RC10Talk - The Net's Largest Vintage R/C Community

CamplinP wrote:It looks like the F117 Stealth fighter. I don't mind it. Flat black would be great but hard to keep paint on and your visibility thing goes out the window.

sorry but that profile reminds me of my dog just before i reach for the scoopa bags
and hate is such an over used word why dont we save it for scumbags muggers and rapist im sure the dog taking a cr#p image got my opinion across

thank-you for asking

Paul

Not a big fan of it....they should have called it the "bull frog" as that is what it looks like to me.

treehugger wrote:

CamplinP wrote:It looks like the F117 Stealth fighter. I don't mind it. Flat black would be great but hard to keep paint on and your visibility thing goes out the window.

sorry but that profile reminds me of my dog just before i reach for the scoopa bags
and hate is such an over used word why dont we save it for scumbags muggers and rapist im sure the dog taking a cr#p image got my opinion across

thank-you for asking

Paul

Could be that too. I was trying to be the good cop and give the guy a break. That body would work on any Traxass vehicle though.

Honest opinion? Cab forward is an ugly fad (I don't buy the lower lap times for a second) in any scale.

fredswain wrote:Honest opinion? Cab forward is an ugly fad (I don't buy the lower lap times for a second) in any scale.

Exactly my thoughts when this subject appeared several months ago in another thread. To hell with lap time claims, this can be easily enough proven/disproved simply by running the car in controlled experimental conditions, not the myriad of variables that is offroad lap times.

Drive the car indoors (no wind, no temperature changes) in a straight line for a specific distance on a freshly charged battery--with the fugly body, and with a seemingly more aerodynamic body--several trials and average them and compare the results.

Cab-forward designs were first used in 1:1 cars by Chrysler with their LHS/Intrepid models. At least in those examples, the cab-forward meant a more gently-sloped windshield angle and less angle between the hood and the windshield, which actually WOULD improve airflow...and interior head-room. The so-called cab-forward design of these buggies is not equivalent to that, it's basically just shoving the angular cockpit forward. If they wanted airflow improvements, they would've only had to make the front upper body & cockpit area more tear-drop-shaped...which is the case with the Chrysler designs.

"The reaction of people to the cab forward design has been extreme. Some love the looks, other hate them and go as far as saying they are the ugliest things they've ever seen"


Ummm...err..uh...*urp*.. *bleccccch!* ...

I would be part of that crowd...

But,...to each his own.

They're not going for airflow improvements, it's a race body, not a 1:1 car where gas mileage and wind noise are a concern. They are changing where the downforce is distributed on the car. The windshield is more upright and further forward, placing more downforce on the front half of the car.

I didn't like the bulldog when it came out, but it's growing on me. Nobody liked the Losi 8ight 2.0T body when it came out either, but every other company has gone to that style now.

With things like this all I can think of is how these are "toy cars" not formula one, give me a break. These ugly arse bodies aren't going to help make someone a better driver by any means. But different strokes for different folks makes the world go around.

markt311 wrote:They're not going for airflow improvements, it's a race body, not a 1:1 car where gas mileage and wind noise are a concern.

Improving gas mileage and wind noise...airflow improvements...hmmm...wouldn't those be equivalent performance-enhancing results? Sorry, I just don't buy that claim, I'm afraid.

Coelacanth wrote:

markt311 wrote:They're not going for airflow improvements, it's a race body, not a 1:1 car where gas mileage and wind noise are a concern.

Improving gas mileage and wind noise...airflow improvements...hmmm...wouldn't those be equivalent performance-enhancing results? Sorry, I just don't buy that claim, I'm afraid.

I can tell you that the JC cab forward t4 shell is way better in overall handling in every place over the highflow with the exception of the low speed sections of the track, and I have the laptime sheets to prove it. Areo is a real part of an rc car, in some types as important as tires.

it looks like a Geo Metro or some kinda hatchback sub compact car body

Coelacanth wrote:

markt311 wrote:They're not going for airflow improvements, it's a race body, not a 1:1 car where gas mileage and wind noise are a concern.

Improving gas mileage and wind noise...airflow improvements...hmmm...wouldn't those be equivalent performance-enhancing results? Sorry, I just don't buy that claim, I'm afraid.

No comment, mama always told me "never argue with an idiot, they have more practice"

Have a nice day,
Love, Mark

markt311 wrote:

Coelacanth wrote:

markt311 wrote:They're not going for airflow improvements, it's a race body, not a 1:1 car where gas mileage and wind noise are a concern.

Improving gas mileage and wind noise...airflow improvements...hmmm...wouldn't those be equivalent performance-enhancing results? Sorry, I just don't buy that claim, I'm afraid.

No comment, mama always told me "never argue with an idiot, they have more practice"

Have a nice day,
Love, Mark

Your "no comment" is indeed a comment, and you're practicing pretty well. If you think I'm an idiot, you're sorely mistaken--mama's comments notwithstanding.

I find i interesting that it is being sold as an aerodynamic benefit when most current cars have bodies that end at the rear shock towers which stick straight up into the airflow. Then they place the wing down low behind the shock tower where it isn't all that effective due to turbulence off of the shocks. That's just lots of rear drag which actually does contribute to rear downforce however that force is slowing the rear down rather than pushing it down. So to compensate the front needs more downforce??? The higher and farther back a rear wing is placed, the more effective it is. You start to get into other issues though and yes looks is one of them. I would argue that one of the most aerodynamic RC bodies ever made for off road, despite it's size, was the original JRX2 body which enclosed the rear shocks. Of course there is lots of turbulence off of the front shocks and open wheel car design suffers from high drag of airflow over suspension components anyways.

Back in the day some of us ran a front wing if we wanted front downforce at the expense though of straight line speed. Tracks back then were very loose and much slower and you needed the added downforce for traction. Todays tracks are much faster and if the added downforce in front is needed then I'd argue that it is a bandaid to other issues.

I'm no expert, but I have a hard time believing a toy car that may max out between 25-30mph in dirt (considering jumps, turns, traction loss, etc.) will enjoy any aerodynamic benefit whatsoever...or at least much.

Does anyone take into account the aero drag of the tires, arms, shock towers, shocks?..hmm, so a funny looking body makes it go faster?

What about the constantly varying degree/angle of the rear wing? Wouldn't it cause drag off the jumps if the car wasn't perfectly level?

I'd understand if a parachute was strapped to the back of it might slow it down a bit...but come on, really?

On something this small, with so many variables in regards to track conditions, driving style, etc...I'm calling B.S....& just a ploy to sell a unique body by Proline.

Hot Rod Magazine promoted the "Dare to be Different" concept awhile back, this just a chance to do it on a smaller scale.