|
Originally Posted by Tomillia
(Post 16196460)
Yeah i also found the layout of theses setup sheets a bit cluttered and overwhelming at first. But with nearly everything, when you look at it twice and you know what you are looking for it becomes second nature.
As far as i know there are currently no different parts to A2173F/A2173R. But increasing the rollcenter is no problem, just put additional shims between the part and the ball and use a longer screw if necessary. It would be interesting when going lower RollCenter than the tickness of A2173F/A2173R. I didn't measure it while building but my guess would be it is 1.5 mm or 2.0 mm thick. These distances of the ball above the chassis seem to be what nearly every TC is using. (Not factoring in the geometry of the pivoball itself, some have different necks under the actual "ball") I havent seen a setup sheet for current TC Platforms that use lower Rollcenter Shims under the arms for a long time. Only if it was a "experimental" setup because of strange conditions or tires which required strange measures. And most of the times these setups weren't super useful, because of these strange conditions. Or the guys uploading it weren't happy with it either but was their last setup iteration. |
Okay Okay, there are 1-2 cars that use thin shims under the arm.
But there are only a few really raceproven kits out there in my opinion (Xray, Awesomatix, Mugen, Schumacher) the rest (RC-Maker, Associated, Yokomo, ARC, IRIS) still have to prove it. All i was trying to convey is, that in my observation, it is a trend to go with more shims there and a exeption to run low amount, in the current TC market. Disclaimer: I'm fully supporting what Ryan is doing and has already accomplished. That whole project is awesome. I could never manage it myself. That SP1 looks promising but it is a typical Gen1 Car with their hiccups. I've seen this over the years with nearly every new manufacturer. They still need to figure out their geometry and other properties before it performs at the same level as the other proven platforms. I see it at my local track, the cars performance is hit or miss sometimes. Every "larger" manufacturer had to go through this. The Mugen MTC1 was hot garbage compared to Xray or Awesomatix at that time, even with the performance upgrade kit. Only after the MTC2 was released the car really had pace and was consistent. Same thing with Awesomatix. They also learned that you can't be competitive at the highest level and even for regular joes with a cardan car. It was just too hard to drive with the new brushless motors, they had to dampen the response. It took them the A800 to go to belts and after that the A800-EVO up to the A800-MMCX before the dominance set in. And even with the A800-MMCX there was a time period where every new setup that was publishes was completely different because they had their setup not figured out yet. But after a while nearly every setup looked the same for completely different circumstances only with a few key changes because their base setup was balanced. Under normal circumstances you have to be extremely lucky to design a car on the first try that is as good as the ones that are already race proven for multiple years. I just scrolled though a few setups of the chassis that are regularly competitive and the only outlier i found was the Schumacher mi9, which uses ~ 1mm less shims under the lower arms. I call that a trend and it is only normal, that things gravitate to the solution that is apparently working. And with the new trend of thinner chassis that are 1.2 - 1,5mm thick instead of the usual 2.0 - 2.2 mm you have to adjust for that to keep your geometry the same. Awesomatix recommends at the moment to keep the same setups/shims when running their 1.2mm steele chassis instead of their aluminium or carbon one with about 2.0mm thickness. I wonder if they will change their mind in the future or other influences like chassis flex or CoG changes make it work. I'm comletely aware that you can't judge a cars geometry by the amount of a few shims here and there. You have to design a whole car-concept that works like intended. How you get there is their designers decision and can be solved in many ways. |
The SP1, one of "the rest" has done well at the past indoor champs and many other events. Some of the other chassis you mentioned (the rest) also did well at TITC and many big events. All competition level chassis for the most part are are capable of winning.
|
Originally Posted by Tomillia
(Post 16196536)
Okay Okay, there are 1-2 cars that use thin shims under the arm.
