Pan cars have been around since what...the mid to late 70's? Since then lots of changes have come and gone....but for the most part, the one they that has always been required is the SOLID Rear Axles.

Is it time for OVAL cars to eVOLVE into a more tunable car?

Now that we have low maintenance Batteries and Motors...and LOTS of time for Chassis Tuning, along with some awesome design engineers...can you see a Light Weight/ High Tech FULL SUSPENSION 2wd OVAL CAR?

Would it be a A Arm style rear suspension? Maybe a trailing arm?

Can a trailing arm system be designed with a floating ball pivot that would still let a SOLID axle work?

Lots of guys design NEW pods, but they still do the SAME THING!... When is this going to change?


















xyz

That's a cool Idea, But I would think that for Carpet, the rear suspension would/could absorb to much output power, and cornering momentum to make it "As Fast"...

That's just an off the top of my head, read the post a second ago, maybe I should think about it more Statement....if you will....:o

I don't think it's needed on Carpet...hell I bet those old ORIGINAL RC10L front ends are still Plenty on RUG! LOL

Ahhh, Velo???

If you guy's make those frontends work that you use, It would probably make the whole car more stable in the rear as well....:confused:

I guess you could try getting ahold of an old Direct Drive CW Set-up from a Dominator or something and give it a whirl...

Get in touch with Mike Valentine, this sounds like something right up his alley...He used to be an old Dirt oval king with the CWs....

...Bill, how about keeping the solid axle...but figuring out a way to get more RR camber! There HAS to be a way

There is, True the tire with a taper....

does that work? I've heard of guys doing it, but it's hard to do w/ my old MaxMod

I've never intentially tried it, but the Hudy truers, you can adjust that....My daughter screwed with the knob once, but I wasn't paying attention, rear end stuck all the way into the wall.....:freak:

Go EDM racing...done.

I would like to try some new stuff, but I like the realism and the simplicity of straight axle. Every REAL oval car uses them, so why not us?

I've got a DD Custom Works Intimidator! But you can't use Pan Car tires on it...but I've thought about it! LOL

Yes, see Team Cobra. They make adapters!

I am sure that other set-ups might handle better, but it's hard to beat the efficiency of a straight axle.

But, I always wanted to see a car with the motor on the chassis (sprung weight) shaft driven to the rear axle. Kinda like a quick change setup. But, you'd move too much weight off the rear, lose all kinds of power, etc...

Go EDM racing...done.

Or.....touring cars with the front drive disconnected. (or the rear drive disconnected for front wheel drive!!)

Now that'd be cool...setup like a supermodified. (the DRC guy's comment I mean)

Ah...found them! http://www.teamcobra.com/cobra/images/wheeladapters.jpg

We do TOURING OVAL already, haven't done w/o the front hooked. (Jay Kimbrough and Tony Neisinger wanted us to do that several years ago w/ the NITRO TC3s)

...another Edit. I know HD makes their TC Oval Car... (I wonder how a 2wd version of that would be)

Or.....touring cars with the front drive disconnected. (or the rear drive disconnected for front wheel drive!!)

Yeah, but who the hell wants a gearbox....:hat::p

I am sure that other set-ups might handle better, but it's hard to beat the efficiency of a straight axle.

But, I always wanted to see a car with the motor on the chassis (sprung weight) shaft driven to the rear axle. Kinda like a quick change setup. But, you'd move too much weight off the rear, lose all kinds of power, etc...

Dale, I think that should be your next conversion for your SuperMod....Ring and Pinion and all!!!!!

Pan Car styles are Very efficient, sometimes maybe too efficient. Maybe a different style would be a little more forgiving and get NEW BLOOD interested. (I know several people who are AFRAID of Pan Cars)

You guys are forgetting that Assoicated made a 2wd touring car called a Dual Sport. granted it went thru a gear box. I ran one in a oval class at a local tracl and had minor sucess

I never forget the Dual Sport - that is what the front ends we use on the VELO cars originated from! The rest of the car was an old RC10 with Street Tires!

the problem with THAT car...TIMING!

