3LikesTeam Associated TC6.2 Touring Car
10-15-2014, 02:10 AM
#1396
Just getting back in to it after a 6 month break.
just from a couple of comments above and the rsd aluminium chassis it seams ridged is the way to go now, what happened to getting the chassis to flex?!
just from a couple of comments above and the rsd aluminium chassis it seams ridged is the way to go now, what happened to getting the chassis to flex?!
10-15-2014, 03:19 AM
#1397
M.Ellis
10-15-2014, 09:21 AM
#1398
Our testing was very thorough on the AE car, and continues to be. In stock form, the kit flexes a bit excessively around the motor mount area. This can make the car very inconsistent in medium to high grip conditions. We have found that anything that can increase the rigidity of the chassis around this area, makes the car have better, more precise drive out of the corners.
There is nothing "wrong" with the stock chassis, it can be very fast as well. However, there is some room for improvement on it.
The aluminum chassis really shines on carpet and especially spec classes. If I were to recommend something that would make a big difference for the stock chassis, it's the bulkhead braces we just came out with and a top deck. These items would stiffen up the motor mount area and move around flex on the chassis to the appropriate points to make the car drive better/more consistent.
There is nothing "wrong" with the stock chassis, it can be very fast as well. However, there is some room for improvement on it.
The aluminum chassis really shines on carpet and especially spec classes. If I were to recommend something that would make a big difference for the stock chassis, it's the bulkhead braces we just came out with and a top deck. These items would stiffen up the motor mount area and move around flex on the chassis to the appropriate points to make the car drive better/more consistent.
10-15-2014, 09:26 AM
#1399
Oh, and flex is one of those things that is not necessarily better or worse. It is a matter of where it is isolated. You don't want excessive flex around bulkheads like before. Now our bulkheads are not as "stiff" as the older designs, therefore we have changed chassis design to compliment this. If you incorporate flex around the newer flexible bulkhead designs you end up with cars that cannot put the power down properly and that has trouble tracking straight.
10-15-2014, 11:31 AM
#1400
Tech Adept
Our testing was very thorough on the AE car, and continues to be. In stock form, the kit flexes a bit excessively around the motor mount area. This can make the car very inconsistent in medium to high grip conditions. We have found that anything that can increase the rigidity of the chassis around this area, makes the car have better, more precise drive out of the corners.
There is nothing "wrong" with the stock chassis, it can be very fast as well. However, there is some room for improvement on it.
The aluminum chassis really shines on carpet and especially spec classes. If I were to recommend something that would make a big difference for the stock chassis, it's the bulkhead braces we just came out with and a top deck. These items would stiffen up the motor mount area and move around flex on the chassis to the appropriate points to make the car drive better/more consistent.
There is nothing "wrong" with the stock chassis, it can be very fast as well. However, there is some room for improvement on it.
The aluminum chassis really shines on carpet and especially spec classes. If I were to recommend something that would make a big difference for the stock chassis, it's the bulkhead braces we just came out with and a top deck. These items would stiffen up the motor mount area and move around flex on the chassis to the appropriate points to make the car drive better/more consistent.
Of course there would be alot of other reasons as well.
Do you need necessarily to purchase the other rsd chassis, carbon fibre or alluminum along with the top plate? or for right now a racer can just get the top plate and see if it works well for him.
Thank you for your time.
10-15-2014, 11:40 AM
#1401
Our testing was very thorough on the AE car, and continues to be. In stock form, the kit flexes a bit excessively around the motor mount area. This can make the car very inconsistent in medium to high grip conditions. We have found that anything that can increase the rigidity of the chassis around this area, makes the car have better, more precise drive out of the corners.
...
...
And why is it so difficult for awsome drivers like Rick, Juho and Keven to do better than they did in the worlds in Florida?
Could it be that TC 1/10 is not such an important class for AE to spend more on testing and development?
Don't get me wrong - I'm a big fan of the blue car's - calling TC3 nitro Team, TC5's and TC6.1wc my own.
But on the other hand it might seem that other brands put more effort to improve theire cars and keep them at the top of the pack ...
might be critical, but I had to ask those questions as I would like to stick to AE cars ...
Last edited by jpx; 10-16-2014 at 10:44 AM.
