What's new
By:
Filters

#SteerAndStuff buggy build

Another dumb question but no way to fit a 5.3L LSX in this chassis, correct? I have a couple LS engines sitting around....and two TWF Hero 3 speeds....but their ratios are super low 5.44:1 and 2.5:1....so I'd likely need to run something like a 4.10 R&P.

Is the D300/Atlas sized case about as big as you can go in this chassis as well?
 
SteerAndStuff said:
Most of why the smaller ring gear and driving on coast size are negated because of the downstream 1.92:1 gearing in the portal box. Using the 8" toyota stuff is small so less clearance loss under 3rd. With 4.88s in the 3rd and the portal gearing the axle is at like 9.37:1 so super low and hence why using the overdrive 700R4.
Click to expand...
Totally makes sense why the drivetrain can withstand it. I wonder about the Toyota 8" HP out of a FJ80....granted, your driveline would be lower, but if flipped, would that result in being on the drive side of the gear? I guess it's rather immaterial, considering that's not really a break point anyway....just curious if flipping a HP would put you on the drive side of the gear.
 
I know of two of these chassis with LS based V8 engines in them. Snug but doable. As for tcase one guy tried and atlas it it was too big and he swapped to a D300 based Midnight case.
Other thought on flipped low pinion diffs is now they are effectively high pinion orientation and gets driveshaft more clearance. I've head of a few 8" R&P failures with these but I believe those where on spools. IMO a spool has more chance for ring gear deflection. I use a Grizzly and Zip locker in mine and plan on building a spare 3rd with a welded stock carrier for that reason.
 
SteerAndStuff said:
I know of two of these chassis with LS based V8 engines in them. Snug but doable. As for tcase one guy tried and atlas it it was too big and he swapped to a D300 based Midnight case.
Other thought on flipped low pinion diffs is now they are effectively high pinion orientation and gets driveshaft more clearance. I've head of a few 8" R&P failures with these but I believe those where on spools. IMO a spool has more chance for ring gear deflection. I use a Grizzly and Zip locker in mine and plan on building a spare 3rd with a welded stock carrier for that reason.
Click to expand...
Ahhh....very interesting on all counts.

I was afraid the tcase might be a non-starter the JHF chassis for me.....damn. :( Really want to finally put this Hero to use. While I'd like to use the LS....I wasn't married to it.

Agreed on the d/s clearance...that's what I meant by "your driveline would be lower". Sorry for any confusion.

I'm assuming you're running the Zip in the back for cutting brakes?
 
Last edited:
Sean said:
Ahhh....very interesting on all counts.

I was afraid the tcase might be a non-starter the JHF chassis for me.....damn. :( Really want to finally put this Hero to use. While I'd like the use the LS....I wasn't married to it.

Agreed on the d/s clearance...that's what I meant by "your driveline would be lower".

I'm assuming you're running the Zip in the back for cutting brakes?
Click to expand...
Exactly, I like a rear selectable. Have buggy wired for a front air locker as well but got a smoking deal on the grizzly and so far can't complain.

I originally built it with a stock D300 and had to just slightly bow my passenger seat frame to clear it. When I changed to the Midnight with the shift rails on top vs next to front output I had to modify the seat frame a bunch more and rework the tabs a touch.
 
Couple little updates, I got a set of the Radflo JHF spec bypass air shocks and the front were a straight swap but the rear I originally had swayaway shocks which are 3.325" shorter eye-to-eye than the radflos while both being 18" travel. Cut the mounts off the chassis and axle and reset for the new shock length. Also added some large tie-down tabs on the axle that make strapping down to the trailer much quicker and easier and allows for some unique recovery options asl well if needed. Also added a bushing on the steering arm that have seen reports of cracking at end of support right before the corner bolt. This bushing ties that support all the way to the bolt now.

20230323_185153.jpg

20230323_181533.jpg

20230323_181523.jpg
 
By chance do you have any pics of the lower mount on the axle for the shock? It looks in some pictures I've seen in the past that the bolt that goes through the shock eye threads into the knuckle itself with a tab capturing the shock eye and mounting it in double shear...but that seems like it would be a lot harder to change the location of than what you said you did.
 
