Axial SCX10 build - My first kit.

[electricrc68]

Originally Posted by TacoCrawler

I was gonna tell you to check the lengths of the lower links...
but then... you already found the fault.


FYI...

the lower links control/designate the wheel base length settings.

the upper links control/designate the axle's forward/rearward rotation...
affecting the caster settings at the knuckles.

Ah cool thanks! Thats nice to know. Now I know what all those links were for.

[electricrc68]

So I got more progress:






















Only thing left is painting the body! I just have one question. I noticed that it takes a ton of pushing force to get the car moving when its just sitting there. Is this normal? Every other RC car I've had you could push it lightly and it would free roll.

[6sharky9]

Yes..if you had a stock junk motor in there it would roll fairly easy.

grab the wheel and with your finger turn the spur gear to get it started ..it should turn fairly easy till you stop again.

That's just a lot more resistance from the motor magnets..I noticed mine did that too when I put a better motor on.

[6sharky9]

I noticed where you mounted the tops of your shocks on the hoops..You may find they work much better leaning the tops in.

Mount them so the rear tops are leaning towards the trans and the front the same..so it looks like this ( Looking on passenger side) Rear / Front \ ) ..or simply move them to the holes on the other ends of the hoops.

They will work much better than straight up and down..It makes them more plush or gives them a softer feel..Will track the terrain more smoothly and give them better response overall

[electricrc68]

Originally Posted by 6sharky9

Yes..if you had a stock junk motor in there it would roll fairly easy.

grab the wheel and with your finger turn the spur gear to get it started ..it should turn fairly easy till you stop again.

That's just a lot more resistance from the motor magnets..I noticed mine did that too when I put a better motor on.

Sweet thanks! Thats a relief.

Originally Posted by 6sharky9

I noticed where you mounted the tops of your shocks on the hoops..You may find they work much better leaning the tops in.

Mount them so the rear tops are leaning towards the trans and the front the same..so it looks like this ( Looking on passenger side) Rear / Front \ ) ..or simply move them to the holes on the other ends of the hoops.

They will work much better than straight up and down..It makes them more plush or gives them a softer feel..Will track the terrain more smoothly and give them better response overall

Thanks for the tip! I'll go and change that out. I mean I'm waiting for paint to dry, so I've got time.

[TacoCrawler]

Ultimately... vertical is the best position for the shock to work as intended.

Leaning the shocks inward reduces the spring and dampening rates.
A heavier chassis would be less appreciative of that shock angle.

On the positive side... it would lower the ride height (COG) slightly.
But there are better ways to do that.

IMO...
Tuning the shocks should be done by altering spring rate and oil viscosity.
Ride height should be adjusted by relocating the shock's upper mount.
Higher up if necessary... (if the shock is longer then the original)

Spring rate should be adjusted
to allow for a 60/40 (down/up) travel ratio.

I run mine at 50/50
and that equates to about 3/4" static droop.

But the coil spring must retain its seating in its lower bucket
as the shock extends fully.

If a softer ride is what one is after...
leaning the shocks inward will likely do that.
But the chassis load capacity is diminished somewhat.

[electricrc68]

Originally Posted by TacoCrawler

Ultimately... vertical is the best position for the shock to work as intended.

Leaning the shocks inward reduces the spring and dampening rates.
A heavier chassis would be less appreciative of that shock angle.

On the positive side... it would lower the ride height (COG) slightly.
But there are better ways to do that.

IMO...
Tuning the shocks should be done by altering spring rate and oil viscosity.
Ride height should be adjusted by relocating the shock's upper mount.
Higher up if necessary... (if the shock is longer then the original)

Spring rate should be adjusted
to allow for a 60/40 (down/up) travel ratio.

I run mine at 50/50
and that equates to about 3/4" static droop.

But the coil spring must retain its seating in its lower bucket
as the shock extends fully.

If a softer ride is what one is after...
leaning the shocks inward will likely do that.
But the chassis load capacity is diminished somewhat.

Hmmm...sounds like theres a lot more to it then. Thanks for the info! So in your opinion, for mild to moderate trail running/rock crawling, should I keep them vertical, or lean them in?

Also, what is chassis load capacity and how important is it? I have them leaned inward at the moment, but am fine with changing that if need be.

[TacoCrawler]

Originally Posted by electricrc68

Also, what is chassis load capacity and how important is it?

Load capacity is simply how much weight the chassis and it's mounted components are.

it's also referred to as "sprung weight".
^ any weight mounted above the supporting springs.

un-sprung weight would be the axles and their assemblies.
^ any weight below the supporting springs.

Too heavy of a load on the chassis
plus leaning the shocks inward
can cause the chassis to roll more easily.

Obviously stiffer coil springs could be used to compensate...
Tho' finding that perfect harmony will be the challenge.

[6sharky9]

Originally Posted by TacoCrawler

Ultimately... vertical is the best position for the shock to work as intended.

