Group b rally cars were short so the rear end would transfer its rear quicker
Same principle aplies here in theory but its not a direct comparison
A longer car is safer to drive as its lazy
You can also set a shorter car up softer
I think the tm2 v2 all round is a better car as when i had a go with a tm2 it felt too lazy imo a bit dull really
I run a c4.2 as its just as quick as a tm2 for one lap but you know your driving it which means a shorter chassis is what a tm2 actually needs

You know your driving it? What???:eh?:

Random, you judged a car on 'a go' you had :woot:

Yes i had a go with a very well setup car (v1)im not putting the v2 down at all
But i suppose thats why i like a midmotor car rather than foward motor
I like a challenge to drive if your not having fun you shouldnt do it and a mid motor on grass on a summers day is defo more fun than a forward motor
I mean you know your driving it as theres a edge where it handles really well then bang its sideways which is fun
Tm2 dosent do that
By the way you can get a feel for a car with a go
I am potential tm2 v2 owner

Mainly because the rear of the car is based of the TM4 which runs 14mm hex wheels, and the 12mm hexes from the old cars don't fit the new axles

Sorry mate, just corrected your statement...

It all looks alike.
But a xray wil never be a teamC :)

Thank god for that!!

Theres no like button but i like that comment

have gat a XB4 and a TM4 and the TM4 handles a lot better and more predictably IMO.
Loved the XRay until the TM4 took it another stage.

.....says the guy with a schumacher sig, lmfao

Here's mine
 

Here's mine with its new shell, superbly painted by Mike at Number5designs.
Great car, loving it so far. :thumbsup:


http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/r...pscvxqxdrg.jpg

http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/r...psdbihmn65.jpg

Looking sweet buddy. Very nice.

Really pleased with my v2 and surprised how well it goes in the wet. Managed to qualify A2 at a very soggy southport on Sunday running schumacher silvers on the rear as well. I'm using Tco2c flat rear wishbones with the shocks mounted at the back

I agree Joel,

I've tried the tc02c which is almost a dedicated low grip car and still find myself going back to the TM2v2 in the wet as despite lacking a little rear grip in comparison it just feels more alive and less pushy.

I've not even tried anything as radical as running shocks on the rear yet I just move the wheelbase from long to medium and run 3.5deg toe and it's excellent.


What's the idea with running the tc02c rear arms?


Chris

I did the same thing when I had the rb6 I found it keeps it flatter in the corner. Definitely an improvement for me in high grip, kit arms probably would be better in low grip

I've tried the shocks on the back and found it a bit lazy but granted I've changed my piston set up since so will need to test more, the biggest change I've made is getting a carbon chassis and front top deck made by fibrelyte +8 mm longer it just adds that stability the short chassis didn't have without sacrificing any steering.
Also running 2x1.6 front and 3x1.5 pistons made a big difference

Are you running big bores? I felt small bores made the car more lively and agile

No not needed to. And I didn't like them at all. Big bores soak up jumps and bumps better imoand the car certainly doesn't need making even more lively!

Anyone know what this front wing is or was it a custom made one?