58742 Hornet Evo coming!

[Andreas W]

3 minutes ago, Tamiyastef said:

Absolutely. I'm very happy I went for the proven complete DT-02 rear end.

And it's looking way better as well. 

[Tamiyastef]

3 minutes ago, Andreas W said:

looking way better

I can't help it but I have a strong dislike for buggy's that are wider in the front as in the rear so the short Hornet EVO rear suspension arms were a no go for me.

[BuggyDad]

1 hour ago, Tamiyastef said:

I can't help it but I have a strong dislike for buggy's that are wider in the front as in the rear so the short Hornet EVO rear suspension arms were a no go for me.

Can a buggy be too wide?

I don't think they make driveshafts that long. 

[River19]

Ordered one up the other day as I had some points to use and a 10% off offer as well so it was a no brainer.

It will be fun to build up a runner for the yard as opposed to the small army of TLRs and Schumacher race platforms I have.  My TT-02 and Euro are all setup for carpet and my driveway is gravel so  I wanted something fun and cheap and the Hornet Eco fit the bill with a bit of nostalgia as well.

Should be a fun build.

Anyone drop in a Torque Tuned instead of the standard 540?  Not that there is much of a difference 

[yogi-bear]

Well, its seems we down under can't get any until late January, so I will have to settle for a Holiday Buggy for a Christmas build in the meantime. Which is odd, as other releases have come out around the same time, but demand is that high that Tamiya just decided there wasn't enough to send any down under?

[TurnipJF]

While I can sort-of understand Tamiya's desire to pay homage to the original Hornet with the narrow rear end, I agree that it doesn't really work aesthetically with the far wider front. Might I ask: what is the overall width difference front to rear when built stock?

When I build mine, I'll be trying a few things to get the track widths a bit closer, and if unsuccessful I'll be going full DT-02 at the rear too, probably Sand Viper spec with metal drivetrain parts and adjustable upper arms. It may look less like a Hornet as a result, but will look better overall I think. 

[Torhaantje]

13 hours ago, Tamiyastef said:

14 hours ago, Andreas W said:

looking way better

I can't help it but I have a strong dislike for buggy's that are wider in the front as in the rear so the short Hornet EV

@Tamiyastef would it be possible to measure the lenght difference between the dt2  rear A arms and the Hornet evo ones?

And could the rear A arms of the Hornet evo be used at the front end of the Dt02?

I am asking this because I would like to go the opposite way: making a narrower Dt-03 😀

regards and thanks,

Rick

[jonboy1]

can I ask a favour of someone please?

Could someone measure this distance for me please?

Thank you!!!  

[Tamiyastef]

5 hours ago, Torhaantje said:

measure the lenght difference between the dt2  rear A arms and the Hornet evo ones

I don't have Hornet EVO rear suspension arms. To make my Grasshopper EVO I just ordered the E, J and M parts (numbers 19007703, 19115590 and 19115592) Parts to fix the DT gearbox to the Grasshopper/Hornet chassis, front suspension arms and the parts for the steering.

[Tamiyastef]

1 hour ago, jonboy1 said:

can I ask a favour of someone please?

Could someone measure this distance for me please?

Thank you!!!  

Do you want to know if the EVO Chassis has other dimensions than the original Hornet one or do you just need this distance fro the original chassis? I do have an original I could measure if that is what you need. 

[jonboy1]

2 minutes ago, Tamiyastef said:

Do you want to know if the EVO Chassis has other dimensions than the original Hornet one or do you just need this distance fro the original chassis? I do have an original I could measure if that is what you need. 

This dimension from the original would be perfect if that's ok please?

Thanks @Tamiyastef 👍

[Tamiyastef]

@jonboy1

My original and re-re are exact the same at this spot, I measured the re-re 

That's 61mm.

[jonboy1]

Awesome - thanks very much @Tamiyastef 

[wun1jee]

Bent rear axle was probably because the builder didn't put any o-rings in the diff outputs and had a bunch of dogbone slop. I know mine did. To the point that the dogbones would bind. 

The manual doesn't say anything about the o-rings in the diff outputs but that's been a trick to mitigate dogbone slop since the dawn of time. 

[ABigChungus]

19 minutes ago, wun1jee said:

Bent rear axle was probably because the builder didn't put any o-rings in the diff outputs and had a bunch of dogbone slop. I know mine did. To the point that the dogbones would bind. 

The manual doesn't say anything about the o-rings in the diff outputs but that's been a trick to mitigate dogbone slop since the dawn of time. 

