Clark fact sheets said ... what? You have a verifiable date & time stamp to compare those facts from July thru Aug too?

By the time this missing feature became publicly known on Sept 16th over on RCTR, it was well after the 1st batch was already shipped, received, & then tested, so it's easy to see how the website could have been updated well in advance to anyone being able to go back & read over the information for checking the newly disclosed issue against a revised list of facts, rather than the information that might have been there from Jul thru Aug when those 1st batch boards were being ordered. Unless someone has a clear photographic image retained in their mind, of exactly what the TK20 pages listed prior to the Sept shipping, or some backup physical proof, all they had was a recollection from their past memory of browsing the pages, which may or may not be as entirely accurate to what was actually listed on them.

If anyone has the memory & wants to contend that the damage simulation feature, from July all the way thru Aug, was never listed as a TK20 option or was clearly listed as only a TK30 option on Clark's site, then I'll just say my memory differs completely. For that reason I'm replying with full detail, because I don't feel it's fair to infer any possible blame on 1st batch customers feeling they didn't get the damage simulation option they were supposed to get, by even remotely implying the website only showed the TK30 as having the option at some point, or that the TK20 was never shown to offer it, while they sent in their orders.

My recollection of what I believe the site stated is also aided by a physical email I received to confirm it. I was very curious when I first read about the TK20 on Clark's website that first week in July this year, reading through all the features he had listed for it, & yes, those features included the Tamiya style damage simulation function. But because the wording & charts on the website at that time didn't always make things obvious, I proceeded to immediately email Clark for confirmation & better details about the TK20 functions I was interested in, making it very clear damage simulation was an absolute must option for any board I was considering.

I have the email directly from Clark, back in the first week of July, answering that specific question I asked as to whether or not damage simulation was indeed a feature that would be on the currently offered TK20 boards. The answer was an absolute yes in a response from him just a couple days later, confirming what I had read on his site. This was well before any TK30 version board was ever on the website, officially announced, or discussed. I would never have ordered a TK20 board without knowing first & foremost that it was confirmed to come with damage simulation. So any theory that the damage simulation has always been reserved for the TK30 boards, & was never an offered feature or ever supposed to be an offered feature on the TK20 in the first place, is incorrect from my viewpoint because of the direct admission to me by Clark in our email exchange, as well as from what I remember reading myself on the website up until the time I paid for my boards in Aug before their Sept shipping date.

Though at this point the actual issue itself is so far behind me & doesn't really matter anymore, because going forward it looks like all TK20 boards will have damage simulation as a feature (which they should have had anyway), but now the feature has been enhanced & offers the option to choose the amount of damage simulation through incremental percentages. This way, no matter the various resistance different gearboxes would present to the ESC, you should be able to adjust the percentage for the function to at least work without the tank becoming a pillbox. I actually asked Clark about the possibility of doing something just like this back on Sept 19th on the RCTR forum when this issue was first disclosed. Maybe I just guessed what Clark was already intending to do, but it was still a great move by Clark to eventually implement that kind of change. Even if the explanations given as to why things went wrong, don't seem to add up to me, at least it shows he's making an effort to correct these situations by listening to customer complaints.

Clark made the mistake with the damage simulation, not the customers IMO, & now that mistake has been corrected & seemingly improved, I think it's a customer win in the end, case closed on that one for me. So my initial disappointment & frustration directed towards Clark, because of the removed damage simulation & short IR range, have both passed already, & now I am just anxiously waiting for my new TK20E boards to arrive so I can commence testing & evaluation ... which I hope will conclude with much better results than what the 1st batch offered!

~ Craig ~