Cpt.America

iTrader: (52)

aahh I see what you are saying... if you flip the caster insert over so the hole is towards the inside of the car, the front track is widened by the offset of the hole. This gives more front end stability, and slightly tamer steering. (higher roll center, box setup). If you run the hole on the outside, the track will come in, lowering the roll center, giving you a bit more steering. However, I don't know if the C-hub will rub the arm if running the short setting (is it designed as a tuning option?) Has anybody tried?

Cpt.America

iTrader: (52)

I like how kyosho calls it "in case of midship motor".

jpcopeland1

iTrader: (166)

You will still have slop in that area if you dont use the optional 3x5x.01, .02 .03mm washers options. I personally like a little bit of slop in that area especially when it comes to the aluminum suspension holders.

fullsyzz

iTrader: (121)

Nevermind, I take it back, I am wrong. Hole on the outside gives a narrower track width. #2 is correct as written.

jpcopeland1

iTrader: (166)

Hey Matt, I just switched from a B4.1 with BB spring mod to RB6 over the lasdt week so I can give you my first impressions. Out of the box the car has as much if not more on-power and off-power steering as a B4.1, It's still alot more forgiving if you make a mistake then the B4.1 with BB soring mod, parts are readily available except rear arms which I cant find but have been told will be arriving any day now, and the shocks...... I built my brothers AE Big Bores and they are nothing compaired to the Kyosho BB's. As far as wings go, everyone I know who intitially used the Step 2.0 wing moved back to the B44 wing when the Kyosho wing went. They are really not all that durable. The other benefit of the RB6 is that in the long run rebuild of the car minus breakage will be cheaper due to the fact that Kyosho parts last nearly twice as long if not longer as AE parts before a rebuild is needed. I had my B4.1 and 1 1/2 months and had to rebuild the front end twice due to excessive slop. That is where the beauty of this car is, a friend of mine has an SC-R SP who just now rebuilt the diff after running it a hard solid 2 months, and on top of that it really didnt need it all that bad, rings, balls, thrust were all fine as well. Cant get that out of a B4 without needing a B-Fast diff kit.

jpcopeland1

iTrader: (166)

Kinda threatening sounding to mid motor runners... lol. Something got lost in the translation.

Matt Trimmings

iTrader: (170)

Thanks for the reply...I had one of the original RB5's when they first came out about 6 or so years ago. I remember it being fairly durable. It was fairly hard to get parts for back then but with Amain and a few other shops carrying them it shouldnt be too bad nowadays. So they are running the B44 wing, the regular AE one of the JC stuff? I can usually get some pretty good life out of the AE diff, some parts wear though.

Cpt.America

iTrader: (52)

So I am looking at Tebo's setup sheet from the supernats... and it LOOKS like he was running NO screws on the chassis side pods. NONE of the three side screws? I am just curious as to if the front most and rear most screws are strong enough to keep the chassis from bending down the middle?

http://www.petitrc.com/setup/kyosho/...2012/setup.pdf

jpcopeland1

iTrader: (166)

The AE B44 wing. Losi Parts House and speedtechrc are where the parts are around these parts, both OC/RC and West Coast carry a full parts lot for the RB6. Parts supply is in good shape. They cant deny the car since we already have 5 guys running it at OC/RC and West Coast is Kyosho land period. I too had the original RB5 when it came out and went through parts pain with you. Totally different story now.

DeanV

iTrader: (6)

I'm glad someone finally brought up the 'screws' , I noticed this myself when Tebo's sheet was released. I was told no screws allows more flex in the chassis. For now I built mine with all 3 screws in.

Dean

jpcopeland1

iTrader: (166)

They are. I tested this last night, I went back to my setup which has them in there. the plastic really sint strong enough in my opinion to totally eliminate flex, maybe taking out 1 on each side to get a tad more flex, but from driving the car I dont see the need for added flex.

Cpt.America

iTrader: (52)

Well that would depend on how much traction you have at your track. More chassis flex = more mechanical grip. Traction was pretty poor at the supernats, so I can see why Tebo was trying to get as much traction as possible.

Did anybody also notice that he is running the SHORT shock ends on the rear of the car... AND a 1mm internal limiter? Man.. he must of been hating off power steering at that track. I wonder what his overall droop was? I think he was running different rear arms?

t8rtot

iTrader: (14)

the chassis was pretty flexible in my hands before i built it, i couldn't imagine needing all of that in any situation.

John.C

iTrader: (37)

For the reasons you've provided, I do not believe that the caster blocks (inserts) are meant to be flipped but rather switched left to right to change the hole position.


The Setup Sheet has the 'Block position' as a tuning option. Tebo ran the 'In' position at Nats. It would've been clearer if they just said wider track vs. narrower track position.


The play/slop I'm experiencing is not due to the insufficient use of spacers/shims on the suspension shaft. I have the appropriate amount of spacers/shims (2.3mm total) to eliminate the back and forth play while achieving free arm movement. The slop is in between the bushing and the hole in the suspension holder. I'm sure the Alum holder matched up with the delrin bushing will take care of this.

Jason.Dias

Yes he ran RB5 arms.

While the setup was good for him at the Nats, I think people should go with the box setup and tune from there.