I know it's a TC but what do you recon?
 

If the layout works on a TC there's no reason it wont on a buggy.

Attachment 5195

this layout is already being used on the Losi JRXS type R TC! i used it with NiMh and was hard to get weight transfer left to right but with LiPo you can put the weight on the edge of chassis to acheive this, i reckon it could be a winner!

looks good!

Paul

I fell that losi made too many compromises to achieve there central layout(big diffs, short wishbones) With this car, because its conversion from the T2 009, the basics will be right. I dare say it will need some roll center changes. Should be good with high grip.

hi,
i think this kind of chassis laoyout is very cool.
And here is a projekt that uses this on a 2wd
http://www.oople.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1574

Till

hpi did it was it pro3?

Good old pro 3 :D
http://www.rcracing.com/images/hpi-pro3+logo.jpg

Looking good Adam, I ran the Pro3 when I was working for Mirage, my one had all the Hara bits on it and had an RRP of about £600!

But the pro 3 had the short arms and wide diff like the Losi it was a pain to set up!

I saw Adams car at the Petit, it looks like it will work to me!

I loved that car i had my best results with it!!!

Should work great. A lot of the older type 4WD buggies had a lay-out like this. Kyosho Lazer etc.

I think it looks cool. I think the introduction of lipo will change how people are using the weight distribution in the car.

BTW The Team magic E4 also has the batts down the middle, although it has a 3 belt system

I've got one. Lots of nice ideas on it! I could never make it go.

I saw that car at the Petit RC race too and I don't like the route for the belt. You shouldn't have any tensioner or pulley on the loaded part of the belt. I know X-Factory have done that in the X-5 but it doesn't make it right and it doesn't matter as much in Buggies.

As for the Pro3, it had long wishbones and shorts driveshafts, which meant the driveshafts were popping out while cornering. Besides it was as stiff as a chewing gum, unless you had a carbon fiber chassis for it.

Other than that this layout makes for a very safe car, very good in mod back in the days, but not so sure at the present moment as we seem to be looking for more and more steering.

I might regret this statement if proved wrong but I dont think the tensioner is on the loaded side on an X5.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but the belt goes around the motor does it not? And both the bit that goes to the front diff and the one that runs from it. so the belt has to be wrapped around the motor with pulleys.

To be honest I've not paid much attention to the X-5, all I could remember, and that was from quite a while back, is that the belt had a strange routing which I didn't like.

I believe the X-5 uses similar belt routing to the XXX-S and XXX-4

if this is the case then the tensioner is on the 'correct' side, anyone that has ever tried to use reverse on a XXX-S or XXX-4 will know that the belt skips like a crazy thing, and yet when its driven forwards its perfectly fine.


the reason it has a strange routing is because its single belt and is required to get enough belt/pulley wrap to get any drive to the belt.

Yes I know all that I've designed two single belt cars myself... What I was on about is that in my memories the X-5 (and bear in mind that could well have been a very early prototype) had the belt going around the motor both ways. Now I've had a look and I can see that the motor isn't anywhere near the belt on the production car.

I think your right

I have never seen the motor anywhere near the centre of the car on any X-5, its always been hanging out the side of it. :eh?:

Not thing of this thing are you? http://www.iq-tuning.ch/en/4wdmki-4.html

If so defo NOT an X5 ;)