Axial SCX10 ii review by Holmes Hobbies

[JohnRobHolmes]

My initial review and impression of the rig compared to the SCX10, which is best understood with this video...


https://youtu.be/3ZUSOEMLp5I

[gsgraber92]

I've watched the review twice and if I had been considering whether to make the purchase it would have help me to know the difference, improvements, and such. I have the kit now and I agree with review. I love my SCX10's but I like the scale improvements and details on the SXC10 II. Appreciate the review!

[imthatguy]

Great overview sir. Thanks for posting a completely unbiased review. Looking forward to putting your gear in my build up.

[JohnRobHolmes]

I'll make a part two that is more in-depth on the rig. Gearing, geardown, motor rotation, and the plastic and screw capturing. Anything else?

[AngelowDoom]

take a look into relocation of stuff on the chassis, like flipping the tranny, divorcing the tranne, optional battery locations. optional servo location and so on. the original scx was really spaceiuos and things could easily be moved around. that is very positive for builders. does seem like you are not that free to move things around on this one, since the tranny is so big and servo components are attatced to the batterytray.

[JohnRobHolmes]

If we are regarding the builders, this kit is no more or less suitable. There is still plenty of room, and you have the option of using the standard center tranny if space is your concern. The m4 threaded links are a big step up too, harvesting a kit for parts is better than old kits.

[jrkilburn]

I would like to see the overall difference in swapping to the older transmission with the new axle gearing. Basically is there more or less strain on the older transmission based on the new final gear ratios and what if any spur and pinion changed would be recommended.
Great review so far, can't wait to see more.

[JohnRobHolmes]

The increased axle reduction will result in less torque load on the transmission for a constant motor and wheelspeed. Gearing to be determined, I'm getting another kit after lunch to avoid taking apart this rig further.

[AngelowDoom]

The links is not any big deal for buildes, most make there own anyway or get custom ones, and they have been M4 for quite some time. And by some of the build threads on the scx2 forum it looks like the links in the front will not give max steering or max suspension cycle anyway. But for the average buyer the new links is nice, hope they stay on the RTR also.

And the standard tranny argument is wierd. The std scx was a huge sucsess and most people that are in to trail rigs, usually have one or more std scx. and the std centre tranny is one of the things that many hoped was removed with the new realese. but it is just replaced with a even bigger tranny. So go back to the old one is not any inovation as I see it. And since so many already got a old scx, with the same frame and the smaller tranny people suggest you use, why buy a new SCX then? Easier to fix the one you got.

Another thing is that the scx10 had two major flaws, one was the steering, that has now been fixed. The other was the frame, who is exactly the same as before, so its just another frame to be replaced.
So from my point of view as a builder, this is a very wierd realese. I would think that Axial lost a lot of sales due to builders buildt there rigs from scratch and just used some of the axle internals from Axial. With this new release they could have avioded that by giving the community what they really wanted. (Hint: New axles, frame and divorsed tranny for motor under the hood)
My guess is that after the first exitement of the new release, builders will not buy any more scx kits, they will use custom frames and perhaps only the axles from scx10 II.
Axial made there own parts more useless, espessially like there cms and battery solution. The aftermarket will just make new frames with cms/panhard intregated with the frame.
Maybe there is a little hope for the new tranny, if someone makes a easy solution for how to divorce it from the tf-case and mount it up front, then maybe a little more from the kit is usable enough to defend buying a kit when building.

Cant figure out why Axial designed this tranny and decided to put it in the centre the wrong way. Some has said it was to favor the RTR buyer. But does really a tranny up front scare tham away? The only thing i can think of is that Axial was very focused on fitting a huge 5000mah pack in there, and this was there only solution to the problem.

What they could have done is new framerails with higher arces in front, more link mounting options, intregated front hoops, with several mounting holes, a small tranny without spur, attatced to the front hoops, that centers the motor up front (to easy put on 3d printed faux motor covers ect, they could even make a faux cover to include in kit) servo just in front of the motor between the rails, a low profile tf-case on the skid, battery plate just in front or behind the tf-case. This would be a builders delight. If they really wanted two speed option, they could have made a faux transmission, holding two speed gears and servo, that replaced the shaft between the transmission and tf-case.

[Col_Sanders]

Originally Posted by JohnRobHolmes

The increased axle reduction will result in less torque load on the transmission for a constant motor and wheelspeed. Gearing to be determined, I'm getting another kit after lunch to avoid taking apart this rig further.

Damn.... these are impossible for us out west to get our hands on and you can just go down the street and buy one that easy? I need to call you lhs and have them mail me that thing before you get down there.

[JohnRobHolmes]

Angelo, you are over thinking all of this. There is no way a kit or rtr will ever satisfy a "builder". Damned if they do this, damned if they don't do that, same problems every purchased rig has from the standpoint of fabbing. I've been buying complete vehicles to harvest axles and tranny for almost 15 years now. It is not a problem, it is the enabler of this hobby from day one.

[AngelowDoom]

Well maybe I am overthinking it But I'm sure the praise and rejoice of this kit would be much higher if they had done it like i suggested in my last post.

I have one of these on the way in the mail, but that was just because I was trigger happy on the preorder. If I was to order one now after the dust have settled. Im sure I would just have waited for the chop shops to sell axles only, or just orderd axle parts only.

[chino63]

Thanks for the info JRH, looks very promising.

Those saying "they should have done it this, they should have done it that way", should just be happy there are some awesome changes to the current boring same old same old. I'm excited to see what kind of customizing will be done by those who like to tinker with things. More production gear options mean more cool one off builds. Thanks Axial for a fresh new set of axles!

[JohnRobHolmes]

The reasons that Axial avoided a fully divorced transmission are solid, and it is not because of complexity. This is a kit that needs to appeal to newcomers and old folks alike. You must design it to fit a standard stick pack, the ubiquitous battery that RC car guys have on hand. Where will it fit while allowing chassis mounted servo, while avoiding the performance killing rear mount? Exactly where Axial designed it to fit, that's where it has to go.


There are far too many compromises for a vehicle to be widely popular. I don't see how they could have ridden that line any better, IMO.



Just got back from getting my kit. And another bag full of extras!

[imthatguy]

Originally Posted by JohnRobHolmes

The reasons that Axial avoided a fully divorced transmission are solid, and it is not because of complexity. This is a kit that needs to appeal to newcomers and old folks alike. You must design it to fit a standard stick pack, the ubiquitous battery that RC car guys have on hand. Where will it fit while allowing chassis mounted servo, while avoiding the performance killing rear mount? Exactly where Axial designed it to fit, that's where it has to go.


There are far too many compromises for a vehicle to be widely popular. I don't see how they could have ridden that line any better, IMO.



Just got back from getting my kit. And another bag full of extras!

This, and the simple matter that 90% of buyers will leave it bone stock, and the idea of a front motor mount only appeals to us comp guys looking for extra points. More complexity = more things to break.

[JohnRobHolmes]

overall ratio is 36.4:1 reduction, which is a very nice start for the truck. The transfer and transmission have the same 2.6x reduction as a normal SCX tranny. So to use a standard transmission with the new axles you use an equivalent ratio at pinion to spur: 56/15


Hats off to the engineers. They did a lot of work with forward thinking. How many hundreds of engineering hours?

[imthatguy]

Originally Posted by JohnRobHolmes

overall ratio is 36.4:1 reduction, which is a very nice start for the truck. The transfer and transmission have the same 2.6x reduction as a normal SCX tranny. So to use a standard transmission with the new axles you use an equivalent ratio at pinion to spur: 56/15


Hats off to the engineers. They did a lot of work with forward thinking. How many hundreds of engineering hours?

More like years! Right Brandon?

[ribaja]

JRH do you have the motor rotation so I can get it right when I order my expert CM 13t or (16t when back in stock). Would one be better over the other I was also think about the expert tm 30t or 35t

thanks jeff

[JohnRobHolmes]

Standard motor rotation. I would choose a 13t Crawlmaster or 27t-30t TorqueMaster for my personal rig. Well, I only run Crawlmaster so thats what mine will be.

[ribaja]

Originally Posted by JohnRobHolmes

Standard motor rotation. I would choose a 13t Crawlmaster or 27t-30t TorqueMaster for my personal rig. Well, I only run Crawlmaster so thats what mine will be.

thank you sir I'll give the cm 13t a try I'm running your tm 30t in one of my old scx10s and like it so far