Sean said:
By chance do you have any pics of the lower mount on the axle for the shock? It looks in some pictures I've seen in the past that the bolt that goes through the shock eye threads into the knuckle itself with a tab capturing the shock eye and mounting it in double shear...but that seems like it would be a lot harder to change the location of than what you said you did.
Click to expand...
I'm us this RuffStuff bracket but trimmed the axle radius off in the chop saw than a 3"x3" gusset below it. I have seen where guys use a threaded bung welded to C then a tab for the outside but I like this so I can use a lock nut and get shock spaced out from axle a little bit.
www.ruffstuffspecialties.com

Axle Side Mount Shock Bracket, Pair

Check out the deal on Axle Side Mount Shock Bracket, Pair at RuffStuff Specialties
www.ruffstuffspecialties.com www.ruffstuffspecialties.com

20221116_192034.jpg
 
SteerAndStuff said:
I'm us this RuffStuff bracket but trimmed the axle radius off in the chop saw than a 3"x3" gusset below it. I have seen where guys use a threaded bung welded to C then a tab for the outside but I like this so I can use a lock nut and get shock spaced out from axle a little bit.
www.ruffstuffspecialties.com

Axle Side Mount Shock Bracket, Pair

Check out the deal on Axle Side Mount Shock Bracket, Pair at RuffStuff Specialties
www.ruffstuffspecialties.com www.ruffstuffspecialties.com
Click to expand...
That looks great!
 
Hey Matt,
Probably a really dumb question, but is the brake pedal assembly in your (and other JHF Trail buggies) car a Jesse Haines design? Is the master under the floor then? From a packaging standpoint that looks clever and very clean. I'd like to talk to Jesse about ordering one if he's the actual manufacturer of the parts.
 
Sean said:
Hey Matt,
Probably a really dumb question, but is the brake pedal assembly in your (and other JHF Trail buggies) car a Jesse Haines design? Is the master under the floor then? From a packaging standpoint that looks clever and very clean. I'd like to talk to Jesse about ordering one if he's the actual manufacturer of the parts.
Click to expand...
Correct, that is a JHF design included with the chassis and the remote mount master is under the drivers seat
 
SteerAndStuff said:
Correct, that is a JHF design included with the chassis and the remote mount master is under the drivers seat
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info. With my tcase issue, I'm thinking more and more I may just build my own chassis, so I'm not sure he'd be willing to part with a brake set up (and I'm sure I'd have to modify it some to make it work in a different car design) but he seems like a super good guy, so next time I talk to him, I'll see if he'd be willing.
 
So you're about 75:1 with the 2.63 low range gears. In order to 'bump' obstacles, do you ever have to go into 2nd gear (which is I'm guessing around 40:1) or can you bump stuff in 1st? Do you ever see a need for the 4:1 tcase gears?
 
Sean said:
So you're about 75:1 with the 2.63 low range gears. In order to 'bump' obstacles, do you ever have to go into 2nd gear (which is I'm guessing around 40:1) or can you bump stuff in 1st? Do you ever see a need for the 4:1 tcase gears?
Click to expand...
This obstacle has been the only one so far I needed to hit in 2nd gear. First attempts where in 1st and just rev limited out and not enough momentum built to clear top. Overall I don't see need for 4:1. If someone made a 3:1 would be perfect.

 
Sorry for all the questions, Matt. Just trying to do my due diligence on research.

I'm definitely going Ford 9"s. I was going to do a spool in the front just for simplicity and cost and ARB in back likely with 4.11s or 4.56s b/c of my 3 speed cases. I know you said you think ring gear deflection is an issue with spools in the Toyota 3rds....would you feel that way about a Ford 9"?

Does the ring have some sort of interference fit to the carrier that it won't have with a spool? I didn't think the ID of the ring gear touched the OD of the carrier? Or is that only under an extreme load where the two contact?

I'll likely do a Grizzly in front if you think the ring gear on a 9" is susceptible to deflection.
 
It's the design of the spool that makes them weak - the "carrier" in the spool has a bunch less material.

