Go Back  R/C Tech Forums > General Forums > Electric Off-Road
Tekno RC ET410 Thread >

Tekno RC ET410 Thread

Community
Wiki Posts
Search
Old 12-31-1969, 04:00 PM
R/C Tech Forums Expert How-Tos and Guides
Last edit by:
Print Wikipost
Like Tree469Likes

Tekno RC ET410 Thread

Old 12-31-1969, 04:00 PM
R/C Tech Forums Expert How-Tos and Guides
Last edit by:
Print Wikipost
Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 06-28-2018 | 07:45 AM
  #106  
Tech Master
iTrader: (35)
 
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 1,263
From: Seattle
Default

Originally Posted by RCSteveH


Just a guess but the ET410 should have a longer chassis and arms compared to the EB410.
Thats my assumption as well but I wanted to hear it from Matt to be sure?
Tbuggy is offline  
Old 06-28-2018 | 07:52 AM
  #107  
Tech Champion
iTrader: (33)
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,410
From: Austin,TX
Default

Originally Posted by nitrousdave
It looks like the rear body mount is too far below the shock tower. Not to mention most ST rear body mounts are behind the shock tower, not in front.
Hmm, the first one I would try would be the HoBao Hyper10TT which has a similar position for the body mounts, probably due to the rear wing design in lieu of a spoiler:

billdelong is offline  
Old 06-28-2018 | 08:04 AM
  #108  
AJH387's Avatar
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (5)
 
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 995
From: Pittsburgh PA
Default

Originally Posted by RCSteveH


would beawesome if they had 2 different options for the body mount. Both for the ET48 and Stadium Style. it’ll make both sides happy 😃
Absolutely. But from what that orange one looks like, in the newest pic, I am a fan. Looks sweet. But if a more traditional 2wd-style stadium body can fit, then by all means to each their own.
AJH387 is offline  
Old 06-28-2018 | 10:33 AM
  #109  
Matthew_Armeni's Avatar
Thread Starter
Tech Master
iTrader: (31)
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,900
From: Temecula
Default

Originally Posted by Tbuggy
Is it the same length chassis as the EB410?
Chassis is the same length/width as the EB410. The wheelbase rules are the same between buggy and ST.
The only rule we're not following is the rear wing, which if you were to swap on a traditional ST body, you would be all legal. We'd like to see the rules amended to allow a separate wing since the trucks that are out there are doing it that way.
I'd personally also like SC wheels/tires to be allowed.


Originally Posted by nitrousdave
I like this idea and will probably get one, but imo that pic is a buggy with stadium truck wheels. Please release a real stadium truck body.
Originally Posted by AJH387
I actually much prefer the slim ET48-based truggy body to the 2wd stadium truck bodies.
Originally Posted by billdelong
I wonder if traditional ST bodies fit already?

I've seen several folks run various brands of truck bodies on the ET48, which makes for confusing podium pics at times, ha!
Originally Posted by RCSteveH


would be awesome if they had 2 different options for the body mount. Both for the ET48 and Stadium Style. it’ll make both sides happy 😃
We considered both body styles before settling on the "truggy" look. I mocked up the TLR and the AE stadium truck bodies and we all felt the were too wide and just too large overall. We also like the performance aspect of running a buggy style wing. It wouldn't take much effort to mount a traditional stadium truck body if someone really wanted to.
rustyus, Tbuggy, RsA89 and 1 others like this.
Matthew_Armeni is offline  
Old 06-28-2018 | 11:37 AM
  #110  
sea1swk's Avatar
Tech Addict
 
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 511
From: Tacoma Area
Default

Same length and width as a eb410? Would be cool if it was a more balanced chassis, and we could swap it with a eb410? So in a way, all Tekno way of doing the MIP chassis with no pucks, for the eb410.

Would also be cool if it has the option for the rear shocks, in front of the rear shock tower. And this option was compatible with the eb410.

How about a kit to make it a lighter shortcourse, for indoor tracks where the sct410.3 is to heavy? Longer chassis, drive shafts in the middle and body mounts?

Just ideas.
sea1swk is offline  
Old 06-28-2018 | 12:09 PM
  #111  
Tech Regular
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 399
Default

Hope this thing rotates better than the EB, also in the video it looked like the rear end was a little loose in some of the turns where as the some of the SCT looked like they were almost traction rolling...maybe because of ST wheels slide more? I will more than likely be getting one...4wd buggy with ST wheels ..I'm in.
AJrollin is offline  
Old 06-28-2018 | 12:43 PM
  #112  
Tech Champion
iTrader: (22)
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,616
From: New Jersey
Default

Originally Posted by sea1swk
Same length and width as a eb410? Would be cool if it was a more balanced chassis, and we could swap it with a eb410? So in a way, all Tekno way of doing the MIP chassis with no pucks, for the eb410.

Would also be cool if it has the option for the rear shocks, in front of the rear shock tower. And this option was compatible with the eb410.

How about a kit to make it a lighter shortcourse, for indoor tracks where the sct410.3 is to heavy? Longer chassis, drive shafts in the middle and body mounts?

Just ideas.
If you would like to see the truck some time in 2018, none of those things are happening
tobamiester likes this.
Bob Barry is offline  
Old 06-28-2018 | 01:16 PM
  #113  
Matthew_Armeni's Avatar
Thread Starter
Tech Master
iTrader: (31)
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,900
From: Temecula
Default

Originally Posted by sea1swk
Same length and width as a eb410? Would be cool if it was a more balanced chassis, and we could swap it with a eb410? So in a way, all Tekno way of doing the MIP chassis with no pucks, for the eb410.

