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

Sprocket wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 6:20 pm Exactly, else you are just verifying that vintage cars are just old tech.

That's exactly the point. Running on a vintage track is no different than crippling a modern style car.

A modern, high bite track would allow both cars to reach their full potential.

And if both are running at full potential, the modern car should be faster. The modern car is lighter, has better suspension, as well as a stronger and more efficient drivetrain. The modern car should be faster with the same power but should also have the capability of running even more power.

But throwing them on a vintage track displaces all of that in favor of the 4WD's traction advantage.

Recently there's been a combined vintage and modern race event held on an old-school dirt track.

I compared the lap times between 2WD Stock 17.5T and Pre-96 4WD. The vintage classes use a silver can motor, and you can run any tires.

The 4WD's were slightly faster.

Dirtburner wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:50 pm Recently there's been a combined vintage and modern race event held on an old-school dirt track.

I compared the lap times between 2WD Stock 17.5T and Pre-96 4WD. The vintage classes use a silver can motor, and you can run any tires.

The 4WD's were slightly faster.

Thanks for doing the research. I like the parameters of less power using 17.5 and silver can motor classes. It confirms what many here were suspecting with regard to the traction advantages of different tracks and the respective buggies. This probably applies to pre-1996 4WD buggies as well. 4wD buggy designs start getting a lot better from 1997 onward.

Dirtburner wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:50 pm Recently there's been a combined vintage and modern race event held on an old-school dirt track.

I compared the lap times between 2WD Stock 17.5T and Pre-96 4WD. The vintage classes use a silver can motor, and you can run any tires.

The 4WD's were slightly faster.

Thanks for doing the research. I like the parameters of less power using 17.5 and silver can motor classes. It confirms what many here were suspecting with regard to the traction advantages of different tracks and the respective buggies. This probably applies to pre-1996 4WD buggies as well. 4wD buggy designs start getting a lot better from 1997 onward.

My mate has an old Schumacher Cat SX and if I take my Losi 22. 4.0 out onto the track I can (just about) keep up with him. However, I have to literally drive out of my skin to do it while he can be much more composed and consistent meaning I can put in a really fast lap, comparable to his, but he can put in lap after lap while I struggle because I'm literally driving on the edge all the time.

Put my B74.1 out against his CAT and I can lap almost a second quicker.

I reckon if there were durability upgrades to the vintage 4wd's drivetrain with modern electronics both cars would have a similar pace but if a modern 4wd was the used the vintage car would be massively outpaced. There has been lots of innovation in the past 20 years.

Coincidentally, I did this comparison back in 2017 or so just because it is what I had available . I had a very good track with some very fast sections and also a lot of tight twisty bits. 16 turns in all IIRC. It was mostly short grass with dirt showing in the faster turns. I ran a KF2 (mid motor with the "low grip" conversion that moved the motor back) and a re-re XLS with pro transmission but otherwise stock. Both had the same electronics and 7.5 Reedy. I wasn't trying to do a comparison; I was just running them as hard as I could, making tire and setup changes for the best lap time. It was great fun. I had the Laptrax timing app on an old phone with a bluetooth speaker calling out my lap times.

After hundreds of laps with both cars, the XLS was consistently faster, but only by a few tenths of a second. My fastest laps were in the high 28s for the XLS. I can't remember if I got the KF2 into the 28s or just very low 29s.

A couple of takeaways:

The track was much more suited to the XLS. A British track circa 1987 would have been bumpy, grassy, not a lot of jumps, so the CAT was on home turf. The KF2 was designed for sugar or carpet.

A better driver would have gone faster with the KF2, possibly beating the XLS. I turned down the throttle EPA on the KF2 (in multiple steps) to get it under control, and then back up as I got better at driving and with setup. I eventually landed on ~85% as the limit FOR ME. A better driver would have also been faster with the XLS, but it was set to 100%, so perhaps not as much faster than me as with the KF2. He would have better skill plus more power on the KF2 vs better skill only with the XLS.

All of the suspension changes combined were nothing in comparison to the gain from swapping tires. Even the low grip conversion (the motor and battery swap locations front to back) was less significant than tires. Everyone else probably knew this already, but I had been away for 25 years or so.

Both cars did best on the same tires. Schumacher Mini Spike 2 were the best I tried on either car.

You can see the outline of the track in this aerial real estate photo from when I sold the house.

I hope the track increased the value of the house. I'd consider that a key feature. . That's a cool layout.