R/C Tech Forums

Go Back   R/C Tech Forums > General Forums > Electric Off-Road

    Hide Wikipost
Old 08-23-2016, 10:37 AM   -   Wikipost
R/C Tech Forums Thread Wiki: Official TLR 22 3.0 Race Kit Thread!
Please read: This is a community-maintained wiki post containing the most important information from this thread. You may edit the Wiki once you have been a member for 90 days and have made 90 posts.
 
Last edit by: Matt Trimmings
Cub86 posted the question: Hi. I'm struggling to understand the lay down situation. I run on high bite damp smooth clay and think the conversation would help on my surface but from what I'm reading I need to buy the lay down kit tlr338004. And the dirt gear case tlr332063. But do I really need both from what I've read the dirt case is 1-2mm higher anyway and u don't use the +3mm hubs or the front pivot hrc or Hrc mod. So is the dirt lay down kit tlr332063 is all that's needed to get me a lay down set up that's suited for clay With the components and car I already have. And if I only get the dirt case is there any problems that will need to be addressed IE.. bone plunge . I do know I'll need 1mm spacers on the waterfall to clear the battery. Thanks guys really trying to get my head around this.

Franks response:
Laydown Conversion will work great by itself. You run the aluminum +3mm hubs, the diff is +3.5mm, and you run the HRC front setup. Just follow a setup sheet from tlracing.com (Frank Root).

Dirt Tranny has the diff at the same height as the standard tranny case, and works with the standard plastic hubs. Both are +/- 0mm from stock. When you run this, no need to run the HRC front mod either.

I've found the stock laydown conversion parts to work great for most tracks. The dirt tranny is a great tuning option, but definitely not 'required'.

K.King
Something I made, pretty basic. Just to give people an idea.

Print Wikipost

Like Tree12Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-07-2016, 05:03 PM   #3886
Tech Addict
 
HomicidalBunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 714
Trader Rating: 4 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by derekbsmith View Post
I've been looking for another explanation of the camber link height at the C-HUB, but I cannot find one. Googled it and looked her at the camber link tuning guide. Anyway. I have the schelle camber block on my 3.0 along with the stock c-hub.

1. When one raises the ballstud height at the c-hub, is it the same effect as at the tower camber block? how is it different?
2. I assume this effect is the same on the front of the car?

thank u!
per schelle racing:
*Standard height with 0 washers between upper and base is equal to the "-1" position using TLR kit inserts.
All changes made to geometry work the same front to rear; lowering the link on the tower raises the roll center, raising the link at the hub raises the roll center (albeit a smaller amount), and vise versa.
Thus, raising the ballstud at the hub (outer mounting point) is an equivalent (but smaller) change to lowering the ballstud at the tower.
__________________
TLR 8ight 4.0 / TLR 8ight-T 2.0
HomicidalBunny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2016, 06:32 PM   #3887
Tech Initiate
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 22
Default

Got bored and made a fan mount for my stock 22 3.0.

Last edited by Matt M.; 03-11-2017 at 03:28 AM.
rms1776 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2016, 09:57 PM   #3888
Tech Apprentice
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 60
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MNiceGuy View Post
I already have (and love) my carpet (+3.5) laydown conversion but now without 338004 building a similar car made and expensive proposition a little more expensive.

22 3.0 Kit: $299.99
New Laydown Kit (338005): $139.99
+3.5 Laydown Transmission: $71.99
+3mm Rear Hub: $31.99

TOTAL: $543.96

This a $64 increase for carpet guys over the buying the car with 338004.

Perhaps the dirt conversion will suffice? All I can say Frank is my carpet laydown with your April '16 JBRL setup is amazing.
Yikes, now I am really feeling the carpet burn. $243.97 to convert a 22 3.0 to carpet buggy!
I sure hope TLR is working on a more economical option for us carpet guys. Frank, do we have any hope?
__________________
TLR 22 4.0 - TLR 22T 2.0 - TLR 22-4
Team Losi Jrx2 (retired)
DJPod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2016, 03:21 AM   #3889
Tech Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 620
Trader Rating: 3 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJPod View Post
Yikes, now I am really feeling the carpet burn. $243.97 to convert a 22 3.0 to carpet buggy!
I sure hope TLR is working on a more economical option for us carpet guys. Frank, do we have any hope?
The old laydown kits aren't sold out everywhere yet. Go grab one!
Callaway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2016, 07:02 AM   #3890
Tech Regular
 
kyle3333's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 450
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Is the body used for TLR338004 the same for TLR338005?
__________________
JConcepts UpGrade RC
kyle3333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2016, 08:56 AM   #3891
Tech Regular
 
MNiceGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Belle Plaine, MN
Posts: 298
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJPod View Post
Yikes, now I am really feeling the carpet burn. $243.97 to convert a 22 3.0 to carpet buggy!
I sure hope TLR is working on a more economical option for us carpet guys. Frank, do we have any hope?
Without being involved with the production process, it would stand to reason that the easiest way to reduce the cost of the conversion would be to mold the transmission case. Don't get me wrong, the machined Delrin is VERY nice but my goodness is it expensive.

