TOPIC:

This image compares the TRF 414M with the TRF 415 MSX.  Apart from the obvious addition of blue anodizing, there are major changes between these chassis.  Most significantly, the battery in now mounted along the left side instead of being mounted laterally.  This is due to the lowered motor causing the belt to block any battery from passing across the center line.  Although the suspension may seem similar, most of the parts (suspension arms, suspension mounts, hubs, and knuckles) have changed.  This is really a totally new chassis.

For those of you who care about the math, consider this.  If the difference in width is 0.75mm per letter, then that's 0.375mm per side.  The length of a hinge pin is 46mm, but the difference between ball centers is 43mm.  Doing some quick trigonometry: atan (0.375/43) = 0.5°.  Nice job Tamiya.

Brilliant, Good on you for picking this up. Showing the attention to detail, the immense thought that was put into equipment of yesteryear. No AI decided mess. Likely some dude that spent weeks with a pencil and paper figuring stuff out the hard way. I am one of those that cares very much.

I have been pestering an old racing buddy to sell me his MSX for years. One day i will get it. I happen to have the elusive Pro Module Rear Suspension Set #53866 that i would like to use in a 415build. 

Again, another fantastic thread. How many more TRF chassis' do you plan to build? I personally wouldn't be strong enough to split the plastic on a sealed TRF box. I am totally ok with taking used examples and making them new. 

 

 

I'm really liking this method of photographing one built and one unbuilt "exploded view". 

I never really noticed the bearing cups(eccentric bearing holders) on the 415's had the dimples(tabs) as opposed to current TRF chassis where the dimple is on the bulkhead. I wonder if this was a weak point on the bearing cup that caused them to change this method. I'm sure the machining side of the bulkhead would be easier with one dimple rather than 20 dimple slots.

Deekay777 wrote:

I have been pestering an old racing buddy to sell me his MSX for years. One day i will get it. I happen to have the elusive Pro Module Rear Suspension Set #53866 that i would like to use in a 415build.

That's a very unusual suspension set I haven't seen before.  Do you have any idea why they shaped the control arms that way?  Looks like maybe the shock will pass through the arm.

Again, another fantastic thread. How many more TRF chassis' do you plan to build? I personally wouldn't be strong enough to split the plastic on a sealed TRF box. I am totally ok with taking used examples and making them new. 

I've got one from each generation to build.  416 is built and already documented on my web site, but not yet posted here.  417X and 418 are built and documented, but I haven't posted them anywhere yet.  419, 420X, and the new 421 are still in the box.  I've also done the TA-03 R-S TRF and have a TA-04 TRF to build.  I took a break and moved onto some other types of builds for a while.  I've also got a 201 to replace the one I lost in the fire which is used and just needs to get cleaned up.  That will cover the touring cars and buggies.  I've never built any of the F1 chassis and don't have any in the backlog.

I never really noticed the bearing cups(eccentric bearing holders) on the 415's had the dimples(tabs) as opposed to current TRF chassis where the dimple is on the bulkhead. I wonder if this was a weak point on the bearing cup that caused them to change this method. I'm sure the machining side of the bulkhead would be easier with one dimple rather than 20 dimple slots.

I'm 99% sure that they made the change just because it is vastly easier to mold the shapes into the cups rather than machine them into the bulkheads.
 

It has been a mad week, I am finally getting to respond to this. I did some reading on the arms, and there is not a lot of info. I believe there is a massive grip gain when using them on low bite surface, as well as the ability to run stiffer springs as the shock position is so far out on the lower arm. The shocks actually mount to the upright and not the arms. I don't know if I want to open the packaging, but, it may be worth it just to see how they look/work. And for Tamiyabase showroom purposes of course. I need to find some more in depth details on the parts. Maybe i can find decent pictures of them instead de-packaging mine.

And there in lies the biggest different between you and me. I couldn't bare opening those boxes.

I do hope you get round to posting the rest of your threads here. Do you need a TA03-R TRF?
I had a box built 416X that i acquired, and one day decided to take it to a club day. Immediately regretted that decision. Its back on the shelf now next to the other two versions which are in poor shape. I would like to get to them one day.



 

I found i clear image.

Not intending to spam reply, but, just by chance i was able to pick up the last two chassis from the lot i bought last year.
One of the chassis is a TB Evo V, and it happened to have the pro module rear suspension set already installed. So i have even more clear images and the ability to test the difference of feel compared to normal reversible arms.

   
   
   
   
   

The added stiffness is very noticeable, red springs feel like three rates stiffer.
One major difference to normal arms and uprights, there is absolutely zero slop. This doesn't mean everything is tight, the arms move perfectly free. not a single shim in site on these uprights. TRF owners will understand this.

Deekay777 wrote:

Not intending to spam reply, but, just by chance i was able to pick up the last two chassis from the lot i bought last year.
One of the chassis is a TB Evo V, and it happened to have the pro module rear suspension set already installed. So i have even more clear images and the ability to test the difference of feel compared to normal reversible arms.

The added stiffness is very noticeable, red springs feel like three rates stiffer.
One major difference to normal arms and uprights, there is absolutely zero slop. This doesn't mean everything is tight, the arms move perfectly free. not a single shim in site on these uprights. TRF owners will understand this.

 

That's a fascinating setup with the shock attached to a crank on the upright.  I'll be interested to hear what you think of the difference in the real world.

Nice to hear they also fit on the TB Evo.  I've got a whole set of TB Evo chassis to build at some point as well.....