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. 
|
12-07-2016, 05:03 PM
#3886
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.
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.
Thus, raising the ballstud at the hub (outer mounting point) is an equivalent (but smaller) change to lowering the ballstud at the tower.
12-07-2016, 06:32 PM
#3887
Tech Initiate
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.
12-07-2016, 09:57 PM
#3888
Tech Apprentice
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.
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.
$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?
12-08-2016, 03:21 AM
#3889
12-08-2016, 07:02 AM
#3890
Is the body used for TLR338004 the same for TLR338005?
12-08-2016, 08:56 AM
#3891
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.
12-08-2016, 09:24 AM
#3892
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.
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.
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...
12-08-2016, 09:55 AM
#3893
Tech Regular
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...
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...
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.
12-08-2016, 10:51 AM
#3894
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...
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.
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.
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.
12-08-2016, 01:03 PM
#3895
Tech Regular
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.
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.
12-08-2016, 01:26 PM
#3896
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
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?
12-08-2016, 01:36 PM
#3897
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 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.
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.
12-08-2016, 05:57 PM
#3898
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.
12-08-2016, 06:44 PM
#3899
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.
12-08-2016, 07:08 PM
#3900
Tech Regular
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.