4-linked pod like a real racecar. no more t plates or rear steer plates

...another Edit. I know HD makes their TC Oval Car... (I wonder how a 2wd version of that would be)

Very hairy to drive....... But fun as hell! I've had the belt pop off before, and it makes for a beast of a car to wheel. The setup was 13.5/lipo direct drive. I'm sure with some tuning you could make it work though.

There was an 4 wheel independent suspension pancar.It was called the Eclipse.I have seen the on ebay before.

Quarter scale went away from the solid axle years ago. Now they have trailing arms with short axles, DB receiver cups and a DogBone. Rear caster, camber and toe points are very adjustable.:thumbsup: See pic.

Also, there is a protype rear A-arm car(1/4) being tested now with good results.

PB had one 15+ years ago that didn't use a t-plate (back in the wide car days). The PB Sizzler Pro-10. Ran one for a number of years. Found this picture.

PB had one 15+ years ago that didn't use a t-plate (back in the wide car days). The PB Sizzler Pro-10. Ran one for a number of years. Found this picture.

Thats cool! pretty much exactly what I envisioned except the shock. How did she run??

I had pretty good luck with it, the car I used had a vertical shock that went between the lower pod plate and the shock tower. The main problem was the "droop" of the rear pod was limited by a solid stop so on rough tracks the rear wheels could lift off the track when the chassis would rebound from compression. I did narrow my car up by using an AE rear axle/hubs and cutting the front axle beam.

The TRC LynxII worked good back in the day on a Bumpy Concrete Track....

holy crap hank how big was the pile of mothballs around that car??? LOL

That isn't a pic of my car, just one I found on the net to show what it looked like.

i think if that happens to pan cars it will just complicate it like TC did for the On road guys. I do not know about on road but i heard TC was the thing that hurt it the most. That is why they are heading back to the world gt cars.

Have you ever look at the prep time alone on a tourcar and then the cost

the RC10 duelsport was a good car but got ate up by 4wd cars. trinity had a pan car that you could set up with out the Tplates. the switchblade but it still had solid axel

So did the PSE Phase one, each one had benefits over the other, personally I think if cost weren't and issue sure, lets look at making some drastic changes, but wtiht he economy the way it is, I think we should be looking for ways to makew the sport cheaper and simplier, not more complicated. there are already way too many adjustments on a car now, this would just open up another can of worms and drive more people away I believe.

Having an independant rear suspension would just add to the list of things you would have to check for wear and tear. Plus pan cars are plenty fast now with the adjustments we already have.

What you will find in going to an independent rear end is at least about 7% more gear drag and then maybe 5% or more drag from driveaxles. (in my case this comes along with more heat that needs to be removed) The speed difference on our straight would be about 7 mph.

Trans am racers noted that on smooth tracks there was little difference in performance between a properly tuned 3 link or four link solid axle and an independent rear end.

How about a 3-link rear with Panhard bar. You get some more adjustability to antisquat. You can add rear steer in any increment in either direction. You can add roll steer in either direction. That is have the rear steer only active when the car rolls.

I had this identical rear end on an oval pan car chassis. It worked great on the oval. There is more forward grip and more cornering grip. And of course you could tune out rear grip with right rear steer. You can add cornering grip for mod with right rear toe in (left rear steer).

complete part list here.
http://www.rctech.net/forum/5403305-post596.html

There is some gold in that very efficient solid axle direct drive.

I was asked about the front end by PM. It is a CRC pro strut front suspension with the optional aluminum caster blocks. Very nice on the oval as well.

Now thats what im talkin about. Thats the sweet ticket there

Having an independant rear suspension would just add to the list of things you would have to check for wear and tear. Plus pan cars are plenty fast now with the adjustments we already have.

The thoughts of the person I was discussing this with had NOTHING to do with speed, actually quite the opposite.

