809LikesTLR 22 5.0
09-20-2023, 02:29 PM
#2731
Tech Apprentice
Is anyone running the AE front end mod with TLR offset front wheels? Seems like that would get as close as you'd want to eliminating scrub radius without creating squirm.
Using a standard c-hub design with the TLR front wheels would probably give you lots of space to package a front end design with minimal scrub radius. I think I just found my next DIY project...
Using a standard c-hub design with the TLR front wheels would probably give you lots of space to package a front end design with minimal scrub radius. I think I just found my next DIY project...
09-20-2023, 04:24 PM
#2732
It's a bit rough still, but it's only a 1st draft. Went with 0 trailing axle because I miss having it from my old DEX210 days and 0 caster because that's just easier to model and I'm lazy and in a hurry, lol. Otherwise I tried to take as many measurements off of the car as possible so hopefully everything lines up the first try. Gonna print one set tonight to see how everything fits or if I made any major errors.
09-21-2023, 07:25 AM
#2733
So I've already gone through 2 rounds of printing and revising and I'm ready to conclude that what I want to do is not possible without doing way more work than I'm willing to put in.
Basically the problem is this - scrub radius causes the wheel to not only rotate, but to also translate forward and backwards with respect to the car. Basically at full lock the outside of the car has a slightly longer wheelbase and the inside has a slightly shorter wheelbase. That movement of the wheels along the length of the car creates a larger envelope of free space inside the wheel where you can have suspension components. As an unintended side effect of reducing scrub radius I have also reduced the size of that envelope to the point that I can no longer turn the wheels at full lock without hitting either the arm or the camber link.
It's a problem that could be solved by redesigning more parts on the front end - mainly the arm. But that's more work than I signed up for so I'm just going to drop it for now. Kind of an unexciting conclusion, but that's just how it is sometimes.
Basically the problem is this - scrub radius causes the wheel to not only rotate, but to also translate forward and backwards with respect to the car. Basically at full lock the outside of the car has a slightly longer wheelbase and the inside has a slightly shorter wheelbase. That movement of the wheels along the length of the car creates a larger envelope of free space inside the wheel where you can have suspension components. As an unintended side effect of reducing scrub radius I have also reduced the size of that envelope to the point that I can no longer turn the wheels at full lock without hitting either the arm or the camber link.
It's a problem that could be solved by redesigning more parts on the front end - mainly the arm. But that's more work than I signed up for so I'm just going to drop it for now. Kind of an unexciting conclusion, but that's just how it is sometimes.
Last edited by RC10Nick; 09-21-2023 at 12:13 PM.
09-21-2023, 01:00 PM
#2734
Tech Apprentice
So I've already gone through 2 rounds of printing and revising and I'm ready to conclude that what I want to do is not possible without doing way more work than I'm willing to put in.
Basically the problem is this - scrub radius causes the wheel to not only rotate, but to also translate forward and backwards with respect to the car. Basically at full lock the outside of the car has a slightly longer wheelbase and the inside has a slightly shorter wheelbase. That movement of the wheels along the length of the car creates a larger envelope of free space inside the wheel where you can have suspension components. As an unintended side effect of reducing scrub radius I have also reduced the size of that envelope to the point that I can no longer turn the wheels at full lock without hitting either the arm or the camber link.
It's a problem that could be solved by redesigning more parts on the front end - mainly the arm. But that's more work than I signed up for so I'm just going to drop it for now. Kind of an unexciting conclusion, but that's just how it is sometimes.
Basically the problem is this - scrub radius causes the wheel to not only rotate, but to also translate forward and backwards with respect to the car. Basically at full lock the outside of the car has a slightly longer wheelbase and the inside has a slightly shorter wheelbase. That movement of the wheels along the length of the car creates a larger envelope of free space inside the wheel where you can have suspension components. As an unintended side effect of reducing scrub radius I have also reduced the size of that envelope to the point that I can no longer turn the wheels at full lock without hitting either the arm or the camber link.
It's a problem that could be solved by redesigning more parts on the front end - mainly the arm. But that's more work than I signed up for so I'm just going to drop it for now. Kind of an unexciting conclusion, but that's just how it is sometimes.
09-21-2023, 01:25 PM
#2735
Just my thoughts, basing this on my personal experience from almost 35 years back… I’m a Software Engineer, not a Mechanical one. 🙂 Part of the difficulty of the design you are trying to accomplish lies in the fact that back when buggies had little to no scrub radius, the bearings were in the wheels themselves, and the hub offsets were closer to the center or inner edge of the wheel due to the fact that you had bearings on each side of the wheel itself. This allowed the inner part of the wheel to mount right up to the pivot of the kingpin, provided that you were running an inline axle, since offset axles like those found on the original RC10 would give you a little scrub from that offset.