10-15-2014, 12:11 PM
#1402
Tech Adept
Why didn't AE find out, that improovments in that area would make the car have better, more precise drive out of the corners?
And why is it so difficult for awsome drivers like Rick, Juho and Keven to do better than they did in the worlds in Florida?
Could it be that TC 1/10 is not such an important class for AE to spend more on testing and development?
Don't get me wrong - I'm a big fan of the blue car's - calling TC3 nitro Team, TC5's and TC6wc my own.
But on the other hand it might seem that other brands put more effort to improve theire cars and keep them at the top of the pack ...
might be critical, but I had to ask those questions as I would like to stick to AE cars ...
And why is it so difficult for awsome drivers like Rick, Juho and Keven to do better than they did in the worlds in Florida?
Could it be that TC 1/10 is not such an important class for AE to spend more on testing and development?
Don't get me wrong - I'm a big fan of the blue car's - calling TC3 nitro Team, TC5's and TC6wc my own.
But on the other hand it might seem that other brands put more effort to improve theire cars and keep them at the top of the pack ...
might be critical, but I had to ask those questions as I would like to stick to AE cars ...
Anyway the 6.2 was what the 6 should have been; in my opinion
10-15-2014, 12:45 PM
#1403
All the real fast guys at the worlds there cars were like rubber bands. I personally felt Brunos car after the world's and it had so much flex that it really felt like a rubber band so go figure. sometimes flex is better sometime is not.
10-15-2014, 01:18 PM
#1404
I am not sure what, but there is something wrong with the suspension geometry. Flex seems to be ok; I always preferred using all screws in the topdeck. But talking about the suspension, short arms in the rear make the car a little better, but do not solve the problem at all.
I had a hard time bringing the car to life outdoor. Who followed this thread knows what I tried the whole season. And even though the car behaves ok, the last two tenth were not to find without a conversion. Right now I am driving with ultra short camber links of 40-41mm length. This is radical, but brings this chassis to life (and got me the last tenth I was searching for). The T4'15 I am testing since three weeks, works extremely well with long camber links...
A friend of mine bought the Volker ETS Yokomo chassis build by Umino (who else) and copied the setup and measurements for the 6.2. He said it was a huge step forward with his 6.2. In direct comparison the Yokomo was still faster 1-2 tenth a lap.
So in conclusion flex feel looks to be ok, but seems to be in disharmony with the suspension geometry, forcing us dedicated corner speed addicts to change the car (a lot).
I had a hard time bringing the car to life outdoor. Who followed this thread knows what I tried the whole season. And even though the car behaves ok, the last two tenth were not to find without a conversion. Right now I am driving with ultra short camber links of 40-41mm length. This is radical, but brings this chassis to life (and got me the last tenth I was searching for). The T4'15 I am testing since three weeks, works extremely well with long camber links...
A friend of mine bought the Volker ETS Yokomo chassis build by Umino (who else) and copied the setup and measurements for the 6.2. He said it was a huge step forward with his 6.2. In direct comparison the Yokomo was still faster 1-2 tenth a lap.
So in conclusion flex feel looks to be ok, but seems to be in disharmony with the suspension geometry, forcing us dedicated corner speed addicts to change the car (a lot).
10-15-2014, 01:34 PM
#1405
To answer a few of the Q's from my point of view.
I am a fan of AE through and through. RSD is a company founded on that passion for AE and running the cars at the front of the pack. I WANT to run an AE car, but since I am not bound to any brand, I test the top cars all the time. I like to analyze where I feel the others are doing better, by comparing geometries, doing flex simulations, and I am always testing, testing and testing some more. When I got my 6.2, I was running a Yokomo. In stock trim, after weeks of throwing everything at the car, I could not get it closer than 2 tenths of a second off of my Yokomo. This is when I started to really analyze flex, and where it is happening.
An XRAY has a ton of flex, but it has a very rigid motor mount area where the top shaft screws into the layshaft, this creates forward bite coming out of corners. Run a decoupled layshaft and the post and see how much more unstable the car is under power. It is almost un-drivable in mod, you really have to tune it completely different. The 6.2 never gave this option. It does flex sort of like the XRAY, but does not have the option to couple the layshaft to the top deck. I really do think that if you were able to do this, the stock design would work in all conditions.
