172LikesStandard TC vs Gizmo vs Awesomatix
11-29-2018, 10:42 AM
#121
Tech Master
iTrader: (3)
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.
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.
11-29-2018, 04:55 PM
#123
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.
11-29-2018, 05:32 PM
#124
11-30-2018, 05:52 AM
#127
Tech Regular
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.
11-30-2018, 07:16 AM
#128
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 ,,
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 ,,
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
Last edited by Lonestar; 11-30-2018 at 07:30 AM.
11-30-2018, 07:21 AM
#129
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
Because pretty much all 1:1 scale suspension setup theory says more weight transfer means more skidding on that axle...
thank you,
Paul
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) .
11-30-2018, 07:44 AM
#131
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) .
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) .
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
11-30-2018, 07:57 AM
#132
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.
11-30-2018, 08:01 AM
#133
Tech Master
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Land of high taxes and bad football
Posts: 1,807
Trader Rating: 3 (100%+)
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
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
11-30-2018, 08:16 AM
#134
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
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
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.
11-30-2018, 08:23 AM
#135
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
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
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.
Last edited by sps3172; 12-01-2018 at 08:16 AM.