What's Axial up to?

[MOguy]

As I read more about it Axial seems to have tried to make it more scale but it is not scale. The "scaleness" is off in size. If you comp with it the body is too big anyway.

The only feature unique to it seems to be dig, and off set axials. If you comp dig is C3 and that is not a C3 rig. If you trail do you care about dig or would you want a 2 speed trans?

[smog]

Can't say I am particularly enamored by this release. A release of the 10.3 in a builders kit to rival the price point of the comparable TRX4 and Enduro would be lovely. Until then I will be stoked to see what folks do with this RTR. I sure hope lowering the body on this sucker won't require the complete loss of that pretty interior,.sure would be a shame.

[CamoColton]

You lost me lol.


They scaled the size of the real bronco body down to a 12.3" wheelbase, if my math works out.


Ideal? Maybe not. It does have a goofy appearance and makes for a wider than "normal" 12.3" crawler. But the real first gens are also kinda tubby also, especially if they are in their original "uncut" state.


Dig vs. two speed? I think I'd leave it with dig. Already have a two speed rig. But I see your point of the two speed being more desirable for trailing.


We will all debate this until the cows come home, and Axial is going to sell a metric butt-ton regardless.

[MOguy]

Originally Posted by CamoColton

You lost me lol.


They scaled the size of the real bronco body down to a 12.3" wheelbase, if my math works out.


Ideal? Maybe not. It does have a goofy appearance and makes for a wider than "normal" 12.3" crawler. But the real first gens are also kinda tubby also, especially if they are in their original "uncut" state.


Dig vs. two speed? I think I'd leave it with dig. Already have a two speed rig. But I see your point of the two speed being more desirable for trailing.


We will all debate this until the cows come home, and Axial is going to sell a metric butt-ton regardless.

The early 1:1 generation Broncos were small, like a mini truck compared to later generation 1:1 Broncos. The axle Bronco should not be wider than any other RTR out there, it should be smaller.

It should be short wheelbase with a small body. Instead it is as big as other RTR that are modeled after larger 1:1 vehicles.

They will sell, it looks great, esp the blueish colored one. It just seems that the RTR manufactures just keep coming out with nothing new or unique other than different bodies and BS changes.

[CamoColton]

Originally Posted by MOguy

The early 1:1 generation Broncos were small, like a mini truck compared to later generation 1:1 Broncos. The axle Bronco should not be wider than any other RTR out there, it should be smaller.

It should be short wheelbase with a small body. Instead it is as big as other RTR that are modeled after larger 1:1 vehicles.

Ah, yes. We are in agreement.

What wheel/tire size would/should they go with if they went for a wheelbase under 10"? Something like a 1.55 with 3.85" or smaller tires?

[MOguy]

Originally Posted by CamoColton

Ah, yes. We are in agreement.

What wheel/tire size would/should they go with if they went for a wheelbase under 10"? Something like a 1.55 with 3.85" or smaller tires?

That one is based on a specific 1:1 bronco so tires should match, the rims already do. Not sure what size. As far as wheel base, it should be shorter.

It is hard to say how "real" vs RC it should be but it should be at least somewhat representative. It should defiantly be much smaller and shorter than a TRX Late 70s blazer.

[MAGNUMB]

MST Bronco on the CMX chassis is a better representation in proportion and a good performer for $240 less.
Max Speed Technology-PRODUCTCARS - OFF-ROADCMX RTRCMX RTR

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BllUEuHTfOA

[smog]

Originally Posted by MAGNUMB

MST Bronco on the CMX chassis is a better representation in proportion and a good performer for $240 less.
Max Speed Technology-PRODUCTCARS - OFF-ROADCMX RTRCMX RTR

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BllUEuHTfOA

I prefer the looks of the MST option though I prefer the performance qualities of a longer wheelbase vehicle overall. There is no doubt in my mind the shorter wheelbase better represents the look of the early Bronco. The Vaterra Bronco was also nice proportioned and came in a short wheelbase.

[durok]

The various manufacturers attitudes towards what is 1/10th scale has always differed.

The Vaterra Bronco wheelbase was 10.95" (278mm) and the MST Bronco was 9.53" (242mm).

The shortest SCX10 release was the UMG10 at 11.4" (289mm), the Deadbolt was 12" (305mm).

I remember when the Traxxas TRX-4 came out and everyone was upset over how large the different bodies seemed when parked next to existing models from everyone else.

I'll say for the most part it's the least of my priorities when deciding to choose a particular R/C vehicle to buy...

[MOguy]

When you talk about relationship between 1:1 and 1/10 as scale that relationship does not exist.

My 1:1 Jeep weighs just over 3800lbs. My RC Jeep (Enudro chassis) did not weigh 380lbs. Nothing is really truly scale.

I like to comp and I like to follow the rules. C1 where I am at is SORRCA. So for me SORRCA rules tell me what scale is for my C1. The other classes where I compete do not follow SORRCA. They don't have all the rules so those ones are built different.

I guess for me when I see licensed body, scale details or whatever they advertise I expect a pretty good representation. Other people see it different. Either way the blueish colored one is probably about the best looking RTR body out there, followed by TRX's K5 blazer.

Neither of which I will never run because neither will get me add scale points for my C1 and both are too big and heavy for my other a comp rig. So I am not the market they are after so my opinion really doesn't matter.

