Go Back  R/C Tech Forums > General Forums > Electric On-Road
Standard TC vs Gizmo vs Awesomatix >

Standard TC vs Gizmo vs Awesomatix

Like Tree172Likes

Standard TC vs Gizmo vs Awesomatix

Old 11-29-2018, 10:42 AM
  #121  
Tech Master
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Chi-Town West Burbs
Posts: 1,734
Trader Rating: 3 (100%+)
Default

Max Machler, the European AMX team manager, TQed and won the Spec GT class, at IIC. Luke Pittman with a T4, TQed and ran 2nd in Stock. Both drivers SHOULD have been running in Mod. Even Scotty made comments to that affect.
I did see independent drivers that did very well with both chassis. One was not BETTER than the other. If you like to tinker, AMX is for you. If you want a tank, go Xray.
Lonestar and chensleyrc1 like this.
mooby64 is offline  
Old 11-29-2018, 01:59 PM
  #122  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (37)
 
jlfx car audio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: jackson,tn
Posts: 3,834
Trader Rating: 37 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Max K View Post


Even when Alex won at NYGP? Aparently 360 has the highest grip out of any track in the USA. 🤔
As you said ALEX won the NYGP not the car itself .... if ALEX had a Amx .....he wouldnt have anyone close to him , just my opinion tho
hanulec and johnzhou2476 like this.
jlfx car audio is offline  
Old 11-29-2018, 04:55 PM
  #123  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (37)
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 2,629
Trader Rating: 37 (100%+)
Default

Yeah, I kinda think driver is more important than chassis. If I can put a 2015 XRay in the A at MHIC and 2nd in the B at the Nats, surrounded by AMX's. A better driver would of put it even higher.The only way I get to run TC is hand me downs since I can't afford those new fangled TC's, lol.
chensleyrc1 is offline  
Old 11-29-2018, 05:32 PM
  #124  
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (25)
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 763
Trader Rating: 25 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by jlfx car audio View Post
As you said ALEX won the NYGP not the car itself .... if ALEX had a Amx .....he wouldnt have anyone close to him , just my opinion tho
But he drives an XRAY and didn't have anyone close to him. \_(ツ)_/
Chris Adams and gigaplex like this.
Max K is offline  
Old 11-29-2018, 06:19 PM
  #125  
R/C Tech Elite Member
iTrader: (28)
 
hanulec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: @ the post office
Posts: 9,733
Trader Rating: 28 (100%+)
Default

Starting to feel like a measuring contest, huh?
hanulec is offline  
Old 11-30-2018, 04:54 AM
  #126  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (13)
 
Lonestar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 2,726
Trader Rating: 13 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Dan View Post
Basically what I'm saying is, if you're hitting below 90% consistency on lap times, a new car ain't gonna help much!

Dan, You realize you've just wiped out 4/5th of the touring car sales for the year, right?!?
tbrymer likes this.
Lonestar is offline  
Old 11-30-2018, 05:52 AM
  #127  
Tech Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Franklin, TN
Posts: 342
Default

I recently solved the issue for myself. I expect the Xray platform to work very well for me. I think Christian and a few others made the decision for me. He made a very fair comparison of strengths and weaknesses of each model. For me, the Xray will be tough as I improve, yet will be lightyears ahead of my old Associated TC5. So I expect more consistent lap times, plus durability for those traction rolls and pipe taps I know will happen. I don't think there's a right or wrong answer to which one to buy. You just need to know the capabilities and limitations of the chassis, and your own driving skills to make the choice. Plus I just wanted all that orange bling in my pit space.
BruceR. is offline  
Old 11-30-2018, 07:16 AM
  #128  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (13)
 
Lonestar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 2,726
Trader Rating: 13 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by OVA View Post
it was fun watching the tilt test
I believe the Awesomatix new long arms really help to drive easy and more stable and more corner speed...Amx known as low cg chassis the very day first day
having a TC with no cg it will be hard for car to create more mechanical roll grip....don't forget RC as well is a big part too
standard shock TC Is much easily to fine tune to the track condition....you not going to get one TC is 100% perfect for all track condition ,,
Can an engineer (not a keyboard engineer, but a proper engineer) please explain once and for all why a higher CG would yield mechanical grip? Or am I misunderstanding the above?

