CC-02 Cross Country chassis

[Nicadraus 6194]

Looks nice. But I'm pretty sure that Tamiya will milk us for the upgrades. Hopefully, YR nd 3Racing will come out with their own hop up so it'll be so much cheaper to upgrade this kit as compared buying all pure Tamiya parts. 

[Mad Ax 9285]

Well, I'm quite surprised, and not disappointed.  I really didn't think we were going to get a ladder chassis like this, if only because the rest of the market has been doing them for years.  I don't own a CMX and don't have enough experience to say if this is going to compete with it or not.  But it looks fresh - very fresh, considering Tamiya's recent offerings.  I'm not sure if I should jump on this bandwagon right away or wait to see how it performs against a CMX.

It's a strange choice for Tamiya I think because they have placed themselves in direct competition with pretty much everybody else on the market.  Can they compete?  We'll have to see it in action.  If it won't outperform the rest of the crowd then it's got to offer something else - a more scale appearance, maybe, easier wheelbase options, something that works better when built as a street/light trail truck - like the CC01 was (when its inherent flaws were fixed).  I had expected a tub chassis, whether IFS or not.

I still don't really know how I feel.  I have been among those complaining about an IFS chassis under solid axle bodies and now I'm going to complain that they've got solid axles under an IFS body.  It stands to reason.  I hope the CC01 doesn't disappear because it is now the only small IFS chassis on the market.  If you want to built a realistic Pajero or Ranger then that's your only option.  I think it's a shame we didn't get something that fixed the CC01's flaws without changing what it was.

But I'm excited to see a new direction for Tamiya.  It might look a bit generic but then again so does most other stuff.  Generic means more body options.  Bring them on please, Tamiya

[Juggular 4961]

I wanted rigid front, so I'm not complaining.  

It's true that it's 5 years late, and it's no different from many others.  Which made me think about portal axles.  They require too many gears--they might be unsuitable for 1:10th trucks.  Then I thought, "why not a bent up axle?"  

Couldn't below give enough ground clearance?  (Obviously, real 1:1 trucks cannot do this because they need differentials)  But CMX and CFX don't have diffs.  So maybe it could work for RC crawlers?  It could have a center diff like TLT-1 for a little front-back differential.  Bent axle would be something fresh.  

Just an idle thought.  

 

[markbt73 5310]

21 hours ago, Saito2 said:

I imagine we'll see all the CC01/CR01 bodies slapped on this at some time. Body type aside, speaking purely on the mechanicals of the chassis, I'm surprised to see folks wanting IFS. For years I've read complaints about the limiting factors of the IFS are on the CC01 and how it can only be modded/lifted so far for trail crawling. Now, Tamiya brings a solid front axle to the party (albeit way late) and folks want IFS back. Not too offend anyone, but I'm baffled. I guess you can only please some people some of the time...

I think the trouble (at least for me) is that there are dozens of choices for a solid front axle on the market now, which was not the case back when the XC/CC01 was Tamiya's mainstay. Ten years ago, if you wanted a truck with 2 solid axles, your choices were Axial, or a Tamiya high-lift, or a custom build involving TLT or High-Lift axles and a Stampede gearbox. Now, we're spoiled for choice, and this doesn't bring anything new to the party except a Tamiya logo. If it had (has? I'm still holding out hope) the option for IFS, that would make it unique in the marketplace, for those who want to build a scale-accurate IFS truck.

And not for nothing, there's a guy over on Scale Builder's Guild working on a bolt-on IFS conversion for the Axial SCX10 II. So clearly there is some demand for a platform that can be either-or.

[Honza 931]

2 hours ago, Juggular said:

Couldn't below give enough ground clearance? 

Just an idle thought.  

 

You'd need two blue "center bevels" to achieve same direction of rotation. Then, you'd get something like Tatra backbone chassis (google that, interesting concept). I think it's a bit too complicated.

I thought about this, too. But I'd use universal shafts between diff and wheel axle. With 200mm width, 2-3cm lift would be possible even with differential.

[Saito2 6673]

3 hours ago, markbt73 said:

I think the trouble (at least for me) is that there are dozens of choices for a solid front axle on the market now, which was not the case back when the XC/CC01 was Tamiya's mainstay.

Ok, that makes sense. It would nice if Tamiya kept both (ok, at least fix the steering on the CC01) and released the proper bodies based on suspension type. I can't tell you how grating it was to see a Jeep Wrangler with IFS.

[Saito2 6673]

3 hours ago, Juggular said:

It's true that it's 5 years late, and it's no different from many others.  Which made me think about portal axles.  They require too many gears--they might be unsuitable for 1:10th trucks.  Then I thought, "why not a bent up axle?"

I've seen this concept in use back in the day with a Wild Dagger/Twin Detonator stick crawler. The gearboxes had their independent suspensions locked in the droop position with tie rods in place of the shocks. The gearboxes were then tied to a stick chassis upon which they rotated. 

[lsear2905 1279]

After a few days of thought, I think the biggest problem with this release is calling it a CC02.

It's more of a CR02, as it doesn't replace or improve upon the CC01, it is a completely different chassis with the same wheelbase.

[taffer 948]

3 hours ago, lsear2905 said:

After a few days of thought, I think the biggest problem with this release is calling it a CC02.

It's more of a CR02, as it doesn't replace or improve upon the CC01, it is a completely different chassis with the same wheelbase.

Other chassis have also been different

Dt-01 > dt02 > dt03

Df01 > df02 > df03 etc etc

Maybe if Tamiya have a IFS ready for the cc-02 they will either launch a cc03 or add more letters similar to TR to denote IFS?

Cc02st (for street?) Or just cc02ifs (unlikely)

Portal version cc02tr

Portal ver with ifs cc02trst ???

It could be anything or nothing!

 

[Bromley 681]

15 hours ago, Juggular said:

I wanted rigid front, so I'm not complaining.  

It's true that it's 5 years late, and it's no different from many others.  Which made me think about portal axles.  They require too many gears--they might be unsuitable for 1:10th trucks.  Then I thought, "why not a bent up axle?"  

Couldn't below give enough ground clearance?  (Obviously, real 1:1 trucks cannot do this because they need differentials)  But CMX and CFX don't have diffs.  So maybe it could work for RC crawlers?  It could have a center diff like TLT-1 for a little front-back differential.  Bent axle would be something fresh.  

Just an idle thought.  

 

How do you plan on steering that axle? The hub gears will lose drive if they pivot in the normal fashion. And the uprights/gear cases would be almost as big as the wheel. Don't want to bash on new ideas, but I don't see this as a viable proposition for a front axle.  A simple top loading solid axle is still my favourite layout good ground clearance and more options for gearing down.

[Badcrumble 4201]

On 8/29/2019 at 4:02 PM, Mokei Kagaku said:

 

     

   

 

It gives me a headache each time I look at the second photo and the damper appears inside the frame on the closest side, outside on the  other one.

[taffer 948]

eh? yes! one shock is mounted inside the frame??????

[yogi-bear 2315]

7 minutes ago, Badcrumble said:

It gives me a headache each time I look at the second photo and the damper appears inside the frame on the closest side, outside on the  other one.

 

1 minute ago, taffer said:

eh? yes! one shock is mounted inside the frame??????

I think if you look at it carefully, the shock actually disappears, so its a photoshop cut-away, so the shocks on the outside. I think the idea is to show the mounting point behind it.

[Badcrumble 4201]

29 minutes ago, yogi-bear said:

 

I think if you look at it carefully, the shock actually disappears, so its a photoshop cut-away, so the shocks on the outside. I think the idea is to show the mounting point behind it.

It is hard to see on my tiny phone . The photo still bakes my noodle! The lower part of the shock appears inside the frame too. 

I thought that if you mounted the shock inside the frame it would be at too much of an an angle to the mount on the axle. I couldn’t see how it would work without a second mounting point on the axle - which doesn’t exist.

How about a leaf spring set-up as an option?

[yogi-bear 2315]

4 minutes ago, Badcrumble said:

It is hard to see on my tiny phone . 

I hadn't even noticed it until you pointed it out 

 

Quote

The photo still bakes my noodle! The lower part of the shock seems inside the frame too.

I thought that if you mounted the shock inside the frame it would be at too much of an an angle to the mount on the axle. I couldn’t see how it would work without a second mounting point on the axle - which doesn’t exist.

How about a leaf spring set-up as an option?

now there is a hop-up idea!

[78Triumph 2610]

The lower links look way too bulky.  Why make them like that?  Use metal rod and ball end links like most other crawlers and trail trucks and stop cheaping out.  Sure they look beefier than the wet noodle rear links on the CC-01 but they're still plastic.  Those stock tires, if they're the same as the CC-01 are hard rubber garbage right out of the box.  I want to support Tamiya's efforts but they need to up their game.  Interested to see what they're gonna be priced at.  Anything over 300 bucks forget it. 

[ChrisRx718 4470]

I've pre-ordered, estimated price of around the £225 mark (notwithstanding Brexit shenanigans!!)

Expensive, yes, but the CC01 was never particularly 'cheap'.

[taffer 948]

Hopefully it comes with LED light kit (seeing as preview pictures show illumination).

Although I'd prefer a hard bodied kit for this type of chassis, for a first kit of cc02 I'm sure many like me will enjoy putting the stock kit through its paces to see how it holds up and if I continue to enjoy running it then Ill purchase hopefully a hard bodied kit to add some hopups to.

I remember the konghead and dancing rider situation....I pre-ordered both expecting a christmas build and they were much delayed which could mean the UK won't officially see them until after December! or maybe Tamiya will despatch more this time!

[RCvet 63]

I know everyone is going to compare this to the latest crawlers and find the flaws.  Let me bring a different angle for the heck of it.  We all know Tamiya does it's own thing for better or worse.  I still enjoy myCC01 more often than a few different brands of modern crawler.  It has charm that while not as hardcore is somehow just more fun to me. The CC02 seems like it will be a split of the two at least from what we see here.  Somwhere between a slow crawler and a trail truck, maybe a better all rounder than a pure crawler rig.  Inching along up inclines and such puts me to sleep and I will take something that can still kick up a bit of dust at the same time. 

Who knows, I am excited to get one. 

[Juls1 1660]

I’ll be getting one no question, It’ll be a better rock crawler probably than the cc01. But that being said, my brother has a TRX4, and to date it’s never done anything I couldn’t do with my heavily modded CC01. A majority of it comes down to tires at the end of the day and anyone with any trail experience will never even put the stock CC02 tires on the chassis at all. Some heavy beadlocks wheels and good soft rc4wd rubber (or similar) makes more difference than almost anything else you’ll do. 

As for the hardbody vs poly body. My hardbody pajero can’t climb to save itself, constantly flips over backwards. My poly body pajero is almost impossible to flip over backwards. When it comes to outright capability a heavy pvc body is unlikely to be helpful as it’s weight where you don’t want it. That being said it’s much more realistic.

One day we built a track with a near 75deg angle rough/bumpy sandy slippery climb about 3 meters high, my cc01 just drove straight over it, neither the accompanying Traxxas trx4 or the vaterra ascender could get to the top in first gear (same speed as the cc01), they just started bouncing and it was over. That was entirely down to the ifs setup that the CC01 could do it. Reality is that’s a rare situation and most people are driving on grippy rocks at low speed so that attribute is rarely exploited. 

Juls

[Nicadraus 6194]

3 hours ago, ChrisRx718 said:

I've pre-ordered, estimated price of around the £225 mark (notwithstanding Brexit shenanigans!!)

Expensive, yes, but the CC01 was never particularly 'cheap'.

This is true. I re-built my dad's 23 year old CC-01 and I never thought I'd spend $230 for upgrades. The CC-01 had so many flaws in its design especially the steering. 

[Juls1 1660]

To be fair at least with the cc01 now you can just buy the yeah racing set and it pretty much sorts it out. My first 3 cc01’s went through many generations of hopups and modifications.  

[Nicadraus 6194]

54 minutes ago, Juls1 said:

To be fair at least with the cc01 now you can just buy the yeah racing set and it pretty much sorts it out. My first 3 cc01’s went through many generations of hopups and modifications.  

Yup. Plus GPM, Xtra Speed and Hot Racing. Although I have mentioned in my CC-01 build thread that the Xtra Speed and GPM aluminum steering are nothing but crap. Waste of money effort and time. Go for either YR or HR when ot comes to upgrading the steering. 

[Badcrumble 4201]

2 hours ago, Nicadraus said:

Yup. Plus GPM, Xtra Speed and Hot Racing. Although I have mentioned in my CC-01 build thread that the Xtra Speed and GPM aluminum steering are nothing but crap. Waste of money effort and time. Go for either YR or HR when ot comes to upgrading the steering. 

I followed your thread and have ordered a Hot Racing set up in case the CC-01 ceases production and associated third party support stop.

[Juggular 4961]

On 8/30/2019 at 2:49 PM, Honza said:

You'd need two blue "center bevels" to achieve same direction of rotation. Then, you'd get something like Tatra backbone chassis (google that, interesting concept). I think it's a bit too complicated.

I thought about this, too. But I'd use universal shafts between diff and wheel axle. With 200mm width, 2-3cm lift would be possible even with differential.

 

13 hours ago, Bromley said:

How do you plan on steering that axle? The hub gears will lose drive if they pivot in the normal fashion. And the uprights/gear cases would be almost as big as the wheel. Don't want to bash on new ideas, but I don't see this as a viable proposition for a front axle.  A simple top loading solid axle is still my favourite layout good ground clearance and more options for gearing down.

@Honza, @Bromley, You guys are sharp!  

To be honest, only hours later in bed, I thought of needing a counter gear.  I didn't even think about steering.  As @Honza says, universals can be used. (I suppose it should be dual Cardan joints)

Tatra chassis is exciting!  Tamiya already has.. .skewed-cross-gears(?) where there are two disks and two pinions on DB02.    

Each arm is pivoting on a pinion!  That's so cool.  

 

Differentials in the central tube would be nearly impossible with an RC version.  Having a huge tube to incorporate planetary gears would defeat the purpose.  For crawlers without diffs, it won't matter.  

Could Tatra pivot on the center tube too?  Probably not on 1:1 because of the diffs.  The articulation would be good if it could just pivot, even without arms flapping independently.  Far less gears than Dynahead, but better articulation.  It certainly would be a fresh new design for RC crawlers. (though, as a corporation, Tamiya would prefer developing Konghead, which uses 70% old parts)  

I would have thrown money at CC02, if CC02 had this kind of new chassis.  I already have CC01.  I'll wait and see which one takes the cake, CMX, CFX or CC02.  (too many "C"s...)