maybe the dumbest question ever, here goes. Why hasnt anybody made an axle that you can just poke the motor into the pinion ? maybe with some sort of planetary coupler for reduction and ability to clock it. Might work good with a smaller brushless.

Then rename the classes from 2.2 and super to Large and Venti.

What about keepin it real or are the shafty`s goin towards the scaler`s.Should there be 3 classes shafty`s clod`s and now 2.2 motor driven 2.2`s dont forget txt shafty`s,twinforce 2.2`s?

What are we supposed to be keeping real?

As for the 2.2 motor driven axle, bring it!"thumbsup"

I honestly don't think you can get the gearing needed out of a planetary coupler.

i too would like to see the clocked axles on the "AXLES OVER EASY" lol

sounds good.mmmmmmmmm like they will got over the rocks easy."thumbsup"

Quote lunchbox
Does anyone want to set 2 400 size motors against a 2.2 Clod? It seems like that would be more of a basher than a comp truck.[/quote][/

I believe that a 2.2 comp crawler that weighs less over all, will out perform a heavier truck that uses clod axles and a 12 1/2" wheel base. This is why I think a smaller, lighter motor driven axle assembly that uses 400 size motors will do well. Turning radius on the more narrow axles will also be an advantage over the heavier clod axles.

Don't forget that with two motors on a 2.2 rig, the use of two esc's and an airplane stick radio will now play into the mix. With this combination, 2.2 drivers will have rear and front dig, side to side crawling ability and the typical clod stall effect will be eliminated by the ability to apply power to rear and front motors at will.

I see where your going with this. ;-)

i have a tuber i just bent up that would work killer with thesse! goood job RCP you guys are spoiling us!:lol:"thumbsup""thumbsup"

Having seen a 4 channel Clod based Super built on a Pimp Cane in Reno I have to say it's just plain wrong what they can do. But side to side crawling ability is moot here with no rear steer in 2.2 (Unless my noobishness caused me to misunderstand you there). A 4 channel and the ability to split your power at will is a huge advantage to any crawler.

I agree that the missing weight should offset the missing torque, but if you offer both 400 and 540 size, where is the advantage then? I guess my real question is, Why make them both?

Yep, your right. No rear steer. Side to side crawl is out. Got a little ahead of myself.;-)

My only suggestion is make a straight axle version for the rear. I know you guys don't make a straight axle conversion, but I'd imagine that it could be done to accommodate stock parts just without the knuckles and associated hardware.

WRONG, check grainger.......how about 600:1, 300:1 or? LOL

I just noticed feature #7 w/ the custom 400 size motors. I dont know but that be a turn off for some buyers if they are running a brushed motor setup.

I like the idea, but I think it will kill a lot of things on the market right now if these work out.

I personally wish the 2.2 class would just nail down a shaft driven rig only rule. The 2.2 clods are really not a dominate rig, and never will be, too heavy, simple as that.

But these axles do look promising, time will tell, and so will the scores in competitions in the end. ;-)

I just wish people would get off the 2.2 is a shafty thing.

WTF is that supposed to mean??:roll:

I guarantee you a 2.2 clod will not hang with the iron we run up here. ;-)

It's been done and determined to be not good. :lol:

It probably means that WA isn't the only place that drives 2.2. Just because it doesn't work there doesn't mean it isn't viable for the class. I think limiting 2.2 to shaft driven is myopic.

any cad updates yet with motor mounts and motor attacted, would like to see how they ended up!!

Yes, we have updated cad drawings. I will post them up shortly. I am planning to have the drawings to the point we can make a first prototype, finished in the next week or two.