredibly frustrated if I bought a frame that was advertised for being optimized to the O3 system, but has issues with the core features I bought the system for. We saw this happen to a whole bunch of people who bought into Chris Rosser's "AOS O3" lineup. Yes, it's a fair amount more involved (designing another part and modifying the current cage around it, sourcing said parts from a manufacturer), but in comparison to what's already been done and involved in making a product with such customization at this scale, it feels like a fairly small addition to the development to make true on the optimization statement. Plus, hardmounted camera mounting 20mm wide now has the opposite problem of what was stated on the v1... all other cameras than the DJI O3 and DJI FPV camera have the possibility to run into the problem of not being able to constrain themselves properly with that airgap of 1mm to shift around between the camera and the plates. Yes, this is easily be constrained with washers or gummies, but that's an additional part needed to remedy a possible problem that could pose quite a major issue.
I don't know. Overall it seems like an awesome frame still, but these few things feel like a bit too big of bumps to be truly called finite as a finished version 2. I'm assuming Ryan Harrell did most of the legwork here, and he's an awesome designer and incredibly knowledgable. But I cant help but feel like these things are something that should have been knocked out and noticed during development and testing, or caught when mocking up the marketing. Do you have any insight into this? I'd love to hear thoughts on this from the other side of the table, and see if I can get some more clarity in my thinking.
Glad to address some of these issues. The M1.6 holes can handle M2 screws they'll just thread into the carbon instead of being loose and sliding through, so there's no issues with M2 mounting on the 25.5mm spacing. M1.6 screws are fairly fragile so we went with 1.6mm for better reinforcement since it still works for M2.
As far as the camera mount goes, the beauty of aluminum is it has some flex. The 0.5mm per side between cameras is pretty easily taken up without the need for washers with the natural flex of the material. It should essentially work for any camera without modification.
As far as the camera mount being hard mount, we looked at soft mounts, but the primary issue was that in order to make it soft mount for the O3 we had to give up more flexible mounting solutions for other cameras. So we either had to make the frame work primarily for the O3 and kludge other cameras in, or we make more flexible mounting and don't worry about soft mounting. It's also worth noting the design means that props are heavily in view from the flight camera, so that also makes it less necessary since it means most folks won't be recording the footage from the O3. I agree that the marketing term "optimized" for O3 is probably a mistake, my intent was more to be compatible with O3 along with other systems but I'm just a contractor, I don't write the marketing material. An optimized version would definitely have soft mounting and minimal or no props in view. I honestly didn't see any of the marketing material till yesterday, so I'll see if we can get them to update it to be a more accurate representation of the design intent.
Keep in mind this is the first in the QAV-S 2 line. There are other options coming for people who are interested in using the O3 as the primary HD camera. It's basically impossible to make a frame that does everything in the most ideal way, and some compromises have to make for wider compatibility and target market prices. We put a lot of thought into the frame, and some things aren't perfect for everyone, but we tried to strike a balance that works for the widest use cases at a price point that is still accessible.
@@QuadMcFlyFlies So all the other new frames have solved this by having silicone mounts that fit into a plastic, aluminum or cf side plates there's no compromise they just include a silicone pieces that are spaced for an 03 and another set spaced for everything else. Its such a simple and elegant solution it really feels like it was overlooked here.
To say you don't think people will be recording with the O3 is just nonsense the whole draw of the O3 is no longer having a need for a gopro other then for paid footage, standoffs in view also isn't an issue because after using the fisheye lens correction in gyroflow and cropping in slightly from the stabilization there are no standoffs in view. What it sounds like is you are not an O3 user and nobody informed you on their use before designing this frame.
