4LikesTeam Associated B4.2 Thread
07-21-2013 | 01:54 PM
#7096
I still agree with you. I'll say that I was really surprised how much the x-cars had come since I originally drove Paul's years ago.
All the newer cars are convertible simply because it makes since to design a car you can produce a handful of extras for and make it RM or MM. That still doesn't mean that one isnt compromised or couldn't be made better/faster if it were a car made soley around one style or the other.
If AE were to make the B5 only a MM(won't happen)... It's be really hard for me to run it lol... I love my current car.
I'd much rather see a new RM car designed with a conversion kit sold seperately for MM.
All the newer cars are convertible simply because it makes since to design a car you can produce a handful of extras for and make it RM or MM. That still doesn't mean that one isnt compromised or couldn't be made better/faster if it were a car made soley around one style or the other.
If AE were to make the B5 only a MM(won't happen)... It's be really hard for me to run it lol... I love my current car.
I'd much rather see a new RM car designed with a conversion kit sold seperately for MM.
07-21-2013 | 02:05 PM
#7097
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 15,743
From: RIP 'Chopper', 4/18/13 miss you bud:(
Isn't "control" all about rear traction? Which is the whole point were discussing. If a RTR is RM or MM shouldn't matter because on any surface it should be the design with the most traction. If in fact MM is the best on both high and low bite.
07-21-2013 | 02:10 PM
#7098
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 15,743
From: RIP 'Chopper', 4/18/13 miss you bud:(
I still agree with you. I'll say that I was really surprised how much the x-cars had come since I originally drove Paul's years ago.
All the newer cars are convertible simply because it makes since to design a car you can produce a handful of extras for and make it RM or MM. That still doesn't mean that one isnt compromised or couldn't be made better/faster if it were a car made soley around one style or the other.
If AE were to make the B5 only a MM(won't happen)... It's be really hard for me to run it lol... I love my current car.
I'd much rather see a new RM car designed with a conversion kit sold seperately for MM.
All the newer cars are convertible simply because it makes since to design a car you can produce a handful of extras for and make it RM or MM. That still doesn't mean that one isnt compromised or couldn't be made better/faster if it were a car made soley around one style or the other.
If AE were to make the B5 only a MM(won't happen)... It's be really hard for me to run it lol... I love my current car.
I'd much rather see a new RM car designed with a conversion kit sold seperately for MM.
IMO current cars are conversions because through testing MM hasn't proven for the big 3 to be the best design on low bite, which is what 95% of us run on. Other than the big races nobody sees really high bite tracks in the US. IMO, and maybe a guess.
A MM only AE car...man that would be tough to swallow..Since RM has been around since...well forever, it would be tough to accept them,
based on looks alone
07-21-2013 | 02:35 PM
#7099
Tech Master
iTrader: (26)
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,412
At my track round 1 and 2 we run treaded tires and its medium high bite and the car feels good with current setup. By round 3 and 4 we run slicks and its very high bite. When I run slicks in those last two rounds my buggy feels really twitchy. What can I do to settle it down for that final round?
07-21-2013 | 02:36 PM
#7100
And I agree with you..lol
IMO current cars are conversions because through testing MM hasn't proven for the big 3 to be the best design on low bite, which is what 95% of us run on. Other than the big races nobody sees really high bite tracks in the US. IMO, and maybe a guess.
A MM only AE car...man that would be tough to swallow..Since RM has been around since...well forever, it would be tough to accept them, based on looks alone
IMO current cars are conversions because through testing MM hasn't proven for the big 3 to be the best design on low bite, which is what 95% of us run on. Other than the big races nobody sees really high bite tracks in the US. IMO, and maybe a guess.
A MM only AE car...man that would be tough to swallow..Since RM has been around since...well forever, it would be tough to accept them,
based on looks alone
07-21-2013 | 02:38 PM
#7101
At my track round 1 and 2 we run treaded tires and its medium high bite and the car feels good with current setup. By round 3 and 4 we run slicks and its very high bite. When I run slicks in those last two rounds my buggy feels really twitchy. What can I do to settle it down for that final round?
07-21-2013 | 02:38 PM
#7102
Control is what I'm getting at and the basher out numbers the racer so RTR kits will more than likely remain RM. Some bashers get converted to racers after they have some fun and like the control they have with their car. Most tracks are med/low bite so rear motor should remain king. AE wouldnt be the first company with a MM car and from what I've seen the other companies haven't really hit the ball out of the park with their designs so I'm not looking for AE to put out a miricle buggy in MM form. It will be interesting to see what they actually do release when it's time.
