2421LikesTekno RC EB410 Thread
05-13-2019, 06:33 AM - Wikipost
|
|||
|
|||
|
Welcome to the EB410 Wiki page. Basic Stats/Features:
Videos Servo Horns Tekno included a plastic servo horn but also offers an aluminum one. This is highly recommended. Here's a list of servo horns that have been found to work:
Gearing: Works out of the box for mod or 13.5.
Wheels
Setup Sheets and other documentation Setup sheets for all Tekno RC vehicles can be found here. Please be sure to try our recommended setup. It works very well on most tracks.
Piston Drills: Some of our setups recommend using pistons that are enlarged. For instance 4x1.9 or 3x2.0. To drill the pistons we recommend the following:
Aftermarket Upgrades:
Warranty Policy: Tekno RC is the only company in the industry that will give 50% off of parts if returned to them using the General Warranty return policy found on their website. The parts can be lightly used or completely abused, as long as the part is still being produced it's covered! Build Tips:
Exotek Sway Bar Mount http://www.exotekracing.com/eb410-re...ar-mount-6061/
|
10-26-2018, 06:02 AM
#4786
Anyone remember the original losi 22 with the battery down the middle and the 4 gear transmission? The issue with it was rear traction. Most guys added weight to the back of the car on the bulkhead (behind the rear axle.) This helped the issue but it slowed rotation, and the rear could still be loose. Many racers were modding the side rails to put in the battery sideways and move the weight back. Losi 22 2.0 came out and they redesigned some of the geometry and improved some of the parts, but similar issues remained. Then Losi 22 3.0 came out and the battery went in sideways, the transmission went to 3 gear, and the motor was moved back 12mm. The design evolved over time, but would anyone take a 2.0 over a 3.0 on any surface? Cars evolve over time, but physics doesn’t change. There is a reason the national champion 13.5 has the shocks on the front, and virtually all other brands: are, X-ray, yokomo, etc do the same.
It is an easy mod especially if you haven’t already bought the cf rear tower. It will cost you about $30 and if you don’t like it, you keep the tower and it will end up costing you $10 for the sway bar mount (dirt cheap in rc.) Show me another car where you can make this type of change for $10 net cost? (Changing a part of the original design).
It is an easy mod especially if you haven’t already bought the cf rear tower. It will cost you about $30 and if you don’t like it, you keep the tower and it will end up costing you $10 for the sway bar mount (dirt cheap in rc.) Show me another car where you can make this type of change for $10 net cost? (Changing a part of the original design).
Last edited by billjacobs; 10-26-2018 at 06:14 AM.
10-26-2018, 06:13 AM
#4787
I have been in RC since 1991...I have seen these toy cars evolve. I am not questioning the fact that doing it helps or not, my question was why do you think they didn't include it in their original design. We have had the option of switching the shocks to the front of the tower on cars for years now, well before they released the EB410.
10-26-2018, 06:26 AM
#4788
I have been in RC since 1991...I have seen these toy cars evolve. I am not questioning the fact that doing it helps or not, my question was why do you think they didn't include it in their original design. We have had the option of switching the shocks to the front of the tower on cars for years now, well before they released the EB410.
10-26-2018, 06:29 AM
#4789
Possible reasons why they didn’t include the mod in the kit:
1) they wanted a car that was easier to drive out of the box (pushed more off power and had more grip on power), and suited for low grip tracks
2) flipping the arms causes other changes which means you had to redesign the arm sweep, and come up with a more elegant rear sway bar solution (the solution we have is ok, but it looks like a mod,)
3) team drivers thought the prototype was fine and worked well
4) they simply didn’t think of it
5) they released the carbon tower with the camber holes 5/2018, close to a year after the original design was announced
Don’t be surprised if the eb410.2 includes the option. I am sure it will be well integrated into the design, and not need different arms or bolt on parts.
1) they wanted a car that was easier to drive out of the box (pushed more off power and had more grip on power), and suited for low grip tracks
2) flipping the arms causes other changes which means you had to redesign the arm sweep, and come up with a more elegant rear sway bar solution (the solution we have is ok, but it looks like a mod,)
3) team drivers thought the prototype was fine and worked well
4) they simply didn’t think of it
5) they released the carbon tower with the camber holes 5/2018, close to a year after the original design was announced
Don’t be surprised if the eb410.2 includes the option. I am sure it will be well integrated into the design, and not need different arms or bolt on parts.
10-26-2018, 06:56 AM
#4790
With the motor and battery already so far forward compared to other buggies, I'm sure part of the decision was made to keep the car close to 50-50 for the front-rear bias. They would have been able to see the weight distribution in the CAD models, so once they hit their design target they didn't feel the need to add forward shocks as an option out of the gate since their bias was already much further forward than every other buggy on the market.
10-26-2018, 08:33 AM
#4791
With the motor and battery already so far forward compared to other buggies, I'm sure part of the decision was made to keep the car close to 50-50 for the front-rear bias. They would have been able to see the weight distribution in the CAD models, so once they hit their design target they didn't feel the need to add forward shocks as an option out of the gate since their bias was already much further forward than every other buggy on the market.
