Shooting a clip off while trying to install it, mangling a cup wile trying to get the clip off.
Or
Tearing an Oring while taking it off, having an oring dry and snap mid run, twisting an oring as you install it only to have it fling off mid run.

Preference lol.

I wouldn't worry too much about bending the chassis for the time being. The MTC-3 has only been on the market for a month and caster pointers and springs etc are not even really available on the market yet.
All I have read now are descriptions of bent chassis due to serious accidents (frontal or at high speed).

I have also seen normal 2mm carbon and aluminum chassis bolts stripped or bent. And that with impacts that didn't look bad. You often cannot visually assess the force of an accident (direction etc.)
The plates on the chassis (A2173F & A2173R) that lie under the wishbones probably have the exact purpose of preventing this. They distribute the load of an impact over 2 bolt holes instead of just one.

It should be no problem for third party suppliers to simply produce a 2mm thick carbon/aluminium chassis. Then you can also remove these connecting plates. Motor mount, bulkheads and even the servo mount are pinned anyway. It's not a problem than can't be solved pretty easily.

No, I looked at the quasi-isotropic layup but went a different route given the material availability, cost, and load path analysis. I testing the A800R version just a couple of weekends and the X4 version has seen a healthy amount of laps. I'm going to make one for my TC8 when I get time. Feedback thus far has been the flex feels more linear given it has a different modulus curve. We added tungsten weight pockets to the A800R chassis (not like the RAF) and I think it improved the flex curve even better. Car feels more agile due to a lower moment of inertia. No negative feedback on CG. And again it doesn't get tweaked. It's cheaper than Al or steel. You have more weight bias tuning flexibility. We haven't experienced the delamination or tear out failures mentioned. None of this fastener nonsense due to having a thin chassis.

I'll let the cat out of the bag... all you do is rotate the standard 0/90 laminate 45 degrees and you now have a carbon chassis that has a torsional stiffness profile for black carpet loads. The top decks take the longitudinal load and the chassis takes the torsional load. I've been asked to make more but I don't have the time and I'm not interested in a side hustle. I'll share the A800R and X4 file to anyone that wants to get one made. You can send the file to any laminate router house and they can make one for you, or you can do it yourself if you have a router. Likely way cheaper than what the manufacturers are charging. The one on the left is my design.

So nothing different then what manufacturers have been doing for decades.

Thanks for the constructive comment. I figured it's been done before, I just couldn't find anyone offering it at the moment. I kept going through the Al, steel, and carbon trade matrix and the carbon just kept winning out so I made one.

Please share links if someone does offer this laminate orientation for their chassis.

I didn't mean to get any kind of argument going about what chassis type or material make up is best. Just from the standpoint of someone like myself that has made RC a full time hobby since 1996, never will have any kind of sponsorship.

I feel on-road is going away from being remotely affordable on an independent level the way its going, sacrificing any bit of durability we can have in these cars for incredibly marginal gains for the elite of the elite pro racers. I think Mugen made the wrong choice here, maybe some of it was to eliminate overhead with multiple kit SKU's. But I won't be convinced one 1.5mm chassis for all surface types is the answer, especially when Volker hasn't shown up real strong with the car yet except in early qualifying stages, shows me maybe it isn't working, and you have some team drivers running custom chassis already and the kit has been out barely a month globally.

I've been running Mugen products since 2005. This kit decision is the first time I am questioning if I stay loyal to the brand.

I don't want to derail this thread too much and turn this into a discussion and especially not a political discussion.
But everything has become more expensive in recent years. Especially fundamental things like food, housing, etc.
Of course I don't like this development either, but for me it's a never-ending discussion.

Now regardless of essential expenses.
As long as the kits are still selling, the manufacturers can keep charging the prices.
It's simply a competitive hobby, if you race with it, then more money is easily spent if it brings performance.

But if you don't want to go down that route, there are plenty of alternatives. There are racing classes with prescribed chassis, other brands except (Mugen, Xray, Awesomatix, Infinity, ....) that also offer affordable kits. Schumacher, for example, presented a club racer 1:10 touring car just a few days ago.
Racing with these cars is just as much fun as long as they have the same material.

I can only speak for myself, but I simply enjoy trying out rc things and am often not too worried to spend money on them. You simply have to set priorities.
In addition to touring cars, I also drive 1:10 off-road with a 7-year-old chassis including electronics. Compared to current cars, it still drives really well and is competitive for my skill level.

I’m switching to o-rings because they’re super cheap (buy in bulk once you figure out the size) and after dealing with the clips on my A800R the o-rings were easier to deal with. Doing routine maintenance on the car I would change the rings every other month running in the heat we have here in Northern California. Although these c-clips seem better than the AMX ones. Still not risking shooting one into nowhere at a club race if I’m changing a broken piece.

I imagine by rotating the 90° layup by 45° the torsional flex along the longitudinal axis gets stiffer? But it will be more homogeneous across all directions?
Or am i wrong with this assumption? Is this a special setup direction specific for extreme high grip on black carpet?

I can only speak for the 1.2mm steele Awesomatix chassis and the 1.5mm MTC-3 aluminium chassis, because i had my hand on those, they are way "softer" than standard 2.0 / 2.2 mm Carbon/Aluminium chassis.
Wouldn't that be the opposite trend ?

I can only speculate because i don't have any meaningful measurements but my suspicion is, that they try by going to softer chassis with more flex, to load the tires more evenly and avoid load spikes on each corner because the soft chassis distributes it more evenly. Therefore making the cars easier to push, more "linear" without sudden unpredictable hiccups (changes in balance / traction).
Even the topdecks are getting softer and softer in my opinion.
2.0 carbon Topdecks --> nearly every bridge trimmed --> 1.6mm Carbon --> and now glassfibre reinforce plastic or super slim carbon

By your picture for comparison your data is skewed anyway.
You didnt mill the diff pockets out therefor youre comparing two different apples since you altered the design.
And there are manufacturers who already use your 'secret sauce' in their production.
They just dont claim to do it better then everyone else.


Its not so much about the flex of the material its also about the return of it that matters.
All three materials have their own characteristics and no one material will ever feel like another.
But youre right in a non overpaid online college way ..... its about the Linear feel in both directions.
​​​​​​​
Consistency wins not a fast lap.

I see it same way. This hobby for me is to learn and just try different things. Plus, it's cheaper than a fully dedicated full scale racecar lol. Idk, I think trying new updates is part of the fun.

Cheaper... for now...

as long as tires don't become like offroad tires, I can manage the rest of the costs.

Don't get me started on clay offroad/carpet offroad tires. It's gotten ridiculous. A set of 2 unmounted clay slick rears for my 2WD buggy run more than a set of 4 on-road tires mounted, like some Matrix asphalt.

Who?