Riketsu

iTrader: (34)

I'll be using a Schulze U-75 ESC, Hacker 6 and 3700 GP Batteries. Should I get a belt driven car with this motor/battery setup since Im a tad bit trigger happy?

loopedeloop

A belt drive will help to soften throttle inputs slightly.

My Yoko BD is much less twitchy than pro4 when throttling. The pro4 will out accelerate the BD.

I like the BD , suits my trigger happy style. Just personal preference

Aries326

iTrader: (19)

Not only will it soften the throttle, but belt driven cars don't have all that torque steer.

ChadCapece

Torque steer is only a problem in fast 19turn or modified. Even then, adding about 1mm more droop in the left rear can fix the problem. I added .5mm in 19turn and my car pulls straight ahead off the line.

MobileIT

The RDX looks like a fine car, but when I checked the Corally website a while back they still has the Assassin available. I have never actually seen an Assassin, but it seemed to me that if you configured it in the "direct drive, single belt" layout, it should still be one of the best "belt" car for stock or 19 turn classes. Yet I do not see it being run in competitions lately. Any thoughts about this?

YR4Dude

iTrader: (44)

I don't think direct drive is legal to compete against other tourers. I believe the rule book states that cars in the touring catagory must have some form of gear reduction. Most people regard "direct drive" as "pan car" class, which the Assassin does not fit in either.

MobileIT

Not from what I can see in the ROAR rules:

"8.9.5.4 Transmission: Single speed only
8.9.5.5 Front and Rear suspension: Independent.
8.9.5.6 Drive 4WD only."

Actually, if I can digress a bit, I really find this an overly restrictive set of rules. The "single speed" rule is justifiable, but why not *allow* a 2WD car in the race? For Modified it would probably lose, but hey, that is the choice of the guy who drives it. In Stock it might win. So what is the problem? In real car races *most* are 2WD (front or rear). If scale is one of the goals, it should even be preferred.

I also do not see why pan cars should be disallowed. As long as they qualify in 190mm body width and all the rest of the rules (like tire sizes, clearance, weight, etc.) then let them run.

There is no justification for it.

AdrianM

iTrader: (4)

Maybe becuase pan cars do not have indepandant rear suspension and are not 4wd.

MobileIT

Well that was a cute piece of editing Adrian, but all you have said it that the cars are illegal because they are illegal. Now would you like to add some reason why they should be illegal?

YR4Dude

iTrader: (44)

MobileIT - Your question is "why people don't run the Assassin in competition" not "why it should it be allowed to compete".

Its just that although you may be technically correct in your read of the rule book, it still is left to the interpretation of the masses. The fact that it may be controvercial and may lead to a possible protest by other drivers for whatever reason could mean that it may not be worth the advantage that the Assassin may bring.

For instance, is the direct drive that much advantageous over another car with gear reduction but with much less weight?

Also, whether it is direct drive or indirect drive, the rollout is still the same. So the only advantage is the added friction from the additional belt. Is the friction that much more significant? Can't that be easily remedied with lower friction belts and cogs?

These are reasons to think about in regards to why the Assassin is not so well embraced.

MobileIT

Actually, I asked 2 questions in 2 different messages. In the first message I asked why people are not running the Assassin, and the answer was because someone thought it *might* be illegal. He was not sure. It is not illegal. There was never any rule against "direct drive". This is not open to interpretation. I think there probably are other reasons why it has not been run, like the fact that Associated brought out the TC3 at about that time, and put on a big marketing push which resulted in shaft drive cars getting popular. But I am only speculating because I was not racing at that time, so I can only go by what I see in the current race reports -- no, or little sign of the Assassin around.

In the second question in a later message I noted that there are rules that exist that stop 2 wheel drive cars and pan cars from running, and *those* rules are really not justfiable.

Yes, I see the potential for such issues, and these are the interesting questions. Of course the minimum weight rule removes that advantage from direct drive, whereas the location of the motor for the direct drive layout is probably a disadvantage. But so far I see that no-one has tried it, or else they would have said something. It is just us "speculators."
:-)

YR4Dude

iTrader: (44)

Not to beat this Assassin issue to death but hopefully to finish it......

The Assassin actually came way after the TC3 but it came around the time when the XXX-S and the KX-One came out. Those like the Assassin when running direct drive, ran a SINGLE belt. Except that the Assassin with its direct drive required a very large spur in combination with a very small pinion in order to gear a stock motor properly. I've heard that some had found it to be difficult to gear especially if you were to try some of the higher reving motors at that time (i.e. binary stock). This is why gear reduction is necessary.

So anyways if the Assassin's direct drive cabability was so advantageous, why didn't evolve as a drivetrain layout for the RDX?
Also if the single belt idea was so good, why is everyone going against it by designing new two belt low CG layouts?

So I guess the primary issue when considering a car or chassis design is NOT how well a car is able to "make" speed; but how well a car is able to "carry" speed into the turns, chicanes and hairpins.