AE does not budget a lot for their racing program, they are a small team and have a very small market share. Perhaps if they were more successful, they would spend more, but their bread and butter is off road. This, I don't think is going to change anytime soon.
I am sure that the team is aware of the short comings of the design, you would not see them running TC4 arms on the car otherwise. As team drivers though, they have to push the product and promote it as is, until they release something new or revised, otherwise sales would die. The one thing I find interesting is that there was absolutely no clear body off pictures of the AE Cars at the worlds, this definitely means that they were keeping some stuff on the DL...
Now, as for what I recommend, it depends on the surface you are running. If you are running on carpet, the aluminum chassis has been the single best upgrade I have ever felt on the car. It just works awesome on the stock trim TC6.2. This, makes a bigger difference than the pistons, bladders, top deck, braces, towers, arms, everything.
After the chassis, I would go in this order: bladders, springs, pistons, top deck, braces, lightweight arm system, shock towers.
On asphalt, the car is not generating as much lateral bite, so the car is not so sensitive to on power chassis twisting, so maybe you can move the chassis down after the braces, or perhaps run our carbon version, which, due to the shape, moves the flex away from the bulkheads to the center of the chassis.
My RSD7 is by far my favorite sedan right now. Maybe it is because I built it to suit my driving style, but even when A-Main caliber drivers show up at my track I am often 2 tenths faster per lap than them with it in 17.5 and can get close to Chris Adams in mod with it (Adams is super fast with that XRAY in mod- I can get within a tenth of him, even though I don't run modified very often anymore, since I am trying to develop a car that is fast for spec racing.) The most re-affirming situation is that CMunro, who is often on this forum, drives one as well and he is the only one that can match my times and often comes close to beating me (it will happen sooner than later). I have seen CMunro put on development parts 1 at a time and pick up time and/or consistency which ultimately makes me SUPER happy.
I am a fan of AE through and through. RSD is a company founded on that passion for AE and running the cars at the front of the pack. I WANT to run an AE car, but since I am not bound to any brand, I test the top cars all the time. I like to analyze where I feel the others are doing better, by comparing geometries, doing flex simulations, and I am always testing, testing and testing some more. When I got my 6.2, I was running a Yokomo. In stock trim, after weeks of throwing everything at the car, I could not get it closer than 2 tenths of a second off of my Yokomo. This is when I started to really analyze flex, and where it is happening.
An XRAY has a ton of flex, but it has a very rigid motor mount area where the top shaft screws into the layshaft, this creates forward bite coming out of corners. Run a decoupled layshaft and the post and see how much more unstable the car is under power. It is almost un-drivable in mod, you really have to tune it completely different. The 6.2 never gave this option. It does flex sort of like the XRAY, but does not have the option to couple the layshaft to the top deck. I really do think that if you were able to do this, the stock design would work in all conditions.
AE does not budget a lot for their racing program, they are a small team and have a very small market share. Perhaps if they were more successful, they would spend more, but their bread and butter is off road. This, I don't think is going to change anytime soon.
I am sure that the team is aware of the short comings of the design, you would not see them running TC4 arms on the car otherwise. As team drivers though, they have to push the product and promote it as is, until they release something new or revised, otherwise sales would die. The one thing I find interesting is that there was absolutely no clear body off pictures of the AE Cars at the worlds, this definitely means that they were keeping some stuff on the DL...
Now, as for what I recommend, it depends on the surface you are running. If you are running on carpet, the aluminum chassis has been the single best upgrade I have ever felt on the car. It just works awesome on the stock trim TC6.2. This, makes a bigger difference than the pistons, bladders, top deck, braces, towers, arms, everything.
After the chassis, I would go in this order: bladders, springs, pistons, top deck, braces, lightweight arm system, shock towers.
On asphalt, the car is not generating as much lateral bite, so the car is not so sensitive to on power chassis twisting, so maybe you can move the chassis down after the braces, or perhaps run our carbon version, which, due to the shape, moves the flex away from the bulkheads to the center of the chassis.
