Like Tree134Likes

TLR SCTE 3.0 Thread

Reply

Old 07-25-2016, 02:09 PM
  #46  
Tech Master
iTrader: (66)
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Mc Rae, AR
Posts: 1,463
Trader Rating: 66 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Frank Root View Post
He's definitely not running 2.0 shocks. See below... straight of the track from his Q4 TQ run text to me by Jason Ruona....
What are the chances of getting his setup sheets posted?
Thunder Trail is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2016, 02:54 PM
  #47  
TLRacing
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
 
Frank Root's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Corona, CA, USA
Posts: 5,683
Trader Rating: 25 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Thunder Trail View Post
What are the chances of getting his setup sheets posted?
I'll definitely try, he's out racing again this week so it might not be for a couple of weeks. I'll make sure it is up before the SCTE 3.0 ships though.
Frank Root is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2016, 03:17 PM
  #48  
Tech Adept
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 112
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

I was at Nationals this weekend and watched Mayfield destroy the field. Lutz put up a good fight but in the end Mayfield's truck was dialed.

As for the weight conversation I tend to agree that a little heavier works best outdoors......this didn't play out. No grip at the event and Ryan was dialed.

BTW, I currently run a Mugen MBX7R I created. It was 3070 grams. While once I got it correct it still wasn't as fast.

I will echo someone's comment that you can add weight where you want it later.

Lastly I watch Dakoda last year jump a huge double at "The Track" in MI. No issue. Landed it like a boss every time.

That's my observation.

I'd have to go back and look at fast laps from this weekend. Lutz was fast but Mayfield was too.
Victory is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2016, 04:29 PM
  #49  
Tech Regular
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Central PA
Posts: 355
Trader Rating: 4 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Victory View Post
I was at Nationals this weekend and watched Mayfield destroy the field. Lutz put up a good fight but in the end Mayfield's truck was dialed.

BTW, I currently run a Mugen MBX7R I created. It was 3070 grams. While once I got it correct it still wasn't as fast.

I'd have to go back and look at fast laps from this weekend. Lutz was fast but Mayfield was too.
I'm on to you now!!!

No one is faster than Maifield in 4x SCT. No one.
wicker9 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2016, 06:11 PM
  #50  
Tech Apprentice
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 78
Default

They badly need to make truck specific springs like ae does, those shock collars are hanging on for dear life to keep that truck up.
rcbuggies is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2016, 06:47 PM
  #51  
Tech Rookie
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 6
Default

Originally Posted by Frank Root View Post
He's definitely not running 2.0 shocks. See below... straight of the track from his Q4 TQ run text to me by Jason Ruona....
I saw that as well, I was just curious as to who's truck Pillars was working on.
JPMRC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2016, 10:16 PM
  #52  
TLRacing
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
 
Frank Root's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Corona, CA, USA
Posts: 5,683
Trader Rating: 25 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by JPMRC View Post
I saw that as well, I was just curious as to who's truck Pillars was working on.
I'm not sure, I wasn't there.
Frank Root is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2016, 07:58 AM
  #53  
Tech Master
iTrader: (42)
 
DoogieLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake Alfred, FL
Posts: 1,362
Trader Rating: 42 (100%+)
Default

I'm guessing that those of us with 2.0's can get the new 3.0 chassis and be able to have the adjustable motor/diff setup? Or would that require additional parts? I planned on getting it to be able to swap the battery and esc around, but wouldnt mind messing with the motor and diff angles some.
DoogieLee is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2016, 08:14 AM
  #54  
TLRacing
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
 
Frank Root's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Corona, CA, USA
Posts: 5,683
Trader Rating: 25 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by DoogieLee View Post
I'm guessing that those of us with 2.0's can get the new 3.0 chassis and be able to have the adjustable motor/diff setup? Or would that require additional parts? I planned on getting it to be able to swap the battery and esc around, but wouldnt mind messing with the motor and diff angles some.
You'll also have to have the dog bone center drive and the 3.0 chassis braces.
Frank Root is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2016, 09:18 AM
  #55  
Tech Prophet
iTrader: (34)
 
