26LikesTLR 22 3.0 Race Kit Thread!
08-23-2016, 10:37 AM - Wikipost
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. 
|
01-11-2016, 06:58 AM
#1501
I don't think you're doing anything wrong. The seal package has such low friction that any amount of pressure will move the shaft. Zero pressure in the shock is almost impossible since there has to be some amount of air to compensate for volume change (shaft). You may find that if you build with negative rebound, the shock will eventually take on a little more air to make up for it.
The only way I can see to "fix" it is to use a bladder and ventilate the cap so that the air behind it can normalize with movement.
The only way I can see to "fix" it is to use a bladder and ventilate the cap so that the air behind it can normalize with movement.
01-11-2016, 07:18 AM
#1502
OK guys, another question. I apologize if this has already been covered but as these threads get longer my memory gets shorter, haha! We've always been pretty decent at building shocks and I know I have read about this somewhere before but didn't really pay a lot of attention to it as it hadn't been a problem in the past but we have been building our shocks with little to no rebound but at the moment we are having a lot of negative rebound in them. As soon as we cycle the shock and check rebound when we pull the shaft out it sucks back into the shock. Not all the way but about halfish or so. I don't think that this is supposed to happen is it, and if not what are we doing wrong? The shocks are about a month old.
01-11-2016, 07:37 AM
#1503
01-11-2016, 07:38 AM
#1504
Because there's not enough pictures of the same buggy.
LRP Works Team esc, aluminum front hex's, 5mm carbon front shock tower, 0 degree caster blocks, gear diff, titanium shock mounts and a LRP 20.5 mod motor. Going to go to a 7.5 soon. Electronics are mounted to I can use any battery configuration plus I run on carpet.
LRP Works Team esc, aluminum front hex's, 5mm carbon front shock tower, 0 degree caster blocks, gear diff, titanium shock mounts and a LRP 20.5 mod motor. Going to go to a 7.5 soon. Electronics are mounted to I can use any battery configuration plus I run on carpet.
01-11-2016, 08:48 AM
#1506
It makes sense, we had to do some odd things to get the 2.0 to be hooked up. With as great as this car already is, I think we still have a long way to get it to its full potential.
With that said, I ran my old 2.0 shock package on my 3.0 and think it was much better than stock. I think we'll be going back to our 2.0 shock packages as we get away from our old camber link habits.
With that said, I ran my old 2.0 shock package on my 3.0 and think it was much better than stock. I think we'll be going back to our 2.0 shock packages as we get away from our old camber link habits.
01-11-2016, 12:03 PM
#1507
I have been running this car since it was released. I race 17.5 at my local high bite indoor track (trackside hobbies). I am usually an upper b main to lower a main guy and we usually have 40-50 drivers in our 17.5 class.
A few things I have noticed on the car that may help some. At minimum on high bite the longer vla is needed. I have gone to the extrememe and am running the inner hole on the carrier to the outer hole in the arm. THis brings the car to the maximum width (by roar) and just a tiny bit wider than the b5m. THis also increased the tie rod length which is what the car really needed. The car is now very easy to drive and the rear end just follows the front without introducing any push. I have a b5m lite and did a lot of coparrison between the 2 and the 3.0 is about 1/2 inch per side shorter on tie rod length in the front end. I would love to see some new carriers made to make the tie rods longer.
Another thing I did that helped my car a lot is to put a 1mm shim under the waterfall. This along with a thumb screw type battery hold down took all the pressure from the battery hold down off the battery and allowed the chassis to flex much more consistently. Before I had to push down on the hold down and force the clips into position. Many at my track have taken the hold down off completely and now tape their battery in place.
Jesse
A few things I have noticed on the car that may help some. At minimum on high bite the longer vla is needed. I have gone to the extrememe and am running the inner hole on the carrier to the outer hole in the arm. THis brings the car to the maximum width (by roar) and just a tiny bit wider than the b5m. THis also increased the tie rod length which is what the car really needed. The car is now very easy to drive and the rear end just follows the front without introducing any push. I have a b5m lite and did a lot of coparrison between the 2 and the 3.0 is about 1/2 inch per side shorter on tie rod length in the front end. I would love to see some new carriers made to make the tie rods longer.
Another thing I did that helped my car a lot is to put a 1mm shim under the waterfall. This along with a thumb screw type battery hold down took all the pressure from the battery hold down off the battery and allowed the chassis to flex much more consistently. Before I had to push down on the hold down and force the clips into position. Many at my track have taken the hold down off completely and now tape their battery in place.
Jesse
01-11-2016, 12:38 PM
#1508
Thank you sir. I did realize that after I took the pictures, but thanks for looking out!!
01-11-2016, 01:57 PM
#1509
It makes sense, we had to do some odd things to get the 2.0 to be hooked up. With as great as this car already is, I think we still have a long way to get it to its full potential.
With that said, I ran my old 2.0 shock package on my 3.0 and think it was much better than stock. I think we'll be going back to our 2.0 shock packages as we get away from our old camber link habits.
With that said, I ran my old 2.0 shock package on my 3.0 and think it was much better than stock. I think we'll be going back to our 2.0 shock packages as we get away from our old camber link habits.
When you go to +1 and add 1mm washer, the turnbuckle is closer to parallel at ride height -- which is similar to the B5M. I think it keeps the rear end flatter throughout the turn.
I am really liking this setup on med/high bite, along with the longer VLA (which I believe matches the original 22 arm pivot, but i could be wrong).
01-11-2016, 02:24 PM
#1510
Tech Adept
With the rear camber block at -1mm, it makes the rear inner ballstud significantly lower than the outer (on the hub).
