Factory Team TC4 from RCX
05-23-2005, 01:30 PM
#61
Originally Posted by thepitcrew
Well this thing can't be under weight. The Pro4 is under weight and it does not have all that baggage of Aluminum posts or Aluminum camber link mounts and it has a smaller top plate and the lightened steel diff is not light. If this car is under weight it by a few grams.
Originally Posted by lickrim
AE when is the belt TC BARRY BAKER car coming out? maybe HUDY could make it L8
Originally Posted by Joe B
How funny, Associated years back was always on the cutting edge of technology with it's car designs, like the ahead of it's time TC-3...... then they finaly introduce the TC-4 after many years of "supposed" research.....and It ends up having the battery moved twords the centerline of the car at the "exact" same location as the BMI TC-3 that's been out for well over a year......now it has even more borrowed traits from the BMI line of kits......like Seaball said...talk about struggling to keep up......several year old technology at work,all the way around.....Dont' get me wrong Im not saying associated's new car wont work....ofcourse it will,the BMI TC-3 works great 
BRING IN THE CLOWNS!!!
Gimme a break people.
I love how many of you call it "old technology" and claim that AE is "behind the times."
The AE gearbox for the TC3 was and still is a radical design. It is proven, its on multiple platforms and is tough as nails. Who gives a flying diddily flip if they didn't engineer a box cover with an integrated shock tower mount.
Actually if any of you thought like an engineer you would realize just why that would be a poor idea anyhow. If you were to break a tower and possibly a mount, you then would have to buy a $10.00 box cover as opposed to just a $2.00 tower mount
So...just what is with the "times" now anyway? Oh yeah...cars need to have tons of needless aluminum bling and carbon fiber to go fast. Plus they need to be radically underweight when loaded with electronics, even though when racing at ANY sanctioned race the cars that are underweight will be saddled with ballast.
Utter silliness.
Just because a company doesn't release a new car every month doesn't mean they aren't competitive. If anything, AE cares MORE about their customers because once they develop a platform they stand by it and develop upgrades, as opposed to junking designs and leaving customers high and dry like Tamiya.
Dollar for Dollar, AE products are just as "fast" (whatever that means) and cost far less to maintain than the competition.
Now stop hating and go drive your Xray, Yoke BD, Tam415, Cyclone, JRXS or whatever car you were tricked into buying this week because of all the hype.
In 4 years I'll still be lapping you with my SLOW and OVERWEIGHT TC4.
05-23-2005, 01:40 PM
#63
Originally Posted by John Q
Still looks like a pile to me.. AE should of just came out with a hole new design..
The USA has been using variations of the same fighter aircraft since the early/mid 1970's. Yet we still can claim air superiority anywhere at anytime.
There is nothing wrong with evolving a proven platform. It just isn't as sexy or exciting as a new design every year.
Oh and BTW...
"hole" new design?
05-23-2005, 01:45 PM
#64
calm down comrade, it's only a hobby
BTW the TC3 is still awesome.
BTW the TC3 is still awesome.
05-23-2005, 01:52 PM
#67
Originally Posted by John Q
Still looks like a pile to me.. AE should of just came out with a hole new design..
05-23-2005, 02:05 PM
#68
Tech Master
iTrader: (1)
Tony P....In our earlier comments,to answer your question about what I find similar between the cars , rather than listing piece by piece what I feel is very similar and how it will have a similar effect and you responding with their "suttle" changes.....let me just say that the problem is that there is no solid advantage (aside from associated selling cars) between this new addition and whats already been available in the aftermarket for years.....The same held true for most "if not all" people going from a BMI TC-3 to a newly developed associated "team kit" TC-4, even with all the expensive factory team options.....matter a fact , it's was a pretty big disadvantage for most people Including myself because of the "huge" weight issue....mine was close to 4 oz different.....this as you know is major advantage on a car this size compared to having a "new car" with a vertical camber adjustment 
......and like the other guy mentioned....most club races don't weigh the cars....so the ability to have the car super light must be possible.....and like I mentioned in my first post, the new factory team car looks good, (just similar). but my question to you...will it be an advantage for the regular racer over whats already been available for years now.....or just an advantage for the associated team drivers who couldn't obviously do enough with the other design's limitations and weren't allowed to run drastic aftermarket change'd cars.......oh..oh...I know the answer J/K........
......and like the other guy mentioned....most club races don't weigh the cars....so the ability to have the car super light must be possible.....and like I mentioned in my first post, the new factory team car looks good, (just similar). but my question to you...will it be an advantage for the regular racer over whats already been available for years now.....or just an advantage for the associated team drivers who couldn't obviously do enough with the other design's limitations and weren't allowed to run drastic aftermarket change'd cars.......oh..oh...I know the answer J/K........
05-23-2005, 02:09 PM
#69
Tech Adept
this new kit has come as a bit of a blow to me as ive bought the graphite kit and many hop ups and now theyve gone and changed it all!!!
its so much like the bmi tc4 kit !!!
and this has made me laugh because some peaple on this site was slagging the bmi kit(they know who they are)
and now associated have gone the sameway
and for those smart asses i know its not identical etc
i think id rather buy bmi than the ft kit but thats just me so chill
cheers gaz8
its so much like the bmi tc4 kit !!!
and this has made me laugh because some peaple on this site was slagging the bmi kit(they know who they are)
and now associated have gone the sameway
and for those smart asses i know its not identical etc
i think id rather buy bmi than the ft kit but thats just me so chill
cheers gaz8
05-23-2005, 02:13 PM
#70
Tech Master
iTrader: (1)
Jeez Soviet...calling people clowns because you don't agree with them...many of which have been racing much longer than yourself and "could" very well be much more intelligent than yourself .....ever hear of an intelligent debate......try not to be a mindless poster defending the car you run.....Iv'e run associated cars for close to 20 years..I still run some of them........everyone has their opinions and you have 0 right to attack them in anyway......HMMMM Soviet..communism?
