"Deciding on a chassis kit" problem - Assistance Requested

[Panther6834]

I think I'm "creating my own monster", and hoping others can help 'tame' the monster. Here's my 'dilemma' - I have a Lexan body I'd like to potentially use for a Class 2 rig, but the wheelbase is shorter than 'standard' (approx 11.4").

Before I continue, let me ask 2 questions. First, is a Lexan body 'appropriate', or even acceptable (under SORCA rules), on a Class 2 rig? Second, would a 12.4" wheelbase be considered "too short" on a competitive rig? Reason I'm asking these two questions is, my only previous experience with competition vehicles is a Class 3 rig w/ 4WS.

Now that those questions are out of the way, I can get to the 'dilemma'. Assuming that the Element Enduro IFS Kit is 'competitive' (input from others on whether, or not, this IFS kit is 'competitive' would also be appreciated), this is what is like to use. Of course, while this kit can be used on a few non-Element chassis kits, it's designed primarily for the Element Enduro...which has a 12.8" wheelbase. Element mentions it works with the SCX10 II & SSD Trail King Pro, but there's no mention about it working work the SCX10 III (which can be shortened to an 11.4" wheelbase).

The point of mentioning the SCX10 OR III is, if the rear portal axle was swapped with a straight axle, can the Element Enduro IFS Kit be used on an SCX10 III? If not, what other options would I have. If...and, right now, it's a questionable 'if' (due to the Lexan body, 11.4" wheelbase & IFS combination "problem")...I am to do this build, and if the Element IFS kit can't be used with an SCX10 III (with straight rear axle), what other options can people suggest?


~ More peace, love, and kindness would make the world a much better place

[indybama]

U can use a lexan body for c2 n i dont think theres a limit on wb. My c2 is a 12.3 wb n has the PL ford superduty cab only body with a ierc flatbed.

I believe the tires cant exceed 4.75" tall, try to keep a max of 12" wide at the wheels or less (gates are 11" wide for c2), body/cage must b atleast 4.5" tall, inside of front tires acn not exceed the width of the body at the doors.

As for the ifs, i dont have a rig with that setup. But im sure its within c2 rules. Portal or no portal is up to u, my c2 has trx4 portals. Im sure the ifs will work with the 10 iii, may need a lil bit of modding for hardware, idk as i dont have the 10 iii either, but anything is possible...

Heres wat i found for the c2 rules (copied n pasted)...

Class-2 "Trail" Details: • Body/cage work must be at least 4.5" tall (including boat sides) and the inside of the front tires cannot extend outside of the width of the cab at the doors. • A front bumper is required and must be mounted to the vehicle's rail chassis and must be wider than the outside of the chassis rails (chassis cross rails do not count as bumpers). • You must run a full rail chassis, and the chassis (including bumpers) must be 3" longer than the wheelbase (this includes a chassis with a truggy rear frame). •Truggies are allowed, but you must replace the ladder frame behind the cab with tube, and the truggy rails must extend past the rear axle pumpkin to be legal. The bed must have a roll bar hoop and integrated shock mounts. It also must be a structural part of the rear of the vehicle. (If your bed does not meet ALL of the preceding criteria, it does not count as a truggy bed). • Flatbeds that run the full length of the rail chassis are allowed. The bed must be as wide as the cab the entire length of the bed. • 2 of the 3 following modifications are allowed: - Dovetailing the rear (1/2 the width of the widest part of the cab) *a truggy/tube bed that is narrower than the cab counts as a dovetail*. - Boat sides (no more than 1.25" measured vertically from the bottom of the skid). - Pinching the front (2/3 the width of the widest part of the cab). • 120mm / 4.75" max tire size with a 2.2 max rim size including spare. • Gates will be a minimum of 12" wide (so mind your width

[Robotboy]

I'm currently working on a wraith with the element ifs and a ar44 in the rear.
Same gearing and spin in the right direction.
No problems in the test runs.

[Panther6834]

Originally Posted by indybama

U can use a lexan body for c2 n i dont think theres a limit on wb. My c2 is a 12.3 wb n has the PL ford superduty cab only body with a ierc flatbed.

I wasn't asking about C2 rules. I was asking whether, or not, the Element IFS kit would work on the SCX10 III kit (which would, obviously, require swapping the rear portal axle for a straight axle). Or, if not, if anyone had any suggestions/recommendations for a different chassis kit that would work with the IFS kit, AND could be configured for an 11.4" wheelbase.

