Chassis - Schumacher Cougar LD3
Motor - Hobbywing XR10 V4 T8.0
ESC - Hobbywing XR10 PRO10 G3
Battery - Gens ace 4400 LCG
Tires (Rear/Front) - Raw Speed (Handout) / JConcepts Rips (Blue Compound)
Radio/Servos - Sanwa M17 / PowerHD GT3-S
Body - JConcepts J2 with JConcepts Monster rear wing

Notes - Broc's World Championship winner buggy features a new, soon to be released optional, flat mounting servo chassis brace as well as a more adjustable rear pivot. His car is also fitted with Whitz Racing Products ceramic bearings, titanium turnbuckles, and a titanium screw set.

Going into the worlds there were suggestions of moving weight backwards on the cars even to as far as going for a rear motor design. That definitely did not happen and adding insult to injury, the worlds winning car used the laydown gearbox designed for carpet instead of the layback one originally thought to be better suited for dirt. I suppose this is the final nail in the coffin for those that doubted that cornerspeed is king in RC.

Now moving on to the front, we will be starting easy. This prototype front end features a supposedly cast or additively manufactured metal front bottom plate instead of the standard plastic one. This ought to stiffen up the front end quite a bit but its main objective more than likely is to allow for the updated servo placement. The standard steering servo mounting on the Schumacher LD3 is at a parallel angle to the kick up of the car instead of laying flat on the chassis. This allows the servo to be placed further forwards but has a disadvantage of introducing unsymmetrical mechanical expo to the steering due to the angle of the steering link. This new flat placement not only moves the servo backwards towards the center of the car but also fixes the issue with expo symmetry. More trust in the steering for the driver and a more centered weight distribution to improve rotation.

Another thing that has been often overlooked in car design is the shock tower placement. From the pictures it at least seems that the front shocks are in their standard position but the shock tower is moved in front of the shocks. At least according to the classical idea about shock placement it should be all about weight bias and nothing more. As more and more manufacturers move towards picking one design over another there must be more to it than weight bias. Another theory to challenge the classical idea is about torque around the points of attachment. According to this idea even with the same placement of the shocks and the same force distribution on the heave motion, there would in fact be a difference in handling when the car pitches up or down. If this theory works in practice that would mean that placing the front shock tower in front of the shocks would give you a car less resistant to dive which perhaps is not all that bad when running on these old school lower grip tracks.