15LikesTamiya TRF102
05-11-2015, 01:25 PM
#31
Not so much...
The t bar has a hinge on it, so the fore /aft motion is controlled by the shock only. At the same time, they were smart enough to make the other styles of t bars usable as well. One thing that I'm not sure about is the use of a WGP t bar. On the 101, the left side pod plate is further out than the F104 pod. Since the WGP t bar also makes up the lower pod, this car would either have to go back to the old diff parts or a "new WGP style" t bar would have to become available.
You may also notice the upper arms on the front end are apparently bolted down. I can't tell if those are just countersunk screws to keep the upper arms from popping off or if there is a washer or o ring to keep the upper arm from moving. Either way, I like the old front end over the 101 front end generally for rubber tire. As it has been pointed out, the optional all carbon front end can be fitted anyway. Or put the exotek stuff on.
The other thing is the chassis has a big cut where the electronics mount, so it should flex more as well, especially with the large cutout around the t bar.
It looks like they tried to make a rubber tire car using what has been working. Last years TCS North American champ was using a t bar F104, and 2 years ago the World Champ used a WGP t bar car. On top of that, I really haven't seen a TRF101 do much and I wonder if part of that is the front end. I'm not saying it's bad, but there might be a need for a little more front grip, or maybe some more tuning options besides 2 camber positions. Most of the good link cars I have seen at TCS races are V2s.
The t bar has a hinge on it, so the fore /aft motion is controlled by the shock only. At the same time, they were smart enough to make the other styles of t bars usable as well. One thing that I'm not sure about is the use of a WGP t bar. On the 101, the left side pod plate is further out than the F104 pod. Since the WGP t bar also makes up the lower pod, this car would either have to go back to the old diff parts or a "new WGP style" t bar would have to become available.
You may also notice the upper arms on the front end are apparently bolted down. I can't tell if those are just countersunk screws to keep the upper arms from popping off or if there is a washer or o ring to keep the upper arm from moving. Either way, I like the old front end over the 101 front end generally for rubber tire. As it has been pointed out, the optional all carbon front end can be fitted anyway. Or put the exotek stuff on.
The other thing is the chassis has a big cut where the electronics mount, so it should flex more as well, especially with the large cutout around the t bar.
It looks like they tried to make a rubber tire car using what has been working. Last years TCS North American champ was using a t bar F104, and 2 years ago the World Champ used a WGP t bar car. On top of that, I really haven't seen a TRF101 do much and I wonder if part of that is the front end. I'm not saying it's bad, but there might be a need for a little more front grip, or maybe some more tuning options besides 2 camber positions. Most of the good link cars I have seen at TCS races are V2s.
05-11-2015, 02:08 PM
#32
slightly bigger pic
Seems like Rob is right with countersunks on front upper arms to prevent popping off.
+ Both upper and lower front arms seems to be CF reinforced.
+ Seems like alu lock nut and shorter screw are used this time at the back of lower front arm + separate screw for rear point of upper arm.
- I would expect alu camber mount for TRF kit
05-11-2015, 03:16 PM
#34
Ahh, but the plastic mount is the 0* (#1 position) and 0.5* (#2) camber adjustment. Due to the fixed upper arm, it also produces the most caster in these positions. A certain last year's TCS champ always seemed to run the plastic mount
Actually, if the upper arm rear mount is separate and moved closer to the center line, this would give more caster as well. HMMM
Actually, if the upper arm rear mount is separate and moved closer to the center line, this would give more caster as well. HMMM
05-11-2015, 04:44 PM
#35
Tech Regular
I built this car from parts that were given to me at the track a couple years ago. It looks like a Tamiya derivative, with, perhaps, some aftermarket parts? I wound up buying a TRF101 and never racing this thing. Turns out I can't get the TRF101 to work well for me with rubber tires on carpet. Next race I'm going to try this out because I see similarities to the new TRF102. (I see in my picture the shock and roll damper on my car are mounted backwards.)
