Every year, in preparation for the new indoor season, XRAY produces a new touring car that incorporates the advances and ideas learned over the previous year’s races. We always wonder how we could possibly improve for future models, or if we have fully optimized the design. In the highly competitive electric touring car racing environment, however, development never stops. No sooner does one company raise the bar for performance, than the other companies are right there to follow suit or push the envelope even further. It is critical as a company to stay focused and concentrated all the time in an effort to lead the pack. This philosophy is what is what lead us to the all-new T4.

The design process started already early in December 2011, just few weeks after launching the T3’12 version. The T3’12 was a significant improvement over the 2011 version and the first races were very successful. The only times we seemed to struggle were on super high traction tracks such as the first ETS in Germany. As a solution, I immediately reacted with a new thinner 2mm chassis and 1.6mm top deck that were successfully tested and used at the Charity race in Italy. We found that the 2mm chassis made the car easier to drive in high traction conditions and did not make the car as susceptible to traction roll as with the standard 2.5mm chassis. Little did I realize that I had already begun taking steps towards the next XRAY touring car platform.

I had been feeling for some time that we would need to attempt a different approach in order to reduce traction rolling in extreme traction conditions, yet still be able to increase steering and improve corner speed. Before doing anything with the long proven suspension I first wanted to experiment with weight distribution, chassis flex and primarily CG. My theory was that lowering the CG would reduce roll, thereby increasing traction and corner speed. Now I needed to test that theory.

With a clear idea of the goals we wished to achieve I had an option to go with something completely new or just to go step-by-step using the existing car as a test platform for new ideas. As we had only several months left to the start of the 2013 winter season, the logical choice was to start with the existing car. I still did not expect that the end result would be an all-new platform with a majority of the parts being redesigned, but that is the beauty of development. You start with a simple idea and you never know when and how it will end up.

After some initial thoughts and clearly set goals I found finally some time at the beginning of the December to sit in front of the computer and start to draw the first parts. The highest positioned parts on the car were the shock towers and shocks so those were the first parts I wanted to drastically lower. After several design revisions I ended up with new shock tower and shocks lowered by 15mm. To avoid any possible problems I wanted to keep the same volume of oil to ensure that the shock will function as smoothly as the current car. I proceeded to calculate the total internal volume of the current car and adjusted the diameter of the shock body to compensate for the reduced length. Using the same volume of oil in the shocks also reduced the number of variables in the test, allowing us to better pinpoint which changes made improvements.

I also wanted to test short springs, but again, I did not want to go directly into unknown territory and therefore I made two alternatives. I would use short springs with standard shock collars and standard springs with lowered collars, allowing me to quickly change and test back to back two alternatives on short shocks. To have a very concise idea and accurate feedback on the short vs long parts I also made special shock towers so I could test and compare back to back short vs. long shocks. When I showed the 3D drawings of the shocks to Juraj, he was not 100% sure. He liked the idea of lowering the CG but he was unsure about short shocks, as it was a little bit risky. Since I had a “green light” on this project from Juraj and no limits for prototyping, I decided to spend the resources on producing these short shocks to test that my theories were correct. This was a risky move for me, as the investment for prototyping was significant. If my theories did not work out as I projected, it would make it harder to gain approval for future ‘risky’ projects.

After preparing the lowered parts to bring the CG down in the car, I next focused on further centralizing the mass. In theory, bringing the mass closer to the centerline should improve the chassis roll characteristics. I had been puzzling for some time on how to accomplish this, as I feared that changing the bulkheads would force a complete redesign, as well, of the spool and diffs. Once I had an opportunity to sit and think clearly on the situation, the solution became obvious. I would simply design new bulkhead bushings which were offset to accommodate the new bulkhead positions, making other changes unnecessary. For the initial testing I could have the existing bushings CNC modified but would achieve only -3mm instead of the 6mm targeted overall, but since I did not want to rush the mould change I decided to go into this “semi-solution” which would provide at least some feedback and give me direction for the final changes.

