EricW

iTrader: (1)

Why would you separate the classes based on MM and RM?

Afun

iTrader: (19)

It was a suggestion from a previous poster that I found interesting.

JiuHaWong

I disagree, most of the mods that people are doing are NOT necessary. Many folks like to try things outside the box to make their cars work for them. About the only thing I've found is the rear bulkhead needs to be aluminum. It's far from perfect, so I hope AE has worked things out with their MM.

EricW

iTrader: (1)

Not sure about your neck of the woods but the last thing we need around here is more classes........

Afun

iTrader: (19)

Ok. I agree 100% percent with you.

Afun

iTrader: (19)

We run a very efficient program here. We have introduced a novice class. Little kids get to run whatever they want. We usually cut the track short for them and do 2 heats and a main. They get to stand on the podium when they win too. I understand what you are saying. Too many classes prolongs the race day. 4x4 Shortcourse is dead here.

Bcholka

Valid point. To continue the dialogue I would add that to me it sounds like AE did LOTS to eliminate the slop that we've all come to know and love.
In addition to that a revised steering rack, bigger wheel bearings, etc will all appeal to the mass market. This will make for a better experience for those that don't feel like going nuts with upgrade parts in an attempt to "tighten up" the buggy (even though most of you know that lots of 4.2 owners have come to "embrace the slop") LOL.
If you have however been running a 4.2 and have spent time tightening it up etc than by all means its still a great vehicle!!

Jake S

iTrader: (67)

could mount your rx to the side of your esc too like a few of the ae guys do in their c4.2

Jake S

iTrader: (67)

i dont think he means at club races... i would love to see it at an event like the reedy (meaning no non-buggy classes)... 2wd rm, 2wd mm, and 4wd :P then you could see the times rm vs mm on the same track and conditions is what i believe his idea was meant for.

Afun

iTrader: (19)

That would be awesome!

Jake S

iTrader: (67)

yeah and i bet they would run the same amount of laps with fast laps within .3s of each setup.

fredswain

iTrader: (1)

The funny thing about real offroad car forums is that the mid engine/rear engine debate rages there too! Even on the real short course and desert racing threads. Then again you also see the ongoing a-arm vs trailing arm arguments too but rc has moved away from that.

It seems that with the home dune buggy builders, the guys that like rear engine prefer it because of "cabin area" space and most importantly because the engine is very easy to get to and work on. With mid engine setups it is more difficult to get to the engine and there is less space for passengers. Both layouts apparently work just as well though as in the racing series you have each type winning and losing races. The argument still goes on though.

t0p_sh0tta

iTrader: (35)

The only "modding" I did was add 2 small shims to the steering rack, and drill and tap the rear hubs to accept grub screws.

The 4.2 is ready to rock out of the box. The only real annoyance, was the over abundance of flashing on the front of the chassis. It made the front arms bind, but only took 5 min to remove.

jag88

iTrader: (1)

the set screws that are suppose to take the slop out of the hinge pins don't really look to be hitting the hinge pin but hit the hinge pin insert which in turn mashes down on hinge pin (?).
good design, I guess ...

brian6674

Just received my Reedy Square battery. Going to check / put a storage charge on it and put it aside until I get my B5. NOTE: !!!! I was looking at the SCM web site last night. They have a square battery coming out soon! And just about half the cost of the Reedy!!! Arrrrrrrr !!!!!!