Team Magic G4
01-19-2006, 09:48 PM
#361
hmmmm
sure would like to get one of those TEAM MAGIC new caps looks awful nice 
01-20-2006, 02:50 PM
#363
Tech Adept
iTrader: (4)
Have there been any changes to the suspension geometry with the new G4S as compared to the previous Team Magic cars? Or is it the same ol' bulkheads with the same ol' arms with the same ol' hub carriers? I'm not talking material here.
When I built the original G4 E-Class a while ago, I always thought that whoever designed it got their ideas of "roll center" and "camber gain" mixed up in the rear of the car with the placement of the upper rear arms...it was always fun trying to get it to stop pushing through the corners on ANY track or surface (I drove my G4's on tracks ranging from dusty permanent tracks, to soda-sprayed asphalt, to VHT-prepared asphalt, and at various ROAR nats with super bite). Then there was the no-ackerman/no-scrub steering setup which could have been used as an advantage, but obviously that's been changed in the name of less maintenance and better durability (things break when you hit something, but every car is supposed to be bulletproof...sigh). The suspension geometry was too conservative of a design for such a radically low, compared to other cars at the time, center of gravity. While it was a very easy to drive car and very easy to set up, you could only get so far because of the way the suspension was designed. Granted, there were a bunch of 'em in the A at the Nats in 2003, but that was then. Unless that's changed, it'll be more of the same in light of the advances the RRR and the MTX-4 bring to the table. All the pretty machined aluminum crap in the world won't make a difference. Please turn the flamethrowers off.
Just out of curiosity since I have nothing better to do at work today, and I miss my G4 underdog of a car...
When I built the original G4 E-Class a while ago, I always thought that whoever designed it got their ideas of "roll center" and "camber gain" mixed up in the rear of the car with the placement of the upper rear arms...it was always fun trying to get it to stop pushing through the corners on ANY track or surface (I drove my G4's on tracks ranging from dusty permanent tracks, to soda-sprayed asphalt, to VHT-prepared asphalt, and at various ROAR nats with super bite). Then there was the no-ackerman/no-scrub steering setup which could have been used as an advantage, but obviously that's been changed in the name of less maintenance and better durability (things break when you hit something, but every car is supposed to be bulletproof...sigh). The suspension geometry was too conservative of a design for such a radically low, compared to other cars at the time, center of gravity. While it was a very easy to drive car and very easy to set up, you could only get so far because of the way the suspension was designed. Granted, there were a bunch of 'em in the A at the Nats in 2003, but that was then. Unless that's changed, it'll be more of the same in light of the advances the RRR and the MTX-4 bring to the table. All the pretty machined aluminum crap in the world won't make a difference. Please turn the flamethrowers off.
Just out of curiosity since I have nothing better to do at work today, and I miss my G4 underdog of a car...
01-20-2006, 04:32 PM
#364
Tech Fanatic
Originally Posted by wagnerov
Have there been any changes to the suspension geometry with the new G4S as compared to the previous Team Magic cars? Or is it the same ol' bulkheads with the same ol' arms with the same ol' hub carriers? I'm not talking material here.
When I built the original G4 E-Class a while ago, I always thought that whoever designed it got their ideas of "roll center" and "camber gain" mixed up in the rear of the car with the placement of the upper rear arms...it was always fun trying to get it to stop pushing through the corners on ANY track or surface (I drove my G4's on tracks ranging from dusty permanent tracks, to soda-sprayed asphalt, to VHT-prepared asphalt, and at various ROAR nats with super bite). Then there was the no-ackerman/no-scrub steering setup which could have been used as an advantage, but obviously that's been changed in the name of less maintenance and better durability (things break when you hit something, but every car is supposed to be bulletproof...sigh). The suspension geometry was too conservative of a design for such a radically low, compared to other cars at the time, center of gravity. While it was a very easy to drive car and very easy to set up, you could only get so far because of the way the suspension was designed. Granted, there were a bunch of 'em in the A at the Nats in 2003, but that was then. Unless that's changed, it'll be more of the same in light of the advances the RRR and the MTX-4 bring to the table. All the pretty machined aluminum crap in the world won't make a difference. Please turn the flamethrowers off.
