Horatio

Proficar:

Do the losi arms allow for greater lock without having to file the carrier? I'd be interested to know.

lee82gx

iTrader: (1)

yes.i'm also using them.i also use the C-hubs which are beefier..

Horatio

You're the only other person on this thread to suggest that it's a design flaw!!! Man, are you going to get some flames now!!!

To be honest, as you said putting it right is pretty simple as there is more than one option - mine is just one of the way to fix it, but the upside is that it costs nothing to do and only takes a couple of minutes!!

Also, most of the 'bitching' has come from people who think/believe that the 'unequal static steering' = 'equal dynamic steering' because they read it on the AE website!!
Bless 'em OR those that think it just doesn't matter because their idea of a tight track is one where they can only use a 10 turn motor.

lee82gx

iTrader: (1)

the fact that no other car(as i know of) has this 'quirk' we can safely argue that it's a design flaw...besides, if it was a good thing, every other car would be having it by now..we know how car companies can jump on the bandwagon*hint-shaft cars*

flame or no flames there it goes

Horatio

Thanks mate - much appreciated.

Proficar: you've got to be quick on this thread

Horatio

Never a truer word spoken - well said!!

Boomer

He's not the only other one - As this topic has come up about 4 times in the past two years, I've been a very strong opponent to the unequal throw.

Every single C-carrier that I have has been filed/dremelled/sanded/ground/planed to the same size as the other. It's a stupid "theory" and I don't think it has basis in fact, only to cover a screwup that they just never fixed.

lee82gx

iTrader: (1)

thanks,i guess..for not flaming!!
it's always an open discussion,sometimes we agree sometimes we dont.
i have to say this though:the TC3 is the sweetest ride i've ever had(RC car wise... )this is coming from a Tamiya fan and in a japanese car saturated environment.

Boomer

With that, I will agree.

Horatio

Respect Bro' - this thread is huge and I don't pretend to have read all the pages. Clearly I owe you an apology. Were you there when I was getting flamed on the subject back in September?!! Your words back then would have been most welcome, believe me. ;o)

I agree with your theory - I suspected a tooling oversight that was too costly to warrant changing. Thus the jibberish thoery...IMHO.

Great car though.........

Boomer

I think we both were there in the last iteration.

No disrespect intended - I had a feeling you had just overlooked me (which is sometimes difficult to do - I tend to be out in front like a sore thumb. . . )

Horatio

Boomer:

When I said 'respect bro' I meant that you have my highest regard. Being a Brit, I probably used the term incorrectly in a foolish and laughable attempt to talk in a way that an American person might identify with!!!

BTW, my memory is like a siv! Only the other day, I forgot who I was.

Maybe I just need 'therapy'

speedxl

i dont think its a design flaw but something done intional to save money on production cost if you look at the c blocks they all look the same if you take a o deg block you can install it on the left or the right now take a 4 deg block you can only use it on their intended side because of the caster change all they did was drill a hole in from the opposite side to get a left and a right block because if you look at both the 4r and 4l they look the same until
you look at the direction of the hole that will give the neg caster .

Horatio

clearly it is a design fault - if non handed parts are supposed to be symmetrical - how come the standard 0 degree carriers aren't symmetrical? All the other carriers are handed parts because of the caster.

speedxl

what do you mean handed.
you can use the o blocks left or right as they are the same.