This really ought to be a sticky!
-
Welcome to RCCrawler Forums.
It looks like you're enjoying RCCrawler's Forums but haven't created an account yet. Why not take a minute to register for your own free account now? As a member you get free access to all of our forums and posts plus the ability to post your own messages, communicate directly with other members, and much more. Register now!
Already a member? Login at the top of this page to stop seeing this message.
Ascender Wheel Base & Link Reference Guide
- Thread starter Rich Trujillo
- Start date
THIS REALLY OUGHT TO BE CORRECTED IN THE MANUAL!
Seriously, at the very least, give us the means to build it correctly. At 314mm with 66mm link (+12), massive binding of suspension travel on right front. 61mm (+12) and it's gone. Extreme pinion angle though but it appears to be within the usable range still.
Oh yeah, I used a pdf manual from Vaterra. I really only wasted an hour taking that link off on and on again but it just seems like an amazing omission; correct assembly instructions, come on! The whole manual could be better really. Check out a Tamiya, Gmade or Kyosho manual. However, it was kind of fun having to use my powers of deduction on occasion to complete something.
Seriously, at the very least, give us the means to build it correctly. At 314mm with 66mm link (+12), massive binding of suspension travel on right front. 61mm (+12) and it's gone. Extreme pinion angle though but it appears to be within the usable range still.
Oh yeah, I used a pdf manual from Vaterra. I really only wasted an hour taking that link off on and on again but it just seems like an amazing omission; correct assembly instructions, come on! The whole manual could be better really. Check out a Tamiya, Gmade or Kyosho manual. However, it was kind of fun having to use my powers of deduction on occasion to complete something.
Yes, manual needs updated. We're always glad to help here. The RTRs I've bought have all been built correctly, the kits have the parts included to build correctly with the 61mm + 12mm spacer for the front upper link, sorry you had such a time of it. 
I messed around a bit the link lengths. I had a feeling that the front pinion angle could be better so I switched to the longer upper link. Also the panhard seemed that it could be a bit longer, because the car seemed kneel a lot to the right when braking. So I added 3mm to the length and it seems to be around dead center now and leans less. I also increased the caster angle to fix the decrease with the longer link. It might be a couple degrees more than originally, which doesn't seem too bad, especially for going downhill. Didn't get to try it outside yet as it's raining but seemed to work fine on the stairs.
Have people tried raising the front upper link to help with the front torque twist? Have the results been catastrophic in regards to performance?
Edit. After minor testing in the yard, the car seems less likely to fall over going downhill.
Have people tried raising the front upper link to help with the front torque twist? Have the results been catastrophic in regards to performance?
Edit. After minor testing in the yard, the car seems less likely to fall over going downhill.
Last edited:
I don't see how the link changes you made would help, but I'm interested in the results, got any pictures?
I have front frame mounts partially cut out to raise links like RULR for the front. Haven't got them tested yet though.
Which changes are helpful when descending?
Edit, I'm not saying this doesn't work. Good to try different setups!
I have front frame mounts partially cut out to raise links like RULR for the front. Haven't got them tested yet though.
Which changes are helpful when descending?
Edit, I'm not saying this doesn't work. Good to try different setups!
Last edited:
Yeah, the upper link length change was just to get the driveshaft/pinion angle up a little. The panhard thing was a little bit weird. I haven't really read anyone having to do that, but it mostly seemed to be just basic physics. The axle was off center a couple of millimetres and the side further away was way easier to lift. Sort of like tweak issues in pancars.
There's not much to mess up there but of course there's the possibility I built something wrong from the get-go. This is my first crawler, but I read pretty much every relevant thread on these forums while waiting for the car to be delivered...
I'll try to get some photos once I get home.
There's not much to mess up there but of course there's the possibility I built something wrong from the get-go. This is my first crawler, but I read pretty much every relevant thread on these forums while waiting for the car to be delivered...
I'll try to get some photos once I get home.
Makes sense now, I just tried it on my Blazer and it does seem that the right front wheel lifts slightly easier than the left. More caster than stock is good, especially since you compensated for front driveshaft angle. Which wheelbase and body are you building? Photos are always good.
It's the most basic of kit setups, WB4 Blazer. No fancy parts yet, just a battery support flip to raise rear links, some sway bar durdling and outboarded shocks so far. And 3d printed fenders...
You can see the extra spacer on the pan hard. It's some random HPI suspension part. I also added an extra grub screw of similar length inside the link to get more of the link screw inside the end thingy... (haven't slept much lately, can't remember words properly :mrgreen
I'll also have to check the shocks, because I have a feeling I might want a bit more rebound. I built them with 0%.
I'll also start a thread about the car at some point. Maybe when I get a proper nights sleep and can actually write again.
You can see the extra spacer on the pan hard. It's some random HPI suspension part. I also added an extra grub screw of similar length inside the link to get more of the link screw inside the end thingy... (haven't slept much lately, can't remember words properly :mrgreen
I'll also have to check the shocks, because I have a feeling I might want a bit more rebound. I built them with 0%.
I'll also start a thread about the car at some point. Maybe when I get a proper nights sleep and can actually write again.
Last edited:
Schs2013
Quarry Creeper
this is very helpful. making my K10 to a 12.4 wheelbase any suggestions/tips to what will help get to 12.4 wb
Wheelbase4 (WB4) is 314mm, which is 12.36", so not far off 12.4" especially if you're measuring with a tape or ruler. If you really want or need the 0.04", put a shim or washer of proper thickness between suspension links and the rod end.
