1LikesTLR 8IGHT E 3.0 THREAD
11-22-2013, 03:47 PM
#1021
Sorry to change gears here, but I have a question for casper or Ryan. I am running at 3400g ready to race. Will this be too heavy for the Tekin t8i setup? I run at the same indoor track as Jason rc, incase you haven't seen his videos its med. size clay, high bite. I am running a light 4s pack, I could drop 50g by switching to a SMC 4s shorty. Finally making it to the track this Sunday and dont want to burn up this new motor. Thanks for any advice.
11-22-2013, 04:46 PM
#1022
Tech Regular
Whats the hold up on the rear 3.0 green springs?
11-22-2013, 05:37 PM
#1023
Tech Adept
Thanks Casper, its only 200g over minimum limit. I think you've posted in the past you're just over min.? Is your buggy stock with the 2x2s venom shorties? Or do you use titanium hardware and links? Also, I have it setup per your suggested settings. Will that still be a good place to start?
11-22-2013, 05:43 PM
#1024
Tech Adept
I would gear it with a 15 and be a little conservative and I would expect you to be fine. No timing in the ESC. The motor will pull a heavier car just not what it was intended to do. They still offer the T8 Gen 2 if you don't want to put the car on the diet for the T8i to run more efficient. The purpose of that motor was to aid in making a light nimble car for tight indoor racing. It will be more efficent with a lighter car. I don't think 50g is going to "break" the motor but the lighter the better. Keep an eye on the motor temps the first few runs.
11-22-2013, 07:56 PM
#1025
Tech Rookie
You have it ALLL wrong. First off, the bodies arne't designed to "slow them down", they are designed to give down force characteristics that produce better lap times, in certain track conditions. Why are you so obsessed with "aero", and "efficiency", and "speed"? Who cares? This isn't a 12th scale car on carpet, or a 21.5 turn spec class in onroad. In that type of environment, all of those things really come into play into lap times... But you're not, you are talking off road. There is ALREADY too much power in these cars, and typically not enough traction. When was the last time somebody lost an offroad RC car race because one guy's absolute top speed was 1/4 mph faster than the next guy? Answer? never.
The only question you need to ask, is what will produce a better lap time? That is it. Because the one thing holding these cars back is typically traction, setup, and tires. (and then usually in-air stability) For a lot of tracks, the body with the down-force characteristics that create the traction bias they are looking for, will produce the better lap times, albiet tiny tiny tiny fractions, usually only noticeable by higher tiered drivers.
It sounds to me like you are a basher... if so, then none of it matters anyway. Pick a body that looks best to you, paint it your favorite color, and go at it. If you are RACING... then lap times are it. You pick the body that produces the best lap times, and deal with the fact that your car might have a small identity crisis.
When I read your replies, you seem overly obsessed with something that will have zero impact on the car. If you think a shell that has a tiny tiny bit better drag co-efficient will have ANY noticeable or significant affect on your motor temp or run time, the you haven't put enough time in at the track...because it wont.
Basically what I am saying, is that all that crap that you are worried about and keep spewing here, won't mean a damn thing on the racetrack. For example, if you ran a shell that was an oval dome.. one that produced the LEAST amount of drag-co efficient as possible and allowed the MOST amount of non-turbulent air to reach the wing, do you think you could then magically run a much softer motor? You now wont have to rebuild your drive train ever, or as much? maybe the car will accelerate slightly better (you're talking microscopic at this point), but then you would need to brake slightly stronger as there would be the same microscopic loss of drag. Any lap time gain you think you have gained in drag co-effecient, you have now lost due to reduced down force, making the car unstable in the air, or reduced traction against the surface.
Like I said... take a step back, relax, and watch and learn from the guys that are winning races.
The only question you need to ask, is what will produce a better lap time? That is it. Because the one thing holding these cars back is typically traction, setup, and tires. (and then usually in-air stability) For a lot of tracks, the body with the down-force characteristics that create the traction bias they are looking for, will produce the better lap times, albiet tiny tiny tiny fractions, usually only noticeable by higher tiered drivers.
It sounds to me like you are a basher... if so, then none of it matters anyway. Pick a body that looks best to you, paint it your favorite color, and go at it. If you are RACING... then lap times are it. You pick the body that produces the best lap times, and deal with the fact that your car might have a small identity crisis.
When I read your replies, you seem overly obsessed with something that will have zero impact on the car. If you think a shell that has a tiny tiny bit better drag co-efficient will have ANY noticeable or significant affect on your motor temp or run time, the you haven't put enough time in at the track...because it wont.
