9LikesLosi 1/10 TEN-SCTE ARR 4x4 Short Course Truck Thread
12-18-2011, 07:10 PM
12-18-2011, 07:25 PM
12-18-2011, 07:28 PM
why would tlr release a new corr truck the truck we have just won the nats.
ha= hard andised
ha= hard andised
12-18-2011, 08:03 PM
12-18-2011, 08:07 PM
12-18-2011, 08:14 PM
12-18-2011, 08:47 PM
12-18-2011, 09:18 PM
Now that all the HA parts are out for the SCTE is a TLR kit version in the works at all? I woul love to see this thing as a kit with all the goodies tat I can build from the ground up. I'm half on the fence between waiting for a TLR kit SCTE and buying chassis, tuning kit, HA balls and shocks, etc. c'mon Losi! Gimme what I really want for Christmas!!!
You wanna play , you gta pay!!!
12-18-2011, 10:06 PM
12-19-2011, 12:38 AM
. Never could get it to handle worth a shiz, or the outdrives to last more than a few weeks. It's fully cr'ed, repaired, and ready to race, and still can't even get 100$ for the roller...so it shows me how much other people like them too, lol. I don't think it's half the truck the Kyosho or even the SC10 is. Being the Losi fan that I am though, I'll buy a 22sct when it comes out, but my stint with the xxx is thankfully over. 
If the 22sct gets beat to production by the DESC210 though, I might jump ship 
The xxx series was nice...like 10 years ago, lol.
12-19-2011, 02:54 AM
I run one and have been very happy with it. One thing that I do suggest is that you run the RC8 rear brace. It's pre-drilled to fit the RC8 rear brace and will help a lot. Also as with any CF part, be sure to run a bead of CA glue or clear nail polish around the edges first. I've taken some seriously hard hits with this thing including lawn darting a big quad a few times which broke my front bumper but didn't phase my chassis. I can honestly say it's been good to me.
Ridley, tell your friend to try running the RC8 rear brace, it really does make a big difference with the SNR chassis. I ran mine with the stock brace for a few laps and it was quite squirly but after I put the RC8 brace in, it tamed the truck down and made it very easy to handle. Bmainstar drove my truck and even though he opted for a different chassis on his own truck, he seemed to like how mine felt. As I've stated before, this is on a high bite indoor track, so maybe it would or wouldn't handle as well outdoors, but this chassis has taken all the abuse I could dish out. About Matrix Concepts making one, I have one of their 8ight chassis and will agree, it's a work of art and if he made one for the SCTE, I'm sure they'd be in high demand. But they don't and the SNR has worked very well for several of us who've chosen to use it. The main drawback in my opinion is the price and that I can understand, especially when there's other chassis that are just as good for a lot less. But some people like their trucks as light as possible and this chassis is the only option if that's your goal. I have a backup truck that I have a BCE chassis and am putting it onto my race truck just to give it a try (still never driven with it yet). Next weekend hopefully I'll be able to give a fair and unbiased comparison. I'll let you know what I think.
Ridley, tell your friend to try running the RC8 rear brace, it really does make a big difference with the SNR chassis. I ran mine with the stock brace for a few laps and it was quite squirly but after I put the RC8 brace in, it tamed the truck down and made it very easy to handle. Bmainstar drove my truck and even though he opted for a different chassis on his own truck, he seemed to like how mine felt. As I've stated before, this is on a high bite indoor track, so maybe it would or wouldn't handle as well outdoors, but this chassis has taken all the abuse I could dish out. About Matrix Concepts making one, I have one of their 8ight chassis and will agree, it's a work of art and if he made one for the SCTE, I'm sure they'd be in high demand. But they don't and the SNR has worked very well for several of us who've chosen to use it. The main drawback in my opinion is the price and that I can understand, especially when there's other chassis that are just as good for a lot less. But some people like their trucks as light as possible and this chassis is the only option if that's your goal. I have a backup truck that I have a BCE chassis and am putting it onto my race truck just to give it a try (still never driven with it yet). Next weekend hopefully I'll be able to give a fair and unbiased comparison. I'll let you know what I think.
12-19-2011, 03:09 AM
12-19-2011, 03:13 AM
yes you r right but i didnt know they had that one and this one doest show that is has a burst rate do you know if it does?or is it 60c all the time
12-19-2011, 03:44 AM
Do not want ot read the 26000+ post in this tread, so can anyone give me the short version of + and - on this truck
12-19-2011, 04:45 AM
Originally Posted by FLHX1550 View Post
7075 was the next evolution, used in roughly the same applications in the aircraft industry as it has properties that allow it to be even more stiff and more heat treatable, roughly 10% more tensile strength vs. 6061.
But not everything is perfect. 7075 is not a choice material for bending or forming, as it's stiffer properties lend it to crack more than 6061. In some manufacturing process and some designs, 6061 can be a better choice.
Actually, tensile strength is almost double. It's also much harder, ie less wear. But I never claimed Losi WASN't using 7075, just not Mil spec quality. Anyways, the discussion is over, no need to rehash the past.
6061-T6 Aluminum
Physical and Mechanical Properties
Ultimate Tensile Strength, psi 45,000
Yield Strength, psi 40,000
Brinell Hardness 95
Rockwell Hardness B60
7075-T6 Aluminum
Physical and Mechanical Properties
Ultimate Tensile Strength, psi 83,000
Yield Strength, psi 73,000
Brinell Hardness 150
Rockwell Hardness B87
7075 was the next evolution, used in roughly the same applications in the aircraft industry as it has properties that allow it to be even more stiff and more heat treatable, roughly 10% more tensile strength vs. 6061.
But not everything is perfect. 7075 is not a choice material for bending or forming, as it's stiffer properties lend it to crack more than 6061. In some manufacturing process and some designs, 6061 can be a better choice.
Actually, tensile strength is almost double. It's also much harder, ie less wear. But I never claimed Losi WASN't using 7075, just not Mil spec quality. Anyways, the discussion is over, no need to rehash the past.
6061-T6 Aluminum
Physical and Mechanical Properties
Ultimate Tensile Strength, psi 45,000
Yield Strength, psi 40,000
Brinell Hardness 95
Rockwell Hardness B60
7075-T6 Aluminum
Physical and Mechanical Properties
Ultimate Tensile Strength, psi 83,000
Yield Strength, psi 73,000
Brinell Hardness 150
Rockwell Hardness B87
But material spec's doesn't mean 7075 is a better material either.
Last year when AE was screwing around with the 8B-Worlds Edition car (what is now called the 8B2.0) they were using milled out 7075 aftermarket chassis with additional lengths (+1mm, +3mm and +5mm lengths) and made improvements over the 8B car, but the team driver's struggled with grip going from track to track. They had to vary their setups quite often with varying track conditions.
When they settled in on the +3mm length, they went into production and stamped the chassis and used 6061. The production chassis was much more consistent on varying track conditions vs. the aftermarket ones.
Last edited by FLHX1550; 12-19-2011 at 04:56 AM.