Yes Blazer is wb4.
K10 is wb2, but lengthen rear links to wb3 and the effect is wb3. That's what I did to my K10.
Schs2013
Quarry Creeper
Ill be rebuilding my K10 back up the way i want it at WB3 once i get through my Acsender 12.4 Kodiak/Topkick build. again thank you for the help.
Extra spacers/shims that work on ascender links what im using as it has many different options for future builds. found a set in my on-road 1/10 stuff its blue color but doesnt bother me but just a heads up. https://www.tqrcracing.com/shop/pro...9&p_keyword=&s_maker_id=&s_cate_id=&cart_seq=
Extra spacers/shims that work on ascender links what im using as it has many different options for future builds. found a set in my on-road 1/10 stuff its blue color but doesnt bother me but just a heads up. https://www.tqrcracing.com/shop/pro...9&p_keyword=&s_maker_id=&s_cate_id=&cart_seq=
Last edited:
What does this do to or for the rig? WB2 to WB3?
Yeti.stealth
RCC Addict
I built my K10 chassis as WB2 with the addition of WB4 rear links, end result works out to be equal to WB3. Then later I stretched it out a further 5 mm by fitting 2.5mm spacers on each end of the rear links.
What does this do for the rig you ask? It lengthens the wheel base making the truck more capable at steeper uphill climbs without flipping over yet allowing the stock K10 body to drop straight onto the chassis body posts without modification.
I get that, and the 2.5mm spacers are for the WB4 - not WB3 which is already part of WB2 which the K10 is based on. Right? Also all the links are 66mm, so how did you 'build with WB4 links'?
So basically we're moving the rear axle back with the addition of the 2.5mm spacers? Thereby making it as close to WB3 as possible without extending the front frame members at the center?
I can see that being of some benefit.
I was thinking about building another rig and debating whether to go SCX10-2 or another Ascender. Leaning toward the latter...
EDIT: Okay, now I get it - WB4 has 2 of the 12mm spacers - got it. So stock frame location for WB2 but WB4 links thereby giving it a WB3 wheelbase - right? I guess I'll have to get some spacers and try it.
Last edited:
Yeti.stealth
RCC Addict
The 2.5mm spacers I added to the rear links were hpi brand I think.
The K10 still runs great in stock form, the only reason I stretched and lowered mine was to be competitive against all the other stretched and lower rigs in our local competitions.
My favorite trail rig is the Bronco Ascender and it's WB1!
The K10 still runs great in stock form, the only reason I stretched and lowered mine was to be competitive against all the other stretched and lower rigs in our local competitions.
My favorite trail rig is the Bronco Ascender and it's WB1!
Yes, 2 of the 12mm spacers per rear link. Upper and lower links all same length.
Axial spacers work too, here's 2mm thick set, they make many sizes. Also someone on here menntioned a full spacer set of different lengths on website the other day.
Axial Racing - 2x6mm Spacer - Grey (6pcs)
https://www.ebay.com/itm/3mm-x-6mm-...-1-5-2-0-2-5-3-0-x-10pcs-RC-Car-/272040567704
Last edited:
Yeti.stealth
RCC Addict
stretching the rear out will make the rear shocks lay over a little, and the rear driveshaft will be extended some more too.
My crawling buddy has a SCX10-II kit-built rig. He has a number of upgrads, tires and wheels, hyraxes and beadlocks, fancy shocks, 3S power, and his is just very slightly able to climb better. About 95% of the time my stocker can keep right up. The wheelbase advantage has shown up a few times though, in very steep climbs. And I think he has front wheel weights too.
I've ordered a set of PB RockBeasts and some Proline cheapo beadlocks. I've also mod'd my shocks for less damping, and dropped the body and trimmed it. Very happy with the way it performs. I would like a slightly better turn of speed for open running, but wouldn't want to sacrifice climbing ability - that's where it counts. They come with a 35T motor, I wonder what a 25T would do, or running a 3s batt.
Sorry, I'm hijacking...but trying to learn what will improve performance. ;-)
Pretty sure I'll build one next though, gotta decide what, either full length or another shorty. I should build a replica of my old TJ, locked and lifted on 35's. "thumbsup"
I've ordered a set of PB RockBeasts and some Proline cheapo beadlocks. I've also mod'd my shocks for less damping, and dropped the body and trimmed it. Very happy with the way it performs. I would like a slightly better turn of speed for open running, but wouldn't want to sacrifice climbing ability - that's where it counts. They come with a 35T motor, I wonder what a 25T would do, or running a 3s batt.
Sorry, I'm hijacking...but trying to learn what will improve performance. ;-)
Pretty sure I'll build one next though, gotta decide what, either full length or another shorty. I should build a replica of my old TJ, locked and lifted on 35's. "thumbsup"
start a build thread! you will get tons of pointers and people love reading them. for a TJ you're going to need the shortest wheelbase you can. not even sure you can get a jeep to look right with 11" wheelbase? I'm building a 79 ford truck on 11" and its going to look small, but its the largest 79 ford body available. as for the 25T, that's what I'm running for now (had a spare Tamiya can in my parts bin) and you will need a 12T pinion to avoid heat issues. if you have a 35T i would just stick with it, but don't take my word! give it a shot!
should be a cool jeep, looking forward to that build thread!
should be a cool jeep, looking forward to that build thread!
