fredswain

iTrader: (1)

I took everything out of the car last night and took pictures of it and everything else for it to get it ready to sell. While looking over the car it occurred to me that I was a bit sad. I actually really like the car. The 210 is a good car and I've got lots of time with it. More than any other car in the last 20 years. It's not perfect but it's certainly not deserving of much of the hate it receives elsewhere on the forum. I've mentioned my gripes with the car but I'll have complaints about any of them. It's durable, tunable, handles well, is a bargain compared to the others and is in general just an overall good car.

I haven't listed it yet. Now I'm torn. Maybe I should get the other car and then compare them side by side. I'm looking at the 22 2.0 from a suspension geometry standpoint and on paper I suspect it's better. Memory fades quickly though. Perhaps the best thing would be to have both of them side by side to know for sure. I'm positive that I don't want a B5 though!

Tdub77

iTrader: (2)

Two of the reasons I choose the Durango platform is the 3 gear mid option and droop screws. Neither b5 or 22 have droop screws but the b5 has a mid 3 gear option, not sure about the geomotry between them though. My thought about having the perfect car is, that my driving ability holds me back more than not being able to tune the car exactly how I like.

Tim

fredswain

iTrader: (1)

For me it was 3 gear and droop screws too. The B5 shares the same suspension geometry as the 210 (actually that's backwards) so for me the B5 isn't an option that I'm going to entertain. The 22 has the suspension geometry that I want but a big thing that it doesn't have is the MM setup that I'd like. If I get that car I'll most likely keep in rear motor. You just can't get the weight on the rear of that car in MM without adding a ton of weights. I believe the 210 to be the better MM car but the caveat to that is that they each have problems in MM. Just in different areas.

I really don't like the rear shocks mounted behind the rear arms. Everyone is doing this and I disagree with it. The logic is that you need the weight back there to get traction. Isn't that what a motor back there did? Moving weight forwards but moving some back again just seems weird. It's not even low center weight at that but rather weight that is centered higher up and wider. The 210 has geometry flaws if you run the shocks behind the arms. I've pointed this out but people choose to ignore it. The 22 does have the rear shocks mounted on the backside but I've already stated that I probably wouldn't run that car in MM anyways.

It's these tradeoffs in different areas that makes it tough to choose between them. There will always be something I like and don't like. The 210 gearbox with the 22 suspension on a carbon chassis would be perfect. I may as well just design a brand new car with everything that I want.

303slowdown

iTrader: (24)

But make 2 so I can buy one lol.

Tdub77

iTrader: (2)

I will take one too

Tim

Dino_D

I came from a 22. and I like the 210 better. It just never really like me. The car was always a bit nervous for my liking, struggled on low grip tracks, especially on RM mode. Mid motor the car was good, on carpet or high grip tracks, but like I said, it still had it's quirks from time to time and needed suspension tweaking. Plus I kept breaking those plastic rear hubs like no tomorrow.

I did try the 22 2.0 for 2 weeks, (friend had one who lent it to me to help him set it up) I can tell you the 2.0 is definitely an improvement over the original car. It felt more locked in and stable, definitely more predicable and easier to drive than the previous version. Still had to run the brass weights on the side pods with the short lipo. But I still prefer the 210 more. The ability to run RM3, RM4, MM4, MM3 gives more tuning options. I have yet to break anything in my 210 besides ballcups, where my 22 i went thru a tons of parts.

Tdub77

iTrader: (2)

Not sure why no one makes a arms with droop screws for either of the b5 of the 22. Maybe the 210 gearbox or the 3 gearbox can be fitted to the 22 somehow

Tim

wyd

iTrader: (51)

I had 2 Durango 210's and I have had the Losi 2.0 buggy and this year deiced against my better judgement a B5M. Thank god I didn't listen to my judgement because it is hands down better handling than the Durango and Losi on ever track I been two vs the same tracks with the other cars. Thing is I hate to run Associated but they did their homework on this car. Out of the box no option parts it easily builds better than the other two and again straight from the box no hop ups easily handles better as well. Once again I hate even saying this as I hate to run Associated.

Dino_D

If you dont like Associated why didn't you try the Yokomo. At least it ain't AE.

fredswain

iTrader: (1)

There will always be people that prefer one car over the other. I believe that most people copy setup sheets and base their opinions off of those cars on those setup sheets. This is putting lots of faith in something that is usually not that good. I've never seen a pro setup sheet that I agree with. They always look like random guesses to finally reach a compromise that they'll ultimately change the next time they drive it anyways. Contrary to popular belief you just don't need constant drastic changes for different tracks. Some things of course but not a whole new from scratch approach. If you can't trust setup sheets some of the time, why trust them any of the time? I don't. I have my own organized methodical method and it exposes design issues. As a result I disagree with many popular techniques and design elements. That means I need to see if one out there agrees with me.

One does in the suspension geometry area. I don't agree with their setups though. I don't believe in 30° front caster under any circumstance and feel that less front kick would work better on most blue groove or high grip tracks. The longer arms of the 22 2.0 should equal a more stable, more forgiving car that works well for fast tracks. Too long of a suspension arm though will result in a lazier, less aggressive handling car on slower tracks as a trade-off. Everything here is high grip and high speed. I also don't like MM4. It's crap but it's the standard. I'd rather drive RM3 than MM4 and I never see any reason why anyone would ever need to run RM4 unless they have a poor setup that they need to compensate for, which is highly plausible. That leaves the 210 gearbox as either a RM3 or MM3 box for me. I do like the slipper adjustment on the opposite side from the spur gear.