The narrower bulkheads automatically meant new front and rear shock towers, so the prototypes we made for first initial testing of short shock parts were scrapped. These interim towers would be scrapped as well once we went the full -6mm narrower for the bulkhead position. To ensure the same conditions for testing I wanted to keep the suspension geometry exactly same, which meant that upper bulkhead clamps had to be made new with offset roll center positions to simulate the same roll center positions as the T3’12.

While working on the bulkheads I did not only change their positions but completely redesigned the shapes primarily to make the car more flexible in both front and rear. The reason for more flex in the rear was to get more rear traction and in the front to get more steering and forward traction, which we were slightly missing on the last T3 car. I wanted to simplify the bulkheads as well, and therefore I designed the lower suspension bulkheads so that we could use same bulkhead design in all 4 corners. With the new shape I could achieve the flex that I was looking for. The rear bulkhead mounting points were moved more to the rear which allowed the chassis to flex more between the mounting points of the suspension bulkheads and layshaft bulkheads for more rear traction. The mounting points in the front were moved further back to achieve more flex in the front part of chassis for more forward traction. A secondary benefit of this redesign of the bulkheads was a significant reduction in their weight.

The last bulkhead to be redesigned was the motor mount. Since everyone runs only the brushless motors today I decided on a radical design change. By mounting the motor using 2 screws in the lowest position, I was able to remove the majority of the material from the motor mount.

I wanted to be sure that this motor mount would be beneficial for car performance and therefore I made two different motor mounts to test. The first motor mount would hold the motor in the lower position while the second one would mount the motor in the traditional center position. With these two different prototypes I could quickly change the bulkheads and test the difference back to back. After some initial sketches of the lowered motor mount another idea came to my mind - to make the mount fully separated from the central bulkheads, which would allow me to use identical layshaft bulkheads on the right and left side.

My initial enthusiasm was cooled after the first tests when I kept breaking the spur gear as a result of excess flex. I recognized that the motor mount was fixed to the layshaft bulkhead with just 1 screw so, without much thinking about complicated solutions, I drilled an extra hole and installed a second screw which immediately solved the problem. From that moment onwards there was no spur gear problem anymore. I was surprised that a small part like the motor mount could have such significant influence on the traction. The comparisons using the same track conditions with the standard motor mount and this new lowered mount validated my theories regarding the motor mount system.

Over the years we have spent a lot of time on the steering system, trying and testing plenty of different combinations, different ideas and different parts. We had made a lot of progress in recent years, but we still felt that there was something missing or something not completely perfect with our steering system. Specifically, when I was observing our cars on carpet, I saw that we have a lot of steering on corner entry (which was good), but then the car kind of ‘stopped’ as it slowed down and then in the middle of the corner the car started to push.

After thinking and discussing the potential causes of our problem I came up with a very simple idea - to test a different servo linkage mounting position. Our main observation was that on the T3 when you set-up steering you have 25 degrees, but in reality it is always more as the force from the wheel touching the surface will overpower the servo saver and therefore in reality would steer more(allowing as much as 33degrees of throw). This excess steering angle resulted in the car having the “stop” effect in the corners. The driver would feel as though they have lots of steering, but it was only an illusion.

The initial idea to test and prove this theory was to glue backstops on the C-hub (simple alu shims) which would stop the steering block at exactly 25 degrees. In the first test I felt initially that the car had less steering but since the “stop” effect was removed I was able to reach higher cornering speeds and the car was much easier to drive which of course translated into improved lap times. With our theory proven, I now had to figure out how to change the steering system to limit the steering at 25 degrees without allowing the steering block to touch the C-hub. The solution was very simple indeed. I added a large mounting bushing on the central alu steering plate where the servo linkage is mounted. When the steering reaches 25 degrees the alu shim works as a backstop and limits the steering throw to the maximum 25 degrees.

The entire testing phase of the various prototypes with the team was extremely demanding. We suffered through difficult assessments, and frustrating hurdles, but overcame them to arrive at a result that we were enthusiastically satisfied with. Some more insights about the real track tests and some behind the scenes information will be disclosed next time in the second part of this column.