Would also be cool if it has the option for the rear shocks, in front of the rear shock tower. And this option was compatible with the eb410.

How about a kit to make it a lighter shortcourse, for indoor tracks where the sct410.3 is to heavy? Longer chassis, drive shafts in the middle and body mounts?

Just ideas.
More balanced? I'd say the current chassis is pretty balanced, it's ~51/49 F/R. We have no plans of doing a layout like the MIP or B64.
As far as the shocks in front of the arms, most of the handling characteristics people like about that mod have nothing to do with the shock location. Most of what they're feeling is coming from the wheelbase change, the bone sweep, and the higher roll center (from both camber link length and the height). There is also the angle or lean of the shocks front to back that changes, but you can do that by keeping them on the rear. Having said all that, having the option to move the shocks could be something we do in the future on a version update. That's a ways off though.
SC - the possibility is there of course, but most people like our current SC because it's very durable. A version based off the 410 platform will never be as durable as one based off the 8th scale platform. I don't know if the demand is there for that style of 4x4 SC.

Originally Posted by AJrollin
Hope this thing rotates better than the EB, also in the video it looked like the rear end was a little loose in some of the turns where as the some of the SCT looked like they were almost traction rolling...maybe because of ST wheels slide more? I will more than likely be getting one...4wd buggy with ST wheels ..I'm in.
You should be able to get the EB to rotate pretty well. It might have just been certain corners were a little slick in the video. The ET has a ton of steering though. SC trucks have a pretty high COG and are more prone to traction rolling, could also be setup differences.
aspiringracer likes this.
Matthew_Armeni is offline  
Old 06-29-2018 | 11:32 PM
  #114  
rayzcar's Avatar
Tech Regular
iTrader: (23)
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 307
From: San Diego, CA
Default

Originally Posted by Matthew_Armeni
Chassis is the same length/width as the EB410. The wheelbase rules are the same between buggy and ST.
That’s interesting. Had expected longer chassis, arms and shafts. Seems like a shorter list to convert an EB410 over to an ET. Assuming body, mounts, towers, longer shocks and stub axles at a minimum, along with ST wheels and tires.

Dropped by to watch the Q2 and Mains. Awesome battle between Mason and Travis at the front last Wednesday; El Presidente helped sweep the podium.

Thanks for giving us as much info as you have been. Eagerly awaiting the official announcement and some off-body shots.
aspiringracer likes this.
rayzcar is offline  
Old 06-30-2018 | 09:07 AM
  #115  
Matthew_Armeni's Avatar
Thread Starter
Tech Master
iTrader: (31)
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,900
From: Temecula
Default

Originally Posted by rayzcar


That’s interesting. Had expected longer chassis, arms and shafts. Seems like a shorter list to convert an EB410 over to an ET. Assuming body, mounts, towers, longer shocks and stub axles at a minimum, along with ST wheels and tires.

Dropped by to watch the Q2 and Mains. Awesome battle between Mason and Travis at the front last Wednesday; El Presidente helped sweep the podium.

Thanks for giving us as much info as you have been. Eagerly awaiting the official announcement and some off-body shots.
The chassis itself is the same length/width. Arms, driveshafts, some turnbuckles, towers, longer rear shocks, are some of the differences.
aspiringracer likes this.
Matthew_Armeni is offline  
Old 06-30-2018 | 09:22 AM
  #116  
Tech Adept
 
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 182
Default

Will the driveshafts be a similar length to the MT410? Will the driveshafts fit the EB410 or the MT410 diff output cups?

Though the MT410 is a heavier chassis with a longer wheelbase and beefier tires, could the MT410 be modified (meaning correct wheels, 540 motor, 2S battery) for use as a stadium truck?
Typpo is offline  
Old 06-30-2018 | 09:56 AM
  #117  
Matthew_Armeni's Avatar
Thread Starter
Tech Master
iTrader: (31)
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,900
From: Temecula
Default

Originally Posted by Typpo
Will the driveshafts be a similar length to the MT410? Will the driveshafts fit the EB410 or the MT410 diff output cups?

Though the MT410 is a heavier chassis with a longer wheelbase and beefier tires, could the MT410 be modified (meaning correct wheels, 540 motor, 2S battery) for use as a stadium truck?
These are two completely different sized trucks, the only common parts between them would be a handful of screws.
Matthew_Armeni is offline  
Old 06-30-2018 | 11:07 AM
  #118  
Tech Adept
 
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 182
Default

Thank you for the help.

Last edited by Typpo; 06-30-2018 at 01:04 PM. Reason: Clarity
Typpo is offline  
Old 07-03-2018 | 01:00 PM
  #119  
AJH387's Avatar
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (5)
 
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 995
From: Pittsburgh PA
Default

Bump to keep the hype going. Any more testing info, pics, dates?
aspiringracer likes this.
AJH387 is offline  
Old 07-04-2018 | 09:09 AM
  #120  
Totallyosho's Avatar
Tech Adept
 
Joined: Aug 2017
Posts: 117
Default

Originally Posted by AJH387
Bump to keep the hype going. Any more testing info, pics, dates?
At this pointI kind of wish another company just dropped a 4WD stadium truck without all the months long teasing. Xray, AE or Losi, I don't care, hey, we already know Arrma is going to launch a 1/10 Kraton soon so who knows, maybe there will be a 1/10 Talion too for people like me who wanted this to bash.
rustyus likes this.
Totallyosho is offline  


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

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.