1LikesKyosho VoneR Thread
08-29-2003, 09:30 AM
#8761
Originally posted by coastaltony
How about the Team Only Reflex?
How about the Team Only Reflex?
08-29-2003, 09:43 AM
#8762
Re: Re: Aluminum Adjustable Servo Saver
Originally posted by VenomWorldOrder
i like how with the v1rrbetteredition when adjusting ackerman you don't have to take out the whole servo horn, just the end thingy. is this servo horn a direct fit into the mtx3 unit? if so it would definatly save alot of time... i hate changing that oon the mugen!
i like how with the v1rrbetteredition when adjusting ackerman you don't have to take out the whole servo horn, just the end thingy. is this servo horn a direct fit into the mtx3 unit? if so it would definatly save alot of time... i hate changing that oon the mugen!
08-29-2003, 05:17 PM
#8763
Tech Regular
Hopefully going to take my evo out for it's first run today. mine weighs in at about 1750g with a AAA rx and the conversion kit on which saves about 18g. one thing i did notice for mine was that the clutch was unbearably tight on the inside of the 2nd spur gear and even when i ran some sand paper over it it was still far too tight. it was effectively in second gear all the time. thought i'd just share what i have found out.
08-29-2003, 06:06 PM
#8764
Originally posted by Dexter
Hopefully going to take my evo out for it's first run today. mine weighs in at about 1750g with a AAA rx and the conversion kit on which saves about 18g. one thing i did notice for mine was that the clutch was unbearably tight on the inside of the 2nd spur gear and even when i ran some sand paper over it it was still far too tight. it was effectively in second gear all the time. thought i'd just share what i have found out.
Hopefully going to take my evo out for it's first run today. mine weighs in at about 1750g with a AAA rx and the conversion kit on which saves about 18g. one thing i did notice for mine was that the clutch was unbearably tight on the inside of the 2nd spur gear and even when i ran some sand paper over it it was still far too tight. it was effectively in second gear all the time. thought i'd just share what i have found out.
08-30-2003, 01:22 AM
#8765
Tech Regular
Which set screws the 3x3 or the 4x4's?
08-30-2003, 02:20 AM
#8766
Originally posted by Dexter
Which set screws the 3x3 or the 4x4's?
Which set screws the 3x3 or the 4x4's?
The 3x3's - the one's in the middle of each shoe.
It sounds like they're touching thr rollers.
08-30-2003, 04:14 PM
#8767
Originally posted by Taylor-Racing
The 3x3's - the one's in the middle of each shoe.
It sounds like they're touching thr rollers.
The 3x3's - the one's in the middle of each shoe.
It sounds like they're touching thr rollers.
08-30-2003, 09:34 PM
#8768
Tech Regular
Yeah ur both right thanks for that, my bad 
. it now fits like a glove
. it now fits like a glove
08-30-2003, 10:35 PM
#8769
If anyone is after a rear swaybar like Mantis (CHARGE brand) without the adjustable arms give me a PM. Warning it aint cheap 
08-30-2003, 10:47 PM
#8770
Some more testing annecdotes.
I have been using 3 degree camber on the rear on this track for ever. (2 years at least) My tires always wear nice and flat. The EVO is coning them inwards which seems to indicate I can run less camber and still achieve flat wear!! Not sure why this is, I can only assume the car rolls overall much less.
When the grip is down the EVO is as ugly as any other car The track was very greasy and dusty the other day and I basically could not get it to hook up even with 35 on the rear. Very annoying.
My car now weighs 1705 with body
I have been using 3 degree camber on the rear on this track for ever. (2 years at least) My tires always wear nice and flat. The EVO is coning them inwards which seems to indicate I can run less camber and still achieve flat wear!! Not sure why this is, I can only assume the car rolls overall much less.
When the grip is down the EVO is as ugly as any other car
The track was very greasy and dusty the other day and I basically could not get it to hook up even with 35 on the rear. Very annoying.My car now weighs 1705 with body
08-31-2003, 12:50 AM
#8771
3x3 set screws
Originally posted by AMGRacer
Yep Taylor is right, need to back them out as much as you can without them rubbing the inside of the spur.
Yep Taylor is right, need to back them out as much as you can without them rubbing the inside of the spur.
rotating mass for a more efficient 2nd gear engagement?
08-31-2003, 12:56 AM
#8772
Re: 3x3 set screws
Originally posted by StepPins
what are those set screws for any way...are they used for added
rotating mass for a more efficient 2nd gear engagement?
what are those set screws for any way...are they used for added
rotating mass for a more efficient 2nd gear engagement?
