AdrianM

iTrader: (4)

That's what people said when the TC3 came out.

Then everyone caught up then the 415MS came out.

Then everyone caught up then the BD7 came out.

Every time the previous cars got left in the dust and everyone else played catch up.

I think that the Associates TC6.1WC is on par with the BD7 and the Xray T4 might be on par with the BD7 and TC6.1 by the next major race.

grippgoat

iTrader: (8)

What I'm waiting to see is whether it gets on par through setup refinement, or through development parts that we'll see in the box with the T4'14.

-Mike

rccartips

iTrader: (3)

Seen many types of design in TC. Hara even won with a HB drift car (motor mid front, battery back) in a TC race.

Motor in the front (Ta03), mid (Tao5, Neo, drift designs), and back (414 - 417 etc).

Battery in both stick and saddle pack, in various layouts. Inline (Ta06, Losi), saddle (older designs), long (modern design), across (old design).

Shocks in both traditional, laydown IFS, and rotary (Awesomatix). Even off-road shocks are now used.

Shaft, chain or belt. Single, dual, and triple belt design.

Molded, aluminum, fiberglass or graphite chassis.

Everything adjustable. Camber, caster, weight, height, roll and even color

For me seems manufacturers (and individuals) do have a lot of creativity.

AdrianM

iTrader: (4)

I doubt that they'll be very many new parts for this car in the near future. Turning car design is a lot more mature now than it was in the early 2000. Back then Yokomo would release a new car almost every four months. Today things are more stable. The T4 will get a top deck option maybe a chassis in a few months.

robk

iTrader: (22)

You can't have a car that will only accept a shorty pack by chassis design. If you decide to put the speed control behind the battery, that is not a design feature of the car. As long as the car will accept a full sized pack, any equipment arrangement is legal.

inpuressa

iTrader: (10)

There has been many attempts, and I like many of the ideas out there. But there is a reason why only one basic design layout works at the epitome of performance. I would really like to see one day, a totally new design concept start to take podium finishes.

andrewdoherty

iTrader: (49)

I am happy we're where we are in car design. I think one of the things we need right now is more stability. I can appreciate that new designs are cool looking, and I know advancements wait for no one, but I wouldn't mind seeing us stick with the same motors and battery design for another 5 years. If that means all the cars look the same in the mean time, I figure its a small price to pay for stability that I think will bring more people into racing.

syndr0me

iTrader: (32)

So that's why Umino has been hanging around Marc Fischer's pit? Looking for tips on how to make the C main?

RCknight

iTrader: (5)

No are you sure it looks like the bearing are in a separate brace and you can remove the two screws to remove the bearings. The bearings are not inside the pulley. I swear that's how looks.

Regarding the Awesomatix, I guess my point is, yes, it's difference in many ways, but how much better is it than what is standard design? Just because it's different does that make it better? Unless I see this thing consistently putting down better laps then to me a radical design is meaningless. Unless it has less parts count, easier to adjust, stronger, lighter then I could understand such a design. Unless your just looking for something different, I would rather see companies improve on current design features.

What is the current design is proven, simple, and it work on all track conditions. I think the Yoke may have just found that little tweak to get an edge for a aggressive driving style. The longer chassis design and toe blocks may contribute to it's optimization. idk

I have to say design wise, I feel like the T4 R&D team lacks attention to details or chooses to take productions short cuts at the expense of better design features. The bumper and steering rack just seem slapped together. Speaking only of design features here though.

RCknight

iTrader: (5)

Baa...which one came out first? I stand corrected a few design ideas. lol I thought the Kos 411 was? They both have the same motor mount style. Very similar at least. lol Not sure who Marc is but is he an engineer? If he's an engineer I can't fault him for being a C main racer. I don't know of any that can do both.

syndr0me

iTrader: (32)

Umino is actually a pretty damn good driver. He's the designer of the BD7 (and 5, I assume) and was Masami's mechanic. He's now Ronald Volker's mechanic.

I was just kidding about him getting ideas from Fischer. Yokomo has been making sedans for a very long time. The S411 dropped a couple of years ago without anything particularly innovative about its design, though it seems to be a fine car with high quality parts. Martin Crisp always looked good with his at US races before he retired.

RCknight

iTrader: (5)

Yeah, I'm a huge fan of Masami and Umino. I've not kept up on the racing scene over the last few years, but Umino seems to be a big part of a the team's setup success. I remember when Hara 1st won the worlds. If my memory is correct, I contributed it to the experience of Masami and Umino. I don't think he's been as dominating since he left their guidance. I've been out of the loop, but I very much respect those guys. I've never met them in person and wish I had the chance. I always thought Hara should have stayed with the team and learned from these guys.

Where's my other favorite racer, Barry Baker? What is he doing these days, got the chance to meet him. Great guy.

silvalis

iTrader: (29)

Just checked the pdf manual again, I think you're thinking of the sakura.

The 411 has the two bearing holders held by screws onto the spur bulkhead. You can undo these and slide the holder off and the bearing will usually come with it. The spur has a tube that extends into the bearing. If you pull the bearing holders off, the topdeck still traps the whole spur assembly into the U of the spur bulkhead.

When I had mine, I was under the impression that the idea was to be able to undo the topdeck->spur bulkhead screws for more flex without compromising the spur clamping.

The sakura has a screw holding the bearing onto the spur tube. From what I recall the tube slides out of the spur holder/clamp. Pull these through and the spur assembly is free. (Sort of. You still have to deal with the belts)

What's wrong with the bumper and the steering rack? Plastic?

RCknight

iTrader: (5)

It just seems completely butt backwards. In terms of design and added production costs. The rod angle is not optimal as well. The bumper could be better out of the box. I don't like the fact I need to buy another to get it right. Back to the steering, when I think logic design I first would think, mount the heaviest part of the steering components being the optional aluminum steering arms low as possible, thus reducing weight by making the steering posts shorter, putting the rack higher, thus not needing three shims, making easier access to the rack screws from above, and not limiting the steering throw."

Xpress

iTrader: (3)

Every car has limited steering throw.