Ottsix TKO10

[crawl-o-matic]

Originally Posted by fr8cture

Just curious why you guys didn't go with a one piece housing with a diff cover? More expensive? Weaker?

Because of the overall design, it needed to be a two part axle.

[Tgreer]

How about a larger bearing pocket for a bigger inner pinion bearing????

[Szczerba]

Setup for clockable knuckles?

Right now, it looks like if you shorten the uppers to get the caster, you'll be driving the lower link mounts into the ground? So couldn't the lower link mounts be molded to 18* as well to help with this? Or am I totally missing something? Shortening up the uppers for good caster affects link geometry.

[distinctive pd]

What is theTimeline on these bad boys?

[crawl-o-matic]

Originally Posted by Szczerba

Setup for clockable knuckles?

Right now, it looks like if you shorten the uppers to get the caster, you'll be driving the lower link mounts into the ground? So couldn't the lower link mounts be molded to 18* as well to help with this? Or am I totally missing something? Shortening up the uppers for good caster affects link geometry.

Clocking the axle (+) rotates the lower link mounts up, not down.

Yes, It does affect link geo but it's easily overcome with additional link and shock mount options that are widely available from companies like CBE and others, not to mention that most aftermarket chassis have these additional link mounts build in. Running the prototypes, I didn't do any clocking to the rear axle (no reason to), just the front. I clocked it back about 10 degrees by shortening the the upper links a bit and had zero issues.

[crawl-o-matic]

If you were to extend the lower links and not the uppers, then that would force the lower link mounts down.

[honchojoe]

On facebook you stated these are very difficult to engineer because of the mold. I'm assuming that's because the link mounts point in the opposite direction to the pinion output. My thought was why not make the centre pumpkin a seperate item and then the axle tubes can be slid on the pumpkin much like lockouts etc. That way you could just make a single pumpkin then make different length axle tubes to get both scx10 and wraith width etc.

[crawl-o-matic]

Originally Posted by honchojoe

On facebook you stated these are very difficult to engineer because of the mold. I'm assuming that's because the link mounts point in the opposite direction to the pinion output. My thought was why not make the centre pumpkin a seperate item and then the axle tubes can be slid on the pumpkin much like lockouts etc. That way you could just make a single pumpkin then make different length axle tubes to get both scx10 and wraith width etc.

Yes, we did consider this option but decided against it for a few reasons but mostly because of strength issues that were showing up in the prototyping software.

[Szczerba]

If the lower links stay the same and the uppers are shortened to gain caster, the axle rotates clockwise and turns everything that way because the pivot point is the lower link bolt. Which causes the lower axle mounts to be lower than the axle housing. Not a huge issue though.

I believe, various chassis shock mounting locations does not affect link geometry, only the rate of the shock springs (Rising rate vs falling rate).

IMO, gaining caster is best achieved through c-hub/knuckle rotation. Just my opinion though. The axles look good, so best of luck on their performance and sales.

[crawl-o-matic]

Originally Posted by Szczerba

If the lower links stay the same and the uppers are shortened to gain caster, the axle rotates clockwise and turns everything that way because the pivot point is the lower link bolt. Which causes the lower axle mounts to be lower than the axle housing. Not a huge issue though.

I believe, various chassis shock mounting locations does not affect link geometry, only the rate of the shock springs (Rising rate vs falling rate).

IMO, gaining caster is best achieved through c-hub/knuckle rotation. Just my opinion though. The axles look good, so best of luck on their performance and sales.

Can't think about axle clocking in terms of clockwise/counter clockwise because that changes depending on which side of the axle you're looking at...(+) and (-) clocking are the correct terms.

Correct, shock position does not affect geo but if you change your geo, you'll most likely want to make some adjustments to your shock placement as well.

As you can see, (+) clocking (resulting in (+) steering caster) rotates the lower link mounts up.

[Szczerba]

Yes, clockwise/counter clockwise is different from each side and I was thinking looking at from a drivers side as you have shown. My main concern, as you have pictured, is now the rod ends will be one of the first things to to hit the rocks, let alone the link geometry changes. The TKO design has gained pinion angle, which is already protected by the lower links but now the link mounts are going to hit stuff quicker.

Why not just design the lower link/shock mounts at an angle, like the pinion angle and clock the chubs for caster adjustments? Then you won't have to worry about shock or link geometry changes that were affected by caster changes. Just seems like more work and more things to fix if you just shorten the upper links.

Again, just my opinions and thinking out loud here.

[distinctive pd]

Again! When will we see these available??

[crawl-o-matic]

Originally Posted by Szczerba

Yes, clockwise/counter clockwise is different from each side and I was thinking looking at from a drivers side as you have shown. My main concern, as you have pictured, is now the rod ends will be one of the first things to to hit the rocks, let alone the link geometry changes. The TKO design has gained pinion angle, which is already protected by the lower links but now the link mounts are going to hit stuff quicker.

Why not just design the lower link/shock mounts at an angle, like the pinion angle and clock the chubs for caster adjustments? Then you won't have to worry about shock or link geometry changes that were affected by caster changes. Just seems like more work and more things to fix if you just shorten the upper links.

Again, just my opinions and thinking out loud here.

I understand what you're saying now. The TKO can be mounted with zero clocking in which case the the lower link mounts will sit completely horizontal just like the SCX; the end user can either clock the axle and/or use aftermarket knuckles to gain caster...this design gives the option to do this without the driveshaft being angled below 90 degrees.

One of the main benefits of this design is where the pinion interfaces the ring gear. It's above 90 degrees which greatly reduces torque twist.

[Szczerba]

Originally Posted by crawl-o-matic

I understand what you're saying now. The TKO can be mounted with zero clocking in which case the the lower link mounts will sit completely horizontal just like the SCX; the end user can either clock the axle and/or use aftermarket knuckles to gain caster...this design gives the option to do this without the driveshaft being angled below 90 degrees.

One of the main benefits of this design is where the pinion interfaces the ring gear. It's above 90 degrees which greatly reduces torque twist.

Good to know about those features you mentioned above, as I hadn't seen some of them typed out yet (RCC or FB) and that is the reasoning behind a few of my questions.

[C*H*U*D]

I like, but I don't think I'd want to give up my 8 degree kingpin angle. Are these the only C's and knuckles that will work?

[crawl-o-matic]

Originally Posted by C*H*U*D

I like, but I don't think I'd want to give up my 8 degree kingpin angle. Are these the only C's and knuckles that will work?

we're working on new chubs/knuckles right now...but you can use any aftermarket setup on this axle

[ctrwannabe]

Estimated price point? Will they come as empty housings or ready to bolt up and drive?

[crawl-o-matic]

we're still working that out

[rude_k9]

When will we see these available??

[distinctive pd]

I've already asked twice with no response.....