Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Back in 2012, the world was a different place. For starters, I did not have a Tamiya Striker - until late in the year:


Apparently, I had a hankering for something very different, and the Striker was unlike many things before or since. The "sharp wind-cheating Formula 1-style body" [- Tamiya promotional video] and the desire to "hit the trail and strike out the competition" [- also the Tamiya promotional video] led me to acquire one.

It was put together during my time in post-secondary school, which meant minimal effort to get it going. The only chassis modification I made at the time was adding the Team CRP front chassis brace and bumper set for the Futaba FX-10. Stickers, different tires, and a painted helmet were all I needed to "enjoy" the Striker experience.

I ran that car for two years, after which its run time became sporadic (I even half-heartedly listed it for sale in 2016), to be resurrected in 2021. For all that time, the car retained its controversial front swing-axle suspension. Accompanied by a heavily rear-biased weight distribution and pure friction dampers, the understeer was very tangible. Initially, I accepted it as part of driving a Tamiya Striker, but over time, the intrigue of a double-wishbone conversion at the front end lingered.

The time finally arrived when I pushed the Striker a bit too hard and broke both front suspension arms:




My wallet made the decision for me to finally abandon the stock front suspension setup: not only were front suspension arms scarce, but they were expensive! It was cheaper to attempt modifications than to shell out for NOS parts, and so the trials of customization and testing commenced.

The first iteration used Grasshopper II parts:


Citing similarities between the Striker and Grasshopper II, I came to learn that about the only front-end components those two models had in common were wheels and tires. I did manage to make it functional, if not entirely useful...

And so begins the modification of a humble Tamiya Striker!

Edited by Grastens
Changed title and added context
  • Like 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Granted, it was a glorious final ride for these parts, but there was no getting around the reality of brittle 1980s plastics:


(not necessarily that they were brittle to start, but that age has given them this condition)

Hoping to find some new-old stock replacements, I was instead surprised by both the scarcity and exclusivity of the supply. I mean, I thought there were so many more options when I last looked for some two years ago :P

Noting that the re-released Grasshopper II also used a front swing-axle suspension and was the contemporary of the Striker, I instead ordered a set of front suspension arms for that model. It was my thought that the fresher plastics would also withstand more abuse than original parts.

Well, I came up a bit short:


With a spacer to take up the rest of the room in the front suspension pivots, though, I was convinced it could work - especially if I could remember where I left my old metal bearings and bushings... Having recently assembled a VQS at this point, I knew that kit had given me some 630-size bushings that I had swapped for ball bearings. Perhaps those would fit?

Having failed to locate the bushings, but having a surfeit of spare ball bearings in that size, I did something odd:


They fit perfectly! And now I can say my Striker has a "ball bearing-supported front suspension!" :D

However, as the damper mounting points are different between the Striker and the Grasshopper II, I could no longer use the stock friction dampers. By cutting material off the friction damper bodies on the Grasshopper II parts tree and drilling deeper into said bodies, I was able to slap together some kind of functional substitute for the front dampers:


This took several tries, and obviously significantly reduces the amount of suspension travel at the front. It was all I could do, however. The reduced travel was coupled with an increased static ride height, which actually meant some positive camber at the front end. Alluding to the earlier comments about understeer, this was definitely not the answer!

And still, I drove it like this:


I had succeeded in repairing my Striker to running condition, but was obviously displeased with the extent to which I managed to accomplish it. If I was not going to make a decent swing-axle front end, I may as well skip straight to a double-wishbone conversion...

  • Like 6
  • Haha 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

While the front suspension was the biggest issue to tackle (having already solved the problem of the weak front chassis), I acknowledged that the Striker was deficient in damping, grip, and steering response.

My solution, then, was to replace the dampers, wheels, and tires, and add some weight to the nose of the car for a more favourable front/rear distribution. The third-named is addressed with the deliveries in the following photo:


As for wheels and tires, I went for inexpensive imitations of Kyosho Turbo Scorpion wheels, paired with mini-pin tread tires, such as these:


I also threw in a lot with these aftermarket oil dampers:


While I was incorrect about the front suspension components, I was a lot more confident that the Grasshopper/Hornet and Striker shared damper dimensions. The lack of a top eyelet on the front dampers made the decision easier, as my vision of a double-wishbone suspension conversion included the original shock tower.

The reasoning for working with the original shock tower was:

- I did not want to cut out the body in any way to accommodate the Team CRP kit tower, which is a given for that particular kit. What if I wanted to run it completely stock again, even if I could not entirely imagine why?

- The stock front shock tower is lower-profile than either the Team CRP kit piece or the more popular (and also scarce) Sonic Fighter shock tower, which was designed to handle Tamiya's CVA dampers. To me, this is part of the Striker's (limited) aesthetic appeal.

... But mostly the first one. I could also not trust my cutting skills to make a decent-looking incision. I do have a spare upper shell in questionable condition to work on later, however...

Therefore, my second iteration of this modification would involve: Team CRP front suspension components and hardware; a lightly-modified stock front shock tower; and aftermarket small-bore oil dampers, all accompanying new wheels and tires and a weighted front end. Could it work?