Last edited by Joe B; 05-23-2005 at 02:39 PM.
05-23-2005, 02:14 PM
#71
Originally Posted by Soviet
The AE gearbox for the TC3 was and still is a radical design. It is proven, its on multiple platforms and is tough as nails. Who gives a flying diddily flip if they didn't engineer a box cover with an integrated shock tower mount.
Actually if any of you thought like an engineer you would realize just why that would be a poor idea anyhow. If you were to break a tower and possibly a mount, you then would have to buy a $10.00 box cover as opposed to just a $2.00 tower mount
So...just what is with the "times" now anyway? Oh yeah...cars need to have tons of needless aluminum bling and carbon fiber to go fast. Plus they need to be radically underweight when loaded with electronics, even though when racing at ANY sanctioned race the cars that are underweight will be saddled with ballast.
Actually if any of you thought like an engineer you would realize just why that would be a poor idea anyhow. If you were to break a tower and possibly a mount, you then would have to buy a $10.00 box cover as opposed to just a $2.00 tower mount
So...just what is with the "times" now anyway? Oh yeah...cars need to have tons of needless aluminum bling and carbon fiber to go fast. Plus they need to be radically underweight when loaded with electronics, even though when racing at ANY sanctioned race the cars that are underweight will be saddled with ballast.
I can't remember the last time I broke a part on the car so I wouldn't be worried about the shock mount be a little more expensive. I would prefer less parts on the car so that working on it is easier. I don't even see the need for the carbon plate for that part, I rather stick with the graphite ones. I've never broke one and they seem plenty stiff enough. I guess they did it just for the bling effect
. Why does it need an engineer to work out that braking an intergrated shock mount would cost more than the extra one?I would prefer if all the alloy parts were anodised black as this would dissipitate heat better
The tc4 is not underweight. IT'S A FREEKIN BUS! The new 3800 cells are gonna way around 405g per pack. A fully kitted tc4 with avarage radio gear and speedo are going to way around 1600g! Ok so compared to the old car it's not that much heavier but times have moved on and cells have got heavier, ae need to look into this as a serious problem(I guess the factory team is their solution). Also brushless motor are heavier so the latest small brushed speedo's and radio gear won't help much. I would love to be able to move some lead weight around the car for fine tunning, but I'm just wishing my car wasn't 40grams too heavy instead.
So my dig at the tc4 for being too heavier is not so bad for ae because it looks like the factory team car is trying to address this.
You might be lapping him in your slow and overweight tc4. But the guy 5 seconds ahead of you might be laughing at you with his 100g lighter hpi pro6 that parts don't wear out half as quick.
Let's all just get along and see things for each others perspective. I don't think AE need anymore fanboys, most people realise there are cars just as good out there but maybe not as good value for money
05-23-2005, 02:25 PM
#72
Juho L. seems to have no problem going fast with this car. I don't seem to have any problem either. My car actually stunned everyone this weekend when it weighed in at 52.8 oz.(No dremel work, and I still use the Battery brace) So I was illegal! But it's cool because our track doesn't really check weight, and I know some others were light as well.
Anyway, not only did I TQ , I also managed to get the fastest 5 min run on the track so far.
So if you don't like the car, dont waiste your precious time reading up on it!!
Anyway, not only did I TQ , I also managed to get the fastest 5 min run on the track so far.
So if you don't like the car, dont waiste your precious time reading up on it!!
05-23-2005, 02:26 PM
#73
All I can say is that the car is sweet! I think its a step back in the right direction for team AE. I'm glad to see them put this out. I can't wait to see it run!
05-23-2005, 02:34 PM
#74
Joe. A big ADVANTAGE of our kit is that you only have to buy ONE car now, not two (by this I mean the TC4 AND a BMI conversion). It is also an attempt to make a MUCH more tuneable vehicle (chassis flex) as well as a lighter one. Could we have made it lighter?? I'm sure we could, but to make something lighter (for this example, a one-piece gearbox/shock tower mount) means MORE expense for us...new tooling, new testing, etc...meaning MORE cost for you. Our 'bolt-on' tower mount is pretty inexpensive (in relation to a one-piece unit) and might make the car a teensy-bit heavier, but is that a problem to you if you don't have to PAY much more??? Cost is a big issue here. Notice ALL the dual-deck CF cars are so much more expensive???? It's not cheap to make one of these cars so cost is a BIG issue for us. It's just our time to make one...even if it IS following the release of other conversion kits.
As far as the battery situation, I think EVERYONE is wondering what to do about that! You can only make a car SO light....with the addition of those heavier cells to ANY vehicle, I guess adding weight to the opposite side is just gonna have to be the answer.
As far as the battery situation, I think EVERYONE is wondering what to do about that! You can only make a car SO light....with the addition of those heavier cells to ANY vehicle, I guess adding weight to the opposite side is just gonna have to be the answer.
05-23-2005, 02:41 PM
#75
JevUk heres an option: dont crash then you wont have to worry about buying parts.
To all you other people crying that the TC4 is overwieght. Take the Novak Super Rooster out of your car and then you will come down in weight like everyone else. I always have to add weight to my TC4.
To all you other people crying
that the TC4 is overwieght. Take the Novak Super Rooster out of your car and then you will come down in weight like everyone else. I always have to add weight to my TC4.