Dlux Super Mini

[Erik D_lux]

I have had this build in my head for awhile now, just too busy to do much more than get some parts together.

The biggest challenge of building these cars right now IMO is axle choice. I have gone back and forth on the Dlux replacement cases and the Exceed MT boxes. At this point, it pretty much comes down to cost. The Exceed MT box is setup pretty well from the get-go. The box is longer so you dont even have to do any serious mods to get the servo between the motor and axle tube, pretty important feature when you have both axles that need this. My main concern with the MT box is the gears. The small 3rds are really, really weak. You can use a Berg small 3rd with some mods but I think if I get to that point, the boxes will be switched out for my replacement boxes to get the ultimate in gear strength.

MT boxes and gears = $13ea
Dlux replacement and gears = $105ea

If I didnt have all the MT stuff here, I probably would have just gone with Dlux cases. Pretty easy to switch out in the future.

Here is what I have so far. No time to work on it yet but I wanted to get a build thread going so hopefully interest in the idea catches on.

[chris.martell]

Interested to see where you go with this dlux. I've been pondering your berg tubes cut down with ar60 ends retro fitted on them and MT cases for my mini super build.

[Erik D_lux]

Yeah, we will see. I am not too sure anything will be ground breaking. Just trying to fit everything in a tight space.

Good to see you back on the boards!

[JohnRobHolmes]

At worlds we will likely have unlimited 12" trucks run the 1.9 course with a few gates that are just for unlimited.

What's the difference in the MT third gear, width?

[Erik D_lux]

Really what drives me to build this car is that I think it will be fun to drive in general. Being able to take it to Worlds is icing on the cake for sure.

Yeah, the MT 3rd is a good bit longer than the Berg 3rd. It also has longer teeth as the MT gears are 6mm wide vs Berg at 3mm wide. Thats my biggest issue is that if you want to run a Berg small 3rd, you have to run a Berg 4th and locker. At that point, you probably need new shafts now too. Domino effect.

Picture of the MT small 3rd. The correct one is on the left. Factory mistake on the right.

[Erik D_lux]

Just a thought, but I would guess that these cars would be more capable than a 2.2p car. I would think narrowing up a 16" 2.2p gate would be close to reaching its capabilities? Probably a bit easy though, I would guess.

[Dravpnir]

Sweet start!

I have noticed that the big tangs on the Dlux Berg shafts is just slightly larger than the slot in the MT locker. I am pondering on grinding off a little amount of material in the locker to equip my Scrap Box Berg with some Dlux shafts instead of my home modded shafts. This should be a easy solution to get better steering but still use only MT gears.

[Erik D_lux]

Hmmm. That gives me more than one idea. How about just opening up the locker instead?

[Dravpnir]

That was my idea to grind off material in the locker to open it up to accept unmodified Dlux berg shafts

[Erik D_lux]

Oh, read it again! Sorry. I thought you were talking about taking from the shafts....

I would be all over that idea if I were planning on having my tubes at stock length so I could use my spare shafts. Since these will have to be shortened shafts, I think I will try something else, that is easier and cheaper.

[Erik D_lux]

With not much time to build but lots more to think, I have put a bit of thought into the build and a bit of actual building.

One thought I had was that I dont think this build should be in this section. Not a single part will have anything to do with a 1.9 or MRC. I came the the realization that I am building a 2.2 with rear steer. Only difference is that there is much more freedom in building this 2.2 car since there are no rules. To me, that is just another huge benefit.

So, after thinking and thinking, I knew that one of the toughest parts of this build from the start was axle choice. I really like the MT stuff because you can upgrade it to the moon, its ridiculously cheap, and it can be super light weight. One huge problem with them is that getting a narrow axle will be a chore and there will be sacrifices.

I really wanted to keep this build thread cheap. I think one important thing with an exciting new class like this is to keep it within reach of new people. Many would love a cheap and easy car. To those, I will have to say "sorry" since this build thread just went the other way. Check out MRCrackhead's build for a MT/reasonable cost yet super cool build.http://www.rccrawler.com/forum/losi-...ini-super.html

I decided to go with my super lites for a couple of reasons:

#1 I dont want to chase my tail with the MT gears. You can replace the MT gears with a Berg locker, 4th and small 3rd and be good to go but, that is half way to a great Berg. If I were not planning on competing with this car and could tolerate breakage, I would have probably just stuck with the MT stuff as its cheap and easy to replace.

#2 Getting around the MT gear box and overall width is tough. With my super lites, the axles are naturally narrower than a standard 2.2.

#3 I found some used and blem parts to use so it was going to be pretty reasonable to use the super lites.

#4 After making the "replacement cases" for the Berg, I knew I could make the super lites even narrower. This really sealed the deal.

The front of a Super Lite axle runs narrower than a standard Berg does. The secret is in the tubes and in the locker. The locker is narrowed and then the actual axle tube houses the bearing so there is minimal width wasted. Compare the below locker to a stock locker and you will know what I mean. I gained about 1/4" overall width from this.

[Erik D_lux]

So what I decided to do was make up some custom "Mini Lites".

[Erik D_lux]

Its not terribly narrower than its "big brother" but, I reduced the tubes approx 3/4" overall. I hope to reduce the width even more via the hubs/knuckles as I would really like to be as close to 0 offset, 0 scrub as possible. Clearances will ultimately put me where I have to be. Just from hubs, I could be approx another 3/4" narrower than the 2.2 for a total of 1.5" narrower. I dont know if that will happen though.

[Erik D_lux]

A keen eye will see that I made the cases narrower than my standard Super Lites. For the thicker section, it is 3mm narrower and the front is approx 1mm narrower. This gained me quite a bit of room on the non motor side to get the link and shock around it.

I am not looking forward to more work, but it's inevitable that I will be doing this to my 2.2p car now....

[Erik D_lux]

Forgot to mention...

I made a different servo mount that my typical one. My typical servo mount is able to use a 7950 or 7980. As I needed all the space I could get with this car, I made a specific 7950 mount with most of the fat trimmed off of it so I could move the link mount in. You can see the typical and skinny version in this pic

[MRCrackhead]

I agree this doesn't belong in this section, but it doesn't really belong anywhere.

I just started the build, figured the moderators would move it if necessary.

Nice job on the axles.

[Erik D_lux]

I totally agree. My regret of putting it in this section comes from the idea that less people will see it in this section. If it were in the Berg section, more could see it and the class could grow.

Oh well.

[Dravpnir]

Oh dear... those axles... so awesome!

Could it be worth trying to make the link mounts go over the chub a bit to be able to narrowing the axles a little bit extra? Or make some new chubs with built in link mounts? You should be able to save 3 mm or so per side I think.

[Curcal]

Oh my..... post a a link here to your new build thread in the berg section.

Btw all that work for 1mm of space gain on your 2.2? Think youll do it?

[JohnRobHolmes]

I'm trying to get Jason to create a comp rig section for 16" and 12" unlimited rigs.