Just out of curiosity since I have nothing better to do at work today, and I miss my G4 underdog of a car...
When I built the original G4 E-Class a while ago, I always thought that whoever designed it got their ideas of "roll center" and "camber gain" mixed up in the rear of the car with the placement of the upper rear arms...it was always fun trying to get it to stop pushing through the corners on ANY track or surface (I drove my G4's on tracks ranging from dusty permanent tracks, to soda-sprayed asphalt, to VHT-prepared asphalt, and at various ROAR nats with super bite). Then there was the no-ackerman/no-scrub steering setup which could have been used as an advantage, but obviously that's been changed in the name of less maintenance and better durability (things break when you hit something, but every car is supposed to be bulletproof...sigh). The suspension geometry was too conservative of a design for such a radically low, compared to other cars at the time, center of gravity. While it was a very easy to drive car and very easy to set up, you could only get so far because of the way the suspension was designed. Granted, there were a bunch of 'em in the A at the Nats in 2003, but that was then. Unless that's changed, it'll be more of the same in light of the advances the RRR and the MTX-4 bring to the table. All the pretty machined aluminum crap in the world won't make a difference. Please turn the flamethrowers off.
Just out of curiosity since I have nothing better to do at work today, and I miss my G4 underdog of a car...
RC_Alan
Last edited by rc_alan; 01-20-2006 at 10:48 PM.
01-20-2006, 07:34 PM
#365
Wag
those are good questions. The bulkheads and arms have not changed and neither have the roll centers. However since the E class the front knuckles have changed which created more steering when the evo model came out. However the slide rack and swing rack steering designs were for the most part linear ackerman which was very little. The bellcrank steering is more than a durability change for the car. Bellcrank steering gives you a non linear ackerman change which the G4 needed bad to improve mid corner steering. we tested the basic bellcrank design for a year and I can tell you back to back the steering inproved greatly mid corner. The Evo car always felt like it turned better to the left than the right when we drove it. A bunch of testing by TM determined that moving the battery to the left side and forward gave balance to the car and distributed a little more weight forward to the front wheels. This loaded the left front tire harder by alot and the right front tire a little more. by loading the left front tire more it digs harder on a right hand turn improving push in a right hander and the forward weight also adds some additional left hand steering also. With respect to front upper roll center adjustment it is a minor change compared to any rear roll center change that you might do. We feel that the front geometry as it is with the revised steering and weight balance will make for a significant improvement in steering all the way around. There was discussion about making the front bulkheads where you could remove the one way from the top. Since the new S comes with a one way/solid combination front setup in it the only time you need to service the front end is if you want to run a diff which most drivers opt for minimally.Usually its locked or one way.(the only negative still there is changing the front belt, but since the release of the new belts durability of them has increased ten fold so its not much of an issue any more) So the decision was made not to tear up the entire front end of the car to do that.
As for rear roll center we wanted a lower rear roll center adjustment but it was determined that it is possible to tune around it with gear ratios and tire sizes. I'll give you an example. If I run a 58 mm rear tire the rear arm is relatively flat and I would usually run 19 internals and 19/24 or 25 pinions to get the roll out I need. If I want to lower the rear arm or have it angled up so to speak I can run a 62 mm rear tire and 18 internal ratios on the brake pulley and a 19 side pulley with 18/23 or 24 pinions with a 58.5 mm front tire. this equates to close to the same rollout as the previous example but I'm running a 3.5 mm split in tire size from front to rear. we have found this setup to provide more steering and more rear bite at the same time with equal off corner acceleration (because the tire speed is slow the acceleration difference because of rollout diameters is not that significant yet) with significantly increased top end acceleration because of the increased rollout. In other words the increased rear tire diameter providea a non linear curve of acceleration as the car goes faster and faster compared to a 59 mm dia rear tire. As far as camber gain the rear end can be adjusted for low camber gain or very high camber gain. Its upper rear arm geometry is just like everyone else its just that the pivot mounts off the front of the rear knuckle instead of the top. Functionally it works like mugen kyosho or serpent.
