This resurection of the pro-10 class really sparks my interest in RC again ,i`ve been out of racing almost for three years now because i was fed up with the truckloads of money i had to spend in touring to be competitive (despite my good results) even in stock .
Now i am thinking of getting back in the game ,also because my club has a "unlimited"class( where you can run pro-10 if you want) this year .
Sorry if i made a few typo`s here en there,as i am from europe.
Retro,
Why don't you come race in our RC Le-Mans Pro10 racing series? http://www.rclemans.tk/
We have 2 races at AMCA this year.
1 in Velp,
1 in Oberhausen,
1 in Bad Breisig.
I did some more testing at brookland today. I tried some old tyres I was given since my TRC still haven't arived.
I found out that the corally gold star mediums needed either warming up or scrubing in and they got pretty good. This is a jap type foam with good wear characteristics.
I also tried silverstars on the front which seemed to work very well. I think they are a harder compound than the rear silverstar but are of a similair type of foam(ie not jap). I tried gold star medium on the front but too much grip.
I would like to try Gold Star soft on the rear, will be interesting to see how the grp pinks compare.
I have bought a second hand 3.5t novak . Was not brave enough to try it today. If the car is handling as good next time I will give it a go
Will be racing the car at Aldershot this sunday but it is a much tighter track than brookland so I might end up putting an even slower motor than the 5.5 in. Wish me luck
__________________
MRT, Novak, Spektrum, Sanwa, Tamiya, Alleven RC, Maxamps, CheapBatteryPacks, Duratrax Ice, Pro Peak PSU, Nuova Faor, McLarney Racing, Futaba, KO Propo, Team Associated, Enerland.
I did some more testing at brookland today. I tried some old tyres I was given since my TRC still haven't arived.
I found out that the corally gold star mediums needed either warming up or scrubing in and they got pretty good. This is a jap type foam with good wear characteristics.
I also tried silverstars on the front which seemed to work very well. I think they are a harder compound than the rear silverstar but are of a similair type of foam(ie not jap). I tried gold star medium on the front but too much grip.
I would like to try Gold Star soft on the rear, will be interesting to see how the grp pinks compare.
I have bought a second hand 3.5t novak . Was not brave enough to try it today. If the car is handling as good next time I will give it a go
Will be racing the car at Aldershot this sunday but it is a much tighter track than brookland so I might end up putting an even slower motor than the 5.5 in. Wish me luck
I would just wonder how having the batteries that far forward will impact things.
Remember, we tended to keep our batteries as far back as possible, lending a bit more traction to the rear. Having less traction at the front is controllable. . .having less traction at the rear is disastrous. Moving the batteries forward lends front traction and takes away rear traction. . .could be bad.
Also wish it had a 235mm option. . .
Otherwise, it looks very nice! I've been a BMI fan since I picked up my BMI NTC3 chassis! They do very good engineering.
__________________
-
RC10L2.5W - RCNTC3(bmi) - plus rent-a-rides! :D
You are correct in theory that batteries back yield more rear traction. In link style cars with a far rearward pivot joint, It does yield more rear traction that a T bar car. With this rear suspension it gives you a little of a T bar and link car in 1. Most link cars tend to run the batteries more forward than T bar cars to move the weight away from the pivot point. With this car i found that with the batteries all the way back, the car didnt rotate as well as i wanted it to. From here i needed to get a good balance of weight transfer while still increasing rotation. What i found was that the car rotates better with the weight centered front to rear and left to right. This however made us lose initial steering and a little too much rear traction. What we did was place the batteries further forward and moved the electronics to the back to keep weight in the tail end of the chassis and the mass of the weight somewhat centralized to increase rotation. This layout was by far the best i have ever driven. I ran my tests on a dirty outdoor track and ran 4 cell with a 4.5 and had no rear traction issues but the car rotated on a dime with minimal scrub. It does look like it is nose heavy but in reality is not. The front to rear weight bias is almost identicle to if we swapped the speedo and batts. Its just the mass of the weight is at the center of rotation.
