Get an associted L4; most of the latest cars are based on part or all of this car. In the UK it outnumbers the other chassis' by at least 2:1, and there are usually about half a dozen in a UK national a final.

Its a proven design, easy to maintain, and spares are easy to get.

In a word, tunablity. With the tunablity of tweak springs you could have the best of both the "t-bar" car and the "link" car.
Don't get me wrong, I've seen the Sizzler concept previously and love the layout. The batteries should be centered in the chassis.

You can go to farr in centering mass. On our Cat 3000 4wd buggy we found moving out the saddle pack batteries 5mm per side made the car a lot smoother over bumps and more planted in parts of the track where there were quick direction changes...like chicanes.

In a real race car you sit in the car. This lets you feel what its doing and give you the ability to control a fast reacting car.

R/C cars need to be more stable. If you car reacts too fast you wont be able to turn consistant laps.

Anyone can get their 1/12th saddle pack car no matter how wide it is to be too reactive and change direction too fast so this centralization of mass talk looks good on paper but in reality its not essential.

I am getting a Rug Burn because it is diffrent, it looks really cool and I want to see if I can get it to be fast on asphalt. I don't necessarily buy into its theory.

You do have a point, but I feel that with the mass centralized, the car can change direction more efficiently, period.
More efficiently can mean faster, which can be too fast, but that indicates you have another problem... ... either you're getting old, or you need some roll damping :sneaky:

BTW: the rug burn doesn't go full out on reducing polar moment of inertia; the battery is still 'sideways'. (Unlike the Ascari and that other car mentioned a page or so back)

Glad you like the car though.

Like Doug said, we're expecting a longer life span. Mainly because the mounting points are further apart than a conventional T-bar, and also because it flexes in a way that the stress is more spread out over the whole plate. There's no real high-stress area.
Well.. ... that's what the CAD program said. There are still very few prototypes, we can't be sure of any long-term effects. Time will tell.

now he just has to figure out what to do with the left over fiberglass donuts. :smile:

True! Sell them to AE to make T-bars out of :ha:

I have been thinking about that waste of fiberglass when I was doing the CAD work, but... .. when designing a race car, it's better not to start compromising that kind of thing.

of course. the material still remains though. perhaps some aggressive ride height adjusters. pivot ball stuff, goofy adjustable battery tray, gauge for
?camber.. or if you could mate a few together you have a car stand.

please, all royalties and proceeds from intellectual property needs to go to charity.

more cool 12th scale from the carpet nats....

http://www.rc50.com/modules.php?name...lbum=25&pos=91

http://www.rc50.com/modules.php?name...lbum=25&pos=92

That's slapmasters X-car, looks very nice and it seems to work well. :sneaky:

Yep, that's my MS2X car. That cat's out of the bag! That is Weylin's b/l mod car. I didn't like his wiring and he later cleaned it up. He had some electronic issues all week and had a bad outting. Mine went a lot better. The low t-bar made for some more mechanical rear grip then the convential located t-bar. This car was basically built for Fast Track carpet and Jack the Gripper. I was able to use some tires more consistently then some other drivers. One concern that I had is that it would make too much rear grip in a stock or 19t class. I found that to be the case in 19t and I was able to change the front track width which increased corner speed. This car is very difficult to make and I do not intend to produce them. It's rather a very elaborate experiment on t-bar locations.

ms2x
 

hi all. checked out the pic of the ms2x..love the 'tubbed' chassis..
we race on a very unforgiving high traction indoor asphalt board track..a lot of guys are cracking their chassis due to high speed board contact...
i use TRC red fronts and magenta rears...24 front spring with the SSS crc spring. 60 weight shock oil, 30000 diff oil for the damper tubes ,purple springs with a 1mm washer under the spring ball ,2mm ride height. basically its very, very stiff.
Gonna try shockers as damper tubes... ;)
the Hara that i have, cant get rigid enough for this track,,keeps traction rolling..
i would like to get one that will fit the crc carpet knife,,
u interested in making me one?
or one for an L4?
mike
ive recently got the 'Rug Burn',, not delivered yet..interested to see if this works,,dougs an excellant person to deal with..very helpfull and patient.. ;)
mike

whats this
 

hi again..
Whats this gadget?

Mike, I am not an asphalt expert, but you might be "over" stiff. Try lightening up the dampening and spring to see if the car becomes more forgiving.

Since we are going to have some fun with 12th scale pics and the nat's are now over. Here's some of my car. Like I said, lowering the t-bar does make more rear grip. You just need to make sure that it's for the right class. Just about every part of this car has to be modified in some way to make it work. It's more of a fun project then essential. Things that can not be seen are: titanium nitrided kingpins with a machined ball stud on top, 1/4x1/2" rear bearings with adjusters for every .025 of an inch, long battery slots for weight bias and not to mention that the t-bar is very easy to replace.

this CK was test car on nationals?
looks separate tweek plates, narrow front tred...

http://www.rc50.com/modules.php?name...bum=25&pos=285