V1 chassis had the bulkheads only 3mm narrower as the bearing bushing mold was not ready yet. In this chassi test we wanted to understand how the different bulkhead mounting behaves at the track. We wanted to understand what is the difference between mounting diff bulkheads in the center of diff position and when they were eccentric. We found out that what was our tought, was really true. When the mounting positions in the rear were moved to back, we get more rear traction and in the front when we moved the bulkheads more to the front from the center, we got more front traction and in-corner steering. We also tested separate split arm holders in the rear-rear and front-front but this made the car too twichy and we realized that those blocks have to be make from one piece.

First prototype chassis(V1). To allow as much flexibility as possible for testing options, as well as to reduce the number of variables in the test, we decided to test different bulkheads and bulkhead mounting positions using one common chassis. Testing was much easier in this way because when we wanted to compare two different mounting positions, we did not have to change the whole chassis, but rather, remove and re-install a few screws to quickly change the bulkhead. This greatly increased the efficiency of the test sessions, as we saved time, material expenses and improved our test results by being able to compare different options quickly while keeping the introduction of new variables to a minimum. For the V1 chassis test, we narrowed the bulkheads by only 3mm, as the mold for the eccentric bushing for bearing support were not yet ready. The goal of this chassis experiment was to test and understand how the different bulkhead mounting positions and configurations effect how the car behaves on the track. We confirmed that the mounting positions of the bulkheads affected the chassis flex and resultant handling in precisely the manner we had anticipated. We also used the opportunity to test various configurations of lower arm mounts.

Second prototype chassis(V2). Once we had confirmed the improvements due to bulkhead position, and after the eccentric bushings were ready, we were able to move the bulkheads to their final position (narrowed 6mm compared to the T3). At this point we were now prepared to test and assess chassis thickness. We tested 3 difference chassis thicknesses (2mm, 2.2mm and 2.5mm). During our testing we found the 2.5 chassis to provide ample steering, but that it was too twitchy. The 2mm chassis was the exact opposite. When we tested the 2.2 and found it to be a balanced compromise, we knew which direction we were going to go. With the easy part done, we proceeded to test to find the best chassis flex and width. We tried two different chassis widths (standard 94mm width and narrow 90mm). After testing on different track surfaces we came to the conclusion that we would keep the same chassis width as on T3 2012 because 90mm seemed to push during testing. The T3 2012 chassis shape worked perfect on carpet but we felt that for asphalt, we would need to get slightly more chassis flex for more steering and traction. After a quick trackside modification, we found that even though we had not improved upon our fastest lap time, the feedback from the testing team was that the car had increased steering, increased traction and was easier to drive. We also noted an improvement in the consistency of the lap times. In order assure that the best option was selected, we re-tested the car on carpet and again found that this new chassis shape and properties were an improvement. With this verified, we were confident that the chassis plate was ready.

The final design of the rear shock tower. This final design was tested final (V2) bulkheads and short shocks in order to precisely align the shock holes to achieve the desired shock angles.

This is a variant of the shock tower used during testing to allow the use of T3 2012 shocks on the T4 prototypes. This allowed us to quickly change the shock tower and shocks to evaluate the differences between long and short shocks in various track conditions. Shock mount positions were precisely located to maintain consistent shock angles.

The first prototype of the shock tower for T4 short shocks. This shock tower was used with V1 prototype which had bulkheads narrower by 3mm compared to the T3 2012. I attempted to keep the design as lean and light as possible, but chose to add additional material around the body posts to improve durability.

Comparison of the V1 and V2 shock towers. V1 tower was designed to fit 3mm narrower bulkheads while V2 was designed to fit final 6mm narrower version.

This is the first prototype top deck, designed to fit the V1 chassis with bulkheads narrowed by 3mm. The rear portion of the top deck was less stepped than that T3 2012 version. This version allowed for more flex and slightly more traction. This moved us in the direction we were hoping to achieve, so decided to eliminate the step altogether when we moved the bulkheads into their final position.

The first tests with narrower bulkheads required some handmade prototypes. With some initial uncertainty regarding the benefits of narrower bulkheads, it was necessary to limit the amount of changes made during early testing, as the prototype costs could escalate in a hurry. In order to remain objective about the performance impact of the narrower bulkheads, I had to keep the suspension geometry exactly the same as the existing kit. I would also need to maintain the existing roll center positions. To achieve this, without incurring the costs of custom prototype bulkhead clamps, we modified a set of the existing clams to reposition the inner camber link to precisely match the positions of the T3 2012.

