Fallen's Yeti vs Twin Hammer Review

[Fallen]

The vehicles I'm contrasting are the 1:10 scale Axial Yeti kit version against the 1:10 scale Vaterra Twin Hammers RTR after having some some upgrades done to it. Why do I have both? I really like the Twin Hammers, and my son really likes the Yeti. They're different vehicles, that I think are different enough that if you really like one, you probably wouldn't like the other. My son doesn't want to drive my Twin Hammers, and I don't want to drive his Yeti. Then again, if you like RC cars and don't mind watching money disappear, then buy both (and one for me while you're at it)! You'll see from the build lists that these are both "ordinary guy" builds that have been built with run-of-the-mill parts you're likely to find at your hobby shop, or easily online.

Upgrades done to the Twin Hammers:

GCM front plate with shock hoops & Axial SCX10 shocks
GCM rear axle truss
Dynamite Fuze 3300kv system
Dynamite 2S LiPO, 4000mah, 50C
Spektrum DX4C radio & Spektrum SRS4210 receiver
Traxxas 2075 steering servo
Vaterra aluminum wheel hexes
500k weight diff oil

Upgrades done to the Yeti:

Stock "kit" upgrades
Dynamite Fuze 3900kv system
Venom 2S LiPO, 5000mah, 40C
Hitec HS-5646WP steering servo
Spektrum DX3E radio & Spektrum SRS4210 receiver
500k weight diff oil

Differences between the vehicles:

Speed: The Yeti is hands down faster. Sure it has a faster motor & nicer ESC, but even if I put the exact same system in my Twin Hammers, the Yeti would still be faster. Why? Well, wheel size is the dead giveaway here, but really the Yeti handles it's speed way better. If the Twin Hammers was made to be as fast as the Yeti, the Twin Hammers would be damn near impossible to control, and it would break a lot. If racing, in the time it took to recover the Twin Hammers from rollovers and flips, the Yeti would be done and waiting at the finish line. I know this because my son & I race a lot. He's 6. I'm 34. He usually beats me. Hill climbs, rock bouncing, bash courses we make up, he consistently (not always) beats my Twin Hammers with ease.

Durability: With the upgrades I've done to the Twin Hammers, they're both pretty even. Both rarely break. Prior to those upgrades though, the Yeti would be the clear winner. My Twin Hammers broke the standard wheel hexes, wheel hex pins and top brace from regular use within a few hours. My son (once again, he's 6) has yet to break anything on the Yeti and we've been driving it for about 2 weeks, and really testing the Yeti. He's had a few crashes from jumps that made me cringe as $$ signs flashed before my eyes...nothing broken yet.

Ease to build/work on: Pretty well tied I'd say. They both have ups & downs. The Yeti's cage comes off way more easily, but the Yeti's wheels are a pain to work on if something goes wrong. Changing batteries is simple on both and both require the same, short list of tools to work on.

Fun to drive: Well, this one depends on you. I prefer my Twin Hammers because I think it looks cooler, and I enjoy having to try the same obstacle/jump/hill again, and again, and again, and again, and again before finally nailing it on the 94th try. The Twin Hammers forces you to consider physics and try to anticipate how the vehicle will respond to the terrain (like a real vehicle). I find that to be more fun than blindly bashing and getting it right accidentally. I like to know that I did the "impossible." If you prefer simply bashing and feeling victorious in the face of any and every obstacle/jump/hill then you'd have more fun with the Yeti. My son's Yeti outcrawls, outbounces, out hillclimbs, outbashes and outdoes my Twin Hammers at every turn when it comes to speed (and looks cooler according to him). He gets it right first time, almost everytime, and he's not a very good driver (I hope you remember, he's 6).

Summary: Capability does NOT always translate into fun. If it did, we'd all buy Traxxas Summits and be happy. Sometimes, the less capable vehicle is actually more fun, because of its decreased capability, but that's up to you. I think the Twin Hammers wins the fun battle due to its perfect balance of capabilty & reality. The Yeti is more capable, but also less realistic.

Any questions? Let me know. I know people have contrasted these two vehicles before, and this is my drop into that bucket. I'm aware that they have two different wheel sizes so they'd never actually compete against each other, other than competing for your hard earned money. Hopefully it can help some of you make a better decision to buy the right vehicle, or convince you that you already did!

I'm about to mount up a set of Pro-Line Super Swamper TSL Xls on my Twin Hammers to try to keep up a bit more with my son's Yeti and hopefully get some wins back. If you have any other clever ideas on how to help my Twin Hammers outbounce/out hillclimb/ outrace my son's Yeti, let me know! I actually like that my son wins more, but he enjoys some real competition too. I just received the SSD 2 speed kit for the Yeti, so maybe I'll make my son race me with his Yeti in low gear only!

[Chicken Man]

There are a couple of things to note though.

Yeti is huge in comparison with a much lower center of gravity, it is designed with those bent a arms to go much faster and corner much more steadily. When you lower the hammers it does much better but obviously loses clearance.

For example:



All things been equal the yeti would still handle better because of it's setup but it would be less (not by much) capable than the hammers over rocks.

Mine is 2wd and with smaller tyres zips along on tarmac like it's on rails, can handle larger jumps because of no front drive shafts as well. All about setup and compromises.

[Fallen]

Hmm, 2WD Twin Hammers? I never would have thought of that. I don't think I'm likely to try it, but thanks for the interesting idea!

