R/C Tech Forums

Go Back   R/C Tech Forums > General Forums > Electric On-Road

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-22-2010, 11:36 AM   #46
Tech Fanatic
 
akura2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Paramount, CA
Posts: 810
Send a message via AIM to akura2 Send a message via Yahoo to akura2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by inpuressa View Post
IIRC, that YR F2 had barely anything on the rear. It should be easier to achieve it with this chassis with all that TC suspension setup in the rear. I was able to get my M05 to 60/40 with some gutting of the rear portion and putting the speedo on top of the batt area. The handling was great. Still I think the layout of the FF03 style will have better forward traction simply due to the position of the motor.

I'm excited because it reminds me of my first touring car which was the Calsonic Primera (FF01). I still have the body, maybe I'll put it on for an exhibition run. Curious to see how it will run with all that modern suspension components.
I have an FF01 special edition... it's the Calsonic Primera that came with it's own can of Tamiya spray paint (I think it's the first time that Tamiya spec'd a paint color for a particular car... like the F60 does now with the Ferrari red)..

I got it from eBay about 4 years ago to replace the green Castrol Primera FF01 I let get tatted and then threw away (big mistake... same thing happened to an original F102... now I keep everything)

it's been completely built and ready to run since then sitting on my shelf... all I need is to switch in my Rx, and charge the battery (which is actually still in the chassis as well... like I said..."ready to run") (I'll take/post pics later)

I also have a YRF2 that I got locally from an LHS about three years ago... with a Novak BL system in it and it's also ready to go (as are most of my 30+ cars...LOL)



(I had foams on it temporarily for testing purposes)

Like I said in my first post in this thread... RCGT rules.... Nice realistic body, non-dish wheels (Don't have to be chrome), spec tire (HPI X-Pattern, or whatever works) 17.5 motor, and leave chassis, ESC, Rx, and 7.2-7.4 battery open.. end of discussion...LOL
akura2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2010, 12:59 PM   #47
Tech Elite
 
niznai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: All over the place
Posts: 2,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by inpuressa View Post
IIRC, that YR F2 had barely anything on the rear. It should be easier to achieve it with this chassis with all that TC suspension setup in the rear. I was able to get my M05 to 60/40 with some gutting of the rear portion and putting the speedo on top of the batt area. The handling was great. Still I think the layout of the FF03 style will have better forward traction simply due to the position of the motor.

I'm excited because it reminds me of my first touring car which was the Calsonic Primera (FF01). I still have the body, maybe I'll put it on for an exhibition run. Curious to see how it will run with all that modern suspension components.
True, they don't have much weight on the rear. But then again, they don't have much rear at all. If you have a look on the web, you'll see the rear suspension arms are trailing and there is nothing there to push the wheels down. The suspension arms come above the entire rear section of the chassis so there is no room to squeeze anything (just a piece of lead sheet if you want, but nowhere near the weigth you need). Compared to this, the front wheels have the motor, bulkheads, diff, plastic arms, suspension, the front half of the battery and electronics. That's nearly everything.

I have bought one car which came with a weight taped to the rear suspension arms but that was a serious hindrance to the independent working of the suspension, so I had to take it off. That is probably the only way to increase the weight on the rear end.

As for hacking chassies, I refuse on principle.

The M05 can be balanced easier because the motor is behind the rear wheels. It also helps if you use a heavy steering servo or a low profile servo and a lot of lead ballast underneath. The latter was my choice.
__________________
Team Greasy Weasel

The best upgrade to any car is some driver skill.
niznai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2010, 02:21 PM   #48
Tech Elite
 
Racecrafter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: RC Mecca
Posts: 4,138
Trader Rating: 25 (96%+)
Default

Quote:
Why not just follow RCGT rules?... they are already established, and the only difference is the chassis configuration (4WD versus FWD)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Hohwart View Post
+1
+2
__________________
Jimmy Wright

www.trackstarrc.com ~ www.facebook.com/TrackStarRC ~ Home of the 2x's Stock Nationals Champion TS-Gold & TS-Black tire sauce, TS-1+ lubricants, TS-Precision bearings, XRG Xtreme Racing Grease, Scale Auto Engineering, ElevenTech, WRD2, Carbon 12, Stiff Products
Racecrafter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2010, 06:54 PM   #49
Tech Master
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,305
Default

I say RCGT rules to keep it simple. BUT, with the exception of one rule which will be no weight limitation for FF.
redbones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2010, 07:08 PM   #50
Tech Addict
 
Barry White's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: HEAVEN
Posts: 720
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redbones View Post
I say RCGT rules to keep it simple. BUT, with the exception of one rule which will be no weight limitation for FF.
It should stay stock. No carbon, titanium and so on. Lighter then a 4WD but still a weight limitation (so people won't start drilling holes everywhere becouse this will lead to altering flex and so on) with maybe a weight penalty for the winner.
Barry White is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2010, 08:52 AM   #51
Tech Addict
 
