When is a 2wd not a 2wd

[Dudders]

Originally Posted by mark christopher

thats NOT what i asked, the poster said 2wd was quicker in the dry, so i asked how many 2wd cars made the 4 wheel drive A final on sunday.

No idea as i cant see the results, i would assume not hard to find out, do you know?. BUT my original comment was across the board, not based on one meeting. We've been running then in 2wd format at our club for some time. Results are amazing.

[Benh]

I wish my 4wd cars went that well when a diff or prop shaft fell off,out or over. Becomes near undrivable at that point.

Die-hard motor-out-the-rear 2WD fans; Collectively drop pocket fulls of sand on the corners when you go out to marshal. It's cheaper than cloud seeding and less obvious than industrial sprinkler systems.

(Disclaimer - I don't advocate cheating unless I can get away with it)

[telboy]

The thing is, I agree with what Jimmy said, Run on dirt tracks again!

They want to run on astro as its 'all weather', so if thats the case why is it when it rains, meetings sometimes get cancelled? Also they're supposed to be low maintenance, It looks to me that on some tracks, maintining astroturf is just as bad as just rolling a dirt track, certainly more efforet and man power required.

I think its wrong to run 4wd as 2wd but if others don't like it then the BRCA just need to state in the rules that there should be no gearbox parts beyond the front half of the chassis, so no driveshafts, no props, no diff. Simple.

But also I hate the fact that staggers are being used on 4wds!! How stupid do they look? Just get a different manufacturer in for the national tyre supplier so you can use things like proline tyres. Surely if drivers are trying to create less grip from the tyres then get a different tyre type voted in? So on high grip astro, use a lower grip tyre thats easier to drive?
Thats what they're doing in rallycross on some high grip astro tracks, they just run dirt tyres.

BUT, if you all want change to the rules the YOU have to turn up at the AGM, otherwise you're all moaning for no end result.

[Vrg1]

Interesting thread I run a 4wd car in 2wd, there are lots of reasons for and against this but is the overall class modified not stock and I don't mean electrics. If the rules where to be change then it would have to be a stock class manufactures cars only no conversions or modified electrics so then it does come down to driver skill. Personally I have got quicker only on track layouts that I know again down to practice but as soon as a track changes no matter what car I am using it takes time for me to get back on pace.

[lardy37]

Just my opinion but 2wd is exactly what it says, and as long as only two wheels are driving or braking then can't see problem but then again I could race 4wd in with 2wd and still loose. It seems to be a bit like formula 1 they develop the cars and play around with things to make the cars faster so they can win a race ( which as far as I know is the whole point of it) then some one else says that's not fair so they ban it we might all as well just go out and buy the new Rc10 gold tub and race them.

[Gnarly Old Dog]

I for one would not like to see regulation stifle innovation since I believe innovation is exciting and often somewhat controversial.

I don't like the current vogue of adapting 4WD cars to run in the 2WD class but before we all leap into the abyss, lets not forget that the meeting was still won by a hugely talented racer driving a 'conventional' 2WD buggy and whilst it raises the unfortunate spectre of having even more different specialist cars, perhaps if complexity and cost is the risk that we perceive, then maybe we also need to look into inserts, tyres and the myriad of those combinations that they can bring?

Can it be controlled? Who knows. I hope it doesn't need to be and whilst I respect SlowOne and the sense he speaks and his contribution over the years to the sport, I believe that it is innovation that maintains and fuels excitement and provides different challenges that need to be overcome and even though my results might improve if we went back to rear motored 2WD cars powered by 1200mAh NiCds and 'hot' 19 turn motors, I'd still trade those improved results for the buzz and thrill that a modern RC car can provide and the grin it gives me.

And yes - a traditional rear motored car DOES still look better so maybe style points should be incorporated and I'm deffo with Jimmy if we can get driver figures reintroduced as a mandatory requirement

[Col]

There seems to be some confusion over the BRCA 1/10 off road definition of modified.