  • Like 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the interim: my brother-in-law is an expert with 3D printers and CAD software, so I handed over the Striker to him for a few days and asked him if he could design a new front shock tower for the Striker. I also requested a print of suspension components for a double-wishbone front suspension kit for the Tamiya Grasshopper, the reason being that this other kit offered an outboard damper mounting point absent on the Team CRP kit.

He did a fine job modelling the surprisingly-complex shape of the front shock tower's mount to the chassis, but as an admitted rookie to vehicle suspension design, the final design was... strange, like if the stock Striker shock tower was made taller and each arm twisted towards the nose of the car. I gave him a more detailed design brief and requested a rework of the parts :P Whatever the case, he is definitely more capable than me with the stuff, and agreed to do it free of charge. I thanked him profusely, though he mentioned that anything that justifies his ownership of a 3D printer is quite welcome!

Back to the parts at hand, I lucked out in finding two pieces of 3 x 32 mm threaded rod. Less surprising was my ability to find four spare ball end adjusters, as my recent spate of kit-building left me with plenty of spares. I then drilled two holes for ball connectors in the front shock tower, and drilled two more holes in the front suspension arms to place the lower front damper mount outboard. An extended ball connector and flange nut on each hub carrier finished the deal.

The result looked like this:


I liked this solution a lot, citing its clean aesthetic. Ideally, the lower eyelets for the dampers would be placed further outboard to keep the dampers as straight as possible (you may be able to see the slight outward bend of the damper in this photo), but doing so would have meant removing a structural brace on each lower arm. This iteration also allowed for the lower arm and hub carrier to be assembled as intended.

As for the 3D-printed Tamiya Grasshopper suspension kit: I encountered the same issues that I had with the Grasshopper II front arms, and could not reconcile the stock front shock tower and the parts' damper mounting points. However, with the same ball-bearing solution(!) and a redesigned front shock tower, it could work.

More on the current iteration:



With about 60 g of ballast in the nose, the rear dampers fitted, and the new wheels and tires, it looks a bit more serious:


The front bumper had to be moved forward to clear the larger tires at full steering lock, meaning two more holes to drill in the chassis brace I was using. I hope it drives as well as it looks!

  • Like 5

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

A test drive confirmed the soundness of the concept: while the nose was still a bit light, turn-in was improved, and the car was a lot more predictable off jumps and uneven terrain. I took the liberty of adding a Traxxas Scorpion 20T brushed motor and a heatsink, after which the Striker began to realize its "tremendous potential for upgrading to unbelievable performance" [- Tamiya promotional video] with a healthy turn of speed.

Unfortunately, the hub carrier mounting and aftermarket dampers were not up to the task. The mounts loosened up considerably during that test run, but more devastating was the dampers' complete inability to retain any oil in their bodies. Back to the figurative drawing board...

The next (and most current) iteration involves addressing both issues, and uses genuine Tamiya CVA dampers and long screws.

To solve the issue of mounting points for the upper eyelet, I cut off the top eyelet and drilled out the cap to accept a machine-thread screw:


The O-rings were later omitted, and a flange nut was placed on top of the cap for retention.

While the dampers are a considerable improvement over the cheap aftermarket shocks (I got what I paid for - the dampers did not even have diaphragms!), the larger bore means that the tops of the dampers no longer sit flush to the front shock tower. This both complicated mounting and reduced the amount of available suspension stroke. Worse still was that the threading of the flange nut and screw arrangement allowed the nut to loosen while fastening the damper to the shock tower, which was accomplished with a convoluted setup of O-rings and nyloc nuts (to address loosening under vibration).

I then realized that this version is in fact a downgraded version of this:


For reference, I estimate I have about 5 mm less suspension travel on my Striker than on this one. Not very useful... It is not quite a coincidence that I ended up here: this modified Striker was one of my first inspirations for a double-wishbone front end, but the intervening years (remember, my Striker mostly sat between 2014 and 2021) I had forgotten that this image existed.

As with the first iteration, the car can technically run, but I am not satisfied with the execution of my particular solution. At least there is no positive camber! That shock tower might explode with the complete lack of travel, though...

Where do we go from here? I see a few options:

- I could attempt to rework the aftermarket dampers to address leakage. This would be difficult, as my other attempts to add sealing in the forms of different O-rings and/or diaphragms have not been successful thus far.

- I could ditch the stock front shock tower, cut out the upper shell, and use the Team CRP piece. As a proven setup, this would guarantee a working car.

- I could ditch the stock front shock tower and redesign the printed part to produce something like the Sonic Fighter front shock tower, but in smaller form. This would be the most appealing choice if I had not already modified the top caps of the front dampers.

- I could reuse the stock front friction dampers! Incidentally, this was something I considered well before I began any modifications, as I felt that the Striker's tendency to bounce was part of its character. Paired with a double-wishbone front suspension, the car would be a little more manageable. It would mean an unbalanced car, unless I did remove the lovely CVA dampers that work so well on the rear end...