Barry White's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: HEAVEN
Posts: 720
Default

Man although that TOP looks good this is everything you don't want. 190mm: too wide, carbon and all aluminium: too expensive. If FF cars end up like this people will run the same bodies as the allready existing touring car bodies and it will be as expensive to buy as a modern touring car minus 2 driveshafts, a diff and a belt .
Barry White is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2010, 11:19 AM   #52
Tech Elite
 
sosidge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 3,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry White View Post
Man although that TOP looks good this is everything you don't want. 190mm: too wide, carbon and all aluminium: too expensive. If FF cars end up like this people will run the same bodies as the allready existing touring car bodies and it will be as expensive to buy as a modern touring car minus 2 driveshafts, a diff and a belt .
No, this is everything YOU don't want!

Most people in this thread have been backing the simple RCGT/USVTA type of rule - not your excessively complex rule.

Racing classes are a lot more fun when there is more than one person entered...
sosidge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2010, 12:18 PM   #53
Tech Addict
 
Barry White's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: HEAVEN
Posts: 720
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sosidge View Post
No, this is everything YOU don't want!

Most people in this thread have been backing the simple RCGT/USVTA type of rule - not your excessively complex rule.

Racing classes are a lot more fun when there is more than one person entered...
True, true. But then again I like something different, a REAL stock class. Very basic. When rules allow, I too allways like to have the best most hopped up car out there and allthough I know the driving is the most important every expensive hop up WILL make your car just that little bit faster. Even if it is 1/100 of a second on a 5 minute run and for that reason it should be prohibited. It is much better to be able to tell a newcomer: This is all you need, nothing more becouse even if you tell the new guy you can start with that car but buy this and this hop up they will get discouraged and think they can't keep up becouse they don't have all the bling. Look at real WTCC, nothing to do with DTM and much more close racing. RCGT/USVTA are just as expensive as touring cars only look a little bit better. The rules I propose I very simple. All cheap plastic cars, nice looks and very close racing with no gimmic parts.
Barry White is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2010, 01:23 PM   #54
Tech Master
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,906
Trader Rating: 9 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry White View Post
True, true. But then again I like something different, a REAL stock class. Very basic. When rules allow, I too allways like to have the best most hopped up car out there and allthough I know the driving is the most important every expensive hop up WILL make your car just that little bit faster. Even if it is 1/100 of a second on a 5 minute run and for that reason it should be prohibited. It is much better to be able to tell a newcomer: This is all you need, nothing more becouse even if you tell the new guy you can start with that car but buy this and this hop up they will get discouraged and think they can't keep up becouse they don't have all the bling. Look at real WTCC, nothing to do with DTM and much more close racing. RCGT/USVTA are just as expensive as touring cars only look a little bit better. The rules I propose I very simple. All cheap plastic cars, nice looks and very close racing with no gimmic parts.
Limiting hopups will be hard. Like the FF03 PRO, there are already some good stuff in there. If you get the standard kit, you won't have it. We don't want to limit what trim of chassis you can run. I think part of the fun with RC is to be able to custom your car with hop ups. The hop ups coming out with it (alum outdrives, sway bar) is all you need for the PRO. And maybe hex screws to maintain your sanity.

And the no weight limit rule is only applied when you run with 4wds. I'm probably going to be one of the few running this chassis, so there really isn't going to be a class. I intend to run it in the 17.5 no boost class against other TCs so I need some handicap. For FF only, it should be around the minimum weight that the FF03 can achieve. The TOP car probably will be much lighter anyway.
__________________
Lost in RC limbo
inpuressa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2010, 06:31 PM   #55
Tech Fanatic
 
akura2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Paramount, CA
Posts: 810
Send a message via AIM to akura2 Send a message via Yahoo to akura2
Default

Besides... most of the basic rules of RCGT eliminate the benefits of a lot of hop ups... since when has RCGT been too expensive?... it's designed to NOT be... basically run what you brung as long as it fits the basics

17.5... not too expensive.. but not too slow...even playing field

HPI x-patterns.... even playing field... no matter what chassis... the power and handling still have to get to the ground

spoked wheels... no aero advantage

real bodies... no real aero advantage... and they look good

and 7.2-7.4 batteries... if the voltage is too high... your car gets pulled... once again.. no advantage...

so someone that can drive, and knows how to tune suspensions and weight distributions and tranfers, can go in with an el cheapo car (Cyclone S, TT01, E10) and still have a chance...
akura2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2010, 06:47 PM   #56
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,140
Trader Rating: 114 (100%+)
Default

21.5 motor with whatever speedo. No complaining about who has was profile or software version or amount of boost. Control it by motor. 21.5 with ramp speedo is just like the old 17.5 speed.