On modern buggies, the bearings are now on the axle itself, and the wheel is mounted to and held in place by a hex, which in itself has an offset away from the pivot point of the kingpin, Nevermind the offset of the axle from the kingpin. Add to the fact that modern wheels now have that offset closer to the OUTSIDE of the wheel, and like you mentioned above, you now have to deal with a whole bunch of clearance issues created by the modern design. So yes, I can see your frustration, especially since I think you’ve realized that it requires a redesign of more than just the kingpin/axle area of the buggy.
That being said, you have to ask yourself - why did they make these design decisions? Surely, protecting the bearings as much as possible was probably a major design consideration by the manufacturers, and one of the things I notice is that the point of rotation on the kingpin is a little further into the wheel compared to those old designs from almost 40 years ago… BUT, the wheel itself is still rotating on that scrub radius, which can only be controlled so much by the available offset that the axle spacer provides (2-4mm on the 22). Again - not a Mechanical Engineer, but I can only speculate that differences in grip level and the grip made available by modern tires must be a factor as to why modern front suspensions are currently designed that way. It’s definitely something that would require a lot of R&D, because you never know - having that “almost 0” scrub radius might result in less than desirable results without having to make significant changes elsewhere on the buggy.
Anyway, just food for thought…
On modern buggies, the bearings are now on the axle itself, and the wheel is mounted to and held in place by a hex, which in itself has an offset away from the pivot point of the kingpin, Nevermind the offset of the axle from the kingpin. Add to the fact that modern wheels now have that offset closer to the OUTSIDE of the wheel, and like you mentioned above, you now have to deal with a whole bunch of clearance issues created by the modern design. So yes, I can see your frustration, especially since I think you’ve realized that it requires a redesign of more than just the kingpin/axle area of the buggy.
That being said, you have to ask yourself - why did they make these design decisions? Surely, protecting the bearings as much as possible was probably a major design consideration by the manufacturers, and one of the things I notice is that the point of rotation on the kingpin is a little further into the wheel compared to those old designs from almost 40 years ago… BUT, the wheel itself is still rotating on that scrub radius, which can only be controlled so much by the available offset that the axle spacer provides (2-4mm on the 22). Again - not a Mechanical Engineer, but I can only speculate that differences in grip level and the grip made available by modern tires must be a factor as to why modern front suspensions are currently designed that way. It’s definitely something that would require a lot of R&D, because you never know - having that “almost 0” scrub radius might result in less than desirable results without having to make significant changes elsewhere on the buggy.
Anyway, just food for thought…
09-21-2023, 01:56 PM
#2736
In other news, TLR posted Tater’s setup sheet on their Facebook page. Something tells me that the front end settings are missing a little detail… 🤔
It at least mentions the use of 22X-4 arms in the rear.
It at least mentions the use of 22X-4 arms in the rear.
09-21-2023, 02:41 PM
#2737
The limiting factor really isn't the change to wheel hexes. In fact in designing my parts that didn't prove to be any challenge at all. The limiting factor is simply how wide the 22 5.0 front arms are at the hub. I suspect I'd have zero problem doing this mod to a b6.4 front arm - it's much narrower at the hub compared to a 22 front arm. I also suspect it's why AE was able to reduce scrub with the b6.4 in the first place - their arm design didn't prevent them from being able to.
I agree, there may not be much or any real benefit of designing a front end with zero scrub, but reducing or eliminating scrub has also been a selling point for at least three cars I can think of - the 223.0 2.0, the b6.4, and the n/eb48 2.0. So if it's reasonably easy to try, why not? But on the other hand, the very popular front end mod for the 22 takes scrub radius and turns it up to 11 and people love it. I doubt there are any simple answers, but it would have been fun to try it out.
Also, I checked Tater's setup on the TLR FB page and they're getting roasted over there. It's hilarious.
I agree, there may not be much or any real benefit of designing a front end with zero scrub, but reducing or eliminating scrub has also been a selling point for at least three cars I can think of - the 22
Also, I checked Tater's setup on the TLR FB page and they're getting roasted over there. It's hilarious.
Last edited by RC10Nick; 09-22-2023 at 10:42 AM. Reason: The 22 scrub radius change happened on the 22 2.0, not 3.0
09-22-2023, 03:09 PM
#2738
Tech Apprentice
The limiting factor really isn't the change to wheel hexes. In fact in designing my parts that didn't prove to be any challenge at all. The limiting factor is simply how wide the 22 5.0 front arms are at the hub. I suspect I'd have zero problem doing this mod to a b6.4 front arm - it's much narrower at the hub compared to a 22 front arm. I also suspect it's why AE was able to reduce scrub with the b6.4 in the first place - their arm design didn't prevent them from being able to.
I agree, there may not be much or any real benefit of designing a front end with zero scrub, but reducing or eliminating scrub has also been a selling point for at least three cars I can think of - the 223.0 2.0, the b6.4, and the n/eb48 2.0. So if it's reasonably easy to try, why not? But on the other hand, the very popular front end mod for the 22 takes scrub radius and turns it up to 11 and people love it. I doubt there are any simple answers, but it would have been fun to try it out.
Also, I checked Tater's setup on the TLR FB page and they're getting roasted over there. It's hilarious.
I agree, there may not be much or any real benefit of designing a front end with zero scrub, but reducing or eliminating scrub has also been a selling point for at least three cars I can think of - the 22
Also, I checked Tater's setup on the TLR FB page and they're getting roasted over there. It's hilarious.
11-04-2023, 10:40 AM
#2739
Crickets chirping, tumbleweed rolling. Time for a new car.
11-04-2023, 11:35 AM
#2740
Well, at this point, there’s quite a list of things on the table now, if you look at what the other manufacturers are doing. The 5.0 is a good base platform, but after the past few years of tinkering/modding, not to mention industry trends, it could use the following out of the kit:
- 13mm G4 shocks - with domed composite caps if they insist on keeping the aluminum ones an option part
- a gearbox with easy access diff, since TLR is pretty much the ONLY buggy without it at this point
- revised geometry to mimic both the front-end mods and use of 22x-4 rear arms that everyone seems to be using, with out if the box parts
- some new Low Frequency spring rates to fill in the gaps that require other brand springs at the moment
I still think that this could be called a “22 5.1” (or call it the 22X for marketing purposes but make sure the 5.0 is upgradeable), as I don’t think anything else needs to be changed, TBH. It seems that the quest here has been to make the car better on higher traction surfaces (high grip clay and Astro/carpet). I think they can still achieve it with those geometry upgrades without redesigning the whole car, but hey, I have no experience with these ultra high-grip tracks, so what do I know?
Anyway, let’s see what happens in January - the last few big TLR announcements tended to happen then, so if February comes around with no news, you can start getting worried.
- 13mm G4 shocks - with domed composite caps if they insist on keeping the aluminum ones an option part
- a gearbox with easy access diff, since TLR is pretty much the ONLY buggy without it at this point
- revised geometry to mimic both the front-end mods and use of 22x-4 rear arms that everyone seems to be using, with out if the box parts
- some new Low Frequency spring rates to fill in the gaps that require other brand springs at the moment
I still think that this could be called a “22 5.1” (or call it the 22X for marketing purposes but make sure the 5.0 is upgradeable), as I don’t think anything else needs to be changed, TBH. It seems that the quest here has been to make the car better on higher traction surfaces (high grip clay and Astro/carpet). I think they can still achieve it with those geometry upgrades without redesigning the whole car, but hey, I have no experience with these ultra high-grip tracks, so what do I know?
Anyway, let’s see what happens in January - the last few big TLR announcements tended to happen then, so if February comes around with no news, you can start getting worried.
11-13-2023, 05:26 PM
#2741
Trying to do the front end mod, I did buy the vision aluminum caster blocks. Installed them, but am I supposed to use the sct3.0 front axles or stock 5.0 axles. Another question when doing the mod by cutting the stock caster block, which I've done it seems I can not get the toe set correctly. I'm running out of turnbuckle length before I get the proper toe. Any suggestions?
11-13-2023, 08:06 PM
#2742
Tech Adept
Team Losi went to the extra mile in producing 4mm chassis
https://www.horizonhobby.com/product...TLR331064.html
https://www.horizonhobby.com/product...TLR331064.html
11-13-2023, 08:41 PM
#2743
To Tony Montana. I haven,t done the front end mod Tony but what I have seen is you cut the outer hinge pin hole off the front arm and cut the inner hinge pin hole from the caster block in which you are then mounting the outer hinge pin hole of the caster block to the inner hinge pin hole of the front arm, . You can either use the SCT front axles or the RC10 front axles. Hope all of this helps.
11-13-2023, 09:56 PM
#2745
Tech Regular
Trying to do the front end mod, I did buy the vision aluminum caster blocks. Installed them, but am I supposed to use the sct3.0 front axles or stock 5.0 axles. Another question when doing the mod by cutting the stock caster block, which I've done it seems I can not get the toe set correctly. I'm running out of turnbuckle length before I get the proper toe. Any suggestions?
If you are on Clay, use the B6 aluminum axles, which are lighter.
On the front steering, you need to redo the front steering links with 22X-4 turnbuckles. If there is someone at the track with a 22X-4, with aftermarket turnbuckles, they will probably give you the stock steel turnbuckles for a thank you.
As you likely noticed, if you use the 22 5.0 turnbuckles, you hit the end of the turnbuckle, before you get to the correct toe.