Because pretty much all 1:1 scale suspension setup theory says more weight transfer means more skidding on that axle...

I know it's a sacred cow in RC that more roll = more grip, I've heard this for 20+ years now... someone please point me to a physics book or some kind of web resource where this is modeled/described for RC cars. I can call out a couple of very serious car engineering books that say the opposite

I have nothing about the awesomatix, mind you. I just finished building my T4 '19 yesterday for its first race tomorrow, not because I am a fanboi, but because I'm a casual racer really, and I'd happily trade an hypothetical tenth per lap for reliability and part support

Cheers all,

Paul
rccartips likes this.

Last edited by Lonestar; 11-30-2018 at 07:30 AM.
Lonestar is offline  
Old 11-30-2018, 07:21 AM
  #129  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (37)
 
jlfx car audio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: jackson,tn
Posts: 3,834
Trader Rating: 37 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Lonestar View Post
Can an engineer (not a keyboard engineer, but a proper engineer) please explain once and for all why a higher CG would yield mechanical grip? Or am I misunderstanding the above?

Because pretty much all 1:1 scale suspension setup theory says more weight transfer means more skidding on that axle...

thank you,

Paul
basically a real car has lots of mass above the cg of the car so lower is better.
in rc everything is so light and unscale in relation that really low cg isnt allowing the car to roll and ...if anything car could actually lean into the corner making suspention not act as you would think thus applying weight to the wrong (wheels) .
jlfx car audio is offline  
Old 11-30-2018, 07:22 AM
  #130  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: My house.
Posts: 3,567
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

.

Last edited by 30Tooth; 12-02-2018 at 01:03 PM.
30Tooth is offline  
Old 11-30-2018, 07:44 AM
  #131  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (13)
 
Lonestar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 2,726
Trader Rating: 13 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by jlfx car audio View Post
basically a real car has lots of mass above the cg of the car so lower is better.
in rc everything is so light and unscale in relation that really low cg isnt allowing the car to roll and ...if anything car could actually lean into the corner making suspention not act as you would think thus applying weight to the wrong (wheels) .
interesting. For instance the Toyobaru has a CG at 18.1 inches from the ground...


that's to say lower than wheel axle height as it run on 18 in. wheels. Are our RC toys much different? CG is probably somewhere at the level of the motor shaft or so (electronics are lower, shocks and shock towers and body and misc are higher...).

Anyway, tire theory says that maximum lateral grip of an axle is obtained with minimum weight transfer (ie load on left and right tires are as close as possible). Higher CG => more weight transfer => less grip.

I would tend to agree then that lower CG means more lateral grip (which this thread seems to point at).

I am ever confused by the above (common) thinking higher CG => more grip.

I'm not saying anyone is right or is wrong, just that this has confused me for the better part of my past two racing decades... and I have never found someone who can finally make a compelling case (i.e. with numbers, maths, physics, calculation of moments, trigonometry, equations - this is relatively simple geometry and mechanics, it cannot be that complex) for the latter... but still this is the prevalent school of thought.

Anyone?

thanks,

Paul
Lonestar is offline  
Old 11-30-2018, 07:57 AM
  #132  
Tech Master
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Chatham Ontario Canada
Posts: 1,611
Default

It's complete and total nonsense that a higher CG is better on any race car. Like absolutely beyond silly to think so. It is easy to make a car roll more if that is still desired regardless of how low the CG is or how light the chassis is.
Horatio and 30Tooth like this.
DavidNERODease is online now  
Old 11-30-2018, 08:01 AM
  #133  
Tech Master
iTrader: (3)
 
Xpress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Onroad Bermuda Triangle...
Posts: 1,747
Trader Rating: 3 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Lonestar View Post
interesting. For instance the Toyobaru has a CG at 18.1 inches from the ground...

https://www.facebook.com/RoadandTrac...3847337645366/

that's to say lower than wheel axle height as it run on 18 in. wheels. Are our RC toys much different? CG is probably somewhere at the level of the motor shaft or so (electronics are lower, shocks and shock towers and body and misc are higher...).