The first prototype servo mount. Using the information learned during the development of the T3 2012 Central servo mount option piece, I was able to come up with a simple but effective servo mount solution that saw only minor modifications throughout the T4 design process.

Different designs and shapes of bulkheads. The 3 motor mounts on the right were designed concurrently in order to test and assess which option would be ideal. During back to back testing by the team in Scandiano, and at the Worlds Warm Up race, the designs were assessed and updated. The two pieces on the left were the result of the design update procedure.

1. This was the first motor mount that I drove. The mounting position of the motor is the same as on the T3 2012 but it is lightened to save some weight and designed improved appearance.

After designing the first motor mount, I began to consider how I could make it even lighter. During the design process, I had 8 of the most popular motor designs arranged next to each other on my table. I recognized that the position and size of the mounting holes were identical for all 8 motors, and provided an opportunity to use a non-traditional layout for the motor mount. By using two screws in the lowest holes for the motor mount, we could reduce the amount of material in the motor mount, as well as drastically lower the CG of the mount. During testing, we also found that this new configuration also helped improve rear traction.

Once I was satisfied with the method of attaching the motor mount to the layshaft bulkhead I began to focus on how to connect it to the chassis. With the T3 2012, we found that there was the possibility of introducing tweak after a crash. While the tweak was not severe enough to impact the majority of drivers, it was an area we felt could be improved upon. Experiences with the T3 led us to suspect that the screw connecting the mount to the chassis could be the cause of this tweak. A brainstorming session on how to eliminate this tweak-point led to the use of an M3 nut instead of tapping the aluminum material for the motor mount-to-chassis attachment point. After several crashes during testing, we were unable to identify tweak in this area, so incorporated this feature in the final design. We feel that this is a feature that can benefit drivers of all levels.

Since we were working with a clean slate and were designing all new bulkhead components, we decided to make every effort to commonize them as much as possible. I was able to identify that, by separating the motor mount from the layshaft bulkhead, we could use a common design for both layshaft bulkheads. During testing, we discovered an added benefit as the car had more traction and felt easier to drive.

Even though I was happy with the performance of the separate motor mount, I was not happy with the durability. Several times during testing excess flex caused damage to the spur gear. I did not want to abandon the idea of the separate motor mount, so instead it would be necessary to make it more durable. By adding a second screw to connect the layshaft bulkhead and the motor mount, as well as increasing the material thickness, the excess flex was removed and the spur gear damage was to have been eliminated.

Juraj also proposed an alternate idea, to have the motor mount fixed totally independent of the layshaft bulkheads in order to maximize flex and totally eliminate tweak. The first concept was to use two connection points directly on the chassis centerline to attach the motor mount. Tests revealed that this configuration allowed for potential damage to the spur gear. This variant also stiffened the center portion of the chassis excessively and reduced rear traction. In-corner steering was improved, but the car became very difficult to drive.

We attempted to reposition the motor mounts to reduce the spur damage. We tried using two fixing points near the layshaft bulkheads plus a screw and nut along the centerline. This improved the durability, but the overall handling was not satisfactory. We do see strong potential in this unique design and will continue to investigate and develop this concept further.

Testing in Scandiano, Italy: The first testing of the new car was planned for January 2012. The traction level at our internal test track was too low to simulate big-race conditions, so I decided to travel to Scandiano, Italy. Scandiano is home to a nice track that is heavily used, so has developed excellent traction. More importantly, the traction levels are consistent which allows the testing of multiple parts to determine which components make the biggest differences. In order to be objective in the testing, I decided to involve Alex in the testing session so that we could have more than one set of observations. Thankfully, our timing allowed us to arrive in Scandiano safely, narrowly missing a major snow-emergency that forced the closure of many roads and highways.

