speedy_w_beans 4272 Posted January 3, 2014 Buggy aesthetics went downhill after the 58050 Wild One... everything else since doesn't rate a mention I agree. What real world vehicle is an Avante, Astute, Super Astute, or Top Force, etc. modeled after? If the focus is on aesthetics, the SRBs and FAV are where it's at. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy_w_beans 4272 Posted January 3, 2014 Please excuse me when I disagree on that one. The understeer comes from the DT-02 being a RWD buggy and from the initial steering and front suspension setup recommended in the manual. The former can be adressed by adjusting one's own driving style from 4WD to RWD. The latter can be easily fixed by adjusting the steering rods for toe-out, by choosing the correct front tires for the surface you want to drive on, and by adjusting the front oil dampers, ride height and weight on the front bulkhead to give the car a slight nod towards oversteer. For more adjustments in the steering department, one would have to choose a RWD buggy with a more sophisticated steering system (RC10B4 and pretty much any other typical RWD buggy of today that was designed to mimic this one). I used to have a Sand Viper, but I still have my B4. They are worlds apart in steering and overall performance. Mash the throttle on both of them, and the B4 will outsteer the Sand Viper easily. I agree you can improve a Sand Viper, but it will never be a B4 due to fundamental design and material issues. One of the common modifications to help a Sand Viper is to add more ballast weight up front; the same effect can be achieved with a more cab forward shell without the weight penalty of the ballast itself, which keeps the steering more responsive. That's really the point I was trying to make. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GregM 1109 Posted January 3, 2014 I agree with the different steering systems. Still, the DT-02 isn't that bad in steering as some say, as most people do not care to do a proper steering setup. Even just light adjustments of the track rods make a major difference. As pointed out before, the track rod setup from the manual makes the car very tame and easy to use for inexperienced drivers. At some point, most people will want to tune them for more responsive steering. There's no initial need for buying other parts, if you drive this chassis mainly offroad (where it belongs to). At least the DT-02 doesn't have that bumpsteer issue found on it's inofficial predecessor, the Bear Hawk/Blitzer chassis. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikef350 10 Posted January 3, 2014 Imho cab to the rear Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
94eg! 834 Posted January 3, 2014 Aren't RC cars called cars because they look like... cars? Vintage buggies look realistic, why would you want to race something that looks like a bar of soap? The modern stuff looks ridiculous' stuff performance! No. They are called cars because they have 4 wheels. This thread is like listening to a strict Nascar fans talk about Formula 1 or Le Mans. Almost comical. The only two (or three) guys who have actual experience and make any sense whatsoever, get completely ignored. Someone should flush this dumb thread already. If you don't understand the chassis development process, you probably shouldn't proclaim anything about it. Cars get developed in a certain direction because pro drivers are the quickest with that setup for a given condition within the rules PERIOD! There really isn't much more to it than that. Win on Sunday, sell on Monday. Now that I think about it, I take it back about Nascar fans. Those cars are extremely developed within their rule set, and the die-hard fans probably know ALL about it and wouldn't have any trouble understanding extreme high-tech racing. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mokei Kagaku 2706 Posted January 3, 2014 Remember how crappy the DT02 Sand Viper steering is? Try a cab-forward shell on it, or even a Leonis shell on it, and I bet you'll feel the difference right away as more downforce gets applied to the front wheels. With all due respect, but I think one single word is right for this: placebo-effect. I'm not saying that cab-forward design bodies aren't an improvement in the evolution of RC buggy design, and for the best drivers, small improvements like this of course make a difference as the margins are so small. However, for the vast majority of drivers, the difference is so minute that it won't make a noticeable or significant difference, but believing it does of course helps. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SteveU30 1011 Posted January 3, 2014  With all due respect, but I think one single word is right for this: placebo-effect. I'm not saying that cab-forward design bodies aren't an improvement in the evolution of RC buggy design, and for the best drivers, small improvements like this of course make a difference as the margins are so small. However, for the vast majority of drivers, the difference is so minute that it won't make a noticeable or significant difference, but believing it does of course helps. You took the words right out of my mouth, I was just thinking 'placebo effect' as I read through the thread. It's like when you put Redex in your 1:1 fuel tank or fit a 'performance K&N air filter', 99% of it is in your head as you want it to have made a difference. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wooders28 4723 Posted January 3, 2014 At the risk of abuse,i have never associated tamiya with racing buggys! (i can hear the teeth grinding already!) In my racing days,you bought a schumacher procat,optima mid etc for your race car not a sand scorcher, subaru brat or bigwig.You had those as your first car,your bashers and to be honest had just as much,if not more fun with those,partly because they actually looked like cars you have seen in real life.Lap times dont matter too much to a teenager RC bashing in the woods with a few mates jumping tree stumps.I am guessing i lot of people on here started their RC addiction in much the same way,which is why the RE market is big and why its a land slide victory for the proper bodied cars! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yello 6 Posted January 4, 2014 Here's the Basher's POV, namely, mine: I have the RC8.2e RTR 1/8 buggy and it has relatively short shock towers and comes stock with cab-rearward (?) shell. The difference I notice between that and a cab-forward shell is that the cab-forward shell wil be destroyed in no time with all the off-jumps and upside-down landings that I often do, and that is because the cab/shell ends up being above the impact line set by the shock towers. With the stock shell on the RTR version of the RC8.2, I don't have to worry about the shell being destroyed. Granted in a crash or flipover, the shock towers take the scrape instead, but I often shoogoo those things anyway, so I don't really have to worry about scratches either. They are protected. I like the looks of cabforward shells, though. But it depends on the particular shell. All modern RC is beautiful to me. