Will finally (as long as I don't get scheduled to work) be making it to my first 'tuning' and 'race' sessions this Friday night & Saturday morning. Will have one car for the "box stock" class, and another for either the "Super Stock" or "Stock" class (haven't decided which, but can configure the MR-03 for either. Looking forward to it. To 'commemorate' finally getting my first two cars into races, I'm ready to start building my first "Open 2WD" chassis...and, it arrived today.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rct...efefbcfe97.jpg
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rct...1e1897cc82.jpg
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rct...f1fe68e37b.jpg

Tomorrow, after getting home from work, (hopefully) the build will begin.

How can you tell the MA 10/15/20 apart

MA015 was MA010 with DWS rear end and very small electronics update, the front didnt really change in that time. MA020 is the newer version of the 010 with VCS front suspension (hinged upper arm). All rear end parts from the three versions work on all.

MA015 Double wishbone suspension
MA020 Variable Camber Suspension
MA030 EVO is just better electronics and brushless?

MA030 has a different layout for battery and motor. The electronics package is moved rearward, over the rear pod with the motor centered towards the front of the car on top of the driveshaft. This puts the AAA batteries in a saddle pack flat configuration (2 on each side of the car) for a balanced lateral weight bias. Slightly more mass towards the front of the car, but limits some body options due to the height and location of the motor. It restricts against the cab rear bodies being compatible.

MA030 shares the platform with the FWD chassis, which is a brushed car with FHSS electronics package. The MA030 only comes in EVO trim. The EVO electronics package is longer (similar to AM or VE(brushless ASF) PCB), and reduces compatibility for the DWS rear end which fits on the MA010-020 platforms in 90-94mm. MA030 is 94mm at its shortest where 010-020 start at 90mm. Both 020 and 030 have wide and narrow configurations for the front where the 010/015 was a narrow only front end.

The MA020 had a VE model before EVO was introduced into the lineup. The VE was the flagship brushless configuration before the EVO took that role in their lineup. VE was only ASF protocol compatible (proprietary KO 2.4ghz band made for Kyosho Mini-Z). Now FlySky makes the electronics for the base model cars for Kyosho, with the EVO having option for multiple receivers to change the protocol. There was also VE pro, which used the MHS protocol and backwards compatible with ASF. MHS is also KO only.

Electronics wise, EVO is by far the highest performing package. It can vary a bit depending on the receiver, but even the VE pro with MHS the performance to the lowest performing receiver on EVO is a night and day difference.

ASF/VE/EVO have ICS programming, to adjust the settings on the all in one electronics package. Standard Kyosho FHS/FHSS brushed models have no adjustment capability.

Hope this info helps, I know its a lot in here and not really well packaged.

How did the build come along? I know Reflex Racing is currently out of the RX28SE as i'll be making my purchase for one. I have the RX28 with both the Kiss front end and the double A-arm suspension.

Good afternoon everyone,

I tried to search for this info with out any joy...

I am trying to figure out the type of connecter the MR03 RWD gyro (4 pin) is? My brain has gone numb reading about the numerus typs of JST connectors.

Thanks

JST ZH 1.5 pitch.

This Kyosho rear pod, R246-1351 is designed to work with the square motors. Does anyone know if it can work with the round brushless motors? Does it have motor mount holes for brushless motors.


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rct...f3bf87ff9.jpeg

I'm looking at R8 white bodies and notice that there are two current ones - R8 LMS MZN189 with F1.5 R1.5 and an R8 Night MZN195 with F4.5 R2.2.
Is one or the other preferred for tunability?

It can work with sensorless models which have the D cut on the endbell like Rocket, PN and the old gray GL motors.

The night race R8 is wider, lighter and generally preferred for larger faster circuits. The LMS is the 2015 model, and while its still a pretty good body, its not as forgiving as the older and wider model.

Emu, I am wanting a R8, but I'm running in a Mini-96 95% of the time, so I am guessing the LMS would be better for the narrower track? I'm also going to build up a 94mm for the Mini96WC. is there a body that is currently available as a white body that is better suited for a MR03?
Thanks for any help! Drew

The R8 LMS isnt bad for mini-96, but is less forgiving on the walls. I tend to prefer smaller bodies for the 96 circuit, as it opens up the track a little and stability is less of a concern. However, I would still think that the slightly larger older R8 may be a little better because it is smoother on the front corners of the car. Where the LMS has two sharp corners just under the headlights which make the car spin on any wall rub.

For 94mm bodies, current options are limited to narrow street style bodies rather than the older race options which were readily available years ago. You may still be able to find some good bodies, my favorites being the F430GT, F360GTC, 350z 2005/07, Corvette C5R, F50 (low rear clearance)... there are a few others, but these were generally the most competitive options for 94mm. Most are +1mm offset for MR03 wide, so narrower than the mainstream 98mm bodies of today which average +2 or +3mm offset... It may be hard to find the bodies, but I think for narrow cars, the Supra or GT86/BRZ may be really good 94 bodies at 94mm. The narrow 350z is also very good as well, especially on smaller circuits.

Years ago, I raced the f355 in open stock class (AAA/70t). Despite being narrow, I had developed the setup for the narrow stock class that we raced locally, and it was the only 70t car that I was regularly racing, everything else was modified or pro-stock, so I raced it competitively at many events and was able to podium and win some big events with it while the majority were using the most effective bodies available. So, finding a good setup on a smaller car can work very well especially as the driving lanes become more narrow. The biggest issue is finding the traction roll limit and staying just under it. I generally ran harder tire setups to my competitors (both front and rear) which allowed me to keep the car upright and carry very high corner speed with the smaller car.

While this is a very old video, it shows the corner speed that the f355 setup had. I ran the car at 94mm most of the time (shaved out the rear wheel wells to fit), and removed some of the decklid to clear the damper setup. One of my favorite cars to drive, I may need to build another one for nostalgia sake. The Yellow car was F50 driven by the USA rep of Atomic at the time with 50t motor, my blue/green f355 had a 70t with 94mm MM pod setup.
https://youtu.be/T7T7H4EQTY4

Thanks for the in-depth info on the bodies! I was seeing the front end of the LMS and thinking it would be problems on the rails.
I'll check out the bodies you listed! I like the look/design of a few of the 94mm bodies like the Skyline R33, and impreza wrc 08, and the Lancer Evo, but the look like they are a bit top heavy for racing on the Mini96, but that's just looking at pics so I could be wrong. It's been known to happen!:p