Additionally, I was asking if a C2 rig with 11.4" wheelbase would truly be "competitive"...meaning, would it, realistically, be able to make it through a 'highly technical' course. For example, for anyone who's been to Scale Nationals, have you seen short wheelbase vehicles complete all 4 courses?

Basically, what this comes down to is, in regards to the body I have, could I realistically use it to build a SWB C2 rig with IFS that would be competitive...or, am I better off putting it on the Traxxas Rustler 4x4? I'd prefer using it for a C2 rig, as it's a great body, and one that's possibly never been seen before (and, please, don't ask what it is...I'm not telling just yet), at least in competition. But, if a vehicle with an 11.4" wheelbase and/or a vehicle with an IFS wouldn't be 'competitive' (ie. 11.4" wheelbase is too short to be 'competitive' and/or IFS would be 'competitive'), then I might as well not bother using it for a C2 rig.


~ More peace, love, and kindness would make the world a much better place

[indybama]

Originally Posted by Panther6834

I wasn't asking about C2 rules. I was asking whether, or not, the Element IFS kit would work on the SCX10 III kit (which would, obviously, require swapping the rear portal axle for a straight axle). Or, if not, if anyone had any suggestions/recommendations for a different chassis kit that would work with the IFS kit, AND could be configured for an 11.4" wheelbase.

Additionally, I was asking if a C2 rig with 11.4" wheelbase would truly be "competitive"...meaning, would it, realistically, be able to make it through a 'highly technical' course. For example, for anyone who's been to Scale Nationals, have you seen short wheelbase vehicles complete all 4 courses?

Basically, what this comes down to is, in regards to the body I have, could I realistically use it to build a SWB C2 rig with IFS that would be competitive...or, am I better off putting it on the Traxxas Rustler 4x4? I'd prefer using it for a C2 rig, as it's a great body, and one that's possibly never been seen before (and, please, don't ask what it is...I'm not telling just yet), at least in competition. But, if a vehicle with an 11.4" wheelbase and/or a vehicle with an IFS wouldn't be 'competitive' (ie. 11.4" wheelbase is too short to be 'competitive' and/or IFS would be 'competitive'), then I might as well not bother using it for a C2 rig.


~ More peace, love, and kindness would make the world a much better place

I went to ECC back in april. There were lwb n swb rigs competing. The swb rigs were doin pretty good n there was some places they were able to get thru that my lwb struggled.

If it were me, id build it for the fun of the build n the challenge itll give on the course. Never know, u may get there n whoop everybody with a swb ifs rig.

Sent from my SM-A516V using Tapatalk

[Goro Majima]

If you're really focused on having IFS for your 11.4 body, I'd just say pull the trigger. Maybe some have already thrown IFS on the 10.3s and shared what needs to be done to the conversion but I haven't come across that info yet.

But how I look at it is if you have an idea for putting together your own rig from scratch, and you have the skills to make something work when you have all the pieces in front of you, go for it buddy.

[Panther6834]

For this, the only 'piece' I currently have is the body. I bought the body from an eBay seller on a whim, hoping I'd be able to use it on my redone C3 rig. It's an extremely 'unique' body, something I had dreamed of, but didn't know any actually existed...didn't even know if any companies ever even produced a body of this vehicle.

Every so often, I'd randomly search, always coming up empty...until one day, I actually found a seller having it (the seller had 3 at the time I ordered). Only problem was, there were no measurements listed. I contacted the seller, but didn't receive a reply fast enough...and, worried that they'd all be gone before I received a reply, I just went ahead and ordered. It wasn't until a couple days after ordering that I received the reply with the measurements.

At this point, I've been 'sitting' in the body for over 3 months, trying to decide what to do with it. It's way too short for my C3 rig, as it has a somewhat limited wheelbase range. That's when I thought about putting it in my Rustler 4x4...even though the Rusty's wheelbase is 11.62", a 0.18" difference wouldn't even be noticable. But, more recently, that's when I started thinking about using the body for a SWB C2 rig.

I know the RC4WD TF2 has an 11.3-11.4" wheelbase...but, it's definitely NOT a competition-worthy chassis, so that's never been a consideration. The reason...honestly, the only real reason...I thought about the SCX10 III is because of the 'adjustable' nature of the rails...being able to shorten/lengthen the rails to almost any desired length. However, if there are any fixed-length CF/G10 chassis and/or chairs trail kits designed for 11.4" wheelbase, I'd really like to know. Especially any that have a trail spacing equal to that of the Element Enduro, so that the Element IFS kit could be used. As for custom making my own trails, I have neither the skills, the know-how, or the equipment/tools to do so. As such, I'd have no choice but to buy.


