Tamiya TRF419

You're on Page 17 of 243
Go to
  • chassis upgrades
    Is everyone with a 418 going to upgrade to the 419?

    Curious what strategy's you guys use. One car per season/year?

    Or so you wait a couple of generations?

    Since these cars seem to be on a yearly cycle, I'm thinking to just do what I do with my phone, upgrade every 2 years.

    I'm an average driver so upgrading to a better car won't really make me faster. I suppose that's the biggest motivator.
  • Quote: Is everyone with a 418 going to upgrade to the 419?

    Curious what strategy's you guys use. One car per season/year?

    Or so you wait a couple of generations?

    Since these cars seem to be on a yearly cycle, I'm thinking to just do what I do with my phone, upgrade every 2 years.

    I'm an average driver so upgrading to a better car won't really make me faster. I suppose that's the biggest motivator.
    Unless you are a top racer I really do not think that you need to upgrade every year, unless you simply just can afford and like to have the latest and greatest.

    Several racers at my club change car every second year. They are still very competitive.

    Some user here on rctech.net had a signature saying something like; "The only real upgrade to any car is some driver skill".

    For us club racers, average racers, more driving will probably give better lap times than simply getting this years latest version of our brand car.
  • Quote: Is everyone with a 418 going to upgrade to the 419?

    Curious what strategy's you guys use. One car per season/year?

    Or so you wait a couple of generations?

    Since these cars seem to be on a yearly cycle, I'm thinking to just do what I do with my phone, upgrade every 2 years.

    I'm an average driver so upgrading to a better car won't really make me faster. I suppose that's the biggest motivator.
    Depends. Many people here seem to think the driver is fast (or slow, as the case may be), not the car.

    I keep some really old cars to check how good I am. If I can tune my old car to be faster, it probably means I learnt something. If I'm faster with a new car it may be that the car makes me look better but I'm the same slow driver with a new (faster) car. Every now and then a fast lap with the old car helps me think. It's like a benchmark for my skill measured against myself, not others.
  • Quote: Tamiyas blue metal is also consistently anodised the same tone. My BD7 had 3 different shades of blue anodising

    Sorted. It's all black now.

    They probably realised they suck at anodising. Looking at some of their older cars (such as the ancient YR4M2 J, or YRF2 I have), their anodising was top notch back then. More beautiful blue than Tamiya's too (deeper, and so was their red).
  • Quote: Is everyone with a 418 going to upgrade to the 419?

    Curious what strategy's you guys use. One car per season/year?

    Or so you wait a couple of generations?

    Since these cars seem to be on a yearly cycle, I'm thinking to just do what I do with my phone, upgrade every 2 years.

    I'm an average driver so upgrading to a better car won't really make me faster. I suppose that's the biggest motivator.
    I ususally hold off until there is a large change, (2-3 years) Chassis number changes are usually something that makes me want to get a new TRF. My 418 has been epic though and it just seems perfect for my track and class so I am not really in need of buying one... although I probably will
  • I have been buying a new Tamiya tub chassis every 12 months for the last 4 years. I hoping to do 24 months with the TRF419, being a proper race grade chassis and all. Would rather work on my driving and setup skills then play the latest equipment game
  • Quote: Is everyone with a 418 going to upgrade to the 419?
    I will upgrade at the end of the year. Either a 419 or BD7.

    If I get the BD7, will probably offload it.

    If I get the 419, I'll keep it for lower class (21.5 and maybe VTA) duties.
  • I told myself I won't be upgrading at all. If I did I want the 419, however the BD7 motor forward option has me leaning towards that car now. Would be awesome for Blinky class.
  • Quote: Hello Folks,
    I was wondering why are touring cars still running full size lipo packs and not shorties?
    This is a GREAT question! I think the minimum weight for TC should be lowered to 1250 worldwide. In the states we have 1380 which is easy to drop below even with 7500 packs.

    Full size 2s lipos are a throwback that mimics 6 sub c cells which of course are not used anymore so why do we INSIST on keeping the shape? Its funny to me! In off road --where there is actually some real innovation--almost everything is shorties, saddles & squares and guys are putting shorties where saddles used to go for weight savings & faster reacting, faster cars .

    In mod TC there is ZERO reason to run a heavy full size lipo beyond making legal weight and fitting in to some archaic rule. You can still make run time with a 4700 shorty. The main shorty issue is throwing the balance off which can be somewhat alleviated by mounting the esc on the battery side but that is a stop gap--not a real solution. The full size pack on one side/electronics & motor on the other is a throwback to ni-mh/brushed motors. It makes a car roll more and not able to change direction quickly.

