RidgeBack TMC Build

[Evilinside]

After going through every hole with the HR shocks and all 49 possible front and rear combinations of placement, I am left with one clear piece of knowledge... The Blade TMC is a far superior design when it some to shock placement!

And I now see why in the thread Blade started about the RidgeBack why they chose to totally re-do the upperlinks and mount them so they go in-between the shocks and bend inward...


I'm 99% positive this just killed my like and ability to recommend this chassis, and unless I come up with something or some idea that won't be a nightmare to pull off I will be changing to the Micro Eclipse chassis. The Blade TMC is still an awesome chassis and beats this RidgeBack hands down, it just does not have the room needed for expanded electronics.

[Savage00]

Originally Posted by Evilinside

I'm not totally certain I understand what you mean about the RC18 Ball Cups and drilling them out.

You mean these Ball Cups? Than what do you mean about drilling them out?

So I've read thru this thread a couple times. I've been wanting to comment on the bent link issue (if it is an issue). Why not use the stock ball studs and add the Losi Mini-T ball cups to the end of your all-thread links (part# LOSB1049)?

I experimented with links several times on a couple builds. The reason the upper links on the Trekker are bent are for clearance purposes. When the suspension articulates the links have a tendancy to bind with the shocks. This is a problem the Micro carawler has. As for having bent lower links, that is for added ground clearance. It will not change the COG or change the actual wheel base lenght.

Now...what will change the wheelbase length. This takes geometry to understand. When the suspension is compressed, there are a few things that come into play. Depending on the length of your links, the actual suspension travel distance and the actual end points of the links will all factor in any change of wheelbase. Race team engineers do hours of countless research using advanced software that can determine what the appropriate length link is needed along with the precise mounting point relative to the suspension travel distance.

To sum this up. Our micro crawlers setup in stock form have very limited travel. The change in wheelbase is so small it is barely noticable (we're talking maybe 1 mm of a change if that). The longer the links & wheelbase the less you will notice the change. The futher your suspension travel the more you will notice the change.

Hope this helps some!!!

CLEAR AS MUD...RIGHT!?!?!

[Evilinside]

Originally Posted by Savage00

So I've read thru this thread a couple times. I've been wanting to comment on the bent link issue (if it is an issue). Why not use the stock ball studs and add the Losi Mini-T ball cups to the end of your all-thread links (part# LOSB1049)?

I am using this, the mini Qlo links were total fail as I never got a clear enough answer to know how to use them, and after asking several times for clarification as to what was being meant I simply moved on. Someone said use 2.5mm ball end... great, googled for hours and couldn't find a single result. Another said use RC18's, googled those, find something and asked for clarification and never got it, also asked how ball ends work with those links and never got an answer. So I marked it on the list as bad advice to get the Mini Qlo links and went back to the threaded rods and ball cups.

Originally Posted by Savage00

I experimented with links several times on a couple builds. The reason the upper links on the Trekker are bent are for clearance purposes. When the suspension articulates the links have a tendancy to bind with the shocks. This is a problem the Micro carawler has. As for having bent lower links, that is for added ground clearance. It will not change the COG or change the actual wheel base lenght.

I disagree with your statement about the clearance for the TrailTrekker. I own two of them and neither of them have clearance issues without the bent upper links, nothing even come close to rubbing anything with straight links.

The question about the bent lower links was not about ground clearance, that's way to generic of an answer. I needed to know exactly what the ground clearance needed to be and what it was for so I knew where to make the bend and how much of a bend to put in it. So now I know that the bend is so you can basically go from the skid plate to the rear tires without the links hitting first.

Originally Posted by Savage00

Now...what will change the wheelbase length. This takes geometry to understand. When the suspension is compressed, there are a few things that come into play. Depending on the length of your links, the actual suspension travel distance and the actual end points of the links will all factor in any change of wheelbase. Race team engineers do hours of countless research using advanced software that can determine what the appropriate length link is needed along with the precise mounting point relative to the suspension travel distance.

I knew all that. The debate was how much the bent upper links played a role in that geometry.

Originally Posted by Savage00

To sum this up. Our micro crawlers setup in stock form have very limited travel. The change in wheelbase is so small it is barely noticable (we're talking maybe 1 mm of a change if that). The longer the links & wheelbase the less you will notice the change. The futher your suspension travel the more you will notice the change.

Hope this helps some!!!

CLEAR AS MUD...RIGHT!?!?!

Extremely small, and in my book if the surface of a window is super bumpy and pitted but they are so small the glass feels smooth... then the glass is smooth.

[spoo76]

Does it work any better if you flip the upper shock mount screws to the inside?

