Like Tree4Likes

Tamiya TRF417

Old 08-25-2012, 10:31 PM
  #3781  
Tech Master
iTrader: (11)
 
padailey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Council Bluffs, IA
Posts: 1,603
Trader Rating: 11 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by artwork
Not for carpet...try a Jilles snowbirds setup as a base line.
I have that one also its just with the grip on our carpet we usually start with asphault setups rather than carpet (especially high grip) setups. So is it usually easier to try and find more grip or just the opposite?
padailey is offline  
Old 08-27-2012, 11:43 AM
  #3782  
Tech Apprentice
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 72
Default

Hello, been back from holidays and going to race this weekend.
But I had a question regarding inboard toe blocks.
First of, when I first bought my 417, the rear came with XA-E blocks, which I ran at a medium-high grip carpet track for about 2 month until a fast driver told me to swap to 1X-1F blocks in the rear. This resulted in a slightly wider rear width but with the same toe in as before. And since then, I have kept the 1X-1F blocks and I was wondering if I should consider getting new blocks or going back to the old blocks. (I Now run on a lower grip/tighter carpet track compared to before.)
What is the effect of the rear blocks/rear width please ?

And finally, does anyone have a clear explanation with the physics explained between different suspension blocks. (Such as B, D, C blocks and so on.)
What do they do ?
What I don't get is that even if people change their suspension blocks, they would compensate the toe change with the toe links. So whats the point of changing the inboard toe blocks ?

Thanks alot
MatJ is offline  
Old 08-28-2012, 02:24 PM
  #3783  
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (12)
 
mingnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sutherland Shire
Posts: 962
Trader Rating: 12 (100%+)
Default

Quick question
does anyone have the inner (smaller) bearing measurements, when using the double cardan joint set (#42216)

i meant to measure/note before assembling, but forgot

cheers
mingnon is offline  
Old 08-28-2012, 02:33 PM
  #3784  
Tech Addict
 
Skitee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Posts: 745
Default

It's a 10x5x3
Skitee is offline  
Old 08-28-2012, 02:35 PM
  #3785  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (24)
 
2-Bad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,725
Trader Rating: 24 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by mingnon
Quick question
does anyone have the inner (smaller) bearing measurements, when using the double cardan joint set (#42216)

i meant to measure/note before assembling, but forgot

cheers
10x5x3
2-Bad is offline  
Old 08-28-2012, 07:47 PM
  #3786  
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (12)
 
mingnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sutherland Shire
Posts: 962
Trader Rating: 12 (100%+)
Default

thanks for the bearing size
appreciate it
mingnon is offline  
Old 08-30-2012, 01:34 AM
  #3787  
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (12)
 
mingnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sutherland Shire
Posts: 962
Trader Rating: 12 (100%+)
Default

Does anyone have a pic of a body with the tamiya tribal decals/stickers?
mingnon is offline  
Old 08-30-2012, 03:47 AM
  #3788  
Tech Adept
 
Quantra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 122
Default

Has anyone tried the Roche anti roll bar mount?

They look like they might add some chassis stiffness to me but could also make anti roll bar setting more consistent as there aren't those small plastic clips which can rotate differently.

I'm not allowed to post links so this is the best I can do:

roche.hk/shopping/index.php?route=product/product&path=38_40&product_id=606
Attached Thumbnails Tamiya TRF417-trf-06-250x250.jpg  
Quantra is offline  
Old 08-30-2012, 07:11 AM
  #3789  
Tech Champion
iTrader: (22)
 
robk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Macho Business Donkey Wrestler
Posts: 8,207
Trader Rating: 22 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by MatJ
Hello, been back from holidays and going to race this weekend.
But I had a question regarding inboard toe blocks.
First of, when I first bought my 417, the rear came with XA-E blocks, which I ran at a medium-high grip carpet track for about 2 month until a fast driver told me to swap to 1X-1F blocks in the rear. This resulted in a slightly wider rear width but with the same toe in as before. And since then, I have kept the 1X-1F blocks and I was wondering if I should consider getting new blocks or going back to the old blocks. (I Now run on a lower grip/tighter carpet track compared to before.)
What is the effect of the rear blocks/rear width please ?

And finally, does anyone have a clear explanation with the physics explained between different suspension blocks. (Such as B, D, C blocks and so on.)
What do they do ?
What I don't get is that even if people change their suspension blocks, they would compensate the toe change with the toe links. So whats the point of changing the inboard toe blocks ?

Thanks alot
Originally Posted by robk
Congratulations Jilles...

What effect did you find going to the XC and C block in the rear of the car? I have liked B blocks on the front of my car, what would changing the rear to XC and C do?
Originally Posted by JGH

Thanks! For the Worlds we made the car more narrow, which gave more traction especially on old tyres! For hi traction I recommend to use normal XA-E blocks rear and 1C front.
I have tried this, and as Jilles said, going narrower provides more grip. Going back to the XA E setup should put some more bite into the car.

One thing to remember is that changing the blocks moves the arm in relation to the shock tower, as well as the outer camber location to the bulkhead as well. So it's not just a question of the width
robk is offline  
Old 08-30-2012, 07:47 PM
  #3790  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (29)
 
Yokomo_Ant3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,413
Trader Rating: 29 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Quantra
Has anyone tried the Roche anti roll bar mount?

They look like they might add some chassis stiffness to me but could also make anti roll bar setting more consistent as there aren't those small plastic clips which can rotate differently.

I'm not allowed to post links so this is the best I can do:

roche.hk/shopping/index.php?route=product/product&path=38_40&product_id=606
I have some, they do stiffen up the car a little bit, i found the rollbar a little trickier to set right with these, but once you work it out its fine. Ive since gone back to using the standard style mounting for our low grip tracks in Aus
Yokomo_Ant3 is offline  
Old 08-31-2012, 01:15 AM
  #3791  
Tech Champion
iTrader: (34)
 
CraigM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 7,009
Trader Rating: 34 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Yokomo_Ant3
I have some, they do stiffen up the car a little bit, i found the rollbar a little trickier to set right with these, but once you work it out its fine. Ive since gone back to using the standard style mounting for our low grip tracks in Aus
O-rings
CraigM is offline  
Old 08-31-2012, 03:32 AM
  #3792  
Tech Adept
 
Quantra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 122
Default

Originally Posted by CraigM
O-rings
Could you elaborate please?

I've got some of these mounts on order and I'm not too keen on adding stiffness to my chassis as I'm enjoying the flexy set up right now. So if there is a way I can use these without adding stiffness that would be cool =]
Quantra is offline  
Old 08-31-2012, 09:12 AM
  #3793  
Tech Regular
 
Blueman Austria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 427
Default New Team CSO WC Style lower Deck review

Hy there!

Today i have recieved the new CSO WC Style 417X lower deck.

The drillings and the shape of it are good, but this is the ONLY positive thing about it!

.) The material is no carbon firbe in my opinion.
It looks like the typical carbon patern are printed.

.) The thikness of mine are 2,11mm on the one side and 2,35 on the other !!! (L-R)

.) It is also 19 gramms heavier than the original 417 lower deck.

SO STAY AWAY FROM THE CSO LOWER DECKS !!!!!
Blueman Austria is offline  
Old 08-31-2012, 09:28 AM
  #3794  
Tech Addict
iTrader: (11)
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 574
Trader Rating: 11 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Blueman Austria
Hy there!

Today i have recieved the new CSO WC Style 417X lower deck.

The drillings and the shape of it are good, but this is the ONLY positive thing about it!

.) The material is no carbon firbe in my opinion.
It looks like the typical carbon patern are printed.

.) The thikness of mine are 2,11mm on the one side and 2,35 on the other !!! (L-R)

.) It is also 19 gramms heavier than the original 417 lower deck.

SO STAY AWAY FROM THE CSO LOWER DECKS !!!!!
I stayed away from the CSO lower deck because it did not appear to be the true WC lower deck.

http://www.petitrc.com/reglages/tami.../bigpics/1.jpg

When you look at this picture, you see that there are 2 square holes in the lower deck, which have something in there. I think these are used by small squares under the battery that fit in these holes to fix the battery in place.

I did buy the floating servo holder from CSO which is nice. It also bolts on to the standard lower deck, using the servo mount hole and the antenna holder hole of the standard lower deck.

For the hole that fits the antenna holder on the floating mount there is no screw hole in the standard lower deck. You can 1) drill a hole in the chassis or 2) take a droop set screw, grind of 3-4mm and thread this in the servo mount so you can put the antenna holder on. I did option 2.
napoleon1981 is offline  
Old 08-31-2012, 11:36 AM
  #3795  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (13)
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 3,799
Trader Rating: 13 (100%+)
Default

We will be getting the 2.5mm chassis and upper deck next week
stitchy is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Your Privacy Choices -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.