Agreed, put some in mine as there was a tremendous amount of play!

[markbt73]

Finished my rolling chassis build yesterday. A couple of observations:

• It absolutely needs the DT02 rear suspension arms, so that will be the first change I make. I'm actually going to swap the rear suspension from a DT02 Sand Rover, and move the Evo's rear suspension over there, as a start on making a narrow Sand Rover.
• O-rings in the diff outdrives are an absolute must, otherwise the dogbones bind like crazy. I can't believe Tamiya didn't address this in the manual.
• The springs at both ends are too short for the shocks, and the fronts are too stiff. I'll have to dig into my stash and find more suitable springs.
• I guess it wouldn't be Tamiya without some bump-steer. Interesting that it's toe-out instead of toe-in.
• The rear wheels are massively easier to assemble than older ones were. I don't know if this is the first model to use the new narrower R3 parts, but it makes a tremendous difference, and it's how they should have been 40 years ago.
• I have sooo many ideas for this setup. I'm going to have to get at least one more of these kits to mess with.

Overall, bravo, Tamiya! Can't wait to see how it runs.

[Saito2]

Ok, after @markbt73's post, I have a question about the Evo that's been bothering me. It seems like Tamiya went through a lot of trouble to keep the rear track width close to the original Hornet's but then wound up with a front track width that's too wide (enough that, as I suspected, standard DT02 rear suspension would pair better with it). I just guessed this was to accommodate the updated steering. Now, reading that the front still has bumpsteer with the new steering arrangement, I'm beginning to question the wide front end. Original standard Hornet front suspension was already been upgradable with the likes of earlier CRP FX10 kit or by other manufactures' Hornet-esque clones like the Mugen Manx/Panda Cyclone. Why not go this route or is there something else this new frontend provides that I'm missing, aside from the obvious performance benefits that generally come with a wider front end?

[Twinfan]

10 minutes ago, Saito2 said:

 Why not go this route or is there something else this new frontend provides that I'm missing?

Wider front track = sharper steering.

[markbt73]

The bump steer is waaaaay less than something like the Hotshot or the Blitzer, so I don't think it's going to be much of an issue. The new steering setup is fantastic, dual bellcranks with full ball bearings, very smooth, and slop-free, so there's that.

I want to order another one of these eventually, to try it with the new rear end and a CRP front end, to see how that sits. I also want to try the new front with the solid-axle rear and some deep-offset rear wheels, to build a sort of pre-runner setup.

We're gonna be coming up with new ways to mess with these things for years to come, I predict. Hopefully Tamiya keeps it around.

[Saito2]

Ok, gotcha. The wide front end perplexed me as, despite the buggy's performance being dramatically improved over the original, its still not a competition buggy. Personally, I would have sacrificed performance for closer-to-original aesthetics but I'm not complaining. Its a great buggy and I love it.

[SlideWRX]

1 hour ago, Twinfan said:

Wider front track = sharper steering.

Also, wider front track = less rollover

[SlideWRX]

Looking at front track width: (numbers pulled from tamiyabase.com chassis database)

Original Grasshopper/Hornet - 172mm

Grasshopper II Chassis - 186mm

DT-01 chassis - 205mm (Fighter Buggy RX) (Mad Bull with massive tires is 245mm)

The front track is measured at the centerline of the wheels, so the Hornet EVO overall width of 230mm means the front track is going to be very similar to the DT-01.  In terms of the original Hornet, yeah it is a lot wider, but the new width is the 'evolution' of these chassis.

For reference:

DT-02 chassis - 217mm

DT-03 chassis - 221mm

On a side note, I hope I dropped enough hints to the wife for one of these to show up under the Christmas tree...

[wun1jee]

Front track width is only slightly wider than the Grasshopper II. About a tire width, or half a tire width on each side.

Rear track, using the Grasshopper II wheels and wheel adapters, is exactly the same width as the Grasshopper II.

[MadAnt]

It looks like a few millimeters can be gained by using the old wheel hubs.

Edit:

They don't fit.

Another edit:

They work if there is spacers between the axle inner bearing races and a shim between the pin and bearing.

[markbt73]

Yeah, I tried using the thicker wheel adapters too. They work - but only if you leave the wheel nuts a turn or two loose, which I'm not comfortable doing.

The more I look at it, the more I think I'm just going to use DT02 rear suspension arms and call it a day, then move the Evo rear arms to the DT02 and 3D print some narrow front arms for it to match. I kept wanting to try it Tamiya's way first, but it occurs to me I'm under no obligation to do so.