    I am of the opinion that TCs would do well with a major overhaul with the emphasis on CENTER mounted batteries and center mounted motors. If they can do it with 4wd electric off road they can do it with TCs. Having a full size pack hanging off the side is a "put it wherever it fits " mentality and shows a real lack of creativity & innovation.

    There is SO much innovation going on in off road right now where designers are designing entire chassis around the smaller, lighter cells that it makes me wonder why not the same for on-road TC? Maybe if on-road was more popular in the states you would see manufacturers step it up.

    I feel like people accept the status quo for TCs and then come up with reasons/excuses why a full size pack is necessary. IMO its
    similar reasoning to the "factual" reasons that brushless motors would NEVER work in competition. I bet in a few years, full size lipos which mimic 6 sub c in size will be relegated to bashing vehicles and the order if the day for race cars will be cells of ALL shapes and sizes that will best fit each class of vehicle.

    Sorry for the novella, but I just had to give my take :-)
  • Quote: This is a GREAT question! I think the minimum weight for TC should be lowered to 1250 worldwide. In the states we have 1380 which is easy to drop below even with 7500 packs.

    Full size 2s lipos are a throwback that mimics 6 sub c cells which of course are not used anymore so why do we INSIST on keeping the shape? Its funny to me! In off road --where there is actually some real innovation--almost everything is shorties, saddles & squares and guys are putting shorties where saddles used to go for weight savings & faster reacting, faster cars .

    In mod TC there is ZERO reason to run a heavy full size lipo beyond making legal weight and fitting in to some archaic rule. You can still make run time with a 4700 shorty. The main shorty issue is throwing the balance off which can be somewhat alleviated by mounting the esc on the battery side but that is a stop gap--not a real solution. The full size pack on one side/electronics & motor on the other is a throwback to ni-mh/brushed motors. It makes a car roll more and not able to change direction quickly.

    I am of the opinion that TCs would do well with a major overhaul with the emphasis on CENTER mounted batteries and center mounted motors. If they can do it with 4wd electric off road they can do it with TCs. Having a full size pack hanging off the side is a "put it wherever it fits " mentality and shows a real lack of creativity & innovation.

    There is SO much innovation going on in off road right now where designers are designing entire chassis around the smaller, lighter cells that it makes me wonder why not the same for on-road TC? Maybe if on-road was more popular in the states you would see manufacturers step it up.

    I feel like people accept the status quo for TCs and then come up with reasons/excuses why a full size pack is necessary. IMO its
    similar reasoning to the "factual" reasons that brushless motors would NEVER work in competition. I bet in a few years, full size lipos which mimic 6 sub c in size will be relegated to bashing vehicles and the order if the day for race cars will be cells of ALL shapes and sizes that will best fit each class of vehicle.

    Sorry for the novella, but I just had to give my take :-)
    I completely share this opinion.
  • Quote: This is a GREAT question! I think the minimum weight for TC should be lowered to 1250 worldwide. In the states we have 1380 which is easy to drop below even with 7500 packs.

    Full size 2s lipos are a throwback that mimics 6 sub c cells which of course are not used anymore so why do we INSIST on keeping the shape? Its funny to me! In off road --where there is actually some real innovation--almost everything is shorties, saddles & squares and guys are putting shorties where saddles used to go for weight savings & faster reacting, faster cars .

    In mod TC there is ZERO reason to run a heavy full size lipo beyond making legal weight and fitting in to some archaic rule. You can still make run time with a 4700 shorty. The main shorty issue is throwing the balance off which can be somewhat alleviated by mounting the esc on the battery side but that is a stop gap--not a real solution. The full size pack on one side/electronics & motor on the other is a throwback to ni-mh/brushed motors. It makes a car roll more and not able to change direction quickly.

    I am of the opinion that TCs would do well with a major overhaul with the emphasis on CENTER mounted batteries and center mounted motors. If they can do it with 4wd electric off road they can do it with TCs. Having a full size pack hanging off the side is a "put it wherever it fits " mentality and shows a real lack of creativity & innovation.

    There is SO much innovation going on in off road right now where designers are designing entire chassis around the smaller, lighter cells that it makes me wonder why not the same for on-road TC? Maybe if on-road was more popular in the states you would see manufacturers step it up.