At first I liked the built in inserts of the 210 that allow easy caster, trail, etc. Now I think that it's unnecessary. I'd prefer simplicity. I always run my driveshafts inline with the outdrives which means all spacers forwards. I don't need the option to move them. Even in MM3. I wish that rear toe was not adjustable on the arms but rather only at the hubs. Angling the rear arms forwards isn't a good idea and will decrease the suspension effectivenessin rough conditions.

It's things like this that I like and don't like. Durango fundamentally doesn't understand geometry. They do understand how to integrate features though, most of which are unnecessary. The reality is that if I designed my own off-road car (I've got an oval car), it wouldn't sell. People would see a lack of features that they've been trained into believing are necessary. I still may retain the 210 for a direct comparison though. I know the car really well.

wyd

iTrader: (51)

I work at a hobbyshop and AE parts are plentiful.

Dino_D

Just curious, I believe you like MM3 over MM4 before. You used to rave about it. Isn't the RM4 similar in that respect but in rear motor mode? RM4 works in low grip as it minimizes the weight transfer affect on acceleration and deceleration and its noticeable on jumps that you can't really control the pitch of the car in jumps, but what it does provide is a more stable chassis on low bite conditions, as the front or rear doesn't unload as quick.

The setups I run on my cars can use RM3 or RM4, but it really depends if you are trying to maintain corner speed thru a thru or make it a point or shoot car (hard brake and turn) - which mainly boils down to driving style.
There is no magic setup that works everywhere, conditions are different, tracks are constantly changing. It doesn't mean that you need to tweak at every track. But settings on high grip will be different that low grip for sure. The springs and oil will always be different, maybe even roll centers.

If you ask me how well does RM4 work on a high bite track, well high bite tracks favor mid motor more.

On med-high bite, RM3, will allow for more weight transfer in a corner allowing you to corner better/sharper. While the RM4 will not, but on low grip it's a different story when traction is at a premium. You don't want all that weight transfer to the front to unload your rear, the car stays flatter so you come into the corner hotter, use more brake or drag brake without the fear of wiping out into the corner.





Q: Speaking of suspension mounts, one tuning piece people have been turning to is inboard/outboard toe-in. What is the benefit of changing inboard versus outboard toe?

[Todd Hodge] Inboard toe-in will give your car more support in the rear. This will give you a car that drives flatter over the rear and will transfer more weight to the front of the car during off-power transition. With outboard toe-in, you will have less support in the rear which will result in less overall rear traction. The car will also hold more of a set over the rear of the car and less initial steering in off-power transition.

Q: Is outboard toe more favorable on some surfaces and inboard more favorable on other surfaces?

[Todd Hodge] Yes, I would say on asphalt rubber tire racing, inboard toe-in could be better since it will have more traction. Outboard toe-in is better for higher bite situations where the car needs to be freed up.


I understand why you don't want inboard toe on a high grip track. But that's cause of the nature of the track you are running on. Honestly, all off-road cars have some degree of inboard toe cause it was originally designed to be raced on an off-road track.

At the rate the scene is going with these sugared and carpet/astro tracks, Maybe in a few years we will see touring cars with off-road tires. LOL

tc5 man

I'm keeping my 210 V2 i have extra parts and still haven't used them the only thing I broke was the Front rear suspension block after many runs .

Not to mention running something different on the track . Like I said i tried out the B5M on the track it feels heavy driving it and loose out of the corners .

Laker67

iTrader: (69)

I just sold off all of the 22 stuff after a year of running it and I really don't have anything bad to say about it. I'm trying all the Durango stuff because of the tunability and to try something different. I tried my 210V2 right after my 2.0 and even with the shocks still being a little bit of a mystery to me the V2 car was super planted and consistent. Even with no real set up to it. I like the way the car even just feels in my hands and my hand scale tells me that the car is lighter then the 22. I think that is huge plus because of how hard I run my cars, I didn't feel it fade near as quickly as my 22. With the 22 you have to run so much weight to get it to handle that running a stock or prostock class can put you at a disadvantage.

fredswain

iTrader: (1)

I've said it multiple times before. 4 gear is 4 gear. It doesn't matter if the motor is in front of the axle or back. The rotational inertia transferred to the chassis is still the same. MM4 transfers more weight than MM3. RM4 transfers more weight than RM3. 4 gear ALWAYS transfers more weight than 3 gear. Mid or rear motor.



[Todd Hodge] Yes, I would say on asphalt rubber tire racing, inboard toe-in could be better since it will have more traction. Outboard toe-in is better for higher bite situations where the car needs to be freed up.

This is a contradiction. If inboard toe is better on asphalt since there is more traction than why is outboard toe better for higher bite (traction) situations? I personally don't agree with his logic anyways. It sounds too much like what others say, which is really just regurgitated stuff said by someone else at some point. For me when someone says that something "frees up" something, or "locks down" or "drives flatter", it sends up big red flags on whether or not they know what is happening or they think they do. I know someone is going to tell me that these people are pros and why shouldn't I trust them over my own opinion. I guess the simple answer is that if I wasn't confident in my own knowledge and methods, I probably would put more faith in their words. There are some people out there who I agree with but there aren't many. I'll never doubt their driving ability though. That's on display and is something that I'm definitely not as skilled as them at. I however understand design and engineering mechanics and I know pretty quick if I like what I see.