We as racers usually find things in the field that may have not been thought up of in the design or seen as needed at the time. It happens. What is nice though is companies who then take those ideas and look at them to see what benefits they offer and incorporate them into later releases.
10-26-2018, 09:43 AM
#4792
I'll have to find my old post but I've mentioned this before, I believe the change that most people are feeling when they do the shock forward mod is the shorter wheelbase along with the increased dogbone angle that comes with it. We've shaved the front of the arms and the front of our hubs to shorten the wheelbase up to 5mm and saw all the same benefits people speak of when they do the shock mod.
10-26-2018, 10:29 AM
#4793
I don't have any insider information, but I would be willing to bet that the 5+ years of development of the car was on tracks with low to medium traction conditions. High traction carpet and turf tracks hadn't hit the US market yet so they designed the platform based on what was the most popular track condition at the time.
I'll have to find my old post but I've mentioned this before, I believe the change that most people are feeling when they do the shock forward mod is the shorter wheelbase along with the increased dogbone angle that comes with it. We've shaved the front of the arms and the front of our hubs to shorten the wheelbase up to 5mm and saw all the same benefits people speak of when they do the shock mod.
10-26-2018, 11:57 AM
#4794
So I started my build. I got as far as page 5 when I ran across a quality control issue. I was assembling the steering rack. I actually bought the Trinity parts for this, the rack and bell crank, and at first, I thought that the holes were drilled/threaded incorrectly in the hop-up part, because I could not get the ball stud to thread into the hole. Then I tried a few regular 3mm screws which were also in Bag C, and behold, no issue. I tried both of the rear holes, and this ball stud would not go. Then I thought, well, maybe it's left handed threads. Nope.
I looked closely under a 10x microscope I use for SMD electronics. The "threads" are not helical. My ball stud is "ribbed" not threaded. I guess they turn these and the tool didn't move across the piece when it was cutting, so it just cut straight. I just got back from my local hobby shop before rush hour begins. Stymied by a defective part on page 5. Ugh. So I guess I'm buying a part to replace a new part in my kit or wait 2 weeks to have Tekno send me a replacement. I guess I'll just have to steal a ball stud off another one of my cars for now. What a pain.
Anyone else have this experience?
I looked closely under a 10x microscope I use for SMD electronics. The "threads" are not helical. My ball stud is "ribbed" not threaded. I guess they turn these and the tool didn't move across the piece when it was cutting, so it just cut straight. I just got back from my local hobby shop before rush hour begins. Stymied by a defective part on page 5. Ugh. So I guess I'm buying a part to replace a new part in my kit or wait 2 weeks to have Tekno send me a replacement. I guess I'll just have to steal a ball stud off another one of my cars for now. What a pain.
Anyone else have this experience?
10-26-2018, 12:34 PM
#4795
10-26-2018, 01:43 PM
#4796
I commend TEKNO for expanding their selection of classes. Ironically, the introduction of the ET410 has all but killed the 4WD SCT class at the club in our area. The real test will be tomorrow when the club hosts a ROAR Regional for district 9... I predict more entries for 1/10 4WD Truck than 1/10 4WD SCT, but I could be wrong.... I am going to be entering in both classes anyway ... TEKNO FTW!
***UPDATE
We had 2 entries for 4WD SCT and 5 entries for 4WD Truck which is about what I expected to see happen.
Last edited by billdelong; 10-29-2018 at 05:56 AM.
10-26-2018, 03:15 PM
#4797
Is it normal for the gearing to feel a bit tighter in the rear bulkhead as opposed to the front? That's the case with mine. I come from AE b64 where they had shims to adjust this, but here it looks like no such options exist.
While I am thinking of it, are most people cutting the holes for the body pins in this car, or just going with velcro only? I didn't make holes in my other cars because the clips are a PITA and it makes for a great spot for a tear in the lexan body.
While I am thinking of it, are most people cutting the holes for the body pins in this car, or just going with velcro only? I didn't make holes in my other cars because the clips are a PITA and it makes for a great spot for a tear in the lexan body.
10-26-2018, 06:06 PM
#4798
Is it normal for the gearing to feel a bit tighter in the rear bulkhead as opposed to the front? That's the case with mine. I come from AE b64 where they had shims to adjust this, but here it looks like no such options exist.
While I am thinking of it, are most people cutting the holes for the body pins in this car, or just going with velcro only? I didn't make holes in my other cars because the clips are a PITA and it makes for a great spot for a tear in the lexan body.
While I am thinking of it, are most people cutting the holes for the body pins in this car, or just going with velcro only? I didn't make holes in my other cars because the clips are a PITA and it makes for a great spot for a tear in the lexan body.
I do use velcro only as well. There are plenty of spots to add it for a secure fit. The tekno velcro is actually plenty good for me.
10-27-2018, 09:11 AM
#4800
I run the puck set up in my clay 13.5 and i like it, woke it up a lot, think i'm going to do the composite gears in the diffs to on it. Buggy feels way lighter and accelerates way way faster.
As for the wear. I have a few heats and races, i use bearing oil on my puck set up to help with it not wearing and i have no wear as of yet.
As for the wear. I have a few heats and races, i use bearing oil on my puck set up to help with it not wearing and i have no wear as of yet.