Now.. how about even a wilder idea! How about the Tamiya Spec Brushless system!
Chris Furman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2010, 01:38 AM   #57
Tech Master
 
Scooby Horton1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,372
Default

What's the deal with this class? Are these touring cars or something else?
__________________
Trinity,EPIC,Oddy Racing,IRS,Sweep racing,Brown Engineering,Mugen USA,Team Xray,RC America,R.I.P. motorsports,Tekin,Customworks,Parma PSE,Ashford Hobbies,D&K Hobbies, TQ-wire,Local 69 Woodputters Union,Big Ant get well soon!!Quinn my BFF!
Dee Lee is a nut and I don't condone what he will say next!
Scooby Horton1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2010, 04:49 AM   #58
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 163
Trader Rating: 5 (100%+)
Default FF03

I myself am a scale freak. I enjoy watching full scale touring cars and i reckon the body should be realistic.

The main focus of any class should be not only fun and competitive but also to attract new members to the hobby. IF you go out there to "Cheque book race" the sport wont grow. If somebody came up to you asked you how much to get started with a fully hopped up car and you said a $1000 dollars - they might as well get into go kart racing - and the sport of rc car racing loses again.

In my club we race standard cars - M03 with the only hop up being a ball race kit, standard tamiya esc, tamiya tyres and up until now the battery was capped at 1500nicad - and this is the biggest class in our club why? because its fun to watch and it cost $300 to buy a car ready to race. Its by far the most enjoyed race by spectators

Now i agree about keeping the cars standard if there were a FWD class and realistic bodies so that onlookers can say "wow theres a civic, or theres a Volvo 850 blah blah" instant interest which sometimes equals new members - we all win!!!!

Tamiya has always been onto it with their marketing and i can guess FWD will take off again like F1 did when they rereleased the F103 - they know what theyre doing - stay tuned for more bodies
junn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2010, 11:00 AM   #59
Tech Elite
 
stitchy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 3,794
Trader Rating: 13 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Furman View Post
Now.. how about even a wilder idea! How about the Tamiya Spec Brushless system!
Chris, how is that Tamiya BL system? What current ESC/motor does it compare to?
__________________
Speedtechhobbies.com
stitchy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2010, 05:34 PM   #60
Tech Addict
 
Barry White's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: HEAVEN
Posts: 720
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by inpuressa View Post
Limiting hopups will be hard. Like the FF03 PRO, there are already some good stuff in there. If you get the standard kit, you won't have it. We don't want to limit what trim of chassis you can run. I think part of the fun with RC is to be able to custom your car with hop ups. The hop ups coming out with it (alum outdrives, sway bar) is all you need for the PRO. And maybe hex screws to maintain your sanity.

And the no weight limit rule is only applied when you run with 4wds. I'm probably going to be one of the few running this chassis, so there really isn't going to be a class. I intend to run it in the 17.5 no boost class against other TCs so I need some handicap. For FF only, it should be around the minimum weight that the FF03 can achieve. The TOP car probably will be much lighter anyway.
The available hop ups for a car will allways be free but I think they should be banned for racing in this category becouse of the nature of the car being an FF car that is less complex as 4WD and that it allso can handle less power. Swaybars ok, hex screws not a real option, aluminium outdrives not ok becouse they will wear a lot faster even if they cost just as much as steel ones.

I never said a no limit weight rule only but becouse its an 2WD car, it's logic it would be lighter than a comparable 4WD car. It would be good idea to work with a weight penalty when having a race series. Let's say 1300gr min weight. For the next race +50 for the winner, +30 second and +20 for third or something like that. With a color sticker on the body or/and on the drivers list so its easy to tech and no more then lets say 120 grams max penalty. When you get a bad result of course the weight goes down again.

I also like the looks of a fully hopped car more and it's much nicer for a manufacturer to show off with a fully hopped up car then a stock car but this should be a real stock RACING class.



Quote:
Originally Posted by junn View Post
I myself am a scale freak. I enjoy watching full scale touring cars and i reckon the body should be realistic.

The main focus of any class should be not only fun and competitive but also to attract new members to the hobby. IF you go out there to "Cheque book race" the sport wont grow. If somebody came up to you asked you how much to get started with a fully hopped up car and you said a $1000 dollars - they might as well get into go kart racing - and the sport of rc car racing loses again.

In my club we race standard cars - M03 with the only hop up being a ball race kit, standard tamiya esc, tamiya tyres and up until now the battery was capped at 1500nicad - and this is the biggest class in our club why? because its fun to watch and it cost $300 to buy a car ready to race. Its by far the most enjoyed race by spectators

Now i agree about keeping the cars standard if there were a FWD class and realistic bodies so that onlookers can say "wow theres a civic, or theres a Volvo 850 blah blah" instant interest which sometimes equals new members - we all win!!!!

Tamiya has always been onto it with their marketing and i can guess FWD will take off again like F1 did when they rereleased the F103 - they know what theyre doing - stay tuned for more bodies.
+1 (only not for that F103 bit, they should have gone right away for the F104)
Barry White is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. It is currently 08:43 AM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Powered By: vBulletin v3.9.2.1
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Advertise Content © 2001-2011 RCTech.net