TC4 picture (+cliff lett)
08-31-2004, 03:06 PM
#136
Tech Regular
Originally posted by Jack Smash
So Griffin, you would rather buy a car from a company that completely redisigns it from the ground up every six months? Oh boo hoo you have to have replacement front and rear arms instead of one arm fits all. How about every company design their cars so they can all use each others arms, and shock towers, and chassis. We are in luck that the manufactures decided on one wheel mounting system. How would you like your manufacture of choice redesigning their car and decide they need to change the wheel offset and now all your tire sets are obsolete?
You might be a mechanical engineer in the field of product design, but what area is this in? Is it an area where performance is the most critical aspect of design, or is it an area where the goal is to use as many off the shelf parts to minimize tooling costs? Sounds to me like you have no idea on how to engineer a racecar.
So Griffin, you would rather buy a car from a company that completely redisigns it from the ground up every six months? Oh boo hoo you have to have replacement front and rear arms instead of one arm fits all. How about every company design their cars so they can all use each others arms, and shock towers, and chassis. We are in luck that the manufactures decided on one wheel mounting system. How would you like your manufacture of choice redesigning their car and decide they need to change the wheel offset and now all your tire sets are obsolete?
You might be a mechanical engineer in the field of product design, but what area is this in? Is it an area where performance is the most critical aspect of design, or is it an area where the goal is to use as many off the shelf parts to minimize tooling costs? Sounds to me like you have no idea on how to engineer a racecar.
As far as your 'performance is the most critical aspect of design' comment goes, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. If performance is the only thing RC companies are after, why don't kits come standard with all titanium hardware? Why aren't ceramic bearings included? Why aren't tolerances more tightly controlled so that every kit has a drive train that will spin for 2 minutes straight out of the box? Because cost is always the bottom line when you're marketing a consumer product. Conversely, profitability is always the bottom line when you're running a company.
The trick to running a successful company is to charge the consumer JUST enough margin that they don't complain. This can be accomplished by offering superior product at a relative value. This can be accomplished by offering inferior product at an even greater percieved 'value.' Or, this can be achieved by creating brand loyalty where mindless automotons will flame a guy on a message board for critisizing aspects of a product simply because they believe their brand is best and they won a couple club races with it once.
I maintain that the TC4 will be a solid TC. I still commend AE for NOT releasing a new car every week, but after several years, I expect more out of a company than a rehashed and slightly downgraded (in features, not in corporate profitability) version of an already available TC.
08-31-2004, 03:12 PM
#137
Tech Regular
Originally posted by Iniral
I don't know what kind of engineer you are Griffin but it sure sounds like it's not automotive.
I don't know what kind of engineer you are Griffin but it sure sounds like it's not automotive.
Originally posted by Iniral
The TC4 may look like an updated TC3 but I think the design will reflect as a new car on the track.
The TC4 may look like an updated TC3 but I think the design will reflect as a new car on the track.
08-31-2004, 03:18 PM
#138
Profitability is always the first priority in producing anything commercially. I didnt mention this as top priority as it is a given. Do you really think the small amount of profit that AE or any company will gain by you having to buy seperate front and rear sets of arms offsets the increase in tooling costs? And given that front arms give way far more frequently than rear? You are completly nit-picking here. Next you'll complain about the money hungry R/C companies not selling single arms seperately, or buying diff balls in lots of 12 when you only lost one. What happens if you bend a rim? You have to buy 2 rims, 2 tires, and 2 inserts. Darn those faschist R/C companies trying to keep the average racer down.
Sounds like your just complaining to hear yourself.
Sounds like your just complaining to hear yourself.
08-31-2004, 03:47 PM
#140
Tech Regular
Originally posted by Jack Smash
Do you really think the small amount of profit that AE or any company will gain by you having to buy seperate front and rear sets of arms offsets the increase in tooling costs?
Do you really think the small amount of profit that AE or any company will gain by you having to buy seperate front and rear sets of arms offsets the increase in tooling costs?
I hear their CEO is Robin Hood and they have Sony working their corporate strategy.
08-31-2004, 04:58 PM
#143
Registered User
Just because it looks easy to incorporate into the car doesn't mean it is. There are tons of factors:
1. Were there last minute changes? This chassis is made from a mold die. Once the tools have been cut it's very costly to change.
2. Did the new battery and electronic placements cause the tranny to move fore or aft? Car's have an optimal wheel base that work most of the time, new bulkhead locations could have changed the hunge pin mounting locations.
3. They could have played around with the static and dynamic elements of the suspension. You can't expect to slap the suspension anywhere and call it good.
4. Front and rear stress points. Usually impacts to the front suspension are a lot different than rear suspension impacts. In order to design for durability you have to design the suspension to account for certain impacts.
Which would you rather have? An arm the can be used in all 4 corners but breaks 40% of the time? Or an arm that works only front or back that breaks 10% of the time?
