Tamiya TRF418
#1801
Have you tried running Marc's first 418 setup from the ETS races? http://www.petitrc.com/reglages/tami...ice2013110103/
I tried this setup on our local track with kit springs and it's been doing pretty good. Just needs more work for my driving style.
I tried this setup on our local track with kit springs and it's been doing pretty good. Just needs more work for my driving style.
Sadly, on Petitrc, there are no "base" carpet setup for the 418 as there is for the 417v5, and the March Reinhard setup was the only modified setup on Petitrc.
I will give that a go and work from there.
#1802
Be wary, 400 tamiya 400 oil is likely far from equal to Muchmore 400
#1803
#1804
Need help again.
Please look at this setup sheet:
http://petitrc.com/reglages/tamiya/s...ice2013110103/
In the bottom to the right it specifies for the front separate B suspension blocks (for the rear).
For the rear, the setup sheet specifies seperate XC suspension blocks (for the front).
Two questions:
I have separate suspension blocks with 1C - 1XC marked on them. Guess these goes to the rear. But does the 1XC side sit closest to the centerline or closest to the edge of the chassis?
The front specifies separate B blocks, but I only have blocks with 1B - 1XB marked on them. Does the setup sheet really mean 1B - 1XB blocks? And again, how are they mounted? 1XB side closest to the centerline or closest to the edge of the chassis?
Please look at this setup sheet:
http://petitrc.com/reglages/tamiya/s...ice2013110103/
In the bottom to the right it specifies for the front separate B suspension blocks (for the rear).
For the rear, the setup sheet specifies seperate XC suspension blocks (for the front).
Two questions:
I have separate suspension blocks with 1C - 1XC marked on them. Guess these goes to the rear. But does the 1XC side sit closest to the centerline or closest to the edge of the chassis?
The front specifies separate B blocks, but I only have blocks with 1B - 1XB marked on them. Does the setup sheet really mean 1B - 1XB blocks? And again, how are they mounted? 1XB side closest to the centerline or closest to the edge of the chassis?
Last edited by Salkin; 09-17-2014 at 01:59 PM.
#1805
XB (etc.) is a narrow mounting, B (etc.) is a wide mounting.
#1806
Sosige is correct. X is narrow. Non x is wide.
A/XA has the least difference between wide and narrow, F/XF has the most.
Having dual use split blocks just means less sets in your pit box and would be less expensive to fill your pit box with every conceivable option - but actually just as many parts....
Don't forget that when changing blocks, you are not only changing toe/sweep but also track width.
For example, for the rear using either X/F, XA/E (std) or XD/B would achieve 3deg of toe in. However, X/F is a very wide car, and XD/B would be very narrow.
To clarify on your questions;
You sit the setting you are aiming for to the inside. So if looking for XC with a pair of C/XC blocks, mount the XC marking to the inside (toward centreline as you say)
For the rear blocks - front = closer to middle of the car
Split blocks are always dual use, so yes, MR is using B/XB blocks, with the B marking to the inside/centre.
For the front blocks - rear = closer to the middle of the car
To explain what these mean in terms of "setting"
FRONT
-0.5deg of arm sweep (0.5deg "out")
Approx std width
REAR
3.0deg of rear toe (3.0deg "in")
2 steps narrower than std width
A/XA has the least difference between wide and narrow, F/XF has the most.
Having dual use split blocks just means less sets in your pit box and would be less expensive to fill your pit box with every conceivable option - but actually just as many parts....
Don't forget that when changing blocks, you are not only changing toe/sweep but also track width.
For example, for the rear using either X/F, XA/E (std) or XD/B would achieve 3deg of toe in. However, X/F is a very wide car, and XD/B would be very narrow.
To clarify on your questions;
For the rear blocks - front = closer to middle of the car
For the front blocks - rear = closer to the middle of the car
To explain what these mean in terms of "setting"
FRONT
-0.5deg of arm sweep (0.5deg "out")
Approx std width
REAR
3.0deg of rear toe (3.0deg "in")
2 steps narrower than std width
#1807
Tech Master
Some like sweep on carpet set-up's which usually has the front suspension block one less than the front suspension blocks (i.e 1C and then 1B)
#1808
Double post, please delete.
#1809
Tanks a lot, it now makes sense.
I had installed the 1C-1XC blocks in MR's setup sheet with the C marking to the centre, which gave me approx. half degree of toe out on the rear wheels (in the Hudy set up system) which alarmed med that something was wrong. They are now installed with the XC markings to the centre and toe in in the rear is now correct.
I had installed the 1C-1XC blocks in MR's setup sheet with the C marking to the centre, which gave me approx. half degree of toe out on the rear wheels (in the Hudy set up system) which alarmed med that something was wrong. They are now installed with the XC markings to the centre and toe in in the rear is now correct.
#1810
When you copying Marc`s Setup Sheet with the rear Blocks with XC and C what you installed?
I have never seen splitted XC Blocks only this one 54065, single Block. XC and C was 3° but when you use C-XC and C it`s 0°. Because C-XC is C
What is incorrect at that sheet?
Or I don`t know that the splitted XC Block exist
I have never seen splitted XC Blocks only this one 54065, single Block. XC and C was 3° but when you use C-XC and C it`s 0°. Because C-XC is C
What is incorrect at that sheet?
Or I don`t know that the splitted XC Block exist
#1811
Split XC/C blocks DO exist - they are in the 418 kit for starters!
If you build the car with C - C , you get 0 degrees (like the front of the 418 in the kit).
If you build with XC - C you get three degrees (like in the Rheinard setup for the rear suspension).
If you build the car with C - C , you get 0 degrees (like the front of the 418 in the kit).
If you build with XC - C you get three degrees (like in the Rheinard setup for the rear suspension).
#1812
When you copying Marc`s Setup Sheet with the rear Blocks with XC and C what you installed?
I have never seen splitted XC Blocks only this one 54065, single Block. XC and C was 3° but when you use C-XC and C it`s 0°. Because C-XC is C
What is incorrect at that sheet?
Or I don`t know that the splitted XC Block exist
I have never seen splitted XC Blocks only this one 54065, single Block. XC and C was 3° but when you use C-XC and C it`s 0°. Because C-XC is C
What is incorrect at that sheet?
Or I don`t know that the splitted XC Block exist
The "Marc setup" specifies a split XC block for rear-front (see attached picture).
To copy this, I have used this block:
http://www.modellbau-seidel.de/index...iya&best=54174
I have installed them with the XC markings on the two blocks closest to the center of the chassis, as instructed.
With the long (1 piece) C block in the rear (as specified in the setup sheet) I think I remember it gave me a 3 degree toe in (in Hudy setup tool).
#1813
In fact, there are two versions of the split blocks, where the new ones have been lightened. But they can both be used and are interchangeable.
The "new" version of the 1XC block I have used are this one:
http://www.modellbau-seidel.de/index...a&best=9804785
The "new" version of the 1XC block I have used are this one:
http://www.modellbau-seidel.de/index...a&best=9804785
#1814
Well, no errors in the setup sheet I guess, just my ignorance in play
The "Marc setup" specifies a split XC block for rear-front (see attached picture).
To copy this, I have used this block:
http://www.modellbau-seidel.de/index...iya&best=54174
The "Marc setup" specifies a split XC block for rear-front (see attached picture).
To copy this, I have used this block:
http://www.modellbau-seidel.de/index...iya&best=54174
I order one now
#1815
You own a 418 - what came with it?