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

.....................................................

I have yet to hear one good thing about the performance of the MIP RC10 4WD conversion. It's a wonder that they are worth so much. I guess it's mostly for the novelty and rareness.

everything i've read said the mip 4x kits werent really that great. i'm sure a yz10 would womp a mip 4x rc10.

Well the conversion was good enough to get Mike Christensen into the A final at the 87 Worlds, beating all but one of the Yokomos. Very rare to find and for 10 years was the only all American 4wd.

It made a great handling car, the rear motor making it easy to drive, it was also cheaper than buying a separate 4wd car. There were several versions, first with chain drive then with belt drive.

The downside to them was that you required some decent engineering skills to fit it into the RC10, everything needed to be lined up properly to get it to work correctly so needed accurate drilling.

I'll post a scan of a review of one later.

Just from experience, I prefer shaft drive. I assume belt systems would be lighter on the motor/engine but shafts usually don't get rocks stuck in them and they are more durable.

I am not knocking belts. That is my experience with one belt car and several shaft models. I am sure the newer belt cars are tougher than what I had and better protected from road debris. You probably can't go wrong with either.

I agree with Tadracket, shafts over belts. I've had two XXX4's, they're great cars, but little stones can get caught inside the belt, also they can stretch and frey and slip off their wheels.

It depends on whose shaft drive your talking about. the TC3 is a very efficient shaft drive with as little moving parts as possible while shaft drives from tamiya are overly complex with seven thousand gears going every which way.

As for the MIP 4X kit. When these first came out, competitive 4wd buggies were almost non existant. By the time MIP came out with their last evolution, the legends kit, several manufacturers had caught up and were producing killer 4wd buggies.

The only reason I see against shafts (TC3) style is the orientation of the moter. By the torque during acceleration your car tends to veer off to one side.
I think that's why the touring class is now steering back towards belts in the most recent designs.

That's all I have to add: all the above is correct

Mr. ED wrote:The only reason I see against shafts (TC3) style is the orientation of the moter. By the torque during acceleration your car tends to veer off to one side.
I think that's why the touring class is now steering back towards belts in the most recent designs.

That's all I have to add: all the above is correct

I built an extended T-Maxx when the Ofna .26 was released and had the same problem. Boy would that thing haul though. All shafts took the beating well but the tranny ate itself

Predators have an awesome transmission!

G

I ran a TC3 with a brushless motor and raced in parking lots and didn't have any torque issues at all. I'll take a shaft car over a belt any day, simply because you never get your car messed up mid-race due to it failing or getting something caught in it.

i'd rather have a shaft drive than belt drive. my tc3 was much better than my street weapon.

the only thing i didn't like about the tc3 was i'd always get little stones stuck in the steering rack while driving. anyone else have that problem?

Yeah, I wasn't a big fan of the TC3's tub style chassis. I had a double deck cf plate chassis on mine that was much better, like a Tamiya or Yokomo style. No rock problems with that setup, they just slide right off the side of the chassis. I can't remeber who made that chassis, I wish I had kept that car now, it was so sweet.

............................

ya, there was a few real nice aftermarket chassis' for the tc3.