wookie_racer

My Feedback: (8)

yup it does.

cheech4

i am curious too in why they didnt use the evader pro??? its the upgrade to the basic evader.

jimroad471

Call the magazine and find out!! Why? Why? Why? Results are gonna be the same; t4 took 1st place in the shootout and that's all there is to it!

MBX5T Maniac

My Feedback: (-1)

Probably the same reason they used the xxx-t sport II rtr instead of the brushless one.

cheech4

not to sound stupid, but i think they just did the test on brushed RC's is because the others dont come in a brushless. So they had to pick the regular losi.

jimroad471

.....and the regular Losi tied for 3rd place. Regular t4 won first place

Gary K

Not talking about the results here, but this statement is way off. When I wrote for both RCCA/Air Age and RC Driver/Maplegate, I was NEVER told to "make this car look really good" or to "bash another product in a review". I wrote what "I" thought about a product. This is in the same vein as "why do you rate this RTR a 9 and this racer is a 9 too??? You must be biased for the company that sells the RTR". The truth is that the ratings are set agains other vehicles in the same class and designed for a specific market. Again, this is simply rebutting what was commented on, not the results.

MBX5T Maniac

My Feedback: (-1)

Gary, RCCA has gone down the drain in terms of quality reviews. I have noticed how they make a huge flaw seem tiny. They never found any flaws with the Warhead, while hundreds on people on this board did. The mini-lst, same thing. Diffs liked to fail, never wrote about it

jimroad471

It seems we defend our cars like we defend our own kids!!

Gary K

The thing you have to remember though about a review...they don't spend weeks with a product before they write it up. They'll spend a few days to a week, from building, painting, photographing, and finally testing and not all problems crop up in that review. I know I had it happen to me. When I tested the Pro 4 for Driver, I gave it high marks for durability and commented how beefy the front one-way gear was. I was comparing that shaft car to the other shaft car I owned at the time, an Evo 3 Surikarn Edition which torched a front ring gear if you looked at it cross eyed. In my tests, the driveline was bullet proof. But then people started running the car indoors and problems cropped up. I spent 3 days on an asphalt/boardless track driving that car for that review. Looking back, if I would have been able to test it on a board track or run it more, perhaps the ring gear problem would have cropped up. All I am saying is that No Review (or reviewer) is perfect. But to insinuate that a manufacturer bribes a magazine to get the review "they want", well, that doesn't happen.

Oh, and I've been running a 9200KV brushless and a 2-cell LiPo in my personal Mini-LST for almost a year now. I'm still on the original gears (although I swapped the center gear diff for the ball diff in February for better driveability). Does that mean that I have some sort of super tough uber strong gears? No, it just means that not everyone has the same problems with a product. That's also something that's skewed by the internet. A magazine review is a single piece of equipment driven by just one or two people. In that one sample, everything "could" be perfect. OK, so take that single sampling and compare it to the thousands of people that get on the web that own a product. It's a percentage thing. But again, my comment was simply on the inference that magazines were on the take. Its just not the case. And I'm not defending RCCA, this review, or the results. Just as someone who has worked on that side of things, sometimes people get misconceptions is all.

jimroad471

It's a very strong implication when these shoot out results are posted. And yes, some guys take very hard that their cars placed poorly in reviews. I do. We all want fair and thorough reviews 'cause I do not want anyone tellin' me I own and race crap! I said this before and I'll say it again; We all KNOW which cars rate high 'cause we drive 'em.