1. Were there last minute changes? This chassis is made from a mold die. Once the tools have been cut it's very costly to change.
2. Did the new battery and electronic placements cause the tranny to move fore or aft? Car's have an optimal wheel base that work most of the time, new bulkhead locations could have changed the hunge pin mounting locations.
3. They could have played around with the static and dynamic elements of the suspension. You can't expect to slap the suspension anywhere and call it good.
4. Front and rear stress points. Usually impacts to the front suspension are a lot different than rear suspension impacts. In order to design for durability you have to design the suspension to account for certain impacts.
Which would you rather have? An arm the can be used in all 4 corners but breaks 40% of the time? Or an arm that works only front or back that breaks 10% of the time?
Last edited by Mal; 08-31-2004 at 05:05 PM.
08-31-2004, 05:19 PM
#144
Tech Regular
They had years. That's all I'm saying. Years.
Feel free to unruffle your feathers, brush back the hair on the ridge of your backs, or do whatever else you need to to calm down. I won't offend AE loyalists with product critiques anymore.
It's funny to see how upset and defensive people get over a car they've never even seen in person, let alone tested. Why not blindly defend a product you have no knowledge of simply because the jpeg you saw say's AE and it's the new thing?
Feel free to unruffle your feathers, brush back the hair on the ridge of your backs, or do whatever else you need to to calm down. I won't offend AE loyalists with product critiques anymore.
It's funny to see how upset and defensive people get over a car they've never even seen in person, let alone tested. Why not blindly defend a product you have no knowledge of simply because the jpeg you saw say's AE and it's the new thing?
08-31-2004, 05:26 PM
#145
brilliant, didn't take long for the thread to get bitchy.... 
I was going ot enter into this but have decided against it.
Sufice to say, Griffen I see your point, but I also agree with Jack Smash's point too.
You do kinda put your own foot in your mouth with your response though. I doubt very much AE would make a loss on them, but would probably make MORE profit if they did use identical ones all round. (and I know with a materials/manufacturing background
)
Anyway, I reckon we'll deffiently see this car at the worlds, will it do something the TC3 never has?
And incidently the TC3 will [probably] stop winning soon, as all the AE drivers switch to the tc4 (unless AE have made a complete hash of it
, which is very doubtful)
Dunno, but i'm routing for the 415 drivers myself
I was going ot enter into this but have decided against it.
Sufice to say, Griffen I see your point, but I also agree with Jack Smash's point too.
You do kinda put your own foot in your mouth with your response though. I doubt very much AE would make a loss on them, but would probably make MORE profit if they did use identical ones all round. (and I know with a materials/manufacturing background
)Anyway, I reckon we'll deffiently see this car at the worlds, will it do something the TC3 never has?
And incidently the TC3 will [probably] stop winning soon, as all the AE drivers switch to the tc4 (unless AE have made a complete hash of it
, which is very doubtful)Dunno, but i'm routing for the 415 drivers myself
08-31-2004, 05:30 PM
#146
Tech Rookie
"And that's based on your in depth knowledge of the automotive industry? Or perhaps your years of training and experience with product design."
Actually, yes. What field of engineering are you in Griffin?
"Do you really think the small amount of profit that AE or any company will gain by you having to buy seperate front and rear sets of arms offsets the increase in tooling costs?"
Once again, I'd have to somewhat agree with Jack Smash. My guess is that AE shoots both arms (front and rear) in one mold. So the additional tooling cost would be minimal. However, to design the suspension of the TC4 to use the same arms would compromise the design intent from what I can see from the photos. And if I have to go into more detail than that, you should look into getting a refund for your engineering courses.
Actually, yes. What field of engineering are you in Griffin?
"Do you really think the small amount of profit that AE or any company will gain by you having to buy seperate front and rear sets of arms offsets the increase in tooling costs?"
Once again, I'd have to somewhat agree with Jack Smash. My guess is that AE shoots both arms (front and rear) in one mold. So the additional tooling cost would be minimal. However, to design the suspension of the TC4 to use the same arms would compromise the design intent from what I can see from the photos. And if I have to go into more detail than that, you should look into getting a refund for your engineering courses.
08-31-2004, 07:16 PM
#149
Tech Rookie
with Tech racing??
08-31-2004, 07:20 PM
#150
their own car designers / engineers have a cause that they have to come up with the new designs
think about it how many varitions of the hotshot are there? the frog? blackfoot? bruiser and king hauler are the same truck with different stickers. I have only been racing for 18 years and I have only seen a few cars that they come out with that they can't repeat. it is almost as bad over at kyosho and the se / gold / gold se / and other varations that they had.
think about it how many varitions of the hotshot are there? the frog? blackfoot? bruiser and king hauler are the same truck with different stickers. I have only been racing for 18 years and I have only seen a few cars that they come out with that they can't repeat. it is almost as bad over at kyosho and the se / gold / gold se / and other varations that they had.
Last edited by nashrcracer; 08-31-2004 at 07:25 PM.