This can be combated in a 9" with a load bolt 3rd member. Assuming you're using 35 spline stuff, if you run anything other than a spill you'll be in aftermarket 3.25" carrier bearing race OD center section land anyhow, though the load bolt 3rds add more cost than a grizzly or Detroit would.

The 3rd pinion bearing helps keep the pinion rigid, but makes the carrier smaller on the far end from the ring gear in all 9" cases.

But also recognize that with ~2:1 gearing after the R+P, the deflection will be a lot less.

Sean With how you have described your use, I think any 9" carrier wouldn't be a problem.

My experience- I've run 5.13 gears with no portals on sticky 40's with water with 9" with spools, Detroit, and zip lockers. I broke one rear ring and pinion really Launching and landing on the throttle with the Zip, but something was going to go in that scenario. Otherwise, 10+ trouble free years with no portals, and portals would just make that load less.
 
My thought on spools is most are made with a flat plate perpendicular to the bearing journals/shafts and the ring gear is bolted to end of that plate. A flat plate will likely deflect more when loaded than a traditional locker or open carrier that has more triangulation or gusseting per say to that ring gear mounting face if that makes sense. With portals and the reduction of stress at the 3rd not as likely a problem. I have a spare toyota 3rd I need to build and I plan on building it on a set of welded spider stock carrier for that reason.
 
Opiebennett said:
It's the design of the spool that makes them weak - the "carrier" in the spool has a bunch less material.

This can be combated in a 9" with a load bolt 3rd member. Assuming you're using 35 spline stuff, if you run anything other than a spill you'll be in aftermarket 3.25" carrier bearing race OD center section land anyhow, though the load bolt 3rds add more cost than a grizzly or Detroit would.

The 3rd pinion bearing helps keep the pinion rigid, but makes the carrier smaller on the far end from the ring gear in all 9" cases.

But also recognize that with ~2:1 gearing after the R+P, the deflection will be a lot less.

Sean With how you have described your use, I think any 9" carrier wouldn't be a problem.

My experience- I've run 5.13 gears with no portals on sticky 40's with water with 9" with spools, Detroit, and zip lockers. I broke one rear ring and pinion really Launching and landing on the throttle with the Zip, but something was going to go in that scenario. Otherwise, 10+ trouble free years with no portals, and portals would just make that load less.
Click to expand...
Gearworks third is the only one I've seen in Nodular Iron that uses a load bolt....it's only $450 for the case compared to $430 for a Moser (for example)....so not crazy. Load bolts mostly seem to be common in the aluminum centers which I won't run for this application....

Thanks for the input....I'm inclined to think the 9" with a spool would likely be fine, but it's only like $375 more to go Grizzly...

I do wonder if the tiny bit of differentiation allowed by a Grizzly would be of any additional benefit in terms of less strain on the drivetrain or if the added complexity of the locker over a spool might balance that out in the equation.
 
SteerAndStuff said:
My thought on spools is most are made with a flat plate perpendicular to the bearing journals/shafts and the ring gear is bolted to end of that plate. A flat plate will likely deflect more when loaded than a traditional locker or open carrier that has more triangulation or gusseting per say to that ring gear mounting face if that makes sense. With portals and the reduction of stress at the 3rd not as likely a problem. I have a spare toyota 3rd I need to build and I plan on building it on a set of welded spider stock carrier for that reason.
Click to expand...
Makes total sense....thanks again for the explanation. I'm leaning towards just doing Grizzlies in both front ends then. I guess if I wanted to get all nerdy, I could run a spool in my front end and a Grizzly in the wife's and see which one held up longer, lol.
 
Another thing to consider is ring gear orientation. I have a friend that has broke his rear low pinion dana 60 gears twice, but both times in reverse. Our thought is the low pinion rear is on the drive side of gear going forward but on the ramped coast side of gear in reverse, the ramp gives more side load to the carrier and pinion until your contact is on edge of tooth and then breaks. The 9" 3rd will help prevent that with the 3rd pinion bearing and load bolts as well. Portal reduction downstream will help considerably as well.
 
