Help me compare SCX10 iii kit vs TRX-4 sport kit

[Veteran]

Suppose that no mini-servos are installed in SCX10 iii, in order to compare a basic performance between [SCX10 iii kit] and [TRX-4 sport kit]. Furthermore, let us consider AXE550 motor and esc combo and C900W servo for both of them.

Can you compare their performances in crawling?

I'm just about to buy the one that beats the other.

[turbodan13]

Apples to apples, the only things that really seem to be a deciding factor for the SCX are the frame rail adjustability & battery size/location options. Wheelbases are +/-1mm, portals on both, solid parts support from the aftermarket, etc. While I don't have any hands-on with the TRX, when I compared the torsional stiffness of the new SCX chassis to my VS4-10 chassis, they were damn near identical in terms of stiffness... and that VS4 is stout!

[Traulus]

For my preference, I like the SCX10 III axles as thjey are more slimmer. The TRX axle are bulky as hell

[Veteran]

Originally Posted by Traulus

For my preference, I like the SCX10 III axles as thjey are more slimmer. The TRX axle are bulky as hell

Slimmer axles are good for what? I am just wondering.

[Veteran]

Originally Posted by turbodan13

Apples to apples, the only things that really seem to be a deciding factor for the SCX are the frame rail adjustability & battery size/location options. Wheelbases are +/-1mm, portals on both, solid parts support from the aftermarket, etc. While I don't have any hands-on with the TRX, when I compared the torsional stiffness of the new SCX chassis to my VS4-10 chassis, they were damn near identical in terms of stiffness... and that VS4 is stout!

Is the battery location for the scx advantageous? or disadvantageous?

Wouldn't the frame rail adjustability make the frame relatively weaker than a non-adjustable frame?

[$uicide $hift]

Originally Posted by Veteran

Is the battery location for the scx advantageous? or disadvantageous?

Wouldn't the frame rail adjustability make the frame relatively weaker than a non-adjustable frame?

The battery location for the SCX is better IMO since you have options from the kit to mount a standard pack sideways across the frame rails as well as a second included option that allows for a shorty pack to be used on the side skid.

TRX has the same but you can only lower the larger center battery tray with an aftermarket part and the shorty tray is high in the chassis between the front shock towers.

The frame rail stock setup is 12.3" WB. From here you can adjust it to a shorter WB and not a longer WB unless you do something custom currently. So you build it stock at 12.3" WB or shorten it. The frame rails would not be weaker if you were to shorten them.

[svt923]

Originally Posted by Veteran

Wouldn't the frame rail adjustability make the frame relatively weaker than a non-adjustable frame?

No, where the 2 pieces of the frame meet is a very low stress area plus there is a large overlap which essentially doubles the thickness and strength through that area. It is much like the Ascender chassis which has an incredibly low rate of failure (I have never seen one of those bend).

[JatoTheRipper]

Originally Posted by Veteran

Slimmer axles are good for what? I am just wondering.

With thinner axle housings you get more clearance/less things dragging on the rocks. That's almost a nonissue with portal axles though. TRX-4 axle housings are beefy and they also have the locking diffs so that's why they are a little bigger than those of the SCX10 III. I wouldn't call them bulky as hell though.


I'd argue the battery placement on the TRX-4 is better since it's more centrally located and you can get it to be lower.

I have a small battery on the driver's side floorboard and it throws off the weight balance of a truck a lot. The other option is to put it way in the back, but you don't want your weight out back IMO.

[Traulus]

Originally Posted by Veteran

Slimmer axles are good for what? I am just wondering.

Are you still wondering?

[Veteran]

Originally Posted by $uicide $hift

The battery location for the SCX is better IMO since you have options from the kit to mount a standard pack sideways across the frame rails as well as a second included option that allows for a shorty pack to be used on the side skid.

TRX has the same but you can only lower the larger center battery tray with an aftermarket part and the shorty tray is high in the chassis between the front shock towers.

The frame rail stock setup is 12.3" WB. From here you can adjust it to a shorter WB and not a longer WB unless you do something custom currently. So you build it stock at 12.3" WB or shorten it. The frame rails would not be weaker if you were to shorten them.

So positive to SCX10 iii!

Originally Posted by svt923

No, where the 2 pieces of the frame meet is a very low stress area plus there is a large overlap which essentially doubles the thickness and strength through that area. It is much like the Ascender chassis which has an incredibly low rate of failure (I have never seen one of those bend).

Oh, that sounds much great!

Originally Posted by JatoTheRipper

With thinner axle housings you get more clearance/less things dragging on the rocks. That's almost a nonissue with portal axles though. TRX-4 axle housings are beefy and they also have the locking diffs so that's why they are a little bigger than those of the SCX10 III. I wouldn't call them bulky as hell though.

I'd argue the battery placement on the TRX-4 is better since it's more centrally located and you can get it to be lower.

I have a small battery on the driver's side floorboard and it throws off the weight balance of a truck a lot. The other option is to put it way in the back, but you don't want your weight out back IMO.

I too thought that the battery location on the TRX-4 is better.

Add some weights would be necessary for keeping the weight balance with a shorty batter pack on the side floorboard.

Originally Posted by Traulus

Are you still wondering?

That's perfect! I now feel like I want to order the SCX10 iii kit ASAP. Please stop me if you think it's good to wait a little bit.