TC4 owners who had TC3
12-03-2004, 05:19 AM
#16
We have 2 of them here. One of them is just balisitc. He has no problem keeping up with a BMI XRAY T1 FK.
Later,
Later,
12-03-2004, 05:44 AM
#17
At the moment, I find the TC4 to be a real challenge. I'm running foam on carpet, though, so maybe people running rubber tire outdoors are having better experiences - I can only hope.
On the drawing board, it does look like a "better" (and I use that term loosely) design, but I'm having a very difficult time getting the car to run fast out of the corners. It has this nasty on-power push that I can't get rid of. I have such an absurd setup on the car just to get it in the ballpark, and there's still a long way to go. Experimenting with everything from roll centers to swaybars to swapping the toe-blocks all around from front to rear and back again to try and find the magical combination - the normal logic I got accustomed to with the TC3 doesn't seem to apply with this chassis.
Of course, I think back and I'm sure it took weeks to get really comfortable with the TC3... and I'm only at 6 weeks with the TC4 now, 3 of which with full option parts available.
On the drawing board, it does look like a "better" (and I use that term loosely) design, but I'm having a very difficult time getting the car to run fast out of the corners. It has this nasty on-power push that I can't get rid of. I have such an absurd setup on the car just to get it in the ballpark, and there's still a long way to go. Experimenting with everything from roll centers to swaybars to swapping the toe-blocks all around from front to rear and back again to try and find the magical combination - the normal logic I got accustomed to with the TC3 doesn't seem to apply with this chassis.
Of course, I think back and I'm sure it took weeks to get really comfortable with the TC3... and I'm only at 6 weeks with the TC4 now, 3 of which with full option parts available.
12-03-2004, 06:25 AM
#18
If anyone saw any team drivers TC4 at cleveland you would probably agree that the tc3 was alot better. For some reason no one could really find a good set up on the car, they finally got the cars decent by the end of the weekend, with kurt wenger (who i think helped desinged the car???) there to help out the team guys. But for some reason even though the car is extremely close to the tc3, the same set ups do not even come close to working...
12-03-2004, 08:03 AM
#19
18 posts in, how long will it take associated to come over and do some damage control?
truthfully, it's a bit premature to qualify the car as inferior. it is baffling that the setups don't appear to cross over in the least. as previoulsy mentioned, i think when people reserve themselves to starting from scratch, the car will get alot better.
i also think that we've seen this happen alot when people have gone from their tc3 to another car in general. i can't tell you how many people pick up another car, and end up right back with the tc3...after ony a few weeks. it can take months to find a good setup, and most people don't even know what their car is doing wrong. all they know is that is isn't fast. well it's certainly a shot in the dark if you can't even identify the troubling characteristic. most bail out, and go on about how that particular car was a bag, when it was simply a task they weren't up for.
rayhuang - i think our buddy hit the nail on the head. infact, if associated knew of the design characteristics responsible for the wide success of the tc3, the new car might not have been so conservative. they might have been more liberal, in order to have drawn in another crowd of racer who appreciates innovation, without being weary of a flawed design.
let's face it, alot of us wouldn't even run the old car if it wasn't so easy to be fast with. the parts don't fit well, the high carbon content in everything gives the material no elasticity, so it breaks and deforms easily. the chassis warps. the hingepins bend. the bottom line to me is, you could be a moron and still be fast with it. well, the new car is helping to put a separation in. i'm sure there will be examples of competent tc4s, but the amount may not be what it was with the tc3.
hummm...how long will we be waiting for the tc5? has the countdown already begun?
truthfully, it's a bit premature to qualify the car as inferior. it is baffling that the setups don't appear to cross over in the least. as previoulsy mentioned, i think when people reserve themselves to starting from scratch, the car will get alot better.
i also think that we've seen this happen alot when people have gone from their tc3 to another car in general. i can't tell you how many people pick up another car, and end up right back with the tc3...after ony a few weeks. it can take months to find a good setup, and most people don't even know what their car is doing wrong. all they know is that is isn't fast. well it's certainly a shot in the dark if you can't even identify the troubling characteristic. most bail out, and go on about how that particular car was a bag, when it was simply a task they weren't up for.