Testing was very difficult, as the track had no climate control system and the temperature in the hall was only 4 degrees. It was hard to drive in these conditions as my fingers felt as though they were freezing to my radio, but I was so excited about testing that I did not care. The testing session took 4 days. On the first day we tested the current T3 2012 to understand how the car handles on this track and establish a baseline for comparison versus the prototypes.

We had worked out what felt like a perfect set up for the T3 2012 on that first day of testing, so Alex and I were both eager to see how the new prototypes would perform. At this early stage I had prepared the short shocks and shock towers, but I was using standard springs. I had also brought along 4 different motor mounts to help in determining a direction for continuing development. It was very exciting moment when I put the car on the carpet and slowly start to drive first laps with the new car. What really surprised me was how quickly I got used to the new car, improving my fastest lap by 0.1sec vs. the T3 2012 within the first few packs. Immediately, I felt that this new car was super stable, had more traction and that it changed direction more quickly. This initial result exceeded my expectations. I let Alex take over the testing so I could observe from trackside. I grew even more excited about the results when Alex improved his best lap time by 0.2 seconds after only 10 laps! Alex’s feedback agreed with my earlier observations. Our excitement was tempered by the amount of work in front of us. We had to test all of the new prototype parts and compare them with standard parts in order to understand which parts make the car faster.

We began by testing the new shocks. To confirm whether or not the new shocks were an improvement I would need to compare both the new and old versions directly on the same car. To accomplish this, I made shock towers for the standard shocks that would fit the new car. We proceeded to test the short and long shocks back-to-back. The observed difference in handling was significant. Even though the car felt like it had more steering with the long shocks, the lap times were consistently slower as the car stopped more in the corners and was more difficult to drive. The overall consistency of the lap times also improved with the short shocks, with a smaller discrepancy between the fastest and slowest lap times. This was a great signal that we were moving in the proper direction. To better understand how the new shocks work, we decided to also test combinations of long and short shocks. In subsequent rounds of testing we tried using long shocks in the rear and short shocks in the front, followed by reversing this situation and running short shocks in the rear and long shocks in the front. We came to the conclusion that the short shocks make the biggest impact when used on the front, as they make the car smoother and make it steer more easily.

It made me super happy that the new shocks worked really well as this was the main feature of the new car, and was something what would differentiate our car from all of the others. I remember when Paul Lemieux told me during the Worlds Warm-up race some months later, after driving the car for the first time that he never wants to drive the old car again as all of the other cars now look like tractors to him!

Even though the new shocks were working very well right from the beginning, I realized that car with the new shocks felt as though it had stiffer damping. With the T3 2012 we used 400cSt shock oil, but when we put 400cSt shock oil into new shocks it felt much stiffer. This troubled me, as I was unable to understand why this could be. My intention was not to make any mistake or take any unnecessary risks with the new shocks. Even though I wanted to make them lower I did not want to gamble with the size of the shocks and therefore I chose to play it safe and use the same internal volume of oil. Careful calculations were performed to ensure that we would achieve this target.

While testing in Italy, I was concerned about the shock oil problem as, in my opinion, everything was correct and I could not find out why the new shocks worked harder. I did not have my computer workstation with me, so I was unable to check the drawings to determine if I had made a mistake. The only thing we could do was to soften the shock oil until we were able to get the new shocks damping at the same rate as the old. Luckily, some local 1/12 drivers arrived at the track with some very lightweight shock oils. We found that 200cSt shock oil in the short shocks worked the same as 400cSt shock oil in old shocks and that the car was with this new shock oil even 0.1 sec faster than before. This meant that Alex had improved his best time by 0.3 seconds compared to the T3 2012. Alex and I both left Scandiano more than happy with these first tests.

When I arrived home I was still curious about what had happened with the new shocks. I verified all of the component detail drawings and compared them with the prototype pieces. I realized at this time that the production team had made a mistake in the machining of the prototype pieces and that the pistons were oversized by 0.1mm on the diameter and that the piston holes were undersized by 0.1mm compared to the drawings. This greatly restricted the flow of oil within the shocks, resulting for the stiffer feel. This can sometimes happen in the prototyping stage, as many parts are still hand-made at this point in the process.