07-21-2013 | 02:56 PM
#7103
Ok so I've seen it in a couple of posts now and I have to ask: who in their right mind is bashing a B4.X?
This car isn't a basher but yes I do understand that CURRENTLY the same design is spread across 3 platforms (B4.X, T4.X and SC10). But that doesn't mean it has to moving forward. Want to bash an AE 1/10 scale? Get the ProLite 4x4 SCT.
This car isn't a basher but yes I do understand that CURRENTLY the same design is spread across 3 platforms (B4.X, T4.X and SC10). But that doesn't mean it has to moving forward. Want to bash an AE 1/10 scale? Get the ProLite 4x4 SCT.
07-21-2013 | 03:20 PM
#7104
I thought this was a good observation:
source: http://www.liverc.com/news/special_f...Paul_Sinclair/
I'm curious to see what AE has in store.
if AE wins the worlds with a Centro 4.2 conversion; I would imagine Amain (et. al) will be chomping at the bit to be the US distributor for the Centro conversion.
Here's a quote about MM design:
LiveRC: Why, in your opinion, has mid-motor taken as long as it has to catch on here in the United States?
Paul: It’s hard to break the design inertia of the big manufacturers, especially when two of them are based in Los Angles. The big teams have 20+ years of testing and developing the same basic car, and they’ve enjoyed a lot of success with it. So even if a radical layout might eventually be faster, they continue to tweak and tune their existing designs because there’s a major race to win next month and time for testing and especially re-learning is short.
Paul: It’s hard to break the design inertia of the big manufacturers, especially when two of them are based in Los Angles. The big teams have 20+ years of testing and developing the same basic car, and they’ve enjoyed a lot of success with it. So even if a radical layout might eventually be faster, they continue to tweak and tune their existing designs because there’s a major race to win next month and time for testing and especially re-learning is short.
I'm curious to see what AE has in store.
if AE wins the worlds with a Centro 4.2 conversion; I would imagine Amain (et. al) will be chomping at the bit to be the US distributor for the Centro conversion.Here's a quote about MM design:
LiveRC: What is the advantage, in your opinion, to having a car that is built for mid-motor (like the X Factory) over a car that features rear and mid-motor configurations?
Paul: A car’s total design – not just chassis layout but suspension pivots, roll centers, shock mounting and angles, etc – should all work together as a cohesive package. Settings that work well for a mid-motor car I don’t think are ideal for a rear motor car, and vice versa. In my mind that makes it very hard to design a car that works well in both configurations – you either sacrifice a little in both configurations or design wholly for one arrangement and the other may as well be a gimmick. At X Factory we don’t believe in sitting on the fence – mid-motor is the fastest way around the track, so that’s what we do.
Paul: A car’s total design – not just chassis layout but suspension pivots, roll centers, shock mounting and angles, etc – should all work together as a cohesive package. Settings that work well for a mid-motor car I don’t think are ideal for a rear motor car, and vice versa. In my mind that makes it very hard to design a car that works well in both configurations – you either sacrifice a little in both configurations or design wholly for one arrangement and the other may as well be a gimmick. At X Factory we don’t believe in sitting on the fence – mid-motor is the fastest way around the track, so that’s what we do.
07-21-2013 | 04:00 PM
#7106
And I agree with you..lol
IMO current cars are conversions because through testing MM hasn't proven for the big 3 to be the best design on low bite, which is what 95% of us run on. Other than the big races nobody sees really high bite tracks in the US. IMO, and maybe a guess.
A MM only AE car...man that would be tough to swallow..Since RM has been around since...well forever, it would be tough to accept them, based on looks alone
IMO current cars are conversions because through testing MM hasn't proven for the big 3 to be the best design on low bite, which is what 95% of us run on. Other than the big races nobody sees really high bite tracks in the US. IMO, and maybe a guess.
A MM only AE car...man that would be tough to swallow..Since RM has been around since...well forever, it would be tough to accept them,
based on looks alone
07-21-2013 | 04:03 PM
#7107
I dunno, I run low bite and lots of local have tried every car out there pretty much and they always end up with a b4 and say, although other cars are nice, the b4 just works the best. but the definition of low bite is always up for discussion. low bit to me = high bite for someone else