    I feel like people accept the status quo for TCs and then come up with reasons/excuses why a full size pack is necessary. IMO its
    similar reasoning to the "factual" reasons that brushless motors would NEVER work in competition. I bet in a few years, full size lipos which mimic 6 sub c in size will be relegated to bashing vehicles and the order if the day for race cars will be cells of ALL shapes and sizes that will best fit each class of vehicle.

    Sorry for the novella, but I just had to give my take :-)
    I don't really know anything about off-road. Besides layout what else is innovative about off-road? On the surfaces they don't look radically advanced.
  • Quote: I don't really know anything about off-road. Besides layout what else is innovative about off-road? On the surfaces they don't look radically advanced.
    The innovation is the fact of the recent use of machined alloy chassis, very aggressive cab forward bodies, mid motor & even center motor 2wd buggies--3 diffs for 4wd off road & designing cars AROUND current lipo technology--not designing cars around old style brick packs.

    Why no center diff for 1/10 electric TC? It can give the corner speed advantage of a one-way without the negative effects (ie loss of front brakes) of a one way.

    The aluminum chassis only came to on road (talking about electric) after it was tried and worked quite well in off road.
  • Quote: I don't really know anything about off-road. Besides layout what else is innovative about off-road? On the surfaces they don't look radically advanced.
    The innovation is the fact of the recent use of machined alloy chassis, big bore emulsion shocks (even in TC emulsion/aeration shocks seem to give better traction) very aggressive cab forward bodies (obviously can't carry this over completely) mid motor & even center motor 2wd buggies--3 diffs for 4wd off road & designing cars AROUND current lipo technology--not designing cars around old style brick packs.

    Why no center diff for 1/10 electric TC? It can give the corner speed advantage of a one-way without the negative effects (ie loss of front brakes) of a one way.

    Why no new style TC bodies? Current sedan bodies do not look realistic anyway so why not design a sedan body that REALLY has some aero?

    The aluminum chassis only came to on road (talking about electric) after it was tried and worked quite well in off road. And while its still not the clear way to go I doubt that it would've even have been tried if it wasn't for off road.

    I know this is the 419 thread and I apologize for going off topic. Lets get back to tradition & brick packs. :-)
  • Quote: The innovation is the fact of the recent use of machined alloy chassis, big bore emulsion shocks (even in TC emulsion/aeration shocks seem to give better traction) very aggressive cab forward bodies (obviously can't carry this over completely) mid motor & even center motor 2wd buggies--3 diffs for 4wd off road & designing cars AROUND current lipo technology--not designing cars around old style brick packs.

    Why no center diff for 1/10 electric TC? It can give the corner speed advantage of a one-way without the negative effects (ie loss of front brakes) of a one way.

    Why no new style TC bodies? Current sedan bodies do not look realistic anyway so why not design a sedan body that REALLY has some aero?

    The aluminum chassis only came to on road (talking about electric) after it was tried and worked quite well in off road. And while its still not the clear way to go I doubt that it would've even have been tried if it wasn't for off road.

    I know this is the 419 thread and I apologize for going off topic. Lets get back to tradition & brick packs. :-)
    You can thank ROAR for stopping a couple of those from happening.
  • Quote: The innovation is the fact of the recent use of machined alloy chassis, big bore emulsion shocks (even in TC emulsion/aeration shocks seem to give better traction) very aggressive cab forward bodies (obviously can't carry this over completely) mid motor & even center motor 2wd buggies--3 diffs for 4wd off road & designing cars AROUND current lipo technology--not designing cars around old style brick packs.

    Why no center diff for 1/10 electric TC? It can give the corner speed advantage of a one-way without the negative effects (ie loss of front brakes) of a one way.

    Why no new style TC bodies? Current sedan bodies do not look realistic anyway so why not design a sedan body that REALLY has some aero?

    The aluminum chassis only came to on road (talking about electric) after it was tried and worked quite well in off road. And while its still not the clear way to go I doubt that it would've even have been tried if it wasn't for off road.

    I know this is the 419 thread and I apologize for going off topic. Lets get back to tradition & brick packs. :-)
    What you are talking about is making sedan even more like 1/8 on road which of course is the path to popularity.

    Btw the reason you dont see sedans designed around short packs or any mod cars with short packs is that they dont provide the power(not referring to capacity) that bigger packs do. In offroad the load is not the same. To prove my point, dirt oval racers (on high bite tracks with foam tires) who tried the short packs in *17.5* went back to full sized packs.

    As far as a center diff, i'm not sure if its legal. Slipper clutches were outlawed early on for sure, and I'm not sure if a 3rd diff is allowed.