[bigred5765]

Ive said no as I think it gives the driver more time to get the same car dialed in better for Sunday,

[DaveG28]

I actually quite like the single chassis rule, like euro's and worlds...make them choose before 1st practice too!

[jlucas]

Lots of valid points but still only has 2 driven wheels get over it a stop the witch hunt really have you all got nothing better to do?

[scotty_big_flip]

...a 2wd is no longer a 2wd when it says 4x4 on the box :P

[bigchris]

Benetton / Renault f1 team ran a front diff in the car to attempt to control the bias of brake torque and rate at which wheel speeds changed through the corner, banned though, no front driveshafts allowed

As long as there is no front driveshafts or diff I see no problem

[Adam Skelding]

Having been on the receiving end of the question from a couple of team drivers in the weeks before the event at Stotfold my answer was really easy to give to them.
'Are you faster with it?'
I guess this is the same question that the majority of racers supported or not would ask themselves.

For the 'Paying Customer'
If they are and they've shelled out their cash for the car. As long as their car conforms to the current rules, then they should be able to race whatever car they want.

For the 'Pro'
If they are faster and it uses 'off the shelf' parts, then it can be a good advertisement still for the brand. On this surface/track, this car is better than our current 2wd. But come another track, we'll probably be back to normal 2wd cars. (Ozfest for sure) - Although someone will try a 2/4wd I'm sure beforehand on grass.

Watching the finals and listening to feedback from the drivers who ran both of the TD cars (and other cars), it seemed to be down to driver preference, what worked for one, didn't work for others. (Isn't that just like any other set-up change)

I think other people have touched on the subject of the tracks in the UK becoming too 'Astro'. I'm of the same opinion, there's not enough variety of track surface at the moment in the UK. I remember years back, dirt and grass tracks being the norm, some grass tracks turned to dirt, some got wet, we raced.

But, who can blame clubs for laying astro down, they have to consider revenue and making ends meet, for them it the best solution for getting drivers to their clubs on a regular basis. We all can find somewhere to race outdoors over the winter now, even on frozen over tracks, we couldn't do that on dirt or grass.

My honest opinion is that the hobby is evolving, tracks and cars are evolving in a symbiotic fashion. To ban a type of car would be hard to enforce and I think a little rash.

[Origineelreclamebord]

Originally Posted by telboy

I think its wrong to run 4wd as 2wd but if others don't like it then the BRCA just need to state in the rules that there should be no gearbox parts beyond the front half of the chassis, so no driveshafts, no props, no diff. Simple.

This rule means you can't use FWD buggies anymore - and to be honest banning FWD from 2WD I found the most controversial rule ever stated (by the IFMAR) - 2WD means you have two driven wheels, regardless whether that's front, rear or if you can make it work, imo even two left wheels (And I'm not stating this just because I'm developing a FWD buggy myself, it's just ridiculous to make a class then limit it to pretty much one design).

So to state it correctly it would mean stating something like 'There may be no parts powered by the drivetrain further than 50% of the wheelbase away from the driven axles.'


Anyway, to be fair, a rotating mass in the front of the car is a mechanical solution and completely legit. The circumstances were created for that to work well, so it was a matter of time before someone either tested it with success or found that out by accident. It's clever and though a 4WD with narrow wheels doesn't look right, if it stays legal, both small and large manufacturers may look at buggy designs that are like any 2WD but have room in the front end to put a front mounted flywheel into the car. So in the end that leaves you the choice to run it as a conventional 2WD, a 2WD with a front mounted flywheel, and all of that without a car that looks like a cinder block on wheels

Plus, if you ban the use of that, then how about a Losi Hydra drive, or the X-6 flywheels? The added mass of both systems has a similar effect, but in a different position in the car. They are valid developments, and you don't see them on every car... that might mean it doesn't work better unconditionally - the same goes for keeping the front driveline in a 2WD converted 4WD.