I understand the argument behind molding vs machining but I'm curious as to why it still applies to these transmission cases. If you think about it, TLR gave us the 3-gear molded transmission in June '16 for cars that were discontinued only a few months later.

The only explanations that makes sense to me are either A. the conversion kits are not selling a lot of volume or B. the added strength of the Delrin is actually needed given the design.

I love my carpet 3.0 but I can't help but feel that newcomers are going to be much more tempted by the $309 Associated B6, $349 X-Ray XB2 Carpet, or $319 Yokomo YZ-2 CA. Even the comparatively spendy Kyosho and Schumacher options are more than a $100 less expensive.
__________________
22 3.0 Laydown | 22T 2.0 | 22T 3.0 | 22-4 2.0 | XXX-T MF1 | XX4
MNiceGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2016, 09:24 AM   #3892
Tech Champion
 
Davidka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 9,843
Trader Rating: 75 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MNiceGuy View Post
If you think about it, TLR gave us the 3-gear molded transmission in June '16 for cars that were discontinued only a few months later.

The only explanations that makes sense to me are either A. the conversion kits are not selling a lot of volume or B. the added strength of the Delrin is actually needed given the design.
Speculation: the 3-gear 22 2.0 conversion may have been a developed project that was well underway when the decision to make a 3.0 was taken. If molds were cut, then offering the conversion might have been a way to recover costs. I bet the cars work pretty well, too.

Delrin is not stronger often than an injection molded part, which can be formulated for it's specific need. It's very machine/prototype friendly. Machining would hint that intended volume was low and that they wanted to avoid mold tooling investment.

Maybe 4.0 is on the way...
__________________
"I have no idea what you're talking about, so here's a bunny with a pancake on it's head."

In mind and body, we're all heading towards old age. It is slower to go by bike.
Davidka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2016, 09:55 AM   #3893
Tech Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davidka View Post
Speculation: the 3-gear 22 2.0 conversion may have been a developed project that was well underway when the decision to make a 3.0 was taken. If molds were cut, then offering the conversion might have been a way to recover costs. I bet the cars work pretty well, too.

Delrin is not stronger often than an injection molded part, which can be formulated for it's specific need. It's very machine/prototype friendly. Machining would hint that intended volume was low and that they wanted to avoid mold tooling investment.

Maybe 4.0 is on the way...
I agree that the 2.0 3 gear was molded because it was a longstanding project already in process.

Machining a gear box is more expensive but it is the only way to go to get the conversion kits out "right now" to existing 22 3.0 owners to stay up with the laydown craze or market demand. There may or may not be a 4.0 around the corner but you can guarantee they are working on something.

Associated was in a similar situation with the b5 no laydown and it was 200 for WWHD conversion. They decided to redesign the car instead of a conversion.
fantomdude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2016, 10:51 AM   #3894
Tech Regular
 
MNiceGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Belle Plaine, MN
Posts: 298
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davidka View Post
Speculation: the 3-gear 22 2.0 conversion may have been a developed project that was well underway when the decision to make a 3.0 was taken. If molds were cut, then offering the conversion might have been a way to recover costs. I bet the cars work pretty well, too.

Delrin is not stronger often than an injection molded part, which can be formulated for it's specific need. It's very machine/prototype friendly. Machining would hint that intended volume was low and that they wanted to avoid mold tooling investment.

Maybe 4.0 is on the way...
Quote:
Originally Posted by fantomdude View Post
I agree that the 2.0 3 gear was molded because it was a longstanding project already in process.

Machining a gear box is more expensive but it is the only way to go to get the conversion kits out "right now" to existing 22 3.0 owners to stay up with the laydown craze or market demand. There may or may not be a 4.0 around the corner but you can guarantee they are working on something.

Associated was in a similar situation with the b5 no laydown and it was 200 for WWHD conversion. They decided to redesign the car instead of a conversion.
Good points. I didn't consider the development time of the 3-gear.

At any rate, TLR is in a tricky situation here. On high-traction surfaces, the original car is good but the laydown is the one you want.

My speculation:
I think TLR chose to go with a more conventional transmission in the 3.0 despite the successes of the YZ-2 and its laydown configuration. As the laydown phenomenon caught on, other companies began releasing laydown cars, and people started buying them. At this point it was clear TLR had to do something to remain competitive in the market. Eventually we got the conversion kit with a machined case; suggesting the time between design and production was short.
__________________
22 3.0 Laydown | 22T 2.0 | 22T 3.0 | 22-4 2.0 | XXX-T MF1 | XX4
MNiceGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2016, 01:03 PM   #3895
Tech Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MNiceGuy View Post
Good points. I didn't consider the development time of the 3-gear.

At any rate, TLR is in a tricky situation here. On high-traction surfaces, the original car is good but the laydown is the one you want.