Basically what I am saying, is that all that crap that you are worried about and keep spewing here, won't mean a damn thing on the racetrack. For example, if you ran a shell that was an oval dome.. one that produced the LEAST amount of drag-co efficient as possible and allowed the MOST amount of non-turbulent air to reach the wing, do you think you could then magically run a much softer motor? You now wont have to rebuild your drive train ever, or as much? maybe the car will accelerate slightly better (you're talking microscopic at this point), but then you would need to brake slightly stronger as there would be the same microscopic loss of drag. Any lap time gain you think you have gained in drag co-effecient, you have now lost due to reduced down force, making the car unstable in the air, or reduced traction against the surface.
Like I said... take a step back, relax, and watch and learn from the guys that are winning races.
Furthermore I never started the discussion on aerodynamics I just question a incorrect statement that was given to me in this thread. Look at the end of the day scale is scale however you want to look at it and I will leave you with that. You guys have been a wealth of information for me in the past so yes I have listened and learned, I'm sorry but I just cannot agree with you on this one, I really believe that you have totally missed my point to your argument.
It is quite funny how a person is just asking for a proper body for the classification that his car is and totally get flamed on. Are we trying to protect our sponsors? Hmmm...
11-22-2013, 07:59 PM
#1026
Tech Rookie
11-23-2013, 01:21 AM
#1027
Tech Initiate
Google building your own vacuum forming machine. If I didn't like the bodies that are available, I would design my own. It's not that hard.
11-23-2013, 03:23 AM
#1028
11-23-2013, 06:47 AM
#1029
Tech Rookie
How embarrassing? 
11-26-2013, 04:22 AM
#1030
Finally got some real track time the past couple of days. What an improvement over the 2.0. I am running on a 130x75 outdoor hard packed clay track, medium bite. I noticed that my chassis is a bit more scratched on the right (motor) side. On the scales I am aprox. 50 grames heavier on that side.
If I switch from a 1900 t8 to a 1950 t8i should I change the gearing or esc settings? I am geared at 15/43 right now and am temping 130 after 10 min.
If I switch from a 1900 t8 to a 1950 t8i should I change the gearing or esc settings? I am geared at 15/43 right now and am temping 130 after 10 min.
11-26-2013, 04:35 PM
#1031
Hey guys, I built my kit new with a good amount of light weight parts but in return added a few aluminum parts as well. I didn't have my scale going when I built it and am curious as to how it stacks up against a stock kit. So with all electronics mounted, body, no battery or wheels what are most of you coming in at? I plan to weigh mine tonight as I have the old scale operational again.
Thanks
Thanks
11-26-2013, 05:27 PM
#1032
Hey guys, I built my kit new with a good amount of light weight parts but in return added a few aluminum parts as well. I didn't have my scale going when I built it and am curious as to how it stacks up against a stock kit. So with all electronics mounted, body, no battery or wheels what are most of you coming in at? I plan to weigh mine tonight as I have the old scale operational again.
Thanks
Thanks
3275 grams.
11-27-2013, 04:43 PM
#1033
That's not bad goat! Mine comes it at 3274 track ready with gen2 rx8, gen 2 T8, protek 3500 4s, new jc hybrids and body. I have the jc carbon towers, TI shock standoffs, TI turnbuckles and the aluminum axle stubs. I did however add the aluminum top plate, aluminum servo saver arm and aluminum rear hubs which may have put some weight back on perhaps? I also have the full receiver box. What is the weight diff of the t8 vs t8i?
11-27-2013, 05:30 PM
#1034
Tech Regular
That's not bad goat! Mine comes it at 3274 track ready with gen2 rx8, gen 2 T8, protek 3500 4s, new jc hybrids and body. I have the jc carbon towers, TI shock standoffs, TI turnbuckles and the aluminum axle stubs. I did however add the aluminum top plate, aluminum servo saver arm and aluminum rear hubs which may have put some weight back on perhaps? I also have the full receiver box. What is the weight diff of the t8 vs t8i?
11-27-2013, 07:14 PM
#1035
That's not bad goat! Mine comes it at 3274 track ready with gen2 rx8, gen 2 T8, protek 3500 4s, new jc hybrids and body. I have the jc carbon towers, TI shock standoffs, TI turnbuckles and the aluminum axle stubs. I did however add the aluminum top plate, aluminum servo saver arm and aluminum rear hubs which may have put some weight back on perhaps? I also have the full receiver box. What is the weight diff of the t8 vs t8i?
