85LikesRWD, 4 Wheel Independent Susp. Onroad Cards - Why Not?, Why?, How?
02-26-2017, 02:05 PM
#16
My first RWD touring car (the Porsche shown above) was initially configured with a TA-06 one-way pulley installed backwards on the front gearbox, to allow four-wheel braking instead of freewheeling. The braking was significantly improved as you'd expect, and it no longer suffered from snap-oversteer when braking, but the acceleration was still terrible and the handling was very squirrelly when applying any power at all. It also shredded the Vaterra 31mm rear tires I used in no time. It's possible those HPI tires would help (I think they have them as wide as 34mm?), but ONLY if they're made out of a properly-sticky compound -- S-compound isn't good enough, and D- and M-compounds are a complete waste of time. Pro compound is the only thing that will come close to offering enough traction with only two drive wheels.
02-27-2017, 12:12 AM
#17
In Germany some racers around the Erftarena just started the KÄFER FUN CUP. RWD based on a standard Tamiya TT chassis, kit tyres, 17.5T and a Beetle body. (http://www.rccar-online.de/verein_lo..._reglement.pdf)
Maybe some of the racers can share their experience here.
Maybe some of the racers can share their experience here.
02-27-2017, 01:58 AM
#18
Tech Regular
I was experimenting with RWD in rally few years ago - it handled pretty well, was not that much sensitive to power - on tarmac it was almost impossible to spin under power (15,5t motor).. It all depends on weight distribution and settings, RWD is not as forgiving as AWD. Yes, braking was problem, it takes much longer to stop, but if you didnt hit brakes in the middle of corner, it wasnt problem to keep it in line
On high traction surface, TC with removed front may work, at least with weaker motors - most recent F1s have lot of weight on front axle, with inline battery and motor in front of axle.. On lower traction, you need more weight on rear end
On high traction surface, TC with removed front may work, at least with weaker motors - most recent F1s have lot of weight on front axle, with inline battery and motor in front of axle.. On lower traction, you need more weight on rear end
02-27-2017, 06:00 AM
#19
Why should it?
Regardless.
Grip doesn't work in your favour, just like it doesn't in most of the situations you mentioned.
You don't have enough grip at the front and you don't have enough grip at the back, that's why you need both.
If AWD did not come with a serious weight penalty in real life scale, I am sure you'd see most of those cars you mention turning to AWD. In fact real cars which are more powerful and faster than the racing categories you mentioned (think supercars), actually use AWD. Why do you think that is?
But daft as it sounds there is a class like that, and it is big. Just not where you are, otherwise you would have known:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32PskkNB-Uk&t=219s
Last edited by niznai; 02-27-2017 at 06:58 AM.
02-27-2017, 07:21 AM
#22
We did have those cars!
Serpent Quattro 2wd, Impact 2wd, Tenforce, Yokomo Super Scale etc. They all went the way of the dinosaur. Lastly as for 1:8 2wd, the pan cars were easier to drive than the "fully" 2wd cars. The Tenforce came at the wrong time, we were running Pro10 and Wide (4wd buggy based) Touring Cars (pre-TA01 / YR4). The Impacts just had a loss of participation, Delta had the Fireball (awesome, just too finicky).
I know I am referring to both Nitro 1/8 & 1/10 as well as Electric 1/10. But it all coincides with the decline of 2wd onroad in the 90's.
People found the 4wd cars easier to drive, and as such the 2wd cars suffered, just look at f1, the tried to bring it back in narrow form, and now what, it died off again.
There was nothing wrong with the Tenforce or Yokomo Super Scale cars, they handled great, just no one was buying them anymore.
The F103GT is an awesome platform, as you can just use old TC tires and run some really hot laps, not to mention the great support still available for the F103 based cars.
Serpent Quattro 2wd, Impact 2wd, Tenforce, Yokomo Super Scale etc. They all went the way of the dinosaur. Lastly as for 1:8 2wd, the pan cars were easier to drive than the "fully" 2wd cars. The Tenforce came at the wrong time, we were running Pro10 and Wide (4wd buggy based) Touring Cars (pre-TA01 / YR4). The Impacts just had a loss of participation, Delta had the Fireball (awesome, just too finicky).
I know I am referring to both Nitro 1/8 & 1/10 as well as Electric 1/10. But it all coincides with the decline of 2wd onroad in the 90's.
People found the 4wd cars easier to drive, and as such the 2wd cars suffered, just look at f1, the tried to bring it back in narrow form, and now what, it died off again.
There was nothing wrong with the Tenforce or Yokomo Super Scale cars, they handled great, just no one was buying them anymore.