Casper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orange, Ca
Posts: 17,869
Trader Rating: 34 (100%+)
Default

3.0 braces are good but not "required" The 2.0 rods will work. The 3.0 chassis braces stiffen up the chassis a little more as they contact the chassis better and I would recommend them but not "required"
Casper is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2016, 10:17 AM
  #56  
TLRacing
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
 
Frank Root's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Corona, CA, USA
Posts: 5,683
Trader Rating: 25 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Casper View Post
3.0 braces are good but not "required" The 2.0 rods will work. The 3.0 chassis braces stiffen up the chassis a little more as they contact the chassis better and I would recommend them but not "required"
The 3.0 braces are built to properly hold the side of the battery, they really are part of the battery compartment. From a durability point of view, I wouldn't recommend running the 3.0 with out them.
Frank Root is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2016, 04:20 PM
  #57  
Tech Master
iTrader: (33)
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,484
Trader Rating: 33 (100%+)
Default

My SCTE 2.0 relocate Battery drill on chassis since the new SCTE 3.0 chassis not available.
raved007 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2016, 04:32 PM
  #58  
Tech Addict
iTrader: (1)
 
Josh L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Greenville VA
Posts: 685
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Frank Root View Post
The 3.0 braces are built to properly hold the side of the battery, they really are part of the battery compartment. From a durability point of view, I wouldn't recommend running the 3.0 with out them.
Is this because you guys omitted the battery thumb screws?
I don't really get what your saying here, because my battery never moved an ounce on the 2.0. I can understand that it might be a helper for the cheaper pin holds on the 3.0 kit, but for us 2.0 guys with the clamping knobs I can't see how it would be any different when it comes to rigidity. I would venture to say the fact the chassis is 3mm shorter will automatically make things more rigid.
Also, I am confused by this anyhow. I recall a lot of people taking the braces off the rear to increase flexion to help with impact traction off a jump. But now everyone is after the opposite.
Josh L is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2016, 04:33 PM
  #59  
Tech Addict
iTrader: (1)
 
Josh L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Greenville VA
Posts: 685
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by raved007 View Post
My SCTE 2.0 relocate Battery drill on chassis since the new SCTE 3.0 chassis not available.
I was doing this mod about 5 months ago. It did help with the loose tracks having more weight up front.

In this picture the ESC was mounted up on a carbon plate for testing a heavier back weight, but I later drilled the front holes and shifted the whole battery forward like they are doing now, so I could set the ESC all the way down on the pan.


Last edited by Josh L; 07-26-2016 at 04:47 PM.
Josh L is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2016, 04:37 PM
  #60  
TLRacing
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
 
Frank Root's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Corona, CA, USA
Posts: 5,683
Trader Rating: 25 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Josh L View Post
Is this because you guys omitted the battery thumb screws?
I don't really get what your saying here, because my battery never moved an ounce on the 2.0. I can understand that it might be a helper for the cheaper pin holds on the 3.0 kit, but for us 2.0 guys with the clamping knobs I can't see how it would be any different when it comes to rigidity. I would venture to say the fact the chassis is 3mm shorter will automatically make things more rigid.
Also, I am confused by this anyhow. I recall a lot of people taking the braces off the rear to increase flexion to help with impact traction off a jump. But now everyone is after the opposite.
The battery mounts are flipped on the 3.0, the chassis is wider. So the battery mount holds the 'outside' of the battery now. The chassis braces hold the 'inside' of the battery. On the 2.0, the battery mounts held the inside of the battery and the mud guard held the outside of the battery.

Also, if you removed the rear chassis brace on the 2.0, you'd pop out the rear center driveshaft, and probably bend the chassis. I've never seen or heard of anyone doing this.
Frank Root is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service