Certainly if you feel that way this isn't the frame for you. Fortunately, there are lots of other options. There are many use cases for O3 and not everyone uses it the same. Yes I've been flying O3 on multiple frames, including test flying it on the prototypes for the QAV-S 2 line. I actually bought the system with the Goggles 2 the week it was released, and have been flying it extensively since then. Personally I only use it as an FPV system, not to record, unless it's on a frame that can't carry a GoPro. I also never stabilize footage, regardless of what camera I'm using. Believe it or not, this is not an atypical use case for the O3. If it's not the ideal one for you, that's great. There certainly is a class of users that are outside the target market for this frame. Keep your eyes out though, because this certainly won't be the only frame in the QAV-S 2 line.
Unfortunately, even with pretty aggressive cropping props are still in view on this frame. To both keep the weight down and get the flight performance where we wanted it the frame is pretty short, which leaves a good deal of props in view, even post stabilization crop.
Also, for what it's worth having multiple parts a user has to sort through to see which one is right for their camera is exactly the situation we wanted to avoid. Not to mention you either need to have a very large damped area or you end up dealing with mounting cameras in positions that are less than ideal by forcing all cameras to use very similar mounting depths. Again we worked on this for a long time.
I am sad to not see an option to mount the battery toilet tank style.
Nice one ! i think the material of the gopro mount will transfer a lot of vibrations, maybe you can make it batter with a flexible TPU.
I've been flying this mount for several months now with the stock tabs on a Hero 11 mini and it hasn't had any issues with vibrations. Stabilization and unstabilized both are fine. It's also the same mount from the QAV-pro line and it's been working well there for a while.
@@QuadMcFlyFlies cool! what motor and fc actually works without vibrations ?
@@SkyMissionsClub my test rig is using Emax FS2306 2400kv motors and an Aikon F7 stack, but honestly pretty much anything should work fine. I've flown this setup with insanely beat up props and still not had issues with the footage or filters in the FC.
I wish you would have made the last RR episode where Vanover, Drew, Bubby and Shawn discussed their frames.
Does anyone know the rear standoff width for get an antenna mount?
Standoffs are identical to the previous version, so 19mm spacing. All the mounts for the QAV-S standard and Bardwell editions should work (not the JohnnyFPV ones)
literally an hour ago i brought the vannystyle lol. with the motors combo deal they have it on sale $154 down from $190 so i couldnt not get it lol
Beautiful frame man! I was literally done buying frames. I have all the good ones. Now you came out with this 🤦♂️
Is there an upgrade path between these two frames? Can you use my arms from the current generation to this one? Thx.
So the arms will work if you're willing to shave off about 1.5mm from the flat side where they meet. There has to be room for the screw to pass through. A few minutes with a belt sander should do it. The new arms are backwards compatible with the old wedge system though, so they will fit in any of the V1 QAV-S frames.
JB I'm super skeptical of the aluminum arm lock system you have. It looks great but considering the amount of force that will be applied to one of those screws when tightening it and then even more in a crash, whats to keep the steel screw just stripping out the aluminum bracket? Seems like a pretty big oversight to me unless there's some magic in there you haven't mentioned.
I guess we'll just have to see if that happens when the frame gets out into the wild. I don't think it will.
We've been flying and crashing prototypes for months and have yet to break one. There's a lot more going into this than it seems at first. The way the joint is structured a significant amount of the force from the arm is applied laterally to the threads of the screws, rather than directly away from them, and distributed through the wedge into the opposite arm. Also a significant range of impact forces will be forcing the arm towards the center X plate rather than away from it.
Also keep in mind this is the same arrangement that your motors use to attach to the frame, except the wedge system has about 40% more thread depth. The force required to rip out nearly 5mm of M3 threads is massive. For aluminum, a depth of about 1.5x the bolt diameter creates sufficient strength that the screw will typically fail before the threads will strip. We've done exactly that for this design. At 1.5x screw diameter the stripping force for aluminum is over 40,000psi. An interesting tidbit is that research shows if you go much past this point you actually don't gain any additional strength, rather you will shear the screw off at that depth during failure when the threads fail. The specific depth has to do with the relationship between the tensile strength of the screw and of the tapped material. The softer the material the deeper the shear, but 1.5x the diameter is past that point for these materials. If you're interested in the specific formulas you can check it here: viewmold.com/Products/Technical%20Reference%20Sheet/Screw%20Fastener%20Theory%20and%20Application/STRIPPING%20STRENGTH%20OF%20TAPPED%20HOLES.html
The primary point here is this; based on these formulas the shear strength of carbon fiber is significantly lower than the shear strength tolerances with the thread depths we're providing. So no, there is no magic, it's just physics! The arms are much more likely to break before the screw shears or the aluminum gives out.