05-11-2015, 06:41 PM
#36
It looks like you have converted it to basically what an F104X1 is. I had that car in the past. It pushed a bit for me, even with the stiffer option 3racing T-plate. It only excels in real low grip conditions, but I found it was too lazy and pushy on high traction tracks. I upgraded to the F104V2 and sold my F104X1.
I've had extensive experience with the TRF101, racing it for about a year and half on asphalt. The front end makes the car a lot easier to drive than the V2 (more stable, more toned down steering), but its hard to get it aggressive, especially on carpet. You have to run a really grippy front tire (I was using Yokomo Soft F1 front tires on asphalt, and 574's would work great on carpet). The F104V2 still seems the quicker car than the TRF101 based on locals here and and the TCS results.
I won't be getting the TRF102, I am really satisfied with my Xray X1 at the moment.
I've had extensive experience with the TRF101, racing it for about a year and half on asphalt. The front end makes the car a lot easier to drive than the V2 (more stable, more toned down steering), but its hard to get it aggressive, especially on carpet. You have to run a really grippy front tire (I was using Yokomo Soft F1 front tires on asphalt, and 574's would work great on carpet). The F104V2 still seems the quicker car than the TRF101 based on locals here and and the TCS results.
I won't be getting the TRF102, I am really satisfied with my Xray X1 at the moment.
05-11-2015, 06:59 PM
#37
I built this car from parts that were given to me at the track a couple years ago. It looks like a Tamiya derivative, with, perhaps, some aftermarket parts? I wound up buying a TRF101 and never racing this thing. Turns out I can't get the TRF101 to work well for me with rubber tires on carpet. Next race I'm going to try this out because I see similarities to the new TRF102. (I see in my picture the shock and roll damper on my car are mounted backwards.)
It's a good car. Try it.
05-11-2015, 09:21 PM
#38
Not so much...
The t bar has a hinge on it, so the fore /aft motion is controlled by the shock only. At the same time, they were smart enough to make the other styles of t bars usable as well. One thing that I'm not sure about is the use of a WGP t bar. On the 101, the left side pod plate is further out than the F104 pod. Since the WGP t bar also makes up the lower pod, this car would either have to go back to the old diff parts or a "new WGP style" t bar would have to become available.
The t bar has a hinge on it, so the fore /aft motion is controlled by the shock only. At the same time, they were smart enough to make the other styles of t bars usable as well. One thing that I'm not sure about is the use of a WGP t bar. On the 101, the left side pod plate is further out than the F104 pod. Since the WGP t bar also makes up the lower pod, this car would either have to go back to the old diff parts or a "new WGP style" t bar would have to become available.
05-12-2015, 09:18 AM
#39
I dont think the position of rear upper mount is changed. Just the hard-to-find-long M3 screw is finally gone and you can use some nice hex screw.
05-14-2015, 05:58 AM
#40
Hello all. I am curious about the material. I wonder why they are using carbon for the main chassis. If think a blended chassis would be better. Thoughts?
JJ
JJ
05-14-2015, 08:06 AM
#41
Tech Master
http://www.thercracer.com/2015/05/ta...15-photos.html
The chassis is carbon, but it is 2.5mm thick which is 0.5mm thinner than the TRF101 chassis (3mm)
The chassis is carbon, but it is 2.5mm thick which is 0.5mm thinner than the TRF101 chassis (3mm)
05-14-2015, 07:13 PM
#42
Ah... I was just thinking that a less rigid material would be used if flex was such a key element. I have mixed feeling on this kit . I always felt that a T bar solution was the better way with rubber tires, but I have a new 101 that looks like it will never be built now. Maybe I will move the 101 rear end to my RM.
JJ
JJ
05-14-2015, 07:53 PM
#43
Tech Initiate
more photos from Japanese RC Site.
05-14-2015, 08:02 PM
#44
Interesting...
05-14-2015, 08:23 PM
#45
Tech Initiate
There are 1.5mm and 1.8mm T Plate choices.