When you go to +1 and add 1mm washer, the turnbuckle is closer to parallel at ride height -- which is similar to the B5M. I think it keeps the rear end flatter throughout the turn.
I am really liking this setup on med/high bite, along with the longer VLA (which I believe matches the original 22 arm pivot, but i could be wrong).
When you go to +1 and add 1mm washer, the turnbuckle is closer to parallel at ride height -- which is similar to the B5M. I think it keeps the rear end flatter throughout the turn.
I am really liking this setup on med/high bite, along with the longer VLA (which I believe matches the original 22 arm pivot, but i could be wrong).
01-11-2016, 02:38 PM
#1511
With the rear camber block at -1mm, it makes the rear inner ballstud significantly lower than the outer (on the hub).
When you go to +1 and add 1mm washer, the turnbuckle is closer to parallel at ride height -- which is similar to the B5M. I think it keeps the rear end flatter throughout the turn.
I am really liking this setup on med/high bite, along with the longer VLA (which I believe matches the original 22 arm pivot, but i could be wrong).
When you go to +1 and add 1mm washer, the turnbuckle is closer to parallel at ride height -- which is similar to the B5M. I think it keeps the rear end flatter throughout the turn.
I am really liking this setup on med/high bite, along with the longer VLA (which I believe matches the original 22 arm pivot, but i could be wrong).
01-11-2016, 03:14 PM
#1512
Tech Initiate
The stock setup in the rear have the inner link much lower than the outside which in theory have high roll centre ,that will free up the rear end allowing it to roll less in the corner and gives the car a lot of steering in and out of the corner....I normally like my links in the rear to be parell so I went ahead and flipped the plastic camber hight and added 2 ml washer as well...went out tried the car and there u go,the car had a lot of rear traction,planted,rolls a lot and massive push throughout the turn going in and out and in neutral.
So I went back to the original setup and got my steering back and the car is fast....heck some top drivers will even shorten the camber link to free the rear even more....by the way that is on highbite clay....if someone found diffrent please post
So I went back to the original setup and got my steering back and the car is fast....heck some top drivers will even shorten the camber link to free the rear even more....by the way that is on highbite clay....if someone found diffrent please post
01-11-2016, 03:33 PM
#1513
I have been running this car since it was released. I race 17.5 at my local high bite indoor track (trackside hobbies). I am usually an upper b main to lower a main guy and we usually have 40-50 drivers in our 17.5 class.
A few things I have noticed on the car that may help some. At minimum on high bite the longer vla is needed. I have gone to the extrememe and am running the inner hole on the carrier to the outer hole in the arm. THis brings the car to the maximum width (by roar) and just a tiny bit wider than the b5m. THis also increased the tie rod length which is what the car really needed. The car is now very easy to drive and the rear end just follows the front without introducing any push. I have a b5m lite and did a lot of coparrison between the 2 and the 3.0 is about 1/2 inch per side shorter on tie rod length in the front end. I would love to see some new carriers made to make the tie rods longer.
Another thing I did that helped my car a lot is to put a 1mm shim under the waterfall. This along with a thumb screw type battery hold down took all the pressure from the battery hold down off the battery and allowed the chassis to flex much more consistently. Before I had to push down on the hold down and force the clips into position. Many at my track have taken the hold down off completely and now tape their battery in place.
Jesse
A few things I have noticed on the car that may help some. At minimum on high bite the longer vla is needed. I have gone to the extrememe and am running the inner hole on the carrier to the outer hole in the arm. THis brings the car to the maximum width (by roar) and just a tiny bit wider than the b5m. THis also increased the tie rod length which is what the car really needed. The car is now very easy to drive and the rear end just follows the front without introducing any push. I have a b5m lite and did a lot of coparrison between the 2 and the 3.0 is about 1/2 inch per side shorter on tie rod length in the front end. I would love to see some new carriers made to make the tie rods longer.
Another thing I did that helped my car a lot is to put a 1mm shim under the waterfall. This along with a thumb screw type battery hold down took all the pressure from the battery hold down off the battery and allowed the chassis to flex much more consistently. Before I had to push down on the hold down and force the clips into position. Many at my track have taken the hold down off completely and now tape their battery in place.
Jesse
01-11-2016, 04:50 PM
#1514
The stock setup in the rear have the inner link much lower than the outside which in theory have high roll centre ,that will free up the rear end allowing it to roll less in the corner and gives the car a lot of steering in and out of the corner....I normally like my links in the rear to be parell so I went ahead and flipped the plastic camber hight and added 2 ml washer as well...went out tried the car and there u go,the car had a lot of rear traction,planted,rolls a lot and massive push throughout the turn going in and out and in neutral.
So I went back to the original setup and got my steering back and the car is fast....heck some top drivers will even shorten the camber link to free the rear even more....by the way that is on highbite clay....if someone found diffrent please post
So I went back to the original setup and got my steering back and the car is fast....heck some top drivers will even shorten the camber link to free the rear even more....by the way that is on highbite clay....if someone found diffrent please post
I had to shorten my rear link this weekend. The back end was rolling so much more than the front it was causing some serious over-steer late in the turn. With the rear link shortened the car felt much more balanced.
01-11-2016, 04:58 PM
#1515
Yes i did widen the front of the car. The front of the car is narrower than a b5m in stock settings. Losi did a great job from the waterfall back not so much on the front end. Still leaps and bounds over the 2.0. For the high bite tracks i run on the geometry is just off. Im sure some compromise was made to make a versital car. By widening the front end i was able to get my car to be faster than my b5m. Several people have driven my car and agree its darn good now. Its better than i am thats for sure.