Page 6 of 17
Re: What was old is… still old, but a lot newer (Updated 7/14)
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:32 pm
by aeiou
Very nice – that’s looking awesome!!! So glad you got it all sorted out.
Man, ya think those rear hubs have enough link mount choices?

Looks like you have a good bit of clearance, even with a lot of negative camber.
Thanks for the reminder on the wheels spacers. I may use those to get back the width I lost by using the B44 CVAs.
Oh, and nice wheels, BTW…

Re: What was old is… still old, but a lot newer (Updated 7/14)
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:41 pm
by scr8p
aeiou wrote:Man, ya think those rear hubs have enough link mount choices?

those losi hubs are the greatest invention on the planet.
i have a set of b44 cvd's on the way. they'll give a little bit more breathing room. plus i'm pretty sure i'll need to use those instead of the b4 cvd's if i'd want to use 1.5 or 0 degree arm mounts. that's just a guess, though. i haven't tried it yet.
this car is coming together WAY too slow. i need to pick up the pace.

Re: What was old is… still old, but a lot newer (Updated 7/14)
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:51 pm
by scr8p
aeiou wrote:Thanks for the reminder on the wheels spacers. I may use those to get back the width I lost by using the B44 CVA's.
Dynotech's site isn't working for me right now, but chad has a wheel spacer kit. it comes with 1mm spacers and 2mm spacers. use them together, and you'll gain 3mm per side (obviously

). you'll most likely need to use a low profile 8-32 lock nut, too.
Re: What was old is… still old, but a lot newer (Updated 7/14)
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:21 am
by wyldbill
scr8p, are using losi cvd axles or associated cvd axles. the reason i ask is the losi ones are slightly longer and the drive pin hole is moved further out on the axle compared to assoc. ones. i usually see the dirt oval guys run the losi axles so they can gain a little more width when using c.w. or dynotech wheel spacers.
Re: What was old is… still old, but a lot newer (Updated 7/14)
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:38 am
by scr8p
wyldbill wrote:scr8p, are using losi cvd axles or associated cvd axles.
it's the complete b4 cvd kit (axles, bones, etc.). i wonder if the b4 axle is similar to the losi axle? is definately different than say a b2/b3. the drive pin is out further on the axle like you mention. the total length of the axle is longer, too.
the lhs called today to let me know that my b44 cvd kit showed up, but i was too lazy to go and get it.

Re: What was old is… still old, but a lot newer (Updated 7/14)
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:48 am
by wyldbill
i wonder if the b4 axle is similar to the losi axle?
it could be, i think thats how they get away with the adjustiable width. when you move the hub carrier on the arm you move spacers/shims to the other side to make up the difference or something like that.
Re: What was old is… still old, but a lot newer (Updated 7/14)
Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:24 pm
by scr8p
out of curiosity, i took a look at the cvd/outdrive clearance on a couple of my standard rc10's. they're not any better than what i've put together. a couple of them were actually worse, in my opinion. i might just keep the b4 cvd's in mine.
Re: What was old is… still old, but a lot newer (Updated 7/14)
Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:09 pm
by Hangtime
I gotta have those graphite towers!! Is someone making these???
Re: What was old is… still old, but a lot newer (Updated 7/14)
Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 11:55 am
by scr8p
well, i changed mine around again, and i believe i have what i want now.
when i measured the rear trackwidth using the b4 cvd's, it seemed
just a bit too wide in relationship to the front. so, i took out the b4 cvd's, and put in the b44 rear cvd's i picked up. using these, i was able to take the axle shims i had on the outside of the hubs, and move them to the inside. it didn't narrow it up a ton, but it is better. and, if i'd want to use 1.5, or even 0 degree arm mounts, i'll be able to do so without any binding issues in the outdrive.
Re: What was old is… still old, but a lot newer (Updated 5/15)
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 3:55 pm
by Chrominator
aeiou wrote:
As I suspected, I ended up with the 1.02” shocks in the front.
What's the advantage to running the Truck tower and shocks ?
aeiou wrote:
I’m not sure who makes the body (JConcepts, maybe?). It came with a B4 lot, already painted and just slightly used. Since it sort of fits the theme, I thought I’d try it out on this build and it ended up fitting pretty well (where would we be without Velcro?).
Is that body really for a B4 ? because I've got a stock B4 body, and It doesn't even come close to fitting over the tub chassis.

[/quote]
Re: What was old is… still old, but a lot newer (Updated 5/15)
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 7:21 pm
by aeiou
Chrominator wrote:What's the advantage to running the Truck tower and shocks ?
Essentially, the improved narrow front end setups, with their longer arms and inner pivot points moved closer together, create a longer arm travel arc. The taller shocks are needed to handle that additional travel.
Chrominator wrote:Is that body really for a B4 ? because I've got a stock B4 body, and It doesn't even come close to fitting over the tub chassis.
That body needed considerable trimming to get it to work and it’s not a drop-on fit by any means. It requires Velcro to hold it snug to the sides of the chassis. Neither the B4 stock nor JConcepts bodies fit that well – if at all - over an untrimmed/uncut tub chassis.
Re: What was old is… still old, but a lot newer (Updated 5/15)
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:22 am
by Chrominator
aeiou wrote:Chrominator wrote:What's the advantage to running the Truck tower and shocks ?
Essentially, the improved narrow front end setups, with their longer arms and inner pivot points moved closer together, create a longer arm travel arc. The taller shocks are needed to handle that additional travel.
Chrominator wrote:Is that body really for a B4 ? because I've got a stock B4 body, and It doesn't even come close to fitting over the tub chassis.
That body needed considerable trimming to get it to work and it’s not a drop-on fit by any means. It requires Velcro to hold it snug to the sides of the chassis. Neither the B4 stock nor JConcepts bodies fit that well – if at all - over an untrimmed/uncut tub chassis.
Cool, thanks for the Info.

Re: What was old is… still old, but a lot newer
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:12 pm
by MOmo
So for my car (graphite RC10) I swapped the suspension components over from a B4 roller.
Here is what I have:
-RC10 Graphite
-3 degree arm mounts rear
-B4 steering knuckles/ B4 rear hubs / b4 CVDs
-RPM "wide" replacement arms (not the worlds length)

-RPM Wide Rear
I've found:
-the B4 CVDs bind slightly on one side when shock is compressed
-The Turnbuckles are slightly longer
-The wheels fit w/o interference
Im still trying to finish this project. I'll try and get pics up of my progress.
MOmo
Re: What was old is… still old, but a lot newer
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:49 am
by MOmo
Ok, so I did the BJ4WE Rear CVD swap and that solved my binding issues. I didn't get a chance to race it that friday night at the club race, but I did visit the track on Sat. and put a couple packs through it and was very happy with the results.
The car handled quite well. It did push a bit in the corners, but that might be due to the stock servo and a very basic setting of the suspension.
The graphite chassis held up well. I want to get some more track time on the car and hopefuly the club race this week will yeild several vintage drivers.
MOmo
Re: What was old is… still old, but a lot newer
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:57 am
by scr8p
i had terrible on power push with the 3 degree arm mounts. i swapped them out for a set of 1.5's and it was much better.