[Savage00]

Originally Posted by Evilinside

I disagree with your statement about the clearance for the TrailTrekker. I own two of them and neither of them have clearance issues without the bent upper links, nothing even come close to rubbing anything with straight links.

The question about the bent lower links was not about ground clearance, that's way to generic of an answer. I needed to know exactly what the ground clearance needed to be and what it was for so I knew where to make the bend and how much of a bend to put in it. So now I know that the bend is so you can basically go from the skid plate to the rear tires without the links hitting first.



I knew all that. The debate was how much the bent upper links played a role in that geometry.



Extremely small, and in my book if the surface of a window is super bumpy and pitted but they are so small the glass feels smooth... then the glass is smooth.

Bent links are a personal preference. Some individuals will cut slots in the skid plate to accomadate the links and pivot points. Most individuals run bent links without a skid plate for the extra ground clearance. If you are looking for one specific answer to your question? Your not going to get that specific answer. It's like asking what is the reason who you run a droop suspension setup and other person runs there suspension with it raised slightly. You will get several different answers.

Also bent links have nothing to do with your suspension geometry. It's more of the length of the bent link is what will change your geometry. Now the angle of the bend in the link can change the amount of how much your axel will rotate when traveling thru the suspension compression.

[Evilinside]

Originally Posted by spoo76

Does it work any better if you flip the upper shock mount screws to the inside?

I'm going through that right now actually, hoping, hoping that brings me back to liking this chassis!

[Evilinside]

Originally Posted by Savage00

Bent links are a personal preference. Some individuals will cut slots in the skid plate to accomadate the links and pivot points. Most individuals run bent links without a skid plate for the extra ground clearance. If you are looking for one specific answer to your question? Your not going to get that specific answer. It's like asking what is the reason who you run a droop suspension setup and other person runs there suspension with it raised slightly. You will get several different answers.

Also bent links have nothing to do with your suspension geometry. It's more of the length of the bent link is what will change your geometry. Now the angle of the bend in the link can change the amount of how much your axel will rotate when traveling thru the suspension compression.

I hear ya... that's why my question was pretty specific as what is the reason for bent rear lower links and is there any reason to bend to front lower links. Personal opinion plays a big role I know, but if a 1000 people say they like a McDonald's hamburger then I'm pretty safe to think I will like it too... yes I could be that one in one-thousand.

But as stated, the main reason seemed that bending the rear lower links was to allow the tire to catch before the frame... and that is logical and it works, my Blade TMC does not catch on nearly the stuff it used to before I bent them.

Yeah, the bent upper links seemed to be just a "thing"... so I just let it go. They did help for clearance reasons on my Blade TMC when I had the MiClaw tires on it, so I keep them on Blade TMC because they work great.

[Evilinside]

Ok, here is the setup with the HR shocks on in the inside, plenty of upper link clearance.



However, still shit. The picture below shows how much articulation I get before the angle of the shocks causes a bind.



Add on top of that the amount of weight needed to compress the HR shock and I am smashing my face against the table.

Totally worthless. I've spent a ton of time filing, heating rods through and loosening those HR shocks, they are the biggest piles of junk and are super expensive for what they are, no self respecting hobby store should be selling these! Unless they market them as "must have a 1lb or more of weight on top of these shocks in order to operate."

[Whop]

Originally Posted by Evilinside

Totally worthless. I've spent a ton of time filing, heating rods through and loosening those HR shocks, they are the biggest piles of junk and are super expensive for what they are, no self respecting hobby store should be selling these! Unless they market them as "must have a 1lb or more of weight on top of these shocks in order to operate."

This is second time I have herd this. I have never owned anything hr is all of there stuff like these?
I was lookin to get one of these chassis to play with. I also have a blade tmc. And love it. With stock shocks mounted inboard how do you feel about this kit.

[spoo76]

Originally Posted by Whop

This is second time I have herd this. I have never owned anything hr is all of there stuff like these?
I was lookin to get one of these chassis to play with. I also have a blade tmc. And love it. With stock shocks mounted inboard how do you feel about this kit.

as far as micro crawler parts the stiff shocks are the only issues Ive experience or read about. most seem to like them once they heat up the shaft to break in the seal. but its not something you should have to do for the price.

[stroker613]

if you want a real scale look they are great, but if you are going for performance those are not the shocks for you..... i must say though, my boy egg uses the hr shocks and loves them but i think he switched the springs in them to softer ones...... and he also runs the qlo links that evilnside said he couldnt get to work soooooo........ but thats what these toys are all about, what works for one might not work for another. also i bought the ridgeback as well and wasnt pleased with it at all, on the other hand i really love my tmc and smc chassis' alot.