My speculation:
I think TLR chose to go with a more conventional transmission in the 3.0 despite the successes of the YZ-2 and its laydown configuration. As the laydown phenomenon caught on, other companies began releasing laydown cars, and people started buying them. At this point it was clear TLR had to do something to remain competitive in the market. Eventually we got the conversion kit with a machined case; suggesting the time between design and production was short.
When the 3.0 was developed and released everyone was running a standup. And the "3 gear" tranny was the hot item. The b5 had a 3 gear option. yokomo was working on their "D" car with a standup 3 gear. All of us running 2.0 were adding brass hinge pin holders to get the weight back on the axles. It just goes to show how quick things change and how fast a platform can develop
fantomdude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2016, 01:26 PM   #3896
Tech Regular
 
MNiceGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Belle Plaine, MN
Posts: 298
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fantomdude View Post
When the 3.0 was developed and released everyone was running a standup. And the "3 gear" tranny was the hot item. The b5 had a 3 gear option. yokomo was working on their "D" car with a standup 3 gear. All of us running 2.0 were adding brass hinge pin holders to get the weight back on the axles. It just goes to show how quick things change and how fast a platform can develop
Stand up was definitely the norm but there were laydown transmissions out there. Yokomo's YZ-2 was a laydown car that predated the 22 3.0 by approximately 11 months. Where my memory is not clear is how we got from 'that Yokomo with the flat transmission' to most mainstream companies offering one. As you said fantomdude, it seems like you can blink and everything is different.

I do recall the 3-gear phenomenon though. I purchased a T5M right around the time AE released the conversion parts and remember people raving about how much better it was. Heck, my 22T feels better to me as a 3-gear.

I for one actually prefer the TLR approach. I tend to think other companies are more inclined to wait and lump new tech into a new car where TLR seems more likely to get the tech out the door as quickly as possible. Sometimes that means expensive conversions but so be it.

As I mentioned before though, newcomers may be looking at the competition and seeing a better value. TLR's are relatively rare at my track with only 2 other regular cars (1 of these is sponsored) beside my own that I am aware of.

EDIT:

On a somewhat unrelated note: Are any of you running a fan for your motor and if so, how/where did you mount it?
__________________
22 3.0 Laydown | 22T 2.0 | 22T 3.0 | 22-4 2.0 | XXX-T MF1 | XX4
MNiceGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2016, 01:36 PM   #3897
Tech Champion
 
Davidka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 9,843
Trader Rating: 75 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MNiceGuy View Post
Stand up was definitely the norm but there were laydown transmissions out there. Yokomo's YZ-2 was a laydown car that predated the 22 3.0 by approximately 11 months. Where my memory is not clear is how we got from 'that Yokomo with the flat transmission' to most mainstream companies offering one. As you said fantomdude, it seems like you can blink and everything is different.

I do recall the 3-gear phenomenon though. I purchased a T5M right around the time AE released the conversion parts and remember people raving about how much better it was. Heck, my 22T feels better to me as a 3-gear.
I think it went from the Yokomo to mainstream when the worlds were held on turf/carpet. The EOS is also a driver with a series of high-profile carpet races. FWIW, I think there's a lot of people running lay-down in situations where it's not the best choice, just because it's the new & shiny thing, but we'll see.

An important distinction in the TLR timeline - the 2.0's 4-gear was something of an anamoly in that it moved the motor pretty far forward from the rear diff, necessitating the weights.
__________________
"I have no idea what you're talking about, so here's a bunny with a pancake on it's head."

In mind and body, we're all heading towards old age. It is slower to go by bike.
Davidka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2016, 05:57 PM   #3898
Tech Fanatic
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 778
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Is there any situation where the HRC rear plates would be benificial? I installed the laydown kit and I run on a carpet track with small jumps and lots of corners. After I ordered the plates I looked at petite and there are NO setup sheets that use the HRC rear. I do feel my buggy leans in the corners a bit to much and lifts the inside rear wheel slightly. I hope I didn't waste my money.
LosiMadMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2016, 06:44 PM   #3899
Tech Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 620
Trader Rating: 3 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LosiMadMan View Post
Is there any situation where the HRC rear plates would be benificial? I installed the laydown kit and I run on a carpet track with small jumps and lots of corners. After I ordered the plates I looked at petite and there are NO setup sheets that use the HRC rear. I do feel my buggy leans in the corners a bit to much and lifts the inside rear wheel slightly. I hope I didn't waste my money.
I have them too. I bought them at the same time as the kit and ran them with the stand up. I haven't run them since going laydown, but who knows... maybe it is a good choice in certain applications. If you do it, post the results. I may try it as well. Oh, I think the laydown kit does raise the rear hinge pins 1 mm compared to the standard, but I may be wrong. If so, that would make the HRC a really high roll center.
Callaway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2016, 07:08 PM   #3900
Tech Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MNiceGuy View Post

On a somewhat unrelated note: Are any of you running a fan for your motor and if so, how/where did you mount it?
I mounted mine right on the edge of the chassis with double sided tape.behind the motor (laydown tranny) like this

Last edited by Matt M.; 03-11-2017 at 03:28 AM.
fantomdude is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. It is currently 07:13 PM.


Powered By: vBulletin v3.9.2.1
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Advertise Content © 2001-2011 RCTech.net