Anyway, tire theory says that maximum lateral grip of an axle is obtained with minimum weight transfer (ie load on left and right tires are as close as possible). Higher CG => more weight transfer => less grip.

I would tend to agree then that lower CG means more lateral grip (which this thread seems to point at).

I am ever confused by the above (common) thinking higher CG => more grip.

I'm not saying anyone is right or is wrong, just that this has confused me for the better part of my past two racing decades... and I have never found someone who can finally make a compelling case (i.e. with numbers, maths, physics, calculation of moments, trigonometry, equations - this is relatively simple geometry and mechanics, it cannot be that complex) for the latter... but still this is the prevalent school of thought.

Anyone?

thanks,

Paul
I am quite sure that a lot of the things that do not transfer from scale to 1:1 have to do with the fact that we do not drive the models by feel.....but by visual interpretation. It is my position that the majority of our setup "knowledge" has more to do with ease of dealing with a handling issue and not actually solving said issue.
Xpress is offline  
Old 11-30-2018, 08:16 AM
  #134  
Tech Master
Thread Starter
iTrader: (33)
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: north-west Indiana
Posts: 1,473
Trader Rating: 33 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Lonestar View Post
interesting. For instance the Toyobaru has a CG at 18.1 inches from the ground...

https://www.facebook.com/RoadandTrac...3847337645366/

that's to say lower than wheel axle height as it run on 18 in. wheels. Are our RC toys much different? CG is probably somewhere at the level of the motor shaft or so (electronics are lower, shocks and shock towers and body and misc are higher...).

Anyway, tire theory says that maximum lateral grip of an axle is obtained with minimum weight transfer (ie load on left and right tires are as close as possible). Higher CG => more weight transfer => less grip.

I would tend to agree then that lower CG means more lateral grip (which this thread seems to point at).

I am ever confused by the above (common) thinking higher CG => more grip.

I'm not saying anyone is right or is wrong, just that this has confused me for the better part of my past two racing decades... and I have never found someone who can finally make a compelling case (i.e. with numbers, maths, physics, calculation of moments, trigonometry, equations - this is relatively simple geometry and mechanics, it cannot be that complex) for the latter... but still this is the prevalent school of thought.

Anyone?

thanks,

Paul
To my understanding... (keyboard engineer with an Associates in Physics)

It is all about force vectors. With a car that doesn't roll much, the force vectors are more lateral in direction, and you are at the mercy of the coefficient of friction between the tires and the race surface. With a car that rolls a lot, the force vectors start to point towards the ground, pushing the car into the race surface. A higher center of gravity allows the car to roll easier, and push the car into the race surface, a lower center of gravity has less leverage on the roll center to roll the car and it will stay on top of the race surface.
trilerian is online now  
Old 11-30-2018, 08:23 AM
  #135  
Tech Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 453
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Lonestar View Post
Can an engineer (not a keyboard engineer, but a proper engineer) please explain once and for all why a higher CG would yield mechanical grip? Or am I misunderstanding the above?

Because pretty much all 1:1 scale suspension setup theory says more weight transfer means more skidding on that axle...

I know it's a sacred cow in RC that more roll = more grip, I've heard this for 20+ years now... someone please point me to a physics book or some kind of web resource where this is modeled/described for RC cars. I can call out a couple of very serious car engineering books that say the opposite

I have nothing about the awesomatix, mind you. I just finished building my T4 '19 yesterday for its first race tomorrow, not because I am a fanboi, but because I'm a casual racer really, and I'd happily trade an hypothetical tenth per lap for reliability and part support

Cheers all,

Paul
Paul, I remember being confused about this very issue some time in the past. I'm not a 'proper' engineer but I didn't research this quite extensively and determined the following:

People typically get confused by presuming that chassis roll = weight transfer. Actually, the opposite is true. A chassis that stays flatter in a corner, does so because it holds itself up by transferring more weight to the outside tires via stiffer springs, higher roll centers, etc.

I think I first understood this phenomenon when reading this book waaaaaay back in the 90's.
Amazon Amazon
Lonestar likes this.

Last edited by sps3172; 12-01-2018 at 08:16 AM.
sps3172 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.