[Evilinside]

Originally Posted by Whop

This is second time I have herd this. I have never owned anything hr is all of there stuff like these?
I was lookin to get one of these chassis to play with. I also have a blade tmc. And love it. With stock shocks mounted inboard how do you feel about this kit.

I have used HR shocks, stock shocks now, stock links, custom links, Mc4x4 links, even tried Mini Qlo links... there is so much binding I would rather have the stock MrC chassis. Granted the HR shocks are their own nightmare, but this chassis was just not well thought out.

I cannot recommend this chassis and feel good about myself. It is far inferior to the Blade TMC. They really screwed up shock + upperlink placement.

The problem is the center mount shock design of the Blade TMC allows non-shock compression articulation, meaning the articulation will happen because the shock mounts will allow a swing like effect, and the RidgeBack does not have that. Yes the shocks still compress, but it is a small amount of compression needed for almost full articulation.

See here how I am at almost full articulation on the Blade TMC and you can see that the spring is only slightly compressed.


This is needed with these micro's because full shock compression is impossible because the weight simple is not there, at all. So having articulation like this with little spring compression is needed.


This RidgeBack is so stiff, right now I have no upper links on it and I could probably run it because it has no sway in the shocks. If you want any articualtion the shocks MUST compress, and all articulation is only within compressing a spring.

You can see here that I have less articulation than the Blade TMC... AND I am required to have full spring compression in order to achieve this articulation.


Upperlink binding on this RidgeBack is horrible too. Whom ever thought this out had to have had something different in mind, like a totally different place to put the links on the axle... and that's probably why any pictures of this thing totally put together the upper links are being bolted onto the servo plate and the rear plate in the center, not on the stock side locations.

I got this because it was clear it had more room which I needed to use a new esc and rx combo... I will only continue to play with this because I cannot order a Losi Micro Eclipse as they are doing maintenance or something till the 5th of July. When I can order from them, I will be switching to that chassis.

So disappointing, unreal...

[stroker613]

have you tryed a full droop setup? it works amazing on my tmc...... i took my ridgeback out of the shipping package looked at it and put it right back in and havent touched since...... eggoz did the same........ blade if ur out there what is your return policy

[Evilinside]

Originally Posted by stroker613

have you tryed a full droop setup? it works amazing on my tmc...... i took my ridgeback out of the shipping package looked at it and put it right back in and havent touched since...... eggoz did the same........ blade if ur out there what is your return policy

Because I'm pissed this thing cost so much and I would have gotten more from my money by lighting that money one fire and using that burning money to light a cigarette, I am trying the droop setup now...

[Evilinside]

Inside shock mounting with droop... no go!

Inside mounting the shocks is where the shocks need to be mounted to avoid instant bind on the upper links... but no matter what hole they are mounted in, there is something about each position that causes an issue. Try the upper holes and the shock towers bind on the inside of the chassis instantly. Try the rear holes and the shock towers are tweaked/bent so on articulation the shock rod has to over come fighting through a bend inorder to compress. To far forward and pushes the servo horn into the dirt plus tweaks the shock tower inward so full compression requires the shock rods to bow out.


Trying outside mounting now, however I already know this will cause instant bind on the upper links...

[stroker613]

try bending your links like this

kinda hard to see but when i stretched my wheel base i had to mount the shocks in the very last holes on the chassis and the shocks were binding on the links so i just bent them out and now it is money!

[Evilinside]

lol


So.... see how this thing screws together?


In order to remove upper link binding, this is where I had to mount the upper link...



/sigh


But droop setting would work in this setup it would seem. Going to finish off the droop setup and really strangely placed upper links and give it a few runs...

[Evilinside]

Originally Posted by stroker613

try bending your links like this

kinda hard to see but when i stretched my wheel base i had to mount the shocks in the very last holes on the chassis and the shocks were binding on the links so i just bent them out and now it is money!

Yes that would work. I thought about doing that, but I already suck at making my own links, like it's my own personal kryptonite, and with the disappointment I'm already cracking a beer open over... I let it be.

[Evilinside]

Well because I can't do anything with all the electronics I have that I want to play with and the Losi Micro Eclipse chassis can't be ordered till the 5th of July, I took out the springs, put the upper links in very weird postions and just put it together so I could play with the rest of the gear I bought.

The one good thing about this chassis, and the reason I bought it, you can cram a ton of junk inside it! To bad that's not enough to redeem it... So this is everything slapped together till I can put it all into a new chassis;






Don't really care about how it looks, or the c.o.g. to much... because again, I won't be keeping this chassis, it's junk.


Love the Tekin ESC, love the Predator 90t motor, love the 56t spur... fyi

[Evilinside]

BTW, I'm sure I didn't mention this... the Tekin B1r fits perfectly on the stock rear plate!