But there are only a few really raceproven kits out there in my opinion (Xray, Awesomatix, Mugen, Schumacher) the rest (RC-Maker, Associated, Yokomo, ARC, IRIS) still have to prove it. All i was trying to convey is, that in my observation, it is a trend to go with more shims there and a exeption to run low amount, in the current TC market. Disclaimer: I'm fully supporting what Ryan is doing and has already accomplished. That whole project is awesome. I could never manage it myself. That SP1 looks promising but it is a typical Gen1 Car with their hiccups. I've seen this over the years with nearly every new manufacturer. They still need to figure out their geometry and other properties before it performs at the same level as the other proven platforms. I see it at my local track, the cars performance is hit or miss sometimes. Every "larger" manufacturer had to go through this. The Mugen MTC1 was hot garbage compared to Xray or Awesomatix at that time, even with the performance upgrade kit. Only after the MTC2 was released the car really had pace and was consistent. Same thing with Awesomatix. They also learned that you can't be competitive at the highest level and even for regular joes with a cardan car. It was just too hard to drive with the new brushless motors, they had to dampen the response. It took them the A800 to go to belts and after that the A800-EVO up to the A800-MMCX before the dominance set in. And even with the A800-MMCX there was a time period where every new setup that was publishes was completely different because they had their setup not figured out yet. But after a while nearly every setup looked the same for completely different circumstances only with a few key changes because their base setup was balanced. Under normal circumstances you have to be extremely lucky to design a car on the first try that is as good as the ones that are already race proven for multiple years. I just scrolled though a few setups of the chassis that are regularly competitive and the only outlier i found was the Schumacher mi9, which uses ~ 1mm less shims under the lower arms. I call that a trend and it is only normal, that things gravitate to the solution that is apparently working. And with the new trend of thinner chassis that are 1.2 - 1,5mm thick instead of the usual 2.0 - 2.2 mm you have to adjust for that to keep your geometry the same. Awesomatix recommends at the moment to keep the same setups/shims when running their 1.2mm steele chassis instead of their aluminium or carbon one with about 2.0mm thickness. I wonder if they will change their mind in the future or other influences like chassis flex or CoG changes make it work. I'm comletely aware that you can't judge a cars geometry by the amount of a few shims here and there. You have to design a whole car-concept that works like intended. How you get there is their designers decision and can be solved in many ways. |
So far I'm not a fan. It's getting it's debut tonight but I think I just prefer my A800RR.
I haven't tried it but rasing the roll centres at the front by removing the alloy mounted brace from the chassis, I think the arms might touch the front bumper. I just found the manual very underwhelming. It gets it built with very little explanation of anything. |
The reason I went with MTC3 is very little setup changes needed. Kit setup arm roll centers same for asphalt or carpet. Same chassis for all track conditions.
Setup window looks to be very wide. |
Originally Posted by Isaac
(Post 16196543)
The SP1, one of "the rest" has done well at the past indoor champs and many other events. Some of the other chassis you mentioned (the rest) also did well at TITC and many big events. All competition level chassis for the most part are are capable of winning.
But to gauge the performance of a car there are only 2 places to look in my opinion. - Highly competitive races, because the variance in driving skill of those top pilots is minimal and that should show more of the cars potential instead of driver skill - How my buddies do on race days. If they struggle often with their cars either the cars base itself or the base setup isn't figured out yet. Maybe i will die on that hill, but the narrative that a good driver can win with every chassis or even driving a brick is completely false. A bad car can set hotlaps but driving consistent for 5 min and repeat that 3 times would be a outlier. It comes clearer if you look at nitro offroad races. You can't hold a bad car for 45min mains on winning pace, that is nearly impossible. A good pilot can win with a brick, yes, BUT only against drivers that are 2 skill levels below. My point is proven in 1:1 motorsport on nearly every occation. Why is in F1 Charles Leclerc capable of driving for pole but will be beaten in every GrandPrix? Not because Charles is a bad driver, but because the Ferrari is not consistently fast. An amazing pole lap can happen but being on pace for 305km is impossible, if the car can't help the driver.
Originally Posted by gigaplex
(Post 16196549)
Are you restricting your searches to specific track types? I've seen Volker setups for the MTC2R that goes as low as 0mm shims. As a gross oversimplification, the higher the grip, the bigger the shims.
At least it seems to me that I am rather surprised when I see a setup these days that uses very low shims.
Originally Posted by Grindog001
(Post 16196573)
So far I'm not a fan. It's getting it's debut tonight but I think I just prefer my A800RR.
I haven't tried it but rasing the roll centres at the front by removing the alloy mounted brace from the chassis, I think the arms might touch the front bumper. I just found the manual very underwhelming. It gets it built with very little explanation of anything. I would be damn careful to use only standard shims instead of the alloy braces, if you don't want to risk damaging your chassis. Those braces have a recess in which the countersunk head of the screw sits. All countersunk holes in the chassis have a diameter of ~3.65mm instead of the normal ~3.0 mm for a M3 screw. |
Originally Posted by Tomillia
(Post 16196586)
I don't dispute that at all, thats a great achievment and maybe a step forward. I hope it will only get better, maybe the new chassis Ryan is working on will be another step forward.