Testing at ETS in Grand Canaria:
Even though Alex and I continued to test the prototype parts on carpet, the second real test came in March when Alex went to Gran Canaria for the ETS race. I was occupied with some other very important priorities at home so was unable to attend the race, leaving Alex to do all of the testing alone. In order to get in as much testing as possible, Alex arrived on the Monday leading up the race. I kept in touch with Alex via text messages during his testing period to keep up to date with his progress. After 3-4 days of testing Alex was 0.2 seconds faster with the new car than his T3 2012, and his feedback would prove valuable for the continuing development. Unfortunately, it was not time yet to reveal the new car in an official race, which was disappointing to Alex as he was so excited about the car’s performance. At the end of the race, Alex finished 2nd with his old car. When you consider that Alex had previously indicated that he was 0.2 seconds faster with the new car, could the outcome of the race have been different had he been allowed to use the new car? We can only speculate.

Testing at XRAY Challenge in Trencin:
The next test was held in Trencin, at my home asphalt track and it was planned after the XRAY Challenge in May. This time Francesco Martini came from Italy to join us to help us with testing. Since Francesco is a regular driver his input and feedback was very important because it would help demonstrate to us which changes would best benefit our customers. It is always important to have two different views and perspectives, one from top drivers but also from a regular driver. Top drivers can often overcome the shortcomings of a car that is not set up perfectly however, for regular drivers, this can often prove difficult, if not impossible, to overcome. Francesco is a very experienced and technical driver and his input has been always very constructive so I was happy that Francesco came to help us and I was confident he would be a great asset. It was actually an idea from Francesco that led to the XRAY development and introduction of the independent, center-mounted servo. This concept has now been imitated by companies and manufacturers around the world.

The test session in May at the factory test track was the first time we tested the short springs compared to the long ones. During this session we also tested different chassis thicknesses (2mm, 2.2mm and 2.5mm) to determine which would be the ideal choice. I had already used the new car at the XRAY Challenge race and both Alex and Francesco were jealous as I was 0.3 sec per lap faster than everyone else and they were both aware of the performance gains that the new car had given me. When we continued private testing on the Monday following the race Alex was able to use the new car and was right away running the same lap times as me, making my unfair advantage disappear. While testing the springs we realized that, with the short springs, the car was even more stable and easy to drive. During testing and back-to-back comparisons between linear and progressive springs we concluded that the progressive springs worked very well on both carpet and asphalt and were our preferred choice. The different chassis thickness test was challenging, with plenty of data recorded and many details to be evaluated. From all the different thicknesses tested we all found and agreed that the 2.2mm is best compromise both for carpet and asphalt. The testing session at our factory tracks was very effective and successful and again helped us to continue to move forward with the new car.

Testing at World’s warm-up in Heemstede, Netherlands:
As I had objective feedback and I knew that we are moving in the right direction, we came to the point in development when we believed it was the right time to make more prototypes and get them to the team to collect more feedback from more varied tracks conditions. The first big team test was planned for the Worlds Warm Up in Heemstede, Netherlands in June. We made the cars for team drivers who went to this race and who planned to attend the Worlds as well. Running the T4 prototype would be me, Juraj, Alex, Francesco, Paul Lemieux, Alessio Maniccuci, Magnus Vassmar, and David Ehrbar. All of these drivers received the prototype plus 3 different motor mounts with different design ideas which we needed to test and evaluate.

As soon as we arrived in Heemstede, we all started the testing using a common procedure. First we tested the T3 2012 car and tried to find the best possible set up. We had one week for testing alongside other teams, which was really good as we could also compare our car with the other brands. After the first day, we found a very good set up on T3 2012 and we were on the same pace as all of the other teams.

