Bar

iTrader: (1)

+1

I have been thinking this for a while, quite a few 1/10th 4wd offroad cars utilise this layout

2uzferunner03

Isn't the sprint2 a resurrected pro2?

I guess it's technically a resurrected sport2.

nf_ekt

iTrader: (115)

Yeah, I think it's about time to give the concept a try again.

theproffesor

iTrader: (66)

The sprint 2 is a pro 2

inpuressa

iTrader: (10)

If it's belt, the losi 22-4 layout comes to mind...

robk

iTrader: (22)

Evo4 gears fit...using both pinion and crown give 2.294. The pinion must be sanded down some to fit right.

theproffesor

iTrader: (66)

That may be true but spending more money on an already $600+ car to get it right shouldn't have to happen.

Chaz955i

iTrader: (5)

Not everyone in the world runs 25.5 so settling on any gear ratio is a compromise for someone somewhere else in the world. I couldn't run the stock spur that came with my T4. Tough sh@t. I changed it and got over it.

theproffesor

iTrader: (66)

Changing out diffs is alot different then changing out a spur. Every other car made now has around 2.0 internal to include your T4.

DesertRat

iTrader: (2)

I wonder if the car will be piston damper or some kind of Awesomatix-like rotary setup.

wwddww34

iTrader: (9)

It will probably be a complete surprise. Maybe something like 4 Flex T-plates for each wheel and a continuous variable dampener system made out of Unobtainium.

Qatmix

2.5 is fine, the Evo6 can fit small spurs and there is a lot of room to move the motor. My awesomatix had an I.R of 2.55 and that was fine.

As to the Pro5 a shaft drive Mi5 would be interesting.

peter george

iTrader: (377)

For some reason it sounds like HPI will focus on a couple of things that will be drastic and change the tc platform....at least their tc platform. Im pretty sure belts are not going away but that they are gonna focus more on motor and lipo positions. I bet its gonna be great.

Chrisgt2

iTrader: (12)

So you're wanting to use saddle packs that have a higher internal resistance? Those are even being phased out in off road where IR isn't an issue.

theproffesor

iTrader: (66)

Im usually an out of the box thinker, but the only belt system that really makes any sense and to be a radical departure from todays TC's is a JRXS/JRXS-R set-up. The type - r only came to be because they used the rotation force of the motor to help produce more rear grip. But with brushless motors the motor in the middle would work great and with low pro-servos the norm in racing, space is a non-issue. Due to ROAR rules, the car will have to accept iether a full size lipo or a saddle. It cant be designed around a shorty or square pack. But it could be made to where that is the optimal battery. Short servo, motor, esc/rx, then shorty batt... all down the middle. A three belt design as in the 22-4 isnt likely as the more belts you have the less efficient the drive system.