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeekelemental 528 Posted January 4, 2014 IMO, this 3d went OT only after 2 or 3 replies. The Topic isn't about performance, only about aesthetic. :-/ 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mastino 1085 Posted January 4, 2014 I prefer the classic forms of the old-fashioned buggy. But... unfortunately, the actual buggies often offer "cab forward" solutions. For example: my "old style" RCR 2wd (TC02 clone) and "new" TeamC TC02 EVO; just 6mm longer chassis and new body... cab forward. To make me love I had to mount the tamiya big bore In any case I love" the curves" of the buggy of the 80's. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sidewaysdave69 188 Posted January 4, 2014 steveU30 I have a 'performance K&N air filter' thing is mines did make a difference as the old air intake was to small for the remap. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SteveU30 1011 Posted January 4, 2014 steveU30 I have a 'performance K&N air filter' Â thing is mines did make a difference as the old air intake was to small for the remap. Ha ha, I'm sure it was necessary in your case, I was more so talking about kids with 1.0l engines that swear they can feel the 10bhp gain that the filter gives (according to their mates) 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grastens 2795 Posted January 4, 2014 Now that I think about it, I take it back about Nascar fans. Those cars are extremely developed within their rule set, and the die-hard fans probably know ALL about it and wouldn't have any trouble understanding extreme high-tech racing. ... Er, thank you? When I see cab-forward bodies, though, it appears all relative, since they do not appear that much so to me most of the time. To original bodies, however, they are... I guess I keep expecting the cab to be right in the middle of the front shock tower. But aerodynamic advantages exist with real cars and cab configurations; why I never remembered that in this thread is beyond me. I am not sure a cab-backward stalwart like Panoz in ALMS could exist once cab-forward chassis are optimized for racing; by then everybody will have changed over... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kontemax 1725 Posted January 4, 2014 The problem is not the cab forward. The problem are dog designers. Here a cab forward car that is beautiful: http://www.tamiyaclub.com/showroom_model.asp?cid=1533&sid=24 Max 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kontemax 1725 Posted January 4, 2014 Here another one: http://www.tamiyaclub.com/pictureframe.asp?t=n&id=img30876_16112013145023_2.jpg Max 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kontemax 1725 Posted January 4, 2014 Another one!!! http://www.tamiyaclub.com/pictureframe.asp?t=n&id=img35903_11052013150659_2.jpg Max Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grastens 2795 Posted January 4, 2014 Not many fans are around of the Thundershot, it seems, but all are very sharp-looking buggies! Unfortunately, none of them made it into racing of any consequence unless an archive or two can prove that incorrect... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sidewaysdave69 188 Posted January 4, 2014 you have got to love the fire dragon and thunder dragon. don't forget the manta ray Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
94eg! 834 Posted January 4, 2014 The problem with small 10th scale cars is that aerodynamics do NOT scale along with them. What works on a 1:1 does not work on a 1:10. Therefore aerodynamically functional bodies will NOT look much like 1:1 bodies. This is why touring car bodies have a giant air-dam at the back for a wing and nearly concave windshields. For racers, bodies are just another tuning tool to help maximize traction and reduce lap times. In touring car you have high downforce bodies with varying degrees of F/R balance. This changes how the car fundamentally behaves at high speed vs your low speed suspension setup. In order of high-speed bias from more Front to more Rear: - Protoform R9-R - Protoform P37-R - Protoform LTC-R - Protoform Mazdaspeed 6 - Protoform Mazda 6 Depending on the track layout, a driver may want more rear bias at high speed (like off throttle high-speed sweepers). To tune high vs low speed handing, it must be done with downforce because suspension settings don't care what speed your traveling. This means you can setup a car to be extremely loose in low-speed corners, yet very tight in high speed corners. And yes the body & wing setup have a MAJOR impact at speed. If you're driving at the edge of traction at all times, it's all about optimizing the front vs rear grip for all conditions. This makes the car easier to drive on the edge of traction, and can actually help increase overall traction over the course of 1 lap. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GregM 1109 Posted January 4, 2014 For touring cars, I'm willing to accept believing those Protoform bodies have an influence on performance. For most of today's buggy designs, I dare to doubt that they've been gone through actual aerodynamic tests. Only a few may have been tested by their manufacturers, while the competition and low end market buggies are just mimicking designs without testing. I would like to hear the opinions of racers about this thought. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yello 6 Posted January 5, 2014 IMO, one of the sexiest 1/8 buggies, the Serpent 811: And here it is again with a cabforward shell next to it: Now how about that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
super gripper 419 Posted January 5, 2014 Lets all remember forward cab body shells are not new !!! Tamiya did it first and everyone said how ugly they were ....... Thundershot among others ....................... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
super gripper 419 Posted January 5, 2014 For touring cars, I'm willing to accept believing those Protoform bodies have an influence on performance. For most of today's buggy designs, I dare to doubt that they've been gone through actual aerodynamic tests. Only a few may have been tested by their manufacturers, while the competition and low end market buggies are just mimicking designs without testing. I would like to hear the opinions of racers about this thought. Forward cab body shells do work very well on race cars, doesn't mean I like them but my TRF201 Vega works alot better with a forward cab body shell. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites