CC-02 Cross Country chassis

[nowinaminute 2815]

7 hours ago, Bromley said:

seems to ride well on rough ground.

I though that too. I expected it to be better on the harsher terrain but maybe not as good on the relatively flat but rough surfaces compared to wishbones but it seems really supple and responsive.

[Busdriver 6209]

11 hours ago, taffer said:

A nice vid of cc-02!

Perfect example of why I dont like polycarbonate bodies on scale models. Flappy body panels. Just makes it look a toy. Having said that the suspension action looks quite realistic. Have Tamiya at last gone for a softer ride?

[Bromley 681]

Guess what just turned up!

[Bromley 681]

Just picked it up from the shop!

This ones going away until Christmas holidays, for when I just can't eat any more mince pies and I'm fed up of the same old garbage on the idiot box...

...this will be my retreat.😁

[taffer 948]

Here's mine.......

[urban warrior 359]

Good evening everybody,

sorry, but I think I have a quite controverse opinion on this model. Being in the assembly phase and stumbled over things I do not really like here and there, I want to share what I found so far.

First of all, and before everyone thinks I am a Tamiya-Basher: Tamiya accompanied me a big part of my modelling life (39 years with Tamiya models so far). From static kits to r/c’s. I got some Bruisers (old and Re-Re), Hilux, Blazing Blazer, XC’s, M1025 HMMWV, Lunch Box, TXT-1, Clod Buster and more. All got their pros and cons. And I love them!

Two days ago, I got “my new CC-02 kit”. And while I am building it, I could make up my mind about it. My first and general impression, the new CC-02 is heavily overengineered and oversophisticated, where its predecessor scored with a clean, simple, functional and integrated design. The gearbox is too large compared with other manufacturers solutions (Axial, MST CFX) and its joining surfaces (visual) not fitting “stealthy” as in other Tamiya kits. The idea of using “inlay hex nuts” in a wide scale is very crude in my grasp, so is the idea of glueing parts together in a Tamiya r/c chassis (Whats that all about then??). And that some of the hex nuts have to be secured with little screws and washers to prevent them from falling out is even worse and gives me the impression that this kit has not been designed consequently. I find the frame rear end with lots of tiny plastic parts with pressed in hex nuts simply horrible!

Tamiya is still relying on those outmoded Phillips screws while many other manufacturers are using hex screws (Do I need to explain the differences between force-locking and form-locking?). And the tires from the 90’s of the last millennium, which have been incorporated with the XC/CC Wrangler and the M1025 Hummer in that decade are far from being competitive for serious off-road action.

I believe everyone was waiting for a rigid-front-axle-cross-country-chassis, but I think Tamiya totally missed the target. The new CC-02 reminds me a lot of the CR-01 which was in my eyes a halfhearted attempt to find an answer to the beginning crawler hype. The CR-01 is as overengineered and clumsy. I would have wished that Tamiya just took the XC/CC-01 and made the new design on that base, replacing the IFS with a rigid axle and eliminating some of the flaws of the old design.

The CC-02 will work and drive, that’s not the point. But it does not reflect the genius of Japanese engineering I would expect from Tamiya. It’s really a pity that Tamiya missed the opportunity to create a worthy successor to the XC/CC-01.

On the positive side, the gears are running smoothly. But I would have been surprised if that would be different on a Tamiya model. And that Tamiya is a leading manufacturer in Lexan shells is self-evident. It's just the question which body one likes.

This is just my personal opinion and I stand to it. Now go and load your guns! 

[taffer 948]

Ha ha, some valid points and nothing wrong with sharing your opinion...

Ultimately I have learnt over the years that until you build and run a chassis (run for hours) it's too easy to judge.....

My opinion, although I've only just received my kit.....

Gearbox doesn't look like an issue, I think it's pointless saying why isn't Tamiya like axial etc, each manufacturer has their flaws, it works both ways ...

Being a Tamiya fan and having owned and sold on other manufacturers models I like that Tamiya stick to certain design philosophies, JIS screws I think are part of this to a large extent and with the right tools are not an issue, in glad they stick to this type!

Yes, tyres are a bit lazy after all this time and it would have been nice for a soft compound to be included in the kit BUT you see this argument everywhere nearly with most manufacturers! (I have already bought soft compound versions). At least the kit ones won't flat spot easily!

Over engineering ? Isn't that part of tamiya's tradition? Certainly makes the build interesting.....

Gluing of parts in this build, other internet builders have commented that they never used glue for parts and nuts to hold them in place!? Neither will I.

Plastic pivot balls are a concern, but I will build mine with them and judge later after many hours use.

Lexan body is a shame but it's very well done when viewed in the flesh.

Running videos show it to be very capable!

[Juggular 4961]

1 hour ago, urban warrior said:

Do I need to explain the differences between force-locking and form-locking?

Actually, if you don't mind, I'd be interested in learning anything related to engineering.  

If you could elaborate, I'd appreciate it. 

 

[TurnipJF 9188]

45 minutes ago, Juggular said:

Actually, if you don't mind, I'd be interested in learning anything related to engineering.  

If you could elaborate, I'd appreciate it. 

 

Likewise. Please tell us more!

[markbt73 5311]

It's the difference between putting the tool in and turning it (form-locking, like a hex or Torx) and having to push down on the tool while turning it (force-locking, like Philips or JIS).

[urban warrior 359]

40 minutes ago, markbt73 said:

It's the difference between putting the tool in and turning it (form-locking, like a hex or Torx) and having to push down on the tool while turning it (force-locking, like Philips or JIS).

You got it to the point! To add something additional, Hex or Torx offer a lot more control over the torque you put into a screw in opposite to Phillips or JIS, where it is difficult to judge, since you need to use some axial force while working with the tool.

[berman 5315]

It is understandable that you hate Tamiya screws when built (name dropping) Hiluxes, bruisers old and rere, 1025 hummers, clods lunchboxes etc and now a CC-02 with the wrong tool.

 

[Juggular 4961]

I like the look of hexes.  But personally, I am okay with "budget-minded" Tamiya JIS bolts.  Hexes require higher tolerance and hardness in the tool and the bolts.  A good JIS driver bites. As it wears down, the bite can go away.  But if hex driver wears down as much, it'd be easy to strip.  

The 6 arms that are applying the torque is small in hex bolts (orange below).  Blue is the useless area.  Well, not really useless, because blue area is supplying structural integrity to the corners.  But if the orange area is gone, blue part can't turn the screw.  We've all seen how hex wrench for the grub screws become useless after several uses.  That's because 1.5mm driver's leveraging corners are tiny.  Little bit of wear kills the potency.  Obviously larger M3 bolts would do better. But still, it has smaller leverage area than JIS. 

The torque is also not met at 90 degrees like the blades of JIS.  Each corner is meeting the force at 30 degrees of the angle of attack.  To prevent stripping, the bolt head must be harder to prevent expansion.  The hex driver even harder to resist compression.  This means Tamiya fans must purchase hardened tools.  While many of us own them already, Tamiya seems to want to keep things at the entry-level.  

(I've since learned that the "fictional square driver" was not fictional.  Canadians used the "Robertson square drivers" before the invention of Phillips, back in 1920's.)   

While JIS drivers could last 100 cars, I feel hardened hex drivers would last about 20-30 cars maximum with utmost care.  Careless uses will destroy it much sooner.  A simple X-acto knife can cut hardened tools.  I tried it.  Expensive hardened tools resist wear a lot better.  But if corners lose about 0.3mm each, hex drivers would not be effective. 

Form-fitting is good, but it's a double-edged sword. The driver must be perpendicular with the plane of the bolt head.  It requires gabs to be used otherwise.  And then it starts to wear fast.  JIS can be used at a slight angle, which is user-friendly for first time builders.  

I think this is why Tamiya keeps using JIS.  Fans of hex bolts can use hardened tools and 3rd party bolts to make their cars professional looking.  But if Tamiya supplied with hex screws, I think I'll be in the minority who complains about having to cut a line on the bolt head to extract a stuck hex bolt.  I guess JIS is one of those things Tamiya feels like; "if it ain't broke, why fix it?"  

I didn't mean to dissuade anybody from using hexes.  I invested on good tools so I can use them occasionally.  With better tools and better bolts, the weak points of hex system is largely remedied in recent years.  I'm just saying that JIS is good for vast majority of "hobby level" customers (to whom Tamiya is catering to).   All the same, if it doesn't require a lot of force, and if it's on the exposed part, hex bolts make things look good.  

 

[beetleman 51]

When I saw the new CC02 chassis it looked very familiar...

9 years ago (gosh has it been that long?..) my talented friend and former Tamiyaclub member Zeppelin, designed a CC02 concept from mostly Tamiya parts, modifying a CC01 rear axle into a front one. The gearbox was from Axial. Based on his design, I built a second one, with a few minor improvements. We ran them with Wrangler bodies. They outperformed the CC01's that we had.

We had even shared it all here on Tamiyaclub, providing the blueprints and measurements for everyone to enjoy. I guess time does its thing, as apparently our posts have long been forgotten.

Now I daresay that Tamiya have "borrowed" a lot of ideas from us - IMO the newly released CC02 resembles our design far too closely to be a mere coincidence (except for the battery position). But heck, judge for yourself!

https://www.tamiyaclub.com/showroom_model.asp?cid=101981&id=17334

https://www.tamiyaclub.com/showroom_model.asp?cid=101982&id=17334

[Exitor 6]

Can someone post their running videos or reviews. Seriously thinking to get one soon. 

[Juggular 4961]

14 hours ago, beetleman said:

When I saw the new CC02 chassis it looked very familiar...

9 years ago (gosh has it been that long?..) my talented friend and former Tamiyaclub member Zeppelin, designed a CC02 concept from mostly Tamiya parts, modifying a CC01 rear axle into a front one. The gearbox was from Axial. Based on his design, I built a second one, with a few minor improvements. We ran them with Wrangler bodies. They outperformed the CC01's that we had.

We had even shared it all here on Tamiyaclub, providing the blueprints and measurements for everyone to enjoy. I guess time does its thing, as apparently our posts have long been forgotten.

Now I daresay that Tamiya have "borrowed" a lot of ideas from us - IMO the newly released CC02 resembles our design far too closely to be a mere coincidence (except for the battery position). But heck, judge for yourself!

https://www.tamiyaclub.com/showroom_model.asp?cid=101981&id=17334

https://www.tamiyaclub.com/showroom_model.asp?cid=101982&id=17334

If fans make CC02 on their own, that was a clue for Tamiya to do something.  (Kudos for you, beetleman and Zepplin!)  

Tamiya might have prevented MST to become a competitor with their CMX and CFX if they started CC02 9 years ago.    

But if CC02 came out, they'll sell CC01 less.  Continuing success of CC01 was a zombie grabbing their ankle.    

Finally, Tamiya kicked that zombie and start moving forward.  Better late than never.  

(FYI, I like my CC01. I'm just saying I wanted CC02 in the last century)  

 

[Juggular 4961]

Couldn't edit, so here are two vids. 

Below is a comprehensive review by RC Driver. 

 

[Juls1 1660]

Looks like my CC02 might come tomoz. I’ll get onto a build thread ASAP. 

[Bromley 681]

Looking at the steering setup on the cc02...it appears to me, that  bump steer may be an issue. The angle between the drag link and tie rod is quite extreme. Maybe a longer servo horn will help.

Not seen any reviewers comment on this as yet.

What do you guys think, is it going to be a problem? 

I'm holding off building my cc02 until Christmas.  But it would be nice to have a plan if necessary. 

[taffer 948]

I am going to do the upright servo option, the angle is less severe..

...there is also a Tamiya hopup, alloy extendable servo horn which would help as well

[Exitor 6]

Are there upgrades to metal shock bodies?

[Juls1 1660]

4 hours ago, Exitor said:

Are there upgrades to metal shock bodies?

Not officially, top force hi cap damper should go straight on but you’ll have to find springs elsewhere. The top force springs will be way too hard. The external body on the hicaps is quite wide so the factory springs probably won’t work, unless Tamiya used special wide springs. 

[taffer 948]

The cc-01 Tamiya alloy shocks?

[Juls1 1660]

3 hours ago, taffer said:

The cc-01 Tamiya alloy shocks?

Nah they will be 20mm+ too short

the CR01 shocks should be the right length too, but they where never intended to have springs on them so not sure how that would pan out. 

Not sure if the TXT-2 piggyback shocks might be too long. 
 

there is tons of non Tamiya scale looking shocks. You need 90mm dampers. But 95mm or 100mm if you want a bit more lift and use larger tires. 

[ThunderDragonCy 7873]

4 hours ago, Juls1 said:

There is tons of non Tamiya scale looking shocks. You need 90mm dampers. But 95mm or 100mm if you want a bit more lift and use larger tires. 

Would the big bore rear buggy shocks work? They are aeration though. 93mm IIRC.