SteerAndStuff said:
Another thing to consider is ring gear orientation. I have a friend that has broke his rear low pinion dana 60 gears twice, but both times in reverse. Our thought is the low pinion rear is on the drive side of gear going forward but on the ramped coast side of gear in reverse, the ramp gives more side load to the carrier and pinion until your contact is on edge of tooth and then breaks. The 9" 3rd will help prevent that with the 3rd pinion bearing and load bolts as well. Portal reduction downstream will help considerably as well.
Click to expand...
Seen the same thing with people breaking 'standard' rotation gears while in reverse. That's one of the reasons I shied away from Toy 8" diffs for portals was due to driving on the coast side of the gear in the rear when flipped....the increase in strength theoretically should keep the breakage down a bit (that, gear ratio availability, and the cost was actually a bit cheaper for the 9" in built thirds). You guys aren't really breaking the Toy 8" though....so my overabundance of caution is probably unwarranted and costs a fair amount in weight/ground clearance.
 
Last edited:
Some mini me action. Been into RC crawlers from the early days and put this rig together this summer. Is a Super Shafty Chupacapra chassis this has similar lines to the JHF trail chassis. Using Axial Capra portal axles, West Desert Wheeler cut and shut Krawler tires, and some import 2.2 beadlocks that look similar to my RBP beadlocks. The wheel were only offered in a few colors and not black so had a local guy cerakote them black. Using a Vanquish Products 3 gear transmission with a Hurtz dig that allows for 4wd, front only/rear neutral, or front only/rear locked stopped and powered by a Hobby Wing Fusion Pro motor/esc combo.

20231020_161138.jpg
 
SteerAndStuff said:
Some mini me action. Been into RC crawlers from the early days and put this rig together this summer. Is a Super Shafty Chupacapra chassis this has similar lines to the JHF trail chassis. Using Axial Capra portal axles, West Desert Wheeler cut and shut Krawler tires, and some import 2.2 beadlocks that look similar to my RBP beadlocks. The wheel were only offered in a few colors and not black so had a local guy cerakote them black. Using a Vanquish Products 3 gear transmission with a Hurtz dig that allows for 4wd, front only/rear neutral, or front only/rear locked stopped and powered by a Hobby Wing Fusion Pro motor/esc combo.

20231020_161138.jpg
Click to expand...

NERD! :flipoff2:



Just kidding, that thing looking awesome. I love rc crawling, my buddy got me into it was before the axial stuff was around and you had to build them out of random rc parts :laughing:

The stuff they have now is crazy, my wife got me a Capra 2 Xmas ago and it's crazy how well it does out of the box compared to our modified ax10s back in the day. The portals are awesome.
 
SteerAndStuff said:
Haha, yep. My first RC crawler was built out of TLT axles before mainstream crawlers and Axial was a thing. Here is the current fleet of crawlers, think the bomber is going to get sold off soon, just don't use it much.
Click to expand...

We did big stuff for some reason. We built a huge og sniper looking tube chassis for my buddy. Used x factor axles and an emaxx trans. Mine was revo parts that I built straight axle housings for with the diffs right at the wheel like a moon buggy. They were fun back then, but tires all sucked, and as soon as the Axial stuff came out, we ended up with 2.2 rigs.
 
That's why I got out of RC stuff. Dropped a bunch of money on a Losi crawler and now it's pretty much not supported and keep breaking pinions on the trans. Everything has moved way beyond what I got now.
 
Weasel said:
That's why I got out of RC stuff. Dropped a bunch of money on a Losi crawler and now it's pretty much not supported and keep breaking pinions on the trans. Everything has moved way beyond what I got now.
Click to expand...

Same here, it was really fun when like 8-10 buddies were into it and everyone has super similar rigs. We had a great spot right in town and it was easy to get 2-4 people to go. Once everyone kinda lost interest, I started adding power when I got bored, then breaking parts and buying upgrades :laughing:

I got out of it for 5 or 6 years, then got the kids scx24s and wife got me the Capra.
 
You need to head over to the RC section on here, I would be interested in a build thread on that Chupacapra :smokin: The "Tuber" builds are so much cooler than Lexan bodied rigs in my opinion, I am just curious how much heavier it is than the typical carbon fiber/Garolite flat chassis rail performance "scale" builds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh