Casper

iTrader: (34)

I would run kit diffs or 5-7-3. Thick diffs like that would be for high bite and the cars in the video did not look like they were super stuck not to the level I would think you would need to go up in diffs.

Try the kit shock setup (recommend using actual TLR oil not the kit stuff if possible) and tune from there if you cannot get the different pistons. The kit setup should get you close. That track does not look very bumpy or blown out at all so the kit setup may work well for you.

Asianman02

Ben, don't get me wrong I love the way my 3.0 drives I wouldn't say it's leaps over the 2.0 I had with the beautiful stock body, all I'm saying is that it's a buggy which deserves a buggy body just like the nitro version. If I wanted a truck I would have gotten a truggy...just saying. Casper the 2.0 bodies will work just with the massive overhangs on the side from the narrower new chassis doesn't seem like a very ideal option to me.

akshayp14

I'm sure I'm one of many customers that are quite glad TLR developers put performance and functionality before aesthetic appeal when designing their products.

akshayp14

thanks casper,

diff oil setup has for quite some time being 7-7-3 for me, only recently i tried 10 in the centre but i think it is a bit much, and as for 7 in the front i just like being on power earlier at the exits which im happy to sacrifice off power steering for.

regarding shock oils, i was actually going to try 27.5 or 30wt weight all around as the kit does seem a bit on the stiff side, the track is in a much worse condition than in the video, its quite blown out.

TimMo846

iTrader: (1)

The cab forward design is actually a performance part. It puts more down force on the front wheels allowing for more traction to them, providing better steering and handling. The the spine (mowhawk) design or the 3.0 body is actually meant to help with stability while in the air. The bodies that are being released now have been put through numerous of test, including a wind tunnel that allows them to see the actual air flow that is being applied to them while racing. I don't understand what you're wanting out of a more "RACE BODY." If you're wanting something that looks more to scale, I might suggest you trying out rock crawling or short course. As far as what your post might have contained might be due to the reason you were using language that is unsuitable for this forum(RCTECH in general) and they have certain words that trigger the need for a moderator to approve of a post before it's made public.

Asianman02

Akshayp14, I am all for performance too but to market a truck body for a race buggy to enhance handling just does not make any sense to me. I'm sorry but you don't see real race cars or buggys with a blunt windscreen for obvious aerodynamic reasons. I respect the fact that some people like the whole truck body on a race buggy look, all I'm asking is to have body that fits the proper classification of the vehicle. TLR made one for the nitro version can we get one for the e-race buggy?

Asianman02

TimMo846, the center vertical stabilizer is there to aid in side traction when going through sweepers. Like I said TLR made all the same enhancements to there nitro version so why can't they offer one for the electric. Just for the record I have not use any foul language in any of my post we are suppose to be adults here.
Before I'm done with my rant... it's not a stadium truck... it's not a monster truck... it's not a truggy...it's a race buggy. ;-)

akshayp14

ok im let me try to wrap my head around this
1stly im not mocking you, or trying to pick on you, im just trying to understand.

im sure we can agree that the new body aids handling in terms of front downforce and side stability (in comparison to the previous designs) and even if it is a marginal difference, as a racer is that not what you would want rather than something that looks a bit more to 'scale' but lacks these characteristics?

my 8ight 2.0 has the PL bulldog body and is similar to the 3.0e body with the sharp front windscreen but lacks the fin and is wider but i don't think it looks bad.

one other thing, i cant really see how it looks like a truck body.

Casper

iTrader: (34)

The 3.0 body is about performance first and looks second. (they did not ignore looks but worked on performance first). With that being said if you are going to for the looks the over hang should not be an issue. Not trying to be a jerk here but cab forward is here to stay I am afraid.

The rear fin is not for jumping stability. It is for more side force in the corners. Think winged sprint car. Instead of a giant wing we are using the body. The nitro body has this as well but they cut most of it out for nitro head clearance. LOL

Mullet1

iTrader: (16)

Don't feed the troll

Asianman02

Seriously no trolls here if you really know me you would know that I've been a serious losi fan boy for many years and that's all that I run. Casper, I've been a lurker for sometime on this forum and your insights on things have helped me a ton over the years and I thank you for that but with all due respect, why would anybody want to create more aerodynamic drag rather than to reduce lift to the front end of the car to aid in steering? Then on top of that create a aggressive drop right behind the cab to create turbulent air before the rear wing? I don't know but from the industry that I come from I've yet to see a real race car on or off-road that has such a configuration. You are right sprint cars do have the vertical stabilizer but the body is also streamline. So no it's not just a matter of aesthetics but a matter of proper aerodynamics to the class vehicle that it is which is a race buggy. My apologies if I have inadvertently offended you guys, I just call it as I see it.

RandyJones

iTrader: (26)

You don't like it, don't buy it. No one is forcing you.

Ben Burtle

iTrader: (10)

You just hit on a project I am working on. I have a solution for the turbulence. I actually agree with that. I just don't know if it will make a difference on such a small object. Now THAT would be an interesting discussion. Boeing and Nasa have worked on the same thing.

Casper

iTrader: (34)

Ever seen a car with front wings on it for front end downforce? Yeah not quite the same but cab forward bodies create down force as forward as they can make it. The front windshield will deflect air like a spoiler and create down force toward the front end of the car. The cab is narrow though so you do not get the full effect you would from fenders or a wing. As for air to the rear wing. I would have to make the argument the center of the cab is pretty narrow with respect to the width of the wing and the small center section of the wing that will get turbulent air is minor with respect to the sides that get clean air. The step is fairly far from the wing as well. It is not like we are dumping turbulent air right on the wing surface.


With all this being said cab forward body designs have been tested with the top drivers in the world with reduced lap times resulting from body changes. It is not a HUGE difference as you would see in a full size car but there is an effect on these smaller cars based on body and wing design and with the advancements in suspension geometery evlovling so far and being refined qutie a bit companies are starting to look at aero packages to make there cars even better.

dwgcooks

Why not put a put clear plastic on the shock tower? I think it would work better than the cab forward body which only gets turbulent air that had to go around and through the shock tower. Has anyone tried it?