Xs-ive R/c Design's Freedom Tc3
#16
Tech Elite
iTrader: (20)
I agree with you. The TC3 tub is very rigid. I've owned most commercially avaiable sedans over the past 8 years, and the Associated easily has the strongest "backbone" of any of them. When I hear people talk about how much flex it has, I can't help but wonder if their chassis is defective or something.
I remember when the car first came out, plenty of guys assumed it would flex like crazy due to the lack of an upper deck.
One of the local tracks that I race on can occasionally have some VERY rough sections (like, airtime rough). If the rough sections only account for 5% of the entire track, I'll just set the car up for the smooth sections, and learn the trick to driving through the rough sections better than anyone else. For my driving style, the disadvantage of using flex or softening things up far outweight the advantages.
All that said, I'm not trying to discourage anyone from buying this chassis kit, unless they're looking for improved handling. If you want the carbon fiber look, it's a great deal. If you run larger electronics, the chassis looks as though it can accomodate them. If you want to build an insane speed run car, this chassis lends itself to running more than just six cells.
I remember when the car first came out, plenty of guys assumed it would flex like crazy due to the lack of an upper deck.
One of the local tracks that I race on can occasionally have some VERY rough sections (like, airtime rough). If the rough sections only account for 5% of the entire track, I'll just set the car up for the smooth sections, and learn the trick to driving through the rough sections better than anyone else. For my driving style, the disadvantage of using flex or softening things up far outweight the advantages.
All that said, I'm not trying to discourage anyone from buying this chassis kit, unless they're looking for improved handling. If you want the carbon fiber look, it's a great deal. If you run larger electronics, the chassis looks as though it can accomodate them. If you want to build an insane speed run car, this chassis lends itself to running more than just six cells.
#17
Tech Elite
Originally posted by Sorcerer001
I agree with you. The TC3 tub is very rigid. I've owned most commercially avaiable sedans over the past 8 years, and the Associated easily has the strongest "backbone" of any of them. When I hear people talk about how much flex it has, I can't help but wonder if their chassis is defective or something.
I remember when the car first came out, plenty of guys assumed it would flex like crazy due to the lack of an upper deck.
One of the local tracks that I race on can occasionally have some VERY rough sections (like, airtime rough). If the rough sections only account for 5% of the entire track, I'll just set the car up for the smooth sections, and learn the trick to driving through the rough sections better than anyone else. For my driving style, the disadvantage of using flex or softening things up far outweight the advantages.
All that said, I'm not trying to discourage anyone from buying this chassis kit, unless they're looking for improved handling. If you want the carbon fiber look, it's a great deal. If you run larger electronics, the chassis looks as though it can accomodate them. If you want to build an insane speed run car, this chassis lends itself to running more than just six cells.
I agree with you. The TC3 tub is very rigid. I've owned most commercially avaiable sedans over the past 8 years, and the Associated easily has the strongest "backbone" of any of them. When I hear people talk about how much flex it has, I can't help but wonder if their chassis is defective or something.
I remember when the car first came out, plenty of guys assumed it would flex like crazy due to the lack of an upper deck.
One of the local tracks that I race on can occasionally have some VERY rough sections (like, airtime rough). If the rough sections only account for 5% of the entire track, I'll just set the car up for the smooth sections, and learn the trick to driving through the rough sections better than anyone else. For my driving style, the disadvantage of using flex or softening things up far outweight the advantages.
All that said, I'm not trying to discourage anyone from buying this chassis kit, unless they're looking for improved handling. If you want the carbon fiber look, it's a great deal. If you run larger electronics, the chassis looks as though it can accomodate them. If you want to build an insane speed run car, this chassis lends itself to running more than just six cells.
#18
Tech Elite
IMO I dont like Topdecks. I like to look at my car without a topdeck in the way Thats only reason i give props to a Tub chassis w/o Topdecks;
#19
Tech Elite
iTrader: (20)
Originally posted by True R/C Racing
in a couple races they might strip something in the chassis.
in a couple races they might strip something in the chassis.
#20
Tech Elite
Originally posted by Sorcerer001
Man, these folks need to stick with a trainer for a while longer! Use a thread chaser and it'll never happen. Now, broken screws on the other hand... I actually managed to snap a battery hold down stud in my graphite chassis. That stunk. Of course, that's when a marshal stepped on the car during a main during the last 5 seconds of a race. Also crushed my Cyclone's case, broke both shock towers, snapped an arm, crushed two new spoked Yokomo wheels (I now run dishes), and turned the body inside out. So I suppose that I was due for some snapped screws.
Man, these folks need to stick with a trainer for a while longer! Use a thread chaser and it'll never happen. Now, broken screws on the other hand... I actually managed to snap a battery hold down stud in my graphite chassis. That stunk. Of course, that's when a marshal stepped on the car during a main during the last 5 seconds of a race. Also crushed my Cyclone's case, broke both shock towers, snapped an arm, crushed two new spoked Yokomo wheels (I now run dishes), and turned the body inside out. So I suppose that I was due for some snapped screws.
#23
Great car, just one question, wouldn't the toe-in be hard to setup without an setup station? You can't really accurately measure it.
#24
yes the adjustable to in setup i would say is for a more advanced racer, or someone with a station...
the use of it is more of a luxery , rther then changing blocks or trying to get the perfect degree with the blocks... if u choose to use the rear toe setup, you will have to have the right stuff..
i mean someone could posibly do it without it, but yes for the exact proper toe it would be wise to use a setup station...
the use of it is more of a luxery , rther then changing blocks or trying to get the perfect degree with the blocks... if u choose to use the rear toe setup, you will have to have the right stuff..
i mean someone could posibly do it without it, but yes for the exact proper toe it would be wise to use a setup station...
#26
Tech Elite
iTrader: (1)
BURBS: Looks good! You mentioned the length of the rear toe links needing to be shorter. Might i suggest them being 1/8th of an inch closer together than the front steering rack balls total length apart? Adding the front steering knuckles and "toe rods" to the rear, will add "bumpsteer" to the rear suspension. Slightly lengthing the rods will decrease the notable change while driving. Make the rods too long, and the change can come late in the corner, making the car unpredictable. Other than that, looks like a great product! Hope to see it on the track soon!
- DaveW
- DaveW
#27
dave thanks for the tip.. i will most definatley check it out...
right now with the long ones an how it is i do not hacve any bump steer.... as long as u keep the angles right , bump steer should be minimal to un noticable...
i run oval cars to.. and bump steer is a thing we have to get out of every car....but yeah i will check that out for sure... thanks again
right now with the long ones an how it is i do not hacve any bump steer.... as long as u keep the angles right , bump steer should be minimal to un noticable...
i run oval cars to.. and bump steer is a thing we have to get out of every car....but yeah i will check that out for sure... thanks again
#30
Tech Elite
iTrader: (5)
Why did you put the motor on the left side instead of the stock right side? I thought the motor was on the right side so that the centrifugal force of the motor would counterbalance the drive train. I know Tamiya used a right mount motor in the first TB evo, but then has went with right mount motors in the 2 and 3 versions. I think every new shaft TC has the motor on the right, for the counterbalance.