EricF

Pre-Ordered from nowhere... without a part number you can not order anything. He can however make a deposit with his LHS for the car when a part number is given to distributors.

E

EricF

Have you read any other pages in this thread?
E

TexRacer

iTrader: (70)

Tony-Where do you get your info man?lol.Your killing me here.

Fact: Since we are comparing cars the Pro 4 and the R 40, the drivers that picked up those cars locally got less competitive.

You have guys faster on carpet with a Pro3 than a Pro4?
You have guys faster on ANY surface with a Older Nitro Version of RS4 over a R40?
Come on now man.Let's get real.
Fact-I think your needing some Meds and BAD.

Goodluck Racing Tony.Just wish your info was more a lil more truthful and backed with personal knowledge.

rovic

imo,
i don't believe losi is going back to graphite, i hope the production will be molded.

HB=and as for weight, in touring car (and almost any R/C) weight is your friend... lighter is not always better / dremeling the chassie could also be to induce flex

Tonywest=are you kidding me. indians are the only real americans, were all just immigrants... think about it / truely...

sorry guys had to vent,

rovic

imprsme

iTrader: (91)

I wish some of these ppl would take the time to actually read this forum before they waste space!


Straight for them man, Hodge- The car will be a Carbon fiber plate chassis! Geez how many times does it take for you ppl to let it sink in!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The car in the pictures is a 90% production car.

mwcet8k

Uhh...that was the point of my post. Kyosho does well in classes in which Losi does not compete. The last time Kyosho tried to compete directly with Losi (in electric off road) they got spanked badly, eventually gave up and have focused only on "non-Losi" classes since.

Erlend

And the 10% remaining are the shocks!

DA_cookie_monst

iTrader: (1)

he he, thats funny, do you REALLY think Kyosho actively race in other classes that Losi don't!!!! so sad.

Jarrod Langlois

iTrader: (1)

Guys check with your LHS they should be able to get in touch with their supplier and get the info they need.
If you need some help pm me and I will see what I can do.
The part numbers should be available anytime to your LHS

rovic

how bout this,
i wish the new car had a molded chassie.

impssu=im sorry to have wasted your space on this public forum of opinion and disscussion. ill let my ppl know that we are out of line.

EricF

Did you read what you wrote? Or should I say do you really believe what you wrote?

Maybe we should just call you mister 'button pusher'. Cause saying things like that you must just be trying to instigate something.

E

Rovic... Whoa....Do you have some ID?

rovic

LOL,
thanks e; reedy flash back / baby steps - remember baby steps...

i with losi the best of luck at the worlds, (bias) i hope bk wins - hes due...

gee-dub

iTrader: (1)

here are my .02.

moving the motor towards the front will smooth out the cars steering (twitchiness) at speed as the farther away from the pivot point (center between the rear tires) the motor is, the bigger part the resistance to changing direction (i believe this would be centrifugal force) will be.

the shorter arms by themselves has no practical bearing on camber rise/gain other than to make changes more sensitive, and very little impact on how stiff/soft the suspension can be. the only 'stiffness' would be the mechanical friction caused by the tire scrub (track width change during suspenion movement) vs. less scrub/long arm, which is mostly negated by the fact the car is in motion with toe typically being ran in the rear anyway.

overall, i'm just excited that something other than another 'standard shaft layout' car is coming out (don't get me wrong, i've ran a tc3 for years now).

Griffin

Thought I'd throw my hat in the ring, mostly out of boredom at work, but in the ring none the less.

I think the new car looks pretty sweet. Although I have yet to see one in person, I really like that TL is at the very least TRYING to do somthing original. Ugly? I don't think so, but then again, who cares? If it's faster, more durable, cheaper, easier to work on, or offers any other tangable benefits, what self respecting racer cares about looks?

I do have to go against the grain a little on the CF plate chassis however. While I'm sure there are plenty of good reasons that TL has decided to go this route (most likely cost effectiveness and ease of manufacturing - which are two very valid reasons IMO) I still would have liked to see them release this car as another fully enclosed, tub chassis sedan. True, the enclosed belts made things a little tougher to work on, and it's quite possible that they couldn't get the weight distribution right had they gone that route (since that seems to be the primary design theme behind the car.) Still, I really like the tweak resistance that tub chassis offer and the fact that they can be made with variable cross sections to enhance rigidity in desired, high stress sections.

On the flip side, I think the shorter arms are a fantastic addition. For those of you debating like Cheney and Edwards (a great debate for those of you who missed it ) about the assumed advantages/disadvantages that the shorter arms will provide, it would seem to me as though you don't quite have enough information for any type of meaningful discourse. A TC has to be looked at as a system, all aspects of which influence it's response under any given set of conditions. Perhaps the shorter arms were designed in to decrease breakage due to collisions. Perhaps they were designed in out of necessity as the offset of the drive train, mandated by the component placement, left little room for arms to stay inside of width restrictions. Perhaps they were designed in to make the handling to be more/less agressive after some track testing of an original proto showed how the 'weight in the middle' design really responded. The point is, there are simply too many factors to take into consideration to make a worthwhile guess at how the arms will affect overall performance or why.

In the end, Losi has introduced a completley new sedan filled with innovation. Sure some of it looks familiar, but nobody's calling the new Mercedes a Tucker just because it has 'road tracking headlights.' Innovation should be applauded in this industry as long as it's true innovation as opposed to releasing a new kit with minor refinements every 3 month in hopes of selling more kits. In this case, it's the former, and I welcome it. Without it, we would still be driving pan cars.

EricF

Have you read some of the posts in here?? I don't think some of these guys are old enough to vote yet.

Relax... just making jokes!
E