__________________
Jason Breiner
BMI Racing
www.bmiracing.com
DB12RR lipo edition cars now available
I would just wonder how having the batteries that far forward will impact things.
Remember, we tended to keep our batteries as far back as possible, lending a bit more traction to the rear. Having less traction at the front is controllable. . .having less traction at the rear is disastrous. Moving the batteries forward lends front traction and takes away rear traction. . .could be bad.
Also wish it had a 235mm option. . .
Otherwise, it looks very nice! I've been a BMI fan since I picked up my BMI NTC3 chassis! They do very good engineering.
Also note that batteries all the way back on 8" wheelbase 1/12th cars and on a 10" wheel base 1/10 cars will yield different weight distributions. To get a proper front to back weight distribution on the longer wheel base 1/10th cars the batteries have to be moved forward. In testing we kept moving the batteries forward and the car just got faster and faster. We went through 4 prototype lower chassis before we settled on the final battery postion.
In the pics of the CRC car you will see the 4 cell pack is in the middle position of the 6 cell slots. On my t-bar RC10L2 I ran the batteries one slot forward when I ran 4 cell. This is what it took to get the same weight distribution percentage as when I ran 6 cells.
On the DB10R the rearmost battery position is just a tiny bit forward when compared to other cars middle position but since ALL the electronics are now behind the batteries the over all weight distribution is very normal....but now with the added benefit of the shortest power wires of any Pro-10 or 1/12th car and a much cleaner look.
__________________
Adrian Martinez
BMI Racing
bmiracing.com
So Taz, how is the racing out there? I know that there is still an underlying debate between the 235mm and 200mm crowd as these cars start hitting the online shops, but I wanted to see if things were still going wel for tha tgroup out your way.
I've run both link and T-bar style of pan cars. The 10L2.5W is a hybrid link car (T-Bar is only there for connection - no tweak screws are in it.)
I was only wondering. I actually prefer link cars - but we still couldn't move the batteries forward (we ran 6-cell stock and mod) or we'd have rear traction issues. There doesn't seem to be any option to move batteries fore or aft in the car so I was just mentioning what I saw.
I didn't mention 1/12th scale since this wasn't a 1/12th scale. I've run multiple 1/12th scale cars as well - and always had the batteries all the way back as I had the same issues when I tried them forward. I've never ever had any issues with getting either the 1/12th or 1/10th (235mm) to rotate.
Of course I generally ran them at SoCalRC (6C stock) or Revelation (6C mod before they went all dirt) where we didn't have issues with front traction - it was always rear traction.
Wire length has always been a trivial issue to me - yes, get them as short and as neat as possible, but with high count high quality wires the loss is minimal over such a short distance (and just looking at resistance is misleading) so I've never really seen the big deal.
__________________
-
RC10L2.5W - RCNTC3(bmi) - plus rent-a-rides! :D
Rotation is what we are always looking to increase and eliminate as much tire scrub as possible. There 1/2 inch of for and aft battery adjustment in the car for battery adjustment. Generally what we try to do is get the weight bias to the rear of the car with the percentage ranging from 59%-62% rear weight bias.Full forward and full rear battery adjustment on the current layout gave us exactly those percentages with adjustment in between. When the batteries are too far back the car will not rotate and will cause the car to double steer. This is a very common problem with 2wd cars and is cured through setup and weight placement. There are many ways to increase rear traction but the goal is to have enough weight in the tail to keep the car planted but also to not hurt rotation. We had 4 different prototypes with alot of different layouts. 2 of them ran the same weight bias front to rear with different electronics layouts. This one far exceeded the rotation of the layout with the batteries in the rear. Both cars handled extremely well with a 59.5% weight bias to the rear. This layout showed less tire wear and the car was more consistant and rotated easier.
The layout looks deceiving but numbers dont lie.
__________________
Jason Breiner
BMI Racing
www.bmiracing.com
DB12RR lipo edition cars now available
. Was not brave enough to try it today. If the car is handling as good next time I will give it a go 
Similar Threads