The next day was the exciting one, as everyone one of our selected drivers would be running the prototype car. Once again, I had a deep feeling of satisfaction as I watched our drivers getting faster step-by-step, before even beginning to work on the car’s setup. Paul Lemieux was the one who improved his lap times most significantly. Paul was super fast right from his initial runs, but suddenly he was the fastest of all drivers at the track. Our competitor’s took notice and suddenly other drivers began to wander near our pits to scan our new developments. We had to be careful that we did not reveal to our competitors what we had been working so hard to develop. We had worked hard for over half a year on the new car and it was only 1 month until the World Championships, so we wanted to keep our new weapon secret. 1 month could still provide adequate time for our competitors to attempt to mimic what we had developed if they were able to spot adequate details. It was amusing to note that even though we moved our pit area far away from the main crowd we were still frequented by many visitors. Drivers and teams who had paid us little attention before were now drawn to our pits and became very talkative. We tried to be as careful as possible and always kept the cars covered by their bodies, yet it was obvious to us that, when these talkative competitors came to visit, their eyes were scanning the open window areas of our cars searching for the secrets contained under the body shells :o)

The whole week was very successful for us and I was more than happy as I was receiving only positive feedbacks. We tested 3 different motor mounts, and again I was super happy when all drivers agreed that the separate motor mount worked best, which closed another open question in the development. In summary, we enjoyed the World’s warm-up with Paul taking the TQ and the overall win. I was travelling home more than happy and very satisfied that we are moving in the right direction and that the whole development portion of the project was nearing completion.

Back at the office we had a meeting to discuss the start of mass production. In my opinion we were ready, but Juraj still had some ideas about chassis and top deck design and he had a feeling that we could still improve the performance and handling. As such we decided to wait with the production and to make some more prototypes to double confirm either the current design was final or if still there is some room for further improvements.

It was now the end of July, less than 2 months before the deadline when we needed to release the kits to be on time for the coming indoor season, and we were still not fully decided on the chassis and top deck and I had real nightmares and feared that we would not make it on time. After some more development and prototyping we had narrowed it down to the final two different chassis layouts with two different widths, both using the same graphite thickness. I tested them on asphalt and found my favorite one.

Testing in Scandiano, Italy:
As the new car should be released just in time for carpet season I needed to be sure that my favorite final chassis would work not only asphalt but also on carpet. The problem was that during the summer there are no races on carpet which meant that traction everywhere would be super low. I remembered Scandiano which is permanent track which is also used during the summer. Despite the lack of any major summertime races at Scandiano, the track is permanently in use and has consistently high traction.

Unfortunately, I had the entire summer full of European championships races and would not be able to travel to Italy. I decided, instead, to package the prototypes and send them to Francesco for final assessment. Francesco packed a bag and left right away for Scandiano and vowed that he would remain on-site until he was able to report to me with a final decision on the chassis choice. After more than 4 days of non-stop testing and side-by-side comparisons he was able to confidently make his selection.

During the 4 days of testing it became clear that the world has become a smaller place. The amount of information being passed between Francesco and me in the form of data, emails, text messages, photos, lap times and more would not have been possible even a few years ago. We were able to accomplish remotely what would normally have taken a physical presence on-site. At the end of this communication Francesco’s selection for carpet, backed up by his performance data, was the same configuration that I had previously selected as my preferred choice for asphalt. I could finally deliver the good news to Juraj – the T4 development was finished and we could go forward with production.

In just 6 weeks the T4 kits were produced, packaged and shipped on time for the first round of the ETS. I am sure that this is a new World’s record in speed of production. This “performance” was only possible due to dedicated efforts of our in-house manufacturing team, who used our capabilities and their professionalism to pull together as a team, working 24 hours a day and 7 days a week to meet this critical deadline and of course all the in-house manufacturing without the need to wait for external suppliers.

Now you have your T4 in your hands and can judge and evaluate the work we did. My hopes are that the best judge will be your improved lap times.

Enjoy and I am looking forward to hearing from you. Share your feedback and experiences at our forum at http://forum.teamxray.com

Martin Hudy, XRAY T4 designer

PS: I would like to thanks everyone who has participated during the year on the T4 development in any of the many phases. The thanks goes particularly to Alex Hagberg, Francesco Martini, Paul Lemieux, Zdenko Kunak, Magnus Vassmar, Alessio Menicucci, David Ehrbar, Marco Kaufmann, Surikarn Chaidajsuryia, Meen Vejrak. Big thanks to Juraj for providing the non-stop guiding and input throughout the project and thanks to everyone in-house for the World’s fastest production to get the car on time.