But to gauge the performance of a car there are only 2 places to look in my opinion. - Highly competitive races, because the variance in driving skill of those top pilots is minimal and that should show more of the cars potential instead of driver skill - How my buddies do on race days. If they struggle often with their cars either the cars base itself or the base setup isn't figured out yet. Maybe i will die on that hill, but the narrative that a good driver can win with every chassis or even driving a brick is completely false. A bad car can set hotlaps but driving consistent for 5 min and repeat that 3 times would be a outlier. It comes clearer if you look at nitro offroad races. You can't hold a bad car for 45min mains on winning pace, that is nearly impossible. A good pilot can win with a brick, yes, BUT only against drivers that are 2 skill levels below. My point is proven in 1:1 motorsport on nearly every occation. Why is in F1 Charles Leclerc capable of driving for pole but will be beaten in every GrandPrix? Not because Charles is a bad driver, but because the Ferrari is not consistently fast. An amazing pole lap can happen but being on pace for 305km is impossible, if the car can't help the driver. Ok, then i was looking at exactly the wrong ones:sweat: I thought i looked at a wide spectrum. Sorry, my bad. At least it seems to me that I am rather surprised when I see a setup these days that uses very low shims. If you remove the shims where you mentioned you will get low RollCenter. I would be damn careful to use only standard shims instead of the alloy braces, if you don't want to risk damaging your chassis. Those braces have a recess in which the countersunk head of the screw sits. All countersunk holes in the chassis have a diameter of ~3.65mm instead of the normal ~3.0 mm for a M3 screw. Thanks for your reply, this actually makes a lot more sense now. |
Originally Posted by Tomillia
(Post 16196586)
I don't dispute that at all, thats a great achievment and maybe a step forward. I hope it will only get better, maybe the new chassis Ryan is working on will be another step forward.
But to gauge the performance of a car there are only 2 places to look in my opinion. - Highly competitive races, because the variance in driving skill of those top pilots is minimal and that should show more of the cars potential instead of driver skill - How my buddies do on race days. If they struggle often with their cars either the cars base itself or the base setup isn't figured out yet. Maybe i will die on that hill, but the narrative that a good driver can win with every chassis or even driving a brick is completely false. A bad car can set hotlaps but driving consistent for 5 min and repeat that 3 times would be a outlier. It comes clearer if you look at nitro offroad races. You can't hold a bad car for 45min mains on winning pace, that is nearly impossible. A good pilot can win with a brick, yes, BUT only against drivers that are 2 skill levels below. My point is proven in 1:1 motorsport on nearly every occation. Why is in F1 Charles Leclerc capable of driving for pole but will be beaten in every GrandPrix? Not because Charles is a bad driver, but because the Ferrari is not consistently fast. An amazing pole lap can happen but being on pace for 305km is impossible, if the car can't help the driver. Ok, then i was looking at exactly the wrong ones:sweat: I thought i looked at a wide spectrum. Sorry, my bad. At least it seems to me that I am rather surprised when I see a setup these days that uses very low shims. If you remove the shims where you mentioned you will get low RollCenter. I would be damn careful to use only standard shims instead of the alloy braces, if you don't want to risk damaging your chassis. Those braces have a recess in which the countersunk head of the screw sits. All countersunk holes in the chassis have a diameter of ~3.65mm instead of the normal ~3.0 mm for a M3 screw. |
Originally Posted by Mig89
(Post 16196623)
Ive always said, even at the pro level, certain drivers can drive a setup that's stupid fast but others can't. Those that can, are usually race winner's as it allows them to place the car where they want. Kinda like when Jacob switched to the mtc3 for the worlds. I know his dad built the car the week before the worlds and he found a lot of pace with it as it allowed him to place the mtc3 where he wanted it without having to overdrive it to overcome the limitations he had reached with the mtc2r. same volker running the mtc3, he's fast again but he's still not his prime yrs. Your consistent race winners are always going to be one who are in their prime can't set a foot wrong. Much like how the form micheal is currently on. Guy can't have a bad race even if he tired (assuming bruno isn't behind him).
Like you mentioned Jacob got better with the MTC3 and Ronald is competitive again against Michal, Bruno, Marc, etc. That is exactly my point. A car that is good from the ground up, will improve the driving/results of nearly everyone that is not the exception. |
From Robert Pietsch via FB
As I have got the question several times, if it is possible not to use A2173F/R. Here is a little explanation. Please do not use without! The center of the ball with using A2173F/R is equal to the center of the ball that was used in MTC2R with 0,5mm below. As a side note, 0,5mm was the very minimum ever used in MTC2R. Likewise, the position of the center point is not the same as the position of the roll center. https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rct...b1928866c4.jpg |
Originally Posted by Mig89
(Post 16196623)
(assuming bruno isn't behind him)
|
Does anyone have a gear chart for the MTC3? Also, for those that have the car, if you’re running stock, what’s a good gearing?
|
|
Originally Posted by PROMODVETTE
(Post 16196834)
|
| All times are GMT -7. It is currently 12:29 AM. |
Powered By: vBulletin v3.9.3.9 Patch Level 3
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.