Compare the speeds of Pan Car racing in the year 2009 vs 1990 and if you put the same basic power plants in them but with todays level of the product vs. thens level.

ie: 1200mAh or 1400mAh NiCad 6 cell vs 4600 mAh NiMh 6 cell, or better yet a Nice Shinny NEW lipo. Use the 1990 STOCK Brushed Motor against the 21.5 Brushless motor (basically the slowest B/L motor on the block)

The results you would find that the 21.5/LIPO runs faster than what Pro "FACTORY" guys were running in the MODIFIED classes in 1990.

In dealing with "NEW" racers, one of the things that scares them about pan cars is the speed, but another is simply not understanding the cars itself.

Would a more complicated suspension car help that? Probably not...but in most likely cases it could/would slow cars down a bit...and possibly make them a touch easier to drive.

This is nothing that hasn't been talked about in the pits at races for dozens of years...it's not a new idea, and it's not even MY idea...

Actually, I think there may be more to this than some may be looking at right now. I have preached this for years but with the LiPo and Brushless batteries it is carried to a power of ten…..there is no place for the new racer to jump into.

Now, if you could take what essentially would be the rear drive unit from an old Dominator, add up-to-date shocks like the new Sliva’s, you could still keep if free rolling and no gear box. The frontend will be the most difficult to adapt, and I’m not real sure where to get parts from today’s cars for a full suspension, that wouldn’t make it ten miles wide.

If done right, this could be a class that a lot of people are looking for. Not necessarily a beginner’s class because it would still be quick but at least slow enough for a new guy to start racing in.

McLin, go to rctech's on road forum and check out the thread John Stranahan had going with the Pantoura, It's amazing what he did with front and rear suspension.

Bob

why use the dominator rear drive CW had there direct drive car the intimator car one spur gear two axles only a little wider that todays pancars

How about that Traxxas Street Sport? It was direct drive with 4 wheel independent suspension. http://www.traxxas.com/products/electric/streetsport/trx_streetsport_gallery.htm

I just mentioned the Dominator as an example. You're right, there is much more up to date stuff now days that's a lot better.

the intimator car one spur gear two axles only a little wider that todays pancars


I have one of those I haven't run in 4-5 years...and I look at the back end of that car and think HMMMMMMMMM

What origonaly drew me to pan car racing was it's simplicity. Far less compliated that the off road cars of the time.(touring cars didn't exist then)
I may be wrong but, wouldn't an independent rear suspension make them more complicated for the new racer?
I love the idea of a 3 or 4 link rear pod, but again believe it may be too much for the newbee.

I may be wrong but, wouldn't an independent rear suspension make them more complicated for the new racer?


It would be more complicated for the experienced!
We already have WAAAAYYYYYY enough adjustments
to dial ourselves OUT of it.. :drunk:

Nitro4294 – I thought about that very thing, that’s why it took me a while to post here, thinking it would be too complicated for the beginner. However, after giving it a lot more thought, I remembered how the TC boom took off a few years back with no regard to how complicated they were. Of course there were a lot of other reasons that made TC’s grow but a more complicated suspension didn’t seem to be much of a negative in that regard.

Although to all of us it is more complicated, most people can relate to and understand a regular a-arm coilover type suspension system more than the 3 shock setup found on most pan cars.

Nitro4294 – I thought about that very thing, that’s why it took me a while to post here, thinking it would be too complicated for the beginner. However, after giving it a lot more thought, I remembered how the TC boom took off a few years back with no regard to how complicated they were. Of course there were a lot of other reasons that made TC’s grow but a more complicated suspension didn’t seem to be much of a negative in that regard.


So true, but, like all forms of racing, you learn by doing.:thumbsup:

One minor evolutionary stop would be to get the rear suspension (pod) to rotate around the axis of the motor. That way the motor stays static and is unsprung relative to the rear axle. I've figured out ways to get it close, but short of a lot of machined aluminum I don't see how it could be accomplished.

What bothers me more about this deal than anything else is if it would turn into what the Oval TC Trucks have turned into. It only took about a year and a half for the prices of the fast stuff to get way out of hand.