08-31-2003, 06:17 AM
#8773
Originally posted by AMGRacer
If anyone is after a rear swaybar like Mantis (CHARGE brand) without the adjustable arms give me a PM. Warning it aint cheap
If anyone is after a rear swaybar like Mantis (CHARGE brand) without the adjustable arms give me a PM. Warning it aint cheap
We're not using that lower hole, but, hey.
. . . . Oh, alright, sent you a PM.
08-31-2003, 07:08 AM
#8774
Originally posted by AMGRacer
Some more testing annecdotes.
I have been using 3 degree camber on the rear on this track for ever. (2 years at least) My tires always wear nice and flat. The EVO is coning them inwards which seems to indicate I can run less camber and still achieve flat wear!! Not sure why this is, I can only assume the car rolls overall much less.
When the grip is down the EVO is as ugly as any other car The track was very greasy and dusty the other day and I basically could not get it to hook up even with 35 on the rear. Very annoying.
My car now weighs 1705 with body
Some more testing annecdotes.
I have been using 3 degree camber on the rear on this track for ever. (2 years at least) My tires always wear nice and flat. The EVO is coning them inwards which seems to indicate I can run less camber and still achieve flat wear!! Not sure why this is, I can only assume the car rolls overall much less.
When the grip is down the EVO is as ugly as any other car
The track was very greasy and dusty the other day and I basically could not get it to hook up even with 35 on the rear. Very annoying.My car now weighs 1705 with body
Hmmm . . . I'm going to venture a guess and say that with less traction, you are needing less static camber. Maybe with the Evo, those alternative mounting holes for the rear camber link are now actually usefull.
Please keep the test results coming, AMG.
We have only three tanks on our car - not enough to say anything conclusive.
. . . . however, at the risk of having Manti jump on me for using the "looks" word
the Evo definately looks to handle differently, and my driver confirms it. It seems to stay very flat, much like a MTX-3 (cough).The part I haven't figured out is I always thought it was the rear end at fault. Given that the rear is the same as the RR and the Evo front end is changed, I can only assume it's got something to do with the interaction or balance between the two - dunno.
Our VORTEC meeting was rained out today.
Even our spanking new track drying roller was no match for the weather. We have a night meet next Saturday. Please ask sparksy to bring some sunshine with him. So, what have you done to get the car down to 1705g? You must have adopted the Lotus theory of "adding lightness".
08-31-2003, 07:18 AM
#8775
Originally posted by Taylor-Racing
Hmmm . . . I'm going to venture a guess and say that with less traction, you are needing less static camber. Maybe with the Evo, those alternative mounting holes for the rear camber link are now actually usefull.
Please keep the test results coming, AMG.
We have only three tanks on our car - not enough to say anything conclusive.
. . . . however, at the risk of having Manti jump on me for using the "looks" word the Evo definately looks to handle differently, and my driver confirms it. It seems to stay very flat, much like a MTX-3 (cough).
The part I haven't figured out is I always thought it was the rear end at fault. Given that the rear is the same as the RR and the Evo front end is changed, I can only assume it's got something to do with the interaction or balance between the two - dunno.
Our VORTEC meeting was rained out today. Even our spanking new track drying roller was no match for the weather. We have a night meet next Saturday. Please ask sparksy to bring some sunshine with him.
So, what have you done to get the car down to 1705g? You must have adopted the Lotus theory of "adding lightness".
Hmmm . . . I'm going to venture a guess and say that with less traction, you are needing less static camber. Maybe with the Evo, those alternative mounting holes for the rear camber link are now actually usefull.
Please keep the test results coming, AMG.
We have only three tanks on our car - not enough to say anything conclusive.
. . . . however, at the risk of having Manti jump on me for using the "looks" word
the Evo definately looks to handle differently, and my driver confirms it. It seems to stay very flat, much like a MTX-3 (cough).The part I haven't figured out is I always thought it was the rear end at fault. Given that the rear is the same as the RR and the Evo front end is changed, I can only assume it's got something to do with the interaction or balance between the two - dunno.
Our VORTEC meeting was rained out today.
Even our spanking new track drying roller was no match for the weather. We have a night meet next Saturday. Please ask sparksy to bring some sunshine with him. So, what have you done to get the car down to 1705g? You must have adopted the Lotus theory of "adding lightness".