Hope this answers some of your questions
Some additional shock positions were added to the new car also. and the rear shock tower changes so you no longer have to remove the shock tower from the alumunium bracket to access the 4 screws that hold it to the bulkhead when your servicing the rear diff or belt.
The goal was to inprove the car all around and widen the sweet spot without opting to add numerous extra adjustments that most drivers don't or won't use. Advanced drivers will read and understand what I am talking about with regard to the rear tire dia and roll center and be able to make good use of it I believe.
I would say alans post right on.
those are good questions. The bulkheads and arms have not changed and neither have the roll centers. However since the E class the front knuckles have changed which created more steering when the evo model came out. However the slide rack and swing rack steering designs were for the most part linear ackerman which was very little. The bellcrank steering is more than a durability change for the car. Bellcrank steering gives you a non linear ackerman change which the G4 needed bad to improve mid corner steering. we tested the basic bellcrank design for a year and I can tell you back to back the steering inproved greatly mid corner. The Evo car always felt like it turned better to the left than the right when we drove it. A bunch of testing by TM determined that moving the battery to the left side and forward gave balance to the car and distributed a little more weight forward to the front wheels. This loaded the left front tire harder by alot and the right front tire a little more. by loading the left front tire more it digs harder on a right hand turn improving push in a right hander and the forward weight also adds some additional left hand steering also. With respect to front upper roll center adjustment it is a minor change compared to any rear roll center change that you might do. We feel that the front geometry as it is with the revised steering and weight balance will make for a significant improvement in steering all the way around. There was discussion about making the front bulkheads where you could remove the one way from the top. Since the new S comes with a one way/solid combination front setup in it the only time you need to service the front end is if you want to run a diff which most drivers opt for minimally.Usually its locked or one way.(the only negative still there is changing the front belt, but since the release of the new belts durability of them has increased ten fold so its not much of an issue any more) So the decision was made not to tear up the entire front end of the car to do that.
As for rear roll center we wanted a lower rear roll center adjustment but it was determined that it is possible to tune around it with gear ratios and tire sizes. I'll give you an example. If I run a 58 mm rear tire the rear arm is relatively flat and I would usually run 19 internals and 19/24 or 25 pinions to get the roll out I need. If I want to lower the rear arm or have it angled up so to speak I can run a 62 mm rear tire and 18 internal ratios on the brake pulley and a 19 side pulley with 18/23 or 24 pinions with a 58.5 mm front tire. this equates to close to the same rollout as the previous example but I'm running a 3.5 mm split in tire size from front to rear. we have found this setup to provide more steering and more rear bite at the same time with equal off corner acceleration (because the tire speed is slow the acceleration difference because of rollout diameters is not that significant yet) with significantly increased top end acceleration because of the increased rollout. In other words the increased rear tire diameter providea a non linear curve of acceleration as the car goes faster and faster compared to a 59 mm dia rear tire. As far as camber gain the rear end can be adjusted for low camber gain or very high camber gain. Its upper rear arm geometry is just like everyone else its just that the pivot mounts off the front of the rear knuckle instead of the top. Functionally it works like mugen kyosho or serpent.
Hope this answers some of your questions
Some additional shock positions were added to the new car also. and the rear shock tower changes so you no longer have to remove the shock tower from the alumunium bracket to access the 4 screws that hold it to the bulkhead when your servicing the rear diff or belt.
The goal was to inprove the car all around and widen the sweet spot without opting to add numerous extra adjustments that most drivers don't or won't use. Advanced drivers will read and understand what I am talking about with regard to the rear tire dia and roll center and be able to make good use of it I believe.
I would say alans post right on.