The F103GT is an awesome platform, as you can just use old TC tires and run some really hot laps, not to mention the great support still available for the F103 based cars.
02-27-2017, 07:30 AM
#23
Team Associated tried this 20 years ago with the RC10DS (Dual Sport). It was a cool car that used the aluminum tub from an RC10 buggy/stadium truck with short shocks, short arms, and on-road wheels/tires/body. It was a neat concept but never caught on.
I think its a great idea though. If we can make F1 cars handle (with 2WD, rubber tires, and a solid axle in a pan car) there's no reason that a fully independent touring car can't be made to handle with 2WD.
I quit 17.5 sedan years ago because it was too much of a point-and-shoot style of driving for my taste. F1 and Mini are more fun to drive. You have to modulate throttle inputs, brakes, and steering. Sometimes you have more power than you can put down. It puts the emphasis on the driving and the setup. It avoids the touring car battery and motor wars too.
I think its a great idea though. If we can make F1 cars handle (with 2WD, rubber tires, and a solid axle in a pan car) there's no reason that a fully independent touring car can't be made to handle with 2WD.
I quit 17.5 sedan years ago because it was too much of a point-and-shoot style of driving for my taste. F1 and Mini are more fun to drive. You have to modulate throttle inputs, brakes, and steering. Sometimes you have more power than you can put down. It puts the emphasis on the driving and the setup. It avoids the touring car battery and motor wars too.
02-27-2017, 07:33 AM
#24
02-27-2017, 08:24 AM
#25
I think the reason RWD hasn't stuck around on-road is simple. 4wd is easier to drive. Maybe, just maybe, it's a braking thing. But I think the tendency to push, and greater all up weight all contribute to a car that's easier to drive.
The "desire for push" is one reason why spools are "the hot ticket" up front.
We lack IRS, but pan cars are still a thing. Those are rwd.
RWD with IRS is also a thing for dirt oval cars. And a lot of the drift cars are IRS and RWD.
Grip falls off with weight. Weight means slower responses to things like slides (this is not a bad thing for small cars..).
The "desire for push" is one reason why spools are "the hot ticket" up front.
We lack IRS, but pan cars are still a thing. Those are rwd.
RWD with IRS is also a thing for dirt oval cars. And a lot of the drift cars are IRS and RWD.
Grip falls off with weight. Weight means slower responses to things like slides (this is not a bad thing for small cars..).
02-27-2017, 01:59 PM
#26
It is a great idea, but the cars would be very hard to drive....
02-27-2017, 02:09 PM
#27
It's my personal opinion that the DS was the best all around parking lot/subdivision street car of all time. It was simple and fun and has enough suspension that it can run where pan cars can't. I like that it doesn't have the complexity of a touring car but you could still use realistic bodies with it. On a smooth asphalt or carpet track, it wouldn't stand a chance against any other car classes but a bunch of them together was a riot.
02-27-2017, 07:34 PM
#29
I started thinking about all of this when I saw Tamiya's F103GT Nissan Launch car:
I started reading about the full size car and found out it is FRONT wheel drive. So, the Tamiya model is a low-tech (F103GT) RWD model of a high tech FWD car, and I just thought that was kinda odd.
(I suppose I could buy the Tamiya TA06 chassis and disconnect the REAR drivetrain, and plop the Nissan Launch body on it. Then I'd have a scale FWD car).
I applaud Tamiya for their variety of RC cars like their FWD and RWD selection of M chassis cars, the F103GT platform, etc.
I know for organized racing, we need a limited number of classes, so a rwd independent suspension car will likely never be the norm but it's interesting to think about. Thanks for the replies all.
I started reading about the full size car and found out it is FRONT wheel drive. So, the Tamiya model is a low-tech (F103GT) RWD model of a high tech FWD car, and I just thought that was kinda odd.
(I suppose I could buy the Tamiya TA06 chassis and disconnect the REAR drivetrain, and plop the Nissan Launch body on it. Then I'd have a scale FWD car).
I applaud Tamiya for their variety of RC cars like their FWD and RWD selection of M chassis cars, the F103GT platform, etc.
I know for organized racing, we need a limited number of classes, so a rwd independent suspension car will likely never be the norm but it's interesting to think about. Thanks for the replies all.
02-27-2017, 07:38 PM
#30
I quit 17.5 sedan years ago because it was too much of a point-and-shoot style of driving for my taste. F1 and Mini are more fun to drive. You have to modulate throttle inputs, brakes, and steering. Sometimes you have more power than you can put down. It puts the emphasis on the driving and the setup. It avoids the touring car battery and motor wars too.