~ More peace, love, and kindness would make the world a much better place

[OSRC]

My UMG goes anywhere with its 11.4 WB, I'd put it up against anything.

Not sure what the issue is, the Dingo and UMG both came from the factory with an 11.4 WB, and there's tons of Mojave bodies sitting on SCX10 platforms. It's not so super short as to be requiring a ton of custom fab work. Why make it complicated? Shorty links in the back of an IFS element is a simple solution. If the chassis is too long, hack it down. Or drop it on a 10.2 builders kit - 11.4 rear links are on Ebay, no problem.

Not sure why the III kit is even in the mix - seems to be over complicating things and frankly an expensive way to get there. However like anything else I'm sure the IFS kit could be made to work if you really want to get there.

[svt923]

Based on my experience (installing Element IFS setups on the Element chassis, a SCXII chassis, and 1.9 Wraith), the IFS will not work without a minimum of a new transmission and most likely a new top plate. With the IFS, the steering servo sits where the motor would with the stock 10.3 transmission. The top plate basically holds everything together and sets the height of the front suspension relative to the chassis. I doubt any of the 10.3 chassis holes would line up with the Element top plate (or the printable 10.2 top plate) and if they did bolt on, it is unknown if they would locate the whole front end in the right spot. If you are handy with CAD, you could make it work but I don’t really see it happening with a dremel and a drill.

[MOguy]

If you are wanting a comp rig, and have some understanding of RC and can google DO NOT WASTE MONEY buying a kit. Just buy the parts you need.

If you really want a SORRCA build you NEED POINTS. A hardbody gets allot of points, point that are hard to make up. You will also want a different drive train with separate Tcase for more points. Those are two easy places to get points. A stupid flipping 3d engines gets 3 or 4 points but you build has to be right to make it fit.

Go to t he SORRCA calculator and start plying around with it to see what and how to get points.


You will want a full interior most RTR trans take up space that will interfere with your interior.

Unless you go leaf you will probably want high clearance links, I don't think any kit comes with high clearance links.

I have never run an RC with IFS, I have never seen anybody comp an RC with RFS. If it anything like a 1:1 I would strongly suggest against IFS in a comp crawler.

Going with a Lexan body vs a hardbody, non opening doors or hood to show off your 3d printed motor and looking at the separate TCase, a trans that won't let you build the appropriate interior is given up easily over 20 points, 1/3 the max. If you are going SORRCA.

There are only so many functional and non functional point you can get. Most of the rest of it depends on your build.

As far as wheelbase: Shorter will maneuver better and have a better break-over, longer will help you descend and climb better. I don't think there is a perfect answer.

I am not hating on Enduro at all. This is my C1 Enduro build with Axial Ar44s and TRX shocks. I have to move the winch back into the body, it is in the way, my place isn't picky on interior but man places my butchered interior with wires running though it wouldn't pass. And no room for the stupid flipping 3d engine cover. Where I comp I score in the low 50s. If they were pick my score would be lower because of my interior.

interior:




no room for 3d motor and no separate tcase:


Winch too far out front:



I love how it drives but

[twade984]

Short wheelbase (11.4”) isn’t a problem with the enduro chassis, scx10.2 chassis, or pretty much any chassis, They will all require the exact same amount of work to make an 11.4” wb, which is shorter rear links and driveshaft. The 10.3 has the ability to move the rear chassis rails forward, but that only moves the rails, and the shock towers. You would still need to source shorter links.

Element makes 11.8” rear links that can be used with standard length rod ends (insicion, Traxxas revo) to get you to 11.4” (although the links do require some trimming of the threaded ends).

Also, there are a few companies making custom length links based on chassis and axles, you should be able to source links no problem.

Codyboy has a build thread of a TGH Sherpa chassis that he mounted ifs to, that might be worth a look, although with short wheelbase the rear shock mounts might be further back on the chassis than is ideal.

The element chassis would probably be the easiest, a 10.2 chassis is right there also. I would look into a g speed v1-c1 chassis, as it’s basically 10.2 based, has movable shock towers, and is popular for comp builds. Not sure about the ifs compatibility, but the front section is the same as a Sherpa chassis which evidently has been done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Panther6834]

Originally Posted by twade984

Short wheelbase (11.4”) isn’t a problem with the enduro chassis, scx10.2 chassis, or pretty much any chassis, They will all require the exact same amount of work to make an 11.4” wb, which is shorter rear links and driveshaft. The 10.3 has the ability to move the rear chassis rails forward, but that only moves the rails, and the shock towers. You would still need to source shorter links.