01-20-2006, 07:55 PM
#366
I went back and looked at some of Ray Juhl's lap times who runs the G4/Evo at toledo alot. in fact he ran all of the races there last year.(thats why I used it to get a good sample) I can see a solid 1 second improvement in performance from the time we switched to the bellcrank steering. he went from mid to low 21's to mid to low 20's. 20.2 to 20.4 so I went back and looked at Paolo Morganti's sedan times at the great lakes challenge and his times were 19.4 to 19.8 window. everyone else in the the A show at the GLC ran 19.9 to 20.3 avg. So we had the old car not that far off. And you need to take into account the level of drivers. We really won't know for sure how it will stack up to the RRR,710 and MTX4 until we get a Paolo level of driver behind the wheel of one and guys like that don't grow on trees.
Last edited by Motorman; 01-20-2006 at 08:37 PM.
01-20-2006, 08:07 PM
#367
car breaker conversion kit late feb I figure but don't hold me to it. but I know it won't be sooner than that. The factory thrashed to get the production run up and out before the chinese holiday. Starts the 28th,So they wont be back to work till mid feb. Then the heavy run of spares and conversion parts can happen. We are holding enough spares to cover the car needs we will get, Ie the palstic parts that might get broken, but critical complete assemblies to do the conversion won't be available in mass for a month I figure.
Just the facts man so don't shoot me.
Just the facts man so don't shoot me.
01-21-2006, 05:14 PM
#369
Reguardless of past problems of old G4 version whatever it may of been I think the new G4S will quiet some of the critics this year when they see it run in some the major races of 2006 in my opinion. 
Last edited by Ivan Dickson; 01-23-2006 at 06:46 PM.
01-22-2006, 03:42 AM
#371
I for one am really looking forward to getting a new G4s. I have been running a G4 for 2 years now and while there have been some niggles along the way improvements have been comming. Those that have a G4 know they are allready a good car.Seeing what our UK champ Darren Johnson did with the G4 last year I hope the new S will raise the bar and gather some momentum in its following here in the UK.
Thanks motorman for the updates it really nice to see some driving force behind TM
Thanks motorman for the updates it really nice to see some driving force behind TM
01-22-2006, 07:05 AM
#372
New Car
With the improvements on the clutch(UFO), chassis realignment, Improved rear crossmember, rear swaybar dual cam adjustment, bell crank steering and better weight distribution the car should be really good. I know I've hand fitted all these changes on my current G4 and the improvements are really noticable.
The bell crank steering will surprise many of you on how additionally responsive the car becomes on corner entry and mid corner. The ackerman really improves. Also I'm happy I don't have to dissasemble the entire front end to replace that rack system. I absolutely hated that.
The UFO clutch really is another major significant improvement. It is very responsive to adjustment and extremely consistant. Same at the beginning of the race and at the end.
The improved balance weight distribution should also help the suspension geometry. The car will have a better balance especially with all the high speed right handers we deal with on most tracks.
The new braces and chassis realignment should eliminate any previous tweak problems that may have existed. Especially at the right rear corner brace.
I'm excited to try the new car. It should be here soon!!
The bell crank steering will surprise many of you on how additionally responsive the car becomes on corner entry and mid corner. The ackerman really improves. Also I'm happy I don't have to dissasemble the entire front end to replace that rack system. I absolutely hated that.
The UFO clutch really is another major significant improvement. It is very responsive to adjustment and extremely consistant. Same at the beginning of the race and at the end.
The improved balance weight distribution should also help the suspension geometry. The car will have a better balance especially with all the high speed right handers we deal with on most tracks.
The new braces and chassis realignment should eliminate any previous tweak problems that may have existed. Especially at the right rear corner brace.
I'm excited to try the new car. It should be here soon!!
01-23-2006, 07:45 AM
#373
I just want to let you guys know that Team Magic delivered as promised!!!!Thks to TM and Happy New Year........I got my G4s.....
01-23-2006, 07:54 AM
#374
hmmm
good deal hope to hear the results maybe ill get good enuff to own one 
01-23-2006, 06:51 PM
#375
The coolest thing about the G4s kit is that the instruction manual is very detail and at the end of the manual is shows you what effects it has on the car in using different kind of oils,toes and such.....good move... 