Banning is not the right way to do this: It's childish, it removes motivation for true mechanical innovation, it only drives motivation to sneak past that big bible of rules. Before you know it you'll have the biggest discussions about whether you are allowed to add an extra tooth to your diff! Racing is about going quicker, not about politics!

If you don't want 4WDs in the 2WD class, then don't drive on a high traction surface - take the EOS: I really enjoy these events, but the tracks are really something else. It's so different to driving on low-bite that you might just as well develop a car to work solely on such a surface - in the end such tracks are constructed more like touring car tracks with jumps added than anything else (imo)! If you'd drive on low-bite astroturf or clay (without a sugar water coating) it'd be unlikely you'd see these cars.

The summary: A big fat BOO to banning (mechanical) innovations! If you want to keep 2WDs without a front end flywheel, then go drive on low-bite tracks.

PS: Why I mention this particularly for mechanical innovations because I think electronical aids will make budget a big factor to someone's potential pace, plus as the electronics partially take over the driving, it reduces the importance of driver skill and cloaks the room for improvement on the chassis itself. Mechanical aids instead increase the actual amount of grip the car can generate, which is something all drivers benefit from in the same way and doesn't stand in the way of the importance of driver skill.

[RCcool101]

Originally Posted by Jamesk

The simple answer is to amend the rules to limit the distance the motor is allowed to be from the axel line (ie where the driveshafts and diff are).
You would not affect the postion of the motor ie mid or rear engined but would stop extreme front mid engined 2wd's.

The only problem with this is it limits innovation, but innovation does increase costs, not a simple question if you look at it in a bit of detail. Could maybe have a differant weight or limint tyre sizes, but this usually added cost too.

jK

I don't think that Team C TM2 drivers would like that rule!!

I think that may be an issue that you would hold back innovation so maybe the best thing you could do would be to say that you can have no gear housing at the front?

[Hog]

Just my opinion - but I'm against converted 4WD cars running in the 2WD class.

I'd have it written that you can run a front diff in your 4WD chassis in the 2WD class - but as long as the driveshafts are removed and the belt or shaft to that front diff is removed as well.........

[KRob]

The 2wd A final cars on Sat in qualifying order:

1. RB6
2. Centro
3. K1 2wd
4. K1 2wd
5. DEX410 2wd
6. TRF511 2wd
7. TLR 22
8. Centro
9. Cougar SV2
10.Cougar SV2

So 4 'converted' 4wd's in the A.

And for Mark C - there were no 2wd's in the 4wd A on Sunday

[MattW]

Right now, there is no rules that prevent people from doing this - and let's be clear, it is something that has happened (all be it on a much smaller scale) for as long as I can remember. Back in the day, I can remember people breaking their 2wd, and so converting the 4wd so that they could carry on.

Adam's post, is absolutely spot on really IMHO.

If people want this to change, then someone needs to propose a rule change, and get it changed at the AGM - simples.

That said, it would be interesting to see how you could differentiate between say a converted 4wd, and a TM2/DB1 - in a rules sense. Let's be honest, it's the perfomance of these 2 cars that has been one of the "eye openers" for many people and has lead them to convert their 4wd's.

[woOdy]

I voted NO but this is the rule :-

23. CONSTRUCTION RULES - GENERAL
23.1 Two wheel drive cars (2WD) are those having only one pair of driven wheels on the same axle. Either the front or rear axle may be driven. Four wheel drive (4WD) cars are those having all four wheels driven.

Maybe it should say that we can not have a second gearbox in a 2wd car. Dont know how to school this to be honest

[Swiss]

Reading a lot of comments on here, you would think the drivers who are running the 4wd/2wd have something that no one else can get their hands on.
The hobby is evolving all the time, if it didn't we would all still be racing Tamiya Hotshots, in a pub car park.
Why bring in rules that limit that evolution......