Off Set TC3 "O"

[DJ1978]

Playing around yesterday I decided to see if I could set up my TC3 "O" with a chassis Off set for Oval racing.
Stock TC3 suspension on the Left and TC3 "O" Suspension on the right. It offsets the chassis about 3/4"

Is there a need or desire for something like that in Oval racing? I have no base for information in my area. Oval is non existent.

I can post pics if you want to see what it looks like.
Any information would be helpful.
Thanks
Dan

[DJ1978]

I am looking at the pics in the forum and I can see I have a lot to learn about dirt oval.

Questions...

What tires do you run? The rubber tires look like sedan wheels and tires.

Width restrictions? The Offset TC3 "O" suspension widens a stock TC3 by about 3/4"

The TC3 "O" is a 4 wheel drive racing buggy that meets the roar specs dimensionally for a 4 wheel drive buggy. You can See pics at www.rcproductdesigns.com

With the offset set up and Buggy tires on it, it is 8 1/2" wide with a 11" wheelbase. The chassis extension plate could be removed to adjust the wheelbase to a sedan length.

This offset A Arm configuration would work on a stock TC3 Chassis as well with the sedan or foam tires it look like you are using.

I am just looking into this to see if the OVAL racing community would be interested in helping me develop this into a competitive Oval racing 4 wheel drive vehicle that I might market a kit to sell.

Thanks in advance for all you help.
Dan

[93TA]

how wide would it be with the "O" arms on both sides?

[curtisp]

I've seen pics of the TC3 "O" and it looks like a good buggy. I am in the process of setting-up a BJ4 for dirt oval. Post some pics of your TC3"O" when it's finished.

[DJ1978]

The TC3 "O" is right at the maximum width for a 4 wheel drive buggy according to ROAR rules
It is about 9.8" or 250mm

With some input from oval racers...

If there is enough demand I would be willing to make custom A Arms to get it to your maximum width with optimum Offset. The only question would be finding compatible CVD's to use. TC3 on the left and ??? on the right. T3 or T4 maybe would work just fine.
Again, I would need info on the tires and wheels you use to come up with the best configuration.

I also do custom machining for those who might need some done for their cars. I carry 3mm Carbon Fiber in stock as well as Black Delrin and Aluminum for custom machining projects.

Thanks
Dan

[curtisp]

What width are you trying to get it to? Which class at what track are you trying to get it to fit into?

Have checked out the topic about rules that has been discussed this week?

Hopefully, we might have a common set of rules posted somewhere that tracks will be able to choose if they wish to use those or not. That would make questions like your easier to answer.

With my BJ4, the width will be fine at my track and it will fit under a late model body.

[93TA]

dan...

from my experience, most tracks either require them to be touring car widht or right around there, say 8.25 max wide... OR they allow them to be as wide as 10". to me i think your market would be more along the lines of those that allow the wider versions, and that being the case i would say it would be best not to use 2 different size arms, but rather stick w/ the "O" arms and make it to work work with shorter shocks/ shock towers to fit under a late model body. from my experience cars offset by short arm/long arm method are not usually very succesful.

[DJ1978]

CurtisP
I am not trying to fit into any class. There is no oval racing in my area.
I just thought the TC3 "O" with off set arms would be a good combination for the oval racing. I looked in topics about rules and found 9 1/2" was the limit for a big event that was held.

93TA
Thank you for the input. What is the problem with different length arms?? What does it do to the car handling?
I am also developing a dual deck Carbon Fiber chassis TC3 "O". I could actually cut an Offset chassis and keep the arms equal length.

[93TA]

dan,

i cant say for sure what exactly the problem is, but i have seen guys do it numerous times w/ different combinations and w/ the exception of 1 car, all the others just never handled well.

i suspect the main problem is that it is harder to set them up... since the same shock on both sides has no where near the same effect since they are in different locations with different length "levers" pushing up on them. not saying you dont run the shocks different on the left and right for oval, but the different size arms just seem to put things way out of whack from the get go. i'm sure it can work, i just dont think the average joe can get it to work as good as an equal length arm car.

by the way... is it possible to use the o arms and stuff on a ntc3? or better yet... make a nitro version of the tc3o... i'd love to have one of those to run in our nitro late model class.

[Doug Carter]

Solid axles cars can benefit with offset setups well, but the different rates that change in the shocks and linkage geometries on cars with 2 different length arms tend to be, as Larry said, rather unpredictable and difficult to setup.

BMI had done a one-off WAY offset chassis for TC3s to be used on carpet ovals, and the car worked fairly well. He never produced the chassis for various reasons, but it was symmetrical suspension with the battery hung way outside the left side. There are pictures on the forums here, somewhere.

FWIW, in my experience, dirt oval cars do not benefit a lot from heavy left side offset for a few reasons. Cars that have always been fast have always been relatively neutral in balance with few exceptions. Just keeping the battery pack on the left side is a big plus for any car like this. When you get too much weight on the left side, the car becomes a real handful if you ever need to correct right, or make right moves in traffic, which does happen a lot.

I love the layout of your car, as the BJ4, but I honestly think that your car with TC shocks still on it would be really fast on an oval, just as it sits.