R/C Tech Forums - Mugen MTX-3

R/C Tech Forums (https://www.rctech.net/forum/)

- Nitro On-Road (https://www.rctech.net/forum/nitro-road-3/)

- - Mugen MTX-3 (https://www.rctech.net/forum/nitro-road/7666-mugen-mtx-3-a.html)

Re: body supports

Quote:

Originally posted by vadn1
Who carries the body supports for the mtx-3. On the intruction manual of the mtx-3 the front cover has some type of supports just above the lower body clips. Also the same thing can be found on Robbies Collins car in Xtreme RC car mag....?

They look like Serpent/Xray parts, don't they. :confused:

Quote:

Originally posted by rjl
I'm entered for the World Championships I hope, does anyone know if I could rent a house close to the track 2/10/04-25/10/04. Also need to ship goods to someone reliable, the stuff I won't be taking with me. This will be my first WC if all goes well, wish me luck guys I will need it.

You'll need a pitman, then?
(Gee, what a fantastic job I did at the last VORTEC round.)

. . . pick me . . . pick me . . . pick me :sneaky: :lol:

Quote:

Originally posted by Unregistered

:
:
Here's how they work together. The roll axis changes how the CG weight is transferred to the outside wheels. If the roll axis is level (front and rear rollcenters are the same) then the CG weight will transfer straight out (the percentage is about the same as the front to rear weight distribution). If the roll axis is more inclined (always higher at the rear) it tweaks how the CG transfers weight moving it foreward on the car giving more steering and the feel that you lose rear traction (you lose rear and you gain front).

I guess a more simple way to put it is that with the rear rollcenter raised it wants to force the front to roll more in the corner planting the RF tire more.

So, under brakes and with the rear roll centre raised, the CG will move forward more readily as well as transfer more weight forward. Also, as a consequence, it will transfer less weight transversly at the rear?

Quote:

Originally posted by Taylor-Racing
So, under brakes and with the rear roll centre raised, the CG will move forward more readily as well as transfer more weight forward. Also, as a consequence, it will transfer less weight transversly at the rear?

Without explaining exactly why, yes. But the CG doesn't move, it only changes the weight transfer (during the entire corner).

I don't agree with some of the rollcenter atricle posted om mytsn. But if there's one thing that I've learned about RC cars over the years it's that our cars often react to changes in a way that you don't expect.

For instance, if you raise the rollcenters on a high bite track there is more of a chance that it will "tractionroll".

Yes, I worded that badly.
I was really envisioning the weight transfer moving more readily rear to front by virtue of the higher rear roll centre. Somewhat similar to increasing the rear ride height.

. . . you may have guessed, I'm looking for some steering. ;) :lol: :lol:

While on the subject, has anyone used, say, a rear "B" block with a front "A" block to generate some anti-squat?

Is track width measuresd with tires on or off. Im trying to get the width of the car set on the Hudy board, but I am getting around 189 to 190, I feel if i screw the threads out more the pillow balls can come out in a crash.

Gav, I've tried all the rear blocks, I find little difference in handling until the grip comes up and even then it is subtle.
I now run B front and A rear. (had to check)

Quote:

Originally posted by Unregistered
Without explaining exactly why, yes. But the CG doesn't move, it only changes the weight transfer (during the entire corner).

I don't agree with some of the rollcenter atricle posted om mytsn. But if there's one thing that I've learned about RC cars over the years it's that our cars often react to changes in a way that you don't expect.

For instance, if you raise the rollcenters on a high bite track there is more of a chance that it will "tractionroll".

This is interesting as it is completely contrary to the advice given in the Serpent 710 tuning manual. However somebody has mentioned that if the lower arm is angled too far it creates a "jacking" effect under compression..................

Still trying to understand these things :D

Quote:

Originally posted by VenomWorldOrder
ok roll centres as it really is!:cool: :D :nod: :

A blocks lower the roll centre. this is best suited to high bit surfaces. WHY!? Because the car centre is lowered. this means the weight transfer WILL be less onto the arms and subsequently through the shocks, and more through the chassis. ie the car will slide before it bites. (bites means the shocks reacting to the weight transfer and soaking up the weight)

B blocks is somewere inbetween

C blocks will lift the cg and roll centre at the rear. this equals to a car that shifts weight more to the arms and subsequently to the shocks. SO!? Well this means there will be less rear end sliding because the shocks are soaking up the force earlier. therefore the car grips ealier.

WHY DO THE SHOCKS REACT EARLIER WITH "C" BLOCKS AS COMPARED TO "A" BLOCKS? place your finger on the top of your shocks. push down. notice the reaction of the compression is alot earlier. this is a rough example of high cg and a C block type effect.

now place your finger near the actual block. it will take a greater force for you to compress the shocks. compression occurs later. THIS IS A "A" BLOCK type effect. the cars back end will naturally slide as it requires greater inertia for shock compression. (shock compression = grip)

DOES THIS SOLVE THE ROLL CENTRE ISSUE?:sneaky: :cool:

Well I can happily report that I have no idea what you are talking about :D

But HPI does also agree with your theory.............

http://www.hpiracing.com/graphics/in.../Pro4_pg33.jpg

They also say move lower pin down on high traction surfaces.

Serpent and XRAY however disagree with this advice and say to go the completely opposite way. I am starting to wonder whether there are some car specific effects which override the general rule.

Quote:

Originally posted by Taylor-Racing
While on the subject, has anyone used, say, a rear "B" block with a front "A" block to generate some anti-squat?

I do believe that you have that backwards A in the front and B in the rear is called pro squat! The other way around is anti squat.
Anti squat in the rear will cause the car to square off the corner late in the apex or shortly after.

Must have spares for MTX-3

I have a Stock MTX-3 that I am getting ready to race. I have been racing NTC3 for the past 1 and half yrs. I have only replaced Tires and Diffs. and worn CVD's on the NTC3. Now I was wondering what I will definitely need for the MTX-3 as far as spares. I will still have the NTC3 for back up until I get the money together to start stocking more MTX-3 parts. Thanks in advance for the help.

Probably won't need nearly the number of spares as with the NTC3.

I currently have the NTC3 and can't wait to get something else. That car would be stronger if they made it out of glass. I see the Mugens take some big shots and keep on going.

Re: Must have spares for MTX-3

Quote:

Originally posted by no4hitter
I have a Stock MTX-3 that I am getting ready to race. I have been racing NTC3 for the past 1 and half yrs. I have only replaced Tires and Diffs. and worn CVD's on the NTC3. Now I was wondering what I will definitely need for the MTX-3 as far as spares. I will still have the NTC3 for back up until I get the money together to start stocking more MTX-3 parts. Thanks in advance for the help.

The only things I used to carry when driving the MTX3 are spare belts, front, rear and side and a front diff gear when necessary. Till date I have only broke 1 shock shaft due to another driver ramming me in the rear.

Spawn;

Thanks for validating that......people will ultimately spend more money in parts continually repairing a cheap car like the NTC3 than just ponying up the money in the first place and buying something high quality and durable.