Element makes 11.8” rear links that can be used with standard length rod ends (insicion, Traxxas revo) to get you to 11.4” (although the links do require some trimming of the threaded ends).

Also, there are a few companies making custom length links based on chassis and axles, you should be able to source links no problem.

Codyboy has a build thread of a TGH Sherpa chassis that he mounted ifs to, that might be worth a look, although with short wheelbase the rear shock mounts might be further back on the chassis than is ideal.

The element chassis would probably be the easiest, a 10.2 chassis is right there also. I would look into a g speed v1-c1 chassis, as it’s basically 10.2 based, has movable shock towers, and is popular for comp builds. Not sure about the ifs compatibility, but the front section is the same as a Sherpa chassis which evidently has been done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think I get what you're saying. I'll admit, I (obviously) hadn't thought everything through (which, in part...a very strong part...is why I was asking about other chassis suggestions). By what you're saying, it would be like trying to combine a VFD trans, and the IFS kit, into a single vehicle, which would be all but impossible. I don't mind 'complicating' things a little bit, but I'm not purposely tiring to complicate things.

It's starting to look like I might need to go with a 3rd-party chassis (something I figured was a probable possibility)...but figuring out 'which' (if any) would work with the IFS kit could be difficult. My redone C3 rig is built on a GC4.2 (OUTSTANDING chassis, by the way, if anyone is interested...Ikaika has been very helpful in providing info), but a GC4.2 wouldn't work with the IFS kit. At the same time, maybe I'll just go back to my original idea, and put the body on a Rustler 4x4, or similar-length chassis.


~ More peace, love, and kindness would make the world a much better place

[durok]

Don't know how you'd fit that body over the width of a Rustler 4x4 - it runs 2.8" wheels to get part of the suspension tucked inside the wheel and is nearly 13" (330mm) wide with the stock tires.

The rare body you mentioned in another thread was only 185mm wide (about 7.29").

An Element IFS-equipped Knightrunner on the 1.55" stock tires is much narrower, but still is 9.29" (236mm) wide.

Sure, nearly everyone has some tire poking past the fenders, but you'll need to take that into account with this body to a certain extent.

One of the only truly narrow crawlers, a stock TF2, is still 8.46" (215mm) wide w/1.55" steelies and tiny tires.

[Panther6834]

Originally Posted by durok

Don't know how you'd fit that body over the width of a Rustler 4x4 - it runs 2.8" wheels to get part of the suspension tucked inside the wheel and is nearly 13" (330mm) wide with the stock tires.

The rare body you mentioned in another thread was only 185mm wide (about 7.29").

An Element IFS-equipped Knightrunner on the 1.55" stock tires is much narrower, but still is 9.29" (236mm) wide.

Sure, nearly everyone has some tire poking past the fenders, but you'll need to take that into account with this body to a certain extent.

One of the only truly narrow crawlers, a stock TF2, is still 8.46" (215mm) wide w/1.55" steelies and tiny tires.

You remember the body in referring to. ^5

Technically, the body is 7-3/8" (approx 187mm) wide. Also, I've discovered that the body's scrotal wheelbase (caressing to the seller) is 11" (11.4" would still work). Nevertheless, I do get what you're saying. If I recall correctly (and, to ask those reading this, please, correct me if I'm wrong), for C2, the tire-to-body rule is that the inside edge of the tires must be within the outer edge of the fenders...so, if I'm reading things correctly, 99% of the tires can be past the fenders, as long as some of all 4 tires is on the inside of the fenders.

Regarding the IFS, based on what several have said, there's nothing in the SORCA rules preventing anything from running an IFS rig...but, at the same time, IFS wouldn't be "SORCA competitive". So ..on that note, I guess I can eliminate the idea of an IFS rig. This still means, if I'm to use this body, I'd still need a competition-grade chassis with 11.4" wheelbase...which takes me back to my original questions:

1) Is the SCX10.3 chassis "competitive"?
2) What other chassis w/ 11.4" wheelbase ..preferably in G10 or CF...would be "competitive"?

For what should be obvious, I wouldn't want the shocks at some 'excessive' angle, thus I would NOT want to use a chassis designed for 12.3" or 12.8", unless the shock towers are separately attached (ie. the shock towers can be positioned to match the necessary wheelbase, sick as the SCX10.3 chassis & shock towers are).


~ More peace, love, and kindness would make the world a much better place