Which is lower in CG v1rr evo or mtx3?
07-24-2003, 06:17 PM
#31
Originally posted by AMGRacer
I would not have taken you for a "my car won the worlds" type of guy. Oh well 
If you judge the CG by how many big race wins the car has then the NTC3 has the lowest CG.
I would not have taken you for a "my car won the worlds" type of guy. Oh well If you judge the CG by how many big race wins the car has then the NTC3 has the lowest CG.
07-24-2003, 06:40 PM
#32
Look at the tank
looks simular to the 705 in hieght and the cg on mtx is way lower then serpents.There is absolutely nothing lower on the kyosho based on these pictures
looks simular to the 705 in hieght and the cg on mtx is way lower then serpents.There is absolutely nothing lower on the kyosho based on these pictures
07-24-2003, 06:43 PM
#33
Originally posted by alvinm
Look at the tank looks simular to the 705 in hieght and the cg on mtx is way lower then serpents.There is absolutely nothing lower on the kyosho based on these pictures
Look at the tank
looks simular to the 705 in hieght and the cg on mtx is way lower then serpents.There is absolutely nothing lower on the kyosho based on these pictures
Firstly the MTX3 tank is offcentre so it will affect the balance of the car as the fuel load reduces, unlike the v1r tank. Secondly the MTX3 tank has a huge cutout below it where the battery sits and is wide and long. So a majority of the fuel load sits high in the tank. The v1r tank is taller and narrower but the tank extends all the way to the chassis uninterupted so you cannot tell the CG comparison merely by looking at the relative heights of the tanks.
07-24-2003, 06:52 PM
#34
Tech Elite
Detail photo on Evo
Guys,
Check this up... How low it was
Check this up... How low it was
07-24-2003, 07:08 PM
#35
Originally posted by AMGRacer
You missed a few important things here.
Firstly the MTX3 tank is offcentre so it will affect the balance of the car as the fuel load reduces, unlike the v1r tank. Secondly the MTX3 tank has a huge cutout below it where the battery sits and is wide and long. So a majority of the fuel load sits high in the tank. The v1r tank is taller and narrower but the tank extends all the way to the chassis uninterupted so you cannot tell the CG comparison merely by looking at the relative heights of the tanks.
You missed a few important things here.
Firstly the MTX3 tank is offcentre so it will affect the balance of the car as the fuel load reduces, unlike the v1r tank. Secondly the MTX3 tank has a huge cutout below it where the battery sits and is wide and long. So a majority of the fuel load sits high in the tank. The v1r tank is taller and narrower but the tank extends all the way to the chassis uninterupted so you cannot tell the CG comparison merely by looking at the relative heights of the tanks.
07-24-2003, 07:18 PM
#36
Originally posted by alvinm
Are we talking balance or cg?Even with the cutout there is more tank over the top tray on the evo then the mtx.The mtx tank is also longer which distributes the weight to a larger area rather then a big lump over the chassis.
Are we talking balance or cg?Even with the cutout there is more tank over the top tray on the evo then the mtx.The mtx tank is also longer which distributes the weight to a larger area rather then a big lump over the chassis.
Remember you cannot tell performance by "looking".
07-24-2003, 07:22 PM
#37
Originally posted by AMGRacer
OK I wont waste any more debate on this thread.
Remember you cannot tell performance by "looking".
OK I wont waste any more debate on this thread.
Remember you cannot tell performance by "looking".
07-24-2003, 07:29 PM
#38
Originally posted by AMGRacer
OK I wont waste any more debate on this thread.
Remember you cannot tell performance by "looking".
OK I wont waste any more debate on this thread.
Remember you cannot tell performance by "looking".
nah nah j/j
07-24-2003, 07:49 PM
#40
Originally posted by me43
some ppl think they can(R40)
nah nah j/j
some ppl think they can(R40)
nah nah j/j
07-24-2003, 07:57 PM
#41
the car
07-24-2003, 08:02 PM
#42
By the way it was very innovative of kyosho to use a lay down steering servo
07-24-2003, 08:15 PM
#43
Originally posted by alvinm
By the way it was very innovative of kyosho to use a lay down steering servo
By the way it was very innovative of kyosho to use a lay down steering servo
07-24-2003, 09:18 PM
#44
Re: Detail photo on Evo
Originally posted by esham
Guys,
Check this up... How low it was
Guys,
Check this up... How low it was
07-24-2003, 09:33 PM
#45
Re: Re: Detail photo on Evo
Originally posted by thefuzzclub
SWEET LOOKING! BUT IS THERE A COVER FOR THE RECEIVER?
SWEET LOOKING! BUT IS THERE A COVER FOR THE RECEIVER?