[Topher Builds]

The more I look at it after reading these comments the body does look relatively big. To fit the 12.3” wb and keep the dimensions/detail of the body i guess it makes sense that it’d be a bit bigger.

I also thought this was on class 1 tires at first but reading that they’re 4.7” makes it feel that much bigger.

With all that being said I’m not really much of a scale perfectionist and I think it’s a good looking body in general. Would like to see a knight customs grill to add some depth up front. Seems to be a cool trail truck body.

Originally Posted by MOguy

When you talk about relationship between 1:1 and 1/10 as scale that relationship does not exist.

My 1:1 Jeep weighs just over 3800lbs. My RC Jeep (Enudro chassis) did not weigh 380lbs. Nothing is really truly scale.

Keep in mind that weight is cubic/3D so for 10th scale a 4000lb truck would scale down to 4lbs.

Since these trucks tend to be more 1:8 1:9 scale in dimension it’d be more like 5.5 - 7.8 lbs (example math 4000 / 8 / 8 /8 = 7.8 )

I think that’s right anyway…

[WHITE-TRASH]

Originally Posted by smog

I prefer the looks of the MST option though I prefer the performance qualities of a longer wheelbase vehicle overall. There is no doubt in my mind the shorter wheelbase better represents the look of the early Bronco. The Vaterra Bronco was also nice proportioned and came in a short wheelbase.

Yea, shorter wheelbase would have made the body scale way down and been much more "correct" to 1:10 scale. Buuuut then you lose some interior room because the drivetrain isn't smaller under it. They'd also need a wheel with more backspacing to tuck the tires and smaller tires as well so more r&d and molds to make. Or just make the body proportional to an existing chassis and release it with new axles and have a winner.

Some people get so hung up on proportional correctness they don't enjoy a rig for what it is.

[tuxstang]

There has never been such a thing as a 1/10th scale crawler ... you can't expect a scale to be true without tailored made chassis and accessories.

Most trucks today are bodied from 1/9 to 1/7, so a 1/8 Bronco is in the ballpark by todays standards ... it's not made to be driven along with Tamiya/MST/RGT/FTX Bronco ... and you wouldn't want, your playground is not longer made for such small trucks.

[smog]

Originally Posted by WHITE-TRASH

Yea, shorter wheelbase would have made the body scale way down and been much more "correct" to 1:10 scale. Buuuut then you lose some interior room because the drivetrain isn't smaller under it. They'd also need a wheel with more backspacing to tuck the tires and smaller tires as well so more r&d and molds to make. Or just make the body proportional to an existing chassis and release it with new axles and have a winner.

Some people get so hung up on proportional correctness they don't enjoy a rig for what it is.

That really is the bottom line. Scale-ish is all that really should matter. It’s as good as it’s gonna get. I suppose if I am running a 2020 Dodge Ram in a 12.3” WB with a 1971 Bronco also in a 12.3” WB something will appear grossly off. Standing alone, either is ultimately a close enough representation.

[lonleycreeper]

For those wondering ... 1/6 th scale "Brocky" body, (New Bright) actually scales out to roughly the same scale as the new axial body... 100mm shocks on a gen1 chassis and 10II axles...

Only real difference is 5.4" tires...

Absolutely dwarfs a axial Jt

[TexasSP]

Keep in mind that weight is cubic/3D so for 10th scale a 4000lb truck would scale down to 4lbs.

Since these trucks tend to be more 1:8 1:9 scale in dimension it’d be more like 5.5 - 7.8 lbs (example math 4000 / 8 / 8 /8 = 7.8 )

This is correct Topher and thanks for pointing out as the original note about 380 lbs was driving me nuts.

Some of you are way over thinking it. It's all about compromises. A truly scale vehicle wouldn't perform anything like what we put ours through either. That one foot drop you go off of without damage? That's 10 feet in the real world and would bust your 1:1 rig all up. And these RC's perform moves and climbs that only hard core trail built rigs could I'm 1:1.

For a better example of what true scale looks and performance would look like check out the FMS Jimmy.

Fact is the scale world is better than it's ever been and has actually bled out into on road and other surface RC.

[MOguy]

Originally Posted by WHITE-TRASH

Some people get so hung up on proportional correctness they don't enjoy a rig for what it is.

Some people like scale. Different people like different things.

This thing is $$$. More than an Enduro or TRX, why would I choose it over one of those?

[MAGNUMB]

Originally Posted by MOguy

Some people like scale. Different people like different things.

This thing is $$$. More than an Enduro or TRX, why would I choose it over one of those?

It's different and the wheels are pretty cool for a RTR.

[MOguy]

Originally Posted by MAGNUMB

It's different and the wheels are pretty cool for a RTR.

For me it isn't different enough, nice looking but nothing else.

Looks great (esp. the bluesish one). Probably that is the best looking RTR out there, 2nd is the TRX K5. The interior is great. The wheels are correct for that Bronco. What kills it for me is its size. That generation bronco was small, but that RTR is big. If it were smaller I would really like it.

[smog]

Originally Posted by MAGNUMB

the wheels are pretty cool for a RTR.

This made me chuckle

I don’t think Axial gives too many shits about the nit picky nerds on RCC. They are in the business of selling and growing the hobby. This rig is for folks who need to have the latest rig, are brand loyal or simply think this old Bronco is the business.