@@QuadMcFlyFlies I'm happy to see some thought was given to this. However all of my experience with threads in aluminum seems to disagree with your statement about the screw failing before the threads with a thread depth of 1.5x the diameter. Perhaps I have only had experience with very soft aluminum. Even if the threaded aluminum can take the load I cant imagine they will last very long getting bashed about sided to side widening the hole bore and rounding the taped threads. But hey I don't have any experience with this product and am not an engineer, I just have a lost of experience building and fixing things and its making me skeptical (perhaps needlessly). Regardless I have to says this is a very clever design and doubtless an improvement over the previous carbon wedge.
@@spencerthorp absolutely, as you say the number one reason for failures is not the threads failing, it is the material deforming. This is particularly an issue with standoffs, where the aluminum around the threads is typically only about 1mm thick. A design certainly has to ensure it has the proper support around threads to prevent deformation and loss of integrity. We left a lot of aluminum around the threaded area specifically for this reason, along with reinforcing the arms across the entire surface where it needs the aluminum to help prevent lateral shear stress on the layers. I'm excited for folks to start getting the frame in their hands, once you feel how solid everything is it's a lot more clear.
@@QuadMcFlyFlies Well it certainly sounds like the engineers have approved the design (sorry I don't know if thats you or not) and I hope I'm wrong and that it works as intended. I wish I could try it but sadly it's just not in my budget.
I love this V2 frame! The color purple, not so much. Will there be camera plates and dogbone standoffs available in alternate colors, either as an option or separately?
Agreed! sell more
Sadly you can't lead the xt60 behind the GoPro mount. I like to turn my esc's 180° an run the power cable behind the GoPro mount. A lot of frames today don't have a hole for it, or it is not big enough. I don't understand why.
Yes, i just found that out on geprc mark 5 frame, rotated esc and put capacitor and buzzer under camera, it is very nice to have that hole for battery wire
@@nazarkokhan you are right. But a lot of frames have holes half way under the GoPro mount. Why not a little bit towards the middle for the use of mounting the power lead there?
Is the arm locking system backward compatible with the V1 frame? I see that the hardware is available on GetFPV. I have two of them. I've broken a couple of arms but they haven't worked loose yet. Just curious. Also, is it recommended to use thread lock on the screws with that locking design?
You shouldn't need to use thread locker on the bolts no, but if it makes you more comfortable it won't hurt anything. Personally I like to fold the arms for transportation so the screws get retightened every time I unfold the arms. The folding is a cool side effect of the new wedge system.
As far as backwards compatibility, the aluminum X part can replace the carbon fiber X plate on the V1, but to use the wedge system you would need to modify the plates slightly and there's no place the for center retaining screw in the bottom plate. Theoretically the dimensions are all the same, but it wouldn't completely work as intended with the wedges. Also the arms are backwards compatible with the V1, but the V1 arms won't work with the new wedges without modifications. We shaved 1.5mm off the end of each arm to allow for the screws to pass through . All the standoff positions are exactly the same though, so all the v1 3D prints should be compatible.
Do you have a 3D printed file for Gopro 11 Mini for this frame?
Working on getting it added to the thingiverse album.
Speak to us our kind godfather always with tha goods and of course the bads lol ...
I'm watching this and wishing I had waited instead of buying an AOS Evo frame. The arm mounting solution looks great. I really appreciate the use of aluminum parts. Too many frame designers use carbon fiber or TPU inappropriately. Proper tools and materials are what separate us from cave people.