[smog]

Interesting. My sons and I also have both(as well as many others), and while I prefer the TH, they prefer the Yeti. I enjoy driving the Yeti, but overall I find the TH significantly more capable over rocks and technical terrain. Outside of the fact that they both have IFS and a solid axle in the rear they are completely different animals from my experience.

[Chicken Man]

Originally Posted by Fallen

Hmm, 2WD Twin Hammers? I never would have thought of that. I don't think I'm likely to try it, but thanks for the interesting idea!

It's not that flash haha, I only did it because I wanted to do sweet jumps and the front axles can be a bit of a problem. It would be a lot better If I put the front diff in the rear but I would need to at least drill the rear axles and possibly more (haven't actually looked beyond checking the front will fit).

I wouldn't recommend it to anyone but I had an SCX10 for ages so wanted to try move the hammers more towards trophy truck than crawler. Long way to go.

Regarding speed and the hammers - I am running 35t on stock spur with 2s 3000kv, it's still less than 40km/h on stock tyres. Looking at going to 5200kv and changing to either a pulley system in place of spur or 32p.

[Fallen]

Update to this review:

I have installed the SSD 2 Speed Gear Set (the ONLY 2 speed gear set available currently, hint hint Axial) in my sons Yeti transmission, so now our Yeti has 2 speeds to choose from just like our Twin Hammers.

The Yetis low gear is noticeably SLOWER than the Twin Hammers low gear. YES!!! Now I can beat my son again!

The Yetis high gear still smokes the Twin Hammers high gear.

Strangely enough, my son greatly prefers driving his Yeti in low gear. Maybe when he's older that will change, but I'm pleasantly surprised by this. Maybe it's that much easier for him to control, but I don't know and I'm shocked. The decreased speed certainly results in longer battery life and less parts breakages for dad to spend money on, so I'm stoked.

[Fallen]

Another update:

Another difference between these two vehicles is the eyes that go inside of the rod ends, and the big difference that these tiny little parts make.

Vaterra uses metal eyes in the rod ends, and Axial uses plastic eyes that wear out very quickly. These plastic eyes result in my Kit Yeti having about 1/4 inch of slop in most connections (rear axle/suspension linkage interface, rear axle side to side motion, steering, sway bar/rear axle interface).

The Twin Hammers has none of this slop. I've only had our Yeti for a few months, so this is a lot of slop to have developed pretty quickly.

What does it mean? It indicates to me that Axial seems to have built the Yeti to be necessarily upgraded, not to be driven in stock form. Vaterra seems to have built the Twin Hammers to be driven stock, and upgraded if desired, but not necessarily.

That's all well and fine, as most people who buy the Yeti plan on doing upgrades anyway. It's simply another difference between the two. If you know exactly what you want to build your vehicle to do, and you're willing to upgrade the hell out of it, the Yeti is still a great vehicle. If you'd rather have a running vehicle for the RTR price and leave it alone, the Twin Hammers might be more up your alley.

[microcrawlers]

agreed on the yeti needing to be upgraded but i think the twin h needs upgrades also

the steering, front suspension, electronics, and tranny gears are what you need imo
and if you want different tires tho ive never actually used the stock tires so i dont know on that one

[microcrawlers]

agreed on the yeti needing to be upgraded but i think the twin h needs upgrades also

the steering, front suspension, electronics, and tranny gears are what you need imo
and if you want different tires tho ive never actually used the stock tires so i dont know on that one

[Natedog]

Originally Posted by Fallen

Another update:

Another difference between these two vehicles is the eyes that go inside of the rod ends, and the big difference that these tiny little parts make.

Vaterra uses metal eyes in the rod ends, and Axial uses plastic eyes that wear out very quickly. These plastic eyes result in my Kit Yeti having about 1/4 inch of slop in most connections (rear axle/suspension linkage interface, rear axle side to side motion, steering, sway bar/rear axle interface).

The Twin Hammers has none of this slop. I've only had our Yeti for a few months, so this is a lot of slop to have developed pretty quickly.

What does it mean? It indicates to me that Axial seems to have built the Yeti to be necessarily upgraded, not to be driven in stock form. Vaterra seems to have built the Twin Hammers to be driven stock, and upgraded if desired, but not necessarily.

That's all well and fine, as most people who buy the Yeti plan on doing upgrades anyway. It's simply another difference between the two. If you know exactly what you want to build your vehicle to do, and you're willing to upgrade the hell out of it, the Yeti is still a great vehicle. If you'd rather have a running vehicle for the RTR price and leave it alone, the Twin Hammers might be more up your alley.

I couldn't agree more. Axial requires that you fab or buy bunch of upgrades right out of the box, my Wraith is not super fancy, but it cost easily double the original purchase price to get it where I want it...now I'm bored with it because the axles are too wide and wheels are 2.2. It really is training wheels.

EDIT: The plastic link balls are what comes with all Axial kits too, very chintzy on Axial's part. Since I bought my Ascender, my Axials have all been sitting gathering dust.

[Fallen]

The Twin Hammers certainly has room for upgrades, particularly in the steering. My stock steering rack is VERY worn out and I have plenty of slop there, and it still works. Likewise, the slop I have in my Yeti doesn't stop the vehicle from working, I just notice it much more on the Yeti because it's all over the vehicle. The only slop I have developed on my Twin Hammers is the aforementioned steering, which could be fixed with one $15.00 upgrade part. I haven't yet done that upgrade because one floppy part doesn't bug me enough to get my wallet out. 5 or 6 floppy components starts to rub me enough to where the Yeti is digging into my bank account for more, whereas the Twin Hammers doesn't get money put into it until something actually breaks.