13Maschine

iTrader: (1)

@Fred: Thank you for your input I'm not sure I agree with you however. Motor placement makes a huge difference in the application of it's torque. I think that the "in air" control is important in off road. This was the change I was looking for when switching to MM4 as well as increasing forward traction. You can't bring the nose down with brakes in the air with MM3 or RM4. The torque of the motor will also be fighting the natural weight transfer to the front end of the car upon braking as well as fighting the inertia of the wheels.

Here's what Durango has to say on the subject:

http://www.team-durango.com/blog/201...onfigurations/

thefan

iTrader: (3)

I bought my durango to run on carpet but if i wanted to run it mm4 on dirt what setup would work for hard packed dusty track?

fredswain

iTrader: (1)

Nothing Durango says disagrees with me. Well, except for the fact that they don't know how to make MM work on anything other than high bite of course.

13Maschine

iTrader: (1)

Gosh I hope there's some humour I seem to be missing in here somewhere. bleh.

Blitzrockey

iTrader: (33)

What would you guys use for gearing on a outdoor track with about a 90ft straight. Its my dads car and it will have a traxxas velenion motor in it, so no boost or anything. It has the stock spur as well, Thanks.

fanfor18

iTrader: (2)

Fredswain I need some help. I am currently running 1.6x3 pistons front and back with 35wt front and 30wt reat. I am having an issue with the chassis slapping the ground on larger jumps. I am thinking about going to 1.6x2 pistion with 30 wt front and 1.7x2 25wt in rear. Am I going the correct direction. Also, I am running (hate to tell you this. LOL) MM4.

fredswain

iTrader: (1)

Yes there was a bit of sarcasm in that post.

I'd try the 2 x 1.3's in back with the 2 x 1.2's in front. Each will give you more pack than the 3 hole you are running so yes you are headed in the right direction.

Most people run MM4 so I can't call it wrong. I just personally don't like it. It is conceivable that I'll give it a try again someday but I have no desire to right now.

fanfor18

iTrader: (2)

Thank you for your input

fredswain

iTrader: (1)

I meant 1.6 and 1.7 not 1.2 and 1.3. Sorry for the confusion.

KarlB

I got the +8 type b plastic chassis so just need the other bits.

ekt

iTrader: (4)

The v2 comes with an aluminium +8 chassis

dan-o

iTrader: (105)

Fred - you are not alone...mm is not for me either, maybe someday when I have hours and hours to spend by the track. But right now the rm3 is solid for me.

fredswain

iTrader: (1)

I like mid motor just fine. I prefer it. I just don't like the 4 gear setup. I like 3 gear better but even it is a compromise. They both are. I just find that MM3 has less of them. I personally would prefer a layout like the Team C TM2. I go back to that car a lot since it's the only one laid out that way. It makes way too much sense to me. I may pick one up a some point but I'll probably end up building a similar car out of either Associated or Durango parts.

rcjunky1

iTrader: (10)

a UK company called cobra racing products makes a chassis to run a 210 front with the 410 back called the 4210 and a different UK company makes the bodies. Works out to about $80 then you just need a battery strap and stand offs. I'm tempted to get one once they are caught up and have international shipping figured out.

Dino_D

(mm) 2 hole 3 hole 4 hole 5 hole 6 hole
1.0 1.571 2.356 3.142 3.927 4.712
1.1 1.901 2.851 3.801 4.752 5.702
1.2 2.262 3.393 4.524 5.655 6.786
1.3 2.655 3.982 5.309 6.637 7.964
1.4 3.079 4.618 6.158 7.697 9.236
1.5 3.534 5.301 7.069 8.836
1.6 4.021 6.032 8.042
1.7 4.540 6.809

The lower the ratio number the more pack, the higher the number is less pack
Also, given the same ratio eg. (using the same ratio of lets say 5.3 the 4x1.3 will pack more over larger jumps than 3x 1.5) More smaller holes is better on larger jumps, bigger holes are better for bumps.