I just received and built an AOS5 EVO and it doesn't seem to be the perfect and most well thoughtout frame I was expecting. It got rid of the oscillations I was having on my own custom frame design but it's lacking some design features regarding build convenience and durability
Hi, a bit of a stupid question, but still. Is there a chance a V2 x plate would fit into a V1 frame? I can't find the V1 plate in stock in any EU store (that i know of), so I am thinking of buying a V2 plate, and modifying the side screw heads or the top and bottom frame plates that sandwich it. If anyone knows an EU store that still has the V1 in stock, even better, but the V2 option would also be nice. I just need an x plate to lock my arms hahaha
It would fit if you file out a crescent for the screw head.
@@JoshuaBardwell This was fast. Thanks! I'll consider the V2 then.
How easy is it to overtighten that mechanism and strip the thread?
Not very. It's almost 2mm thicker than the threads on motor mounts, so it's about 40% more difficult to strip than a motor mount.
I just baught your frame then watched your video and find out hd zero wont fit unless you compromise ....... I wish shops would put this stuff in the description for us people just getting started in fpv.
HDzero (1W) can fit in the rear if you want to make it work, there is room. It will just stick out the sides since it is very large, and you will need to mount it with tape/zip ties or an adapter.
I actually bought it from you guys, Cant get anything in Australia atm@@GetFPV , Im just gonna buy another frame for the HD Zero and buy different stuff for this one I think.
1) Shame we can’t get these in the UK (or can we? I can’t find a retailer that stocks them).
2) Having said than, any chance of a deadcat?
3) is the aluminium part that holds the arms in sold separately?
Yes the x-lock will be sold separately. I don't want to give things away but there is a bunch of other stuff in development that I think you will find interesting! European resellers should start carrying the frame soon, but it will take a bit for them to get it in stock. Make sure to let your local resellers know you want them to carry it!
I think enough persons want the xt60 run behind the action camera to make a version that offers that
raceblade?
Will it fit 19mm cameras?
Yes, it fits 19mm cameras great!
Anyone have a hero 11 mini stl for this frame?
All the stl files for the previous frame will work here :D
@@QuadMcFlyFlies i have not found a hero11 mini on thingiverse.
Looks gorgeous. But after building the OG JB QAV-S, an Armattan Beaver, and a Demibot, I’ll never want to fiddle with something this slammed again. I’ll admit it was my first 5 inch build, but I have years of experience in RC and microelectronics in general. I ended up putting 5mm spacers on every standoff to get things to fit clean without the battery strap rubbing the top of the FC. Still flies great actually, love the thing, but aesthetically I really wish I could have just bought some JB edition ‘extended standoffs’ so I didn’t have this wonky 5mm spacers setup. Honestly - even if I had to pay like $30 more - give us an option to buy standoffs/camera cage for this V2 frame that add maybe 5mm so we aren’t forced into a slammed build, I’ll buy it FOR SURE. Looks great for sure, bravo!
You could have just bought the standard QAV-S side plates and standoffs and gained 3mm. The stock QAV-S (non-Bardwell) kit was 23mm spacing, so technically the option was already there :D Unfortunately not an option with this frame with the custom aluminum front end, but keep an eye out, more stuff is coming :D
@@QuadMcFlyFlies awesome thanks for the heads up! I might go measure my V1 build to see if 3mm would clear my electronics arrangement, would love to ditch the goofy extra 5mm spacer setup I have now. 🤙
@@ericevanslol let me know if you need 25mm. I could make you some custom side plates to fit the 25mm standoff height.
v1 was a good frame, i just wish it had 5.5mm arms. thats always the weak spot on my couple i have.
We looked at 5.5mm arms, but it added a good bit of weight. The arms are already the heaviest parts of the frame, so everything comes at a tradeoff. Keep in mind though this is the Bardwell kit ;) who knows what else might be coming!