My RSD7 is by far my favorite sedan right now. Maybe it is because I built it to suit my driving style, but even when A-Main caliber drivers show up at my track I am often 2 tenths faster per lap than them with it in 17.5 and can get close to Chris Adams in mod with it (Adams is super fast with that XRAY in mod- I can get within a tenth of him, even though I don't run modified very often anymore, since I am trying to develop a car that is fast for spec racing.) The most re-affirming situation is that CMunro, who is often on this forum, drives one as well and he is the only one that can match my times and often comes close to beating me (it will happen sooner than later). I have seen CMunro put on development parts 1 at a time and pick up time and/or consistency which ultimately makes me SUPER happy.
10-15-2014, 01:38 PM
#1406
WTCC, our suspension arms mimic the Yokomo Geometry almost identically, they also change the lengths of the upper links a bit, especially the rear one, making it 2mm shorter.
I think, there are still some things the Yokomo has that we don't take into account and that is driveshaft angles and motor mounts. These things can make a huge difference. I have a proto motor mount on my car, similar to the BD7 2014-15 and it does make the car drive a bit different, but there are no huge gains in performance, hence why we have not released it.
I think, there are still some things the Yokomo has that we don't take into account and that is driveshaft angles and motor mounts. These things can make a huge difference. I have a proto motor mount on my car, similar to the BD7 2014-15 and it does make the car drive a bit different, but there are no huge gains in performance, hence why we have not released it.
10-15-2014, 03:04 PM
#1407
I used the front arms for the rear with the stock rear hub and found the rear turning a little better without getting oversteer. As the T4'15 is my first non-AE tc since starting into the hobby with the TC5, I was surprised how much steering it has. Something I always missed with my Asso tcs and ended in "unnatural" setups like 1* toe-in and/or 20000cst diff oil in the rear...
I would really like to try the RSD7, but went for the T4 to join the wrenching fun with my Xray-driving friends after holding up the AE onroad flag almost alone for the last five years.
Unfortunately we don't have the timing system installed at our track yet, to see if my 6.2 is faster than the T4
I would really like to try the RSD7, but went for the T4 to join the wrenching fun with my Xray-driving friends after holding up the AE onroad flag almost alone for the last five years.
Unfortunately we don't have the timing system installed at our track yet, to see if my 6.2 is faster than the T4
10-16-2014, 03:33 AM
#1409
How could I ever say no to such an generous offer! It would be an honour and great pleasure to drive the RSD7 here in Germany 
We can call ourselves lucky to have a guy like you in the business!
10-16-2014, 07:32 AM
#1410
To answer a few of the Q's from my point of view.
I am a fan of AE through and through. RSD is a company founded on that passion for AE and running the cars at the front of the pack. I WANT to run an AE car, but since I am not bound to any brand, I test the top cars all the time. I like to analyze where I feel the others are doing better, by comparing geometries, doing flex simulations, and I am always testing, testing and testing some more. When I got my 6.2, I was running a Yokomo. In stock trim, after weeks of throwing everything at the car, I could not get it closer than 2 tenths of a second off of my Yokomo. This is when I started to really analyze flex, and where it is happening.
An XRAY has a ton of flex, but it has a very rigid motor mount area where the top shaft screws into the layshaft, this creates forward bite coming out of corners. Run a decoupled layshaft and the post and see how much more unstable the car is under power. It is almost un-drivable in mod, you really have to tune it completely different. The 6.2 never gave this option. It does flex sort of like the XRAY, but does not have the option to couple the layshaft to the top deck. I really do think that if you were able to do this, the stock design would work in all conditions.
I am a fan of AE through and through. RSD is a company founded on that passion for AE and running the cars at the front of the pack. I WANT to run an AE car, but since I am not bound to any brand, I test the top cars all the time. I like to analyze where I feel the others are doing better, by comparing geometries, doing flex simulations, and I am always testing, testing and testing some more. When I got my 6.2, I was running a Yokomo. In stock trim, after weeks of throwing everything at the car, I could not get it closer than 2 tenths of a second off of my Yokomo. This is when I started to really analyze flex, and where it is happening.
An XRAY has a ton of flex, but it has a very rigid motor mount area where the top shaft screws into the layshaft, this creates forward bite coming out of corners. Run a decoupled layshaft and the post and see how much more unstable the car is under power. It is almost un-drivable in mod, you really have to tune it completely different. The 6.2 never gave this option. It does flex sort of like the XRAY, but does not have the option to couple the layshaft to the top deck. I really do think that if you were able to do this, the stock design would work in all conditions.