rayhuang - i think our buddy hit the nail on the head. infact, if associated knew of the design characteristics responsible for the wide success of the tc3, the new car might not have been so conservative. they might have been more liberal, in order to have drawn in another crowd of racer who appreciates innovation, without being weary of a flawed design.
let's face it, alot of us wouldn't even run the old car if it wasn't so easy to be fast with. the parts don't fit well, the high carbon content in everything gives the material no elasticity, so it breaks and deforms easily. the chassis warps. the hingepins bend. the bottom line to me is, you could be a moron and still be fast with it. well, the new car is helping to put a separation in. i'm sure there will be examples of competent tc4s, but the amount may not be what it was with the tc3.
hummm...how long will we be waiting for the tc5? has the countdown already begun?
12-03-2004, 08:11 AM
#20
Have you guys tired a TC3.5. I copied a buddy of mines (props to DaveW) and it is awesome. I was 15 mins. away form a TC4 but only one guy at my local track had anything good to say about it.
12-03-2004, 09:29 AM
#21
Tech Addict
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Getting practice 1/10 stock onroad
Posts: 670
Trader Rating: 4 (100%+)
yah my tc3 is fast. and i race the composite not teh graphite an i pass xrays/losi.its really fast in tight technical tracks!!just my 2cents
Steven Alexander
Steven Alexander
12-03-2004, 10:03 AM
#22
Originally posted by seaball
let's face it, alot of us wouldn't even run the old car if it wasn't so easy to be fast with. the parts don't fit well, the high carbon content in everything gives the material no elasticity, so it breaks and deforms easily. the chassis warps. the hingepins bend. the bottom line to me is, you could be a moron and still be fast with it. well, the new car is helping to put a separation in. i'm sure there will be examples of competent tc4s, but the amount may not be what it was with the tc3.
let's face it, alot of us wouldn't even run the old car if it wasn't so easy to be fast with. the parts don't fit well, the high carbon content in everything gives the material no elasticity, so it breaks and deforms easily. the chassis warps. the hingepins bend. the bottom line to me is, you could be a moron and still be fast with it. well, the new car is helping to put a separation in. i'm sure there will be examples of competent tc4s, but the amount may not be what it was with the tc3.
I think this says alot more about AE than just the Tc4. I've found this to be true across many of their vehicles. Sure, I currently run a B4 and AE stuff abounds on my BJ4, but I'm not really impressed with the quality, fit and finish of their parts. I'm actually considering putting losi shocks on my BJ4....
Anyway, the fit an finish was certainly an issue with the Tc3, it appears to be true again with the Tc4.
There are just so many higher quality choices in the TC arena, I'm suprised anybody likes the Tc4. I certainly have no ambition to buy one.
// just my $0.02
12-03-2004, 10:16 AM
#23
I have been running AE Cars almost exclusively since 1986. I took a couple years off and got back into racing with a TC4 since I still have a bunch of AE parts left. So maybe it isn't me thats causing my troubles with getting comfortable with this car. I just cant get it in to the spot where it feels good. Even when I find a good balance, I still feel as if I have to tip-toe around the track. If I get the rear end planted the car is slow, if I get the car free enough to be fast, it is almost impossible to drive. It is odd for me but for the first time I am considering switching away from AE. And another thing I would have thought strange 5 years ago but I am considering a Tamiya. What has the world come to?
12-03-2004, 10:34 AM
#24
Tech Adept
I had the TC3 and the handling of that car was really good. Especially when you compare it to some of the other cars a couple of years back.
But other new cars have improved during the last years.
When I first saw the the TC4 I didn't think it's a real racing car. I was disapointed. Why?
When designing a racing car one of the more important aspects is to try to shave weight to make it as ligth as possible to lower the CG, decrese the unsprung weight and using ballast to optimize the weight distribution.
On the TC4 compared to the TC3 they have done the opposite. Beefing up a lot in the suspension, driveshafts, shocktowers. Basically, the tub is ligther with alot of the other components heavier. Not good for the GC hight and also the polar moment of interia changes.