Leaning the shocks inward reduces the spring and dampening rates.
A heavier chassis would be less appreciative of that shock angle.

On the positive side... it would lower the ride height (COG) slightly.
But there are better ways to do that.

IMO...
Tuning the shocks should be done by altering spring rate and oil viscosity.
Ride height should be adjusted by relocating the shock's upper mount.
Higher up if necessary... (if the shock is longer then the original)

Spring rate should be adjusted
to allow for a 60/40 (down/up) travel ratio.

I run mine at 50/50
and that equates to about 3/4" static droop.

But the coil spring must retain its seating in its lower bucket
as the shock extends fully.

If a softer ride is what one is after...
leaning the shocks inward will likely do that.
But the chassis load capacity is diminished somewhat.

I know..all the rock crawlers you see that move better than any trail truck over any terrain all have shocks straight up and down because it works better.

When you approach an obstacle and your tire starts going up you want the force to start compressing your shock ..not wait till it gets to the top before any loads are applied to them.

This load from the angled shock forces weight down on the tire giving you better traction and conforming to the terrain a lot better than a straight up and down shock will.,,Maybe if you drive on the street a straight up and down shock will work best...Nothing wrong with the chassis leaning in some to the tires for better traction going up an obstacle. (chassis roll)

All I can say is it works great for me and you see a lot do this for a reason. I took it even farther with leaning them in a lot more...Some of that reason was to lower the truck back to stock ride height as I use longer than stock shocks. but to also make the shocks respond better...but no complaints here with massive chassis roll that flips me over or the suspension being too soft.

Don't make me get out another video or pic

[6sharky9]

Just as leverage between wheel and shock (created by where we mount the shock) can create a difference between wheel travel and shock travel, so to does the angle at which we mount the shock. That is, the angle at which me mount the shock creates a difference between wheel travel and shock travel.
If we mounted the shock vertically, (at an angle of 0° from vertical) then there would be no difference between shock travel and wheel travel.

For every inch the wheel goes up, the shock compresses one inch. (straight up and down)


If we mount the shock at 45° from vertical, the relationship between shock travel and wheel travel is not so immediately apparent, although we know it depends on the angle, and we know the shock travel will be something less than the wheel travel...In other words for every inch the wheel moves up the shock travel is less..this means you will have more wheel travel than you normally would if the shock was mounted straight up and down..Funny some desert racing trucks have 30 inches of wheel travel with less than 30 inches of shock travel.

Its funny how rc manufacturers give you mounting options if just one position is so perfect.

Angling the shock inward would be called an ALPHA angle.

Just try it both ways and see what you think works best for you.

[6sharky9]

Can anyone else here get this much articulation with 90mm RTR shocks?...Ill bet you can if you angle the tops down..Dont worry about how much better it travels over the terrain..youll get used to it.


Honcho RTR shocks mounted on less than a 45 degree angle.

[Szczerba]

More than a tire height is a waste.


...

[6sharky9]

Originally Posted by Szczerba

More than a tire height is a waste.


...

Not that having it mounted in the inner holes on the stock shock hoops is such a huge drastic change but it does (will) give the truck better feel over terrain and youre not getting this huge gain in wheel travel like in my pic..The angle is minimal on the shock hoop mount compared to the angle of the shock mount in the pic of my custom scaler.

But yea ive heard more than a tires height is a waste..I guess this is more so for trail trucks than rock crawlers though who have no wheel well to get in the way and can articulate about 90 degrees.

[johnnyh66]

Much more than a tire height hurts performance.

[6sharky9]

Originally Posted by johnnyh66

Much more than a tire height hurts performance.

Yea..moving the shock to that hole will give like 180 degrees of articulation
and 6 tires high of wheel travel..bad idea..My bad

[meatmonkey]

How has this made it to the 3rd page without anyone telling you that your C-hubs are on the wrong side?

At least that is how it looks judging by the extra space between the bottom of the servo horn and the tie rod?

[electricrc68]

Originally Posted by meatmonkey

How has this made it to the 3rd page without anyone telling you that your C-hubs are on the wrong side?

At least that is how it looks judging by the extra space between the bottom of the servo horn and the tie rod?

I don't believe they are on the wrong side...I mean everything went together fine. I can look it over again though. Do you mean that the right is on the left, and the left is on the right?

I'm basically done with the build now:









Although I've run into a problem trying to mount the roof to the truck:



Any ideas on what to do about that? I mean it works fine with just the roll cage obviously, but I like how it looks with the roof on it better.

[Airdet]

Loosen the two screws holding that part of the roll cage and flip it backwards.

[electricrc68]

Originally Posted by Airdet

Loosen the two screws holding that part of the roll cage and flip it backwards.

Ahhh thanks! That makes sense. I'll do that tomorrow...I'm tired from three straight days of wrenching on this thing!

[electricrc68]

How it stands at the moment...the build is complete I'd say!













Roof isn't on all the way yet...still need to flip the part of the cage back.