These changes makes a stronger car, good for the hobbyist but I will be looking elsewhere for a real racing car .
But other new cars have improved during the last years.
When I first saw the the TC4 I didn't think it's a real racing car. I was disapointed. Why?
When designing a racing car one of the more important aspects is to try to shave weight to make it as ligth as possible to lower the CG, decrese the unsprung weight and using ballast to optimize the weight distribution.
On the TC4 compared to the TC3 they have done the opposite. Beefing up a lot in the suspension, driveshafts, shocktowers. Basically, the tub is ligther with alot of the other components heavier. Not good for the GC hight and also the polar moment of interia changes.
These changes makes a stronger car, good for the hobbyist but I will be looking elsewhere for a real racing car .
12-03-2004, 10:43 AM
#25
I have no will to get a TC4... I switch back and forth between my TC3 and Yok CGM... My biggest complaints with the Yok are it's weight and the C hubs constantly break....
As for the TC3 I have many more gripes... The diffs are a pain to get at as is the spur gear... The front ballstud/kingpin combo is a dumb design I was hoping would be fixed on the TC4.... The fact that I had to switch to losi hubs, not because I break them but because they strip is rediculous....
I'm seriously looking at the Xray.... There was much more though in that car than the TC3/4 combined....
The Yok could be awesome if it'd lose some weight and some real C hubs....
As for the TC3 I have many more gripes... The diffs are a pain to get at as is the spur gear... The front ballstud/kingpin combo is a dumb design I was hoping would be fixed on the TC4.... The fact that I had to switch to losi hubs, not because I break them but because they strip is rediculous....
I'm seriously looking at the Xray.... There was much more though in that car than the TC3/4 combined....
The Yok could be awesome if it'd lose some weight and some real C hubs....
12-03-2004, 10:56 AM
#26
If you think the tc3 diffs are hard to get at wait till you pull one out of a belt car such as the Xray you mentioned
12-03-2004, 11:05 AM
#27
The xray one is six screws, three on the bottom, the top deck, the front bumper and i like to do the front tower too and out it comes really easy. Its also a lot easier to adjust by sticking a wrench in and tightening/loosening it depending on how you want it. No complaints about the xray one here.
I think the beauty of the TC3 is that no matter what you could stick it on the track and it would always be 70% good anywhere and required little tuning to make it fast.
I think the beauty of the TC3 is that no matter what you could stick it on the track and it would always be 70% good anywhere and required little tuning to make it fast.
12-03-2004, 01:15 PM
#28
Just wait until the BMI TC4 chassis arrives. I was quick with my TC3 tub chassis and jumped about 3/4 of a lap when I got my BMI chassis. I am expecting the same when the BMI TC4 chassis arrives. But I do agree with most in this forum that the standard and carbon TC4 tub chassis are to flexable.
12-03-2004, 01:55 PM
#29
Originally posted by fatbear
Just wait until the BMI TC4 chassis arrives. I was quick with my TC3 tub chassis and jumped about 3/4 of a lap when I got my BMI chassis. I am expecting the same when the BMI TC4 chassis arrives. But I do agree with most in this forum that the standard and carbon TC4 tub chassis are to flexable.
Just wait until the BMI TC4 chassis arrives. I was quick with my TC3 tub chassis and jumped about 3/4 of a lap when I got my BMI chassis. I am expecting the same when the BMI TC4 chassis arrives. But I do agree with most in this forum that the standard and carbon TC4 tub chassis are to flexable.
I've raced AE since the 80's and the cars in the 80's may have not been as light or as high tech but the quality was much better....
The biggest difference in the TC3 and Tc4 IS the chassis.... I'm sure you could bolt the TC4 stuff onto the current BMI chassis.....
I think the MGT was a sign of the NEW AE.... The MGT is definitely not BFT....
12-03-2004, 02:01 PM
#30
The biggest difference in the TC3 and Tc4 IS the chassis.... I'm sure you could bolt the TC4 stuff onto the current BMI chassis.....