Whatever the case, the lower suspension components seem to work well, and so will remain as they are. I may actually attempt to remove the structural brace to gain a further outboard damper position on the lower arms; in return, I would run a threaded rod through the stock Team CRP kit mounting holes to compensate for the loss of rigidity.

If nothing else, this project has renewed my interest in the Striker! :D

  • Like 6

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The work and mods you have done are top notch and would be a huge improvement BUTTTTT,looks wise. What is the saying "you can not polish a ?" : )

  • Haha 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2021 at 11:01 AM, Gazzalene said:

The work and mods you have done are top notch and would be a huge improvement BUTTTTT,looks wise. What is the saying "you can not polish a ?" : )


I like to think that I am improving the looks by forgoing the Sonic Fighter front shock tower - too tall, in my opinion. I don't care how useful it is! :P

On 9/4/2021 at 1:38 PM, FromageTheDog said:

I realize the Striker is crude, but I've always loved the way they look.

Really hope Tamiya re-res it someday...

Me, too! Heck, even a "Neo Striker" that is really just a Neo Fighter without a roof would satisfy! An upcoming project, perhaps...

On 9/4/2021 at 3:18 PM, Goudar said:

Great project, I hope somedays Tamiya rere this one. I really love that look.

And for all the aesthetic challenges the Striker purportedly faces, so do I - possibly because of that F1-inspired look.

A test drive with the last iteration was actually quite promising. For what it lacks in suspension travel, the new setup compensates with stability. With a proper double-wishbone configuration, higher-volume oil dampers, bigger tires, and the chassis brace, the car actually handled well, and made quick work of jumps. It has me thinking that I am on the right course, but just require a bit more attention to detail to make it all even better.

With that, I made the decision to do the following:

On 9/4/2021 at 6:23 AM, Grastens said:

... I may actually attempt to remove the structural brace to gain a further outboard damper position on the lower arms; in return, I would run a threaded rod through the stock Team CRP kit mounting holes to compensate for the loss of rigidity.

The change was that I used the Team CRP-supplied shaft with C-clips to secure the front arms, instead of threaded rods.

To make it work:


By removing the plastic between the front and rear sections of the suspension arm (left), I can fit the screw and accessories (centre) to both mount the damper to the arm and compensate for the loss of rigidity from the absent brace. I figured out that the front knuckle (right) fouls the lower damper spring collar at full compression, so I took a Dremel and sanding drum to it to grind off some material:


The unmodified version is on the left, while the reworked version is on the right.

(as an aside, the defect in the left-side piece saw Team CRP generously donating a complete spare set of nylon parts for the FX-10 suspension kit in return. I was very much satisfied, and also free to experiment with the parts in such a risky manner, knowing I had spares)

With a different lower mounting point for the dampers, the result now looks like this:


And at full compression:


While suspension travel has not been significantly improved, the dampers are subject to less lateral stress and thus bind less when the suspension is compressed. And of course, there is no getting around the fact that a shorter damper tower means less suspension travel. With the acceptance of these limitations while embracing the performance improvements that the current setup provides, I believe I have reached the potential of this particular configuration.

The initial appearances were still not promising, until I remembered that I still needed to re-install the chassis brace. This limits downward travel; previously, the suspension provided an awkward-looking reverse rake, but the car adopted a much more conventional stance after installation:


Still not a lot of suspension travel at the front, but on the other hand, if the suspension is not too stressed, it should provide a good nose-up attitude on jumps:


Nevertheless, I saw fit to add even more damper spacers to the rear to keep the car relatively-level. With the amount of sag that I had built into the rear dampers, the reverse rake was likely to reappear under running:


The larger tires should also help to absorb some of the shock from landing impacts. They do have foam inserts, albeit soft ones.

How could I modify this further? The ideas I have for later upgrades include:

- The use of Tamiya Super Mini CVA dampers at the front. Will they provide the clearance for the other suspension parts while keeping a still-usable volume? A set of four on the way (intended for touring car use - but I have repurposed touring car dampers for off-road use before, as on my 037 4WD-H) will answer that!

- An updated 3D-printed shock tower that has proper mounting holes for upper damper eyelets. My solution works, but I would much rather not modify the top caps of future dampers. The current setup is also difficult to tighten down, as the lack of reverse threading means the shaft must actually be secured while the top nyloc nut is tightened to prevent inadvertent reaming of the top cap.

Unrelated to the front suspension:

- A larger rear wing. I had a nice hop-up rear wing somewhere... There is a surfeit of modern-style rear wings by Tamiya, but I believe the appearance of the classic hop-up rear wing, emulating those found on the Astute and other vintage buggies, would be more suitable. I also have little to gain from a modern wing over an older one, by my superficial assessment :P

- It is clear the shell could use a restoration. I have new reproduction decals and better painting skills, and the current decals and paint are either chipping, flaking off, or lifting.

I may also attempt a cockpit revision per TC member kontemax's superb Striker restoration to eliminate the now-unnecessary protrusion that originally provided clearance for a mechanical speed controller. A semi-depth cockpit could even be possible with the newfound space in the Striker's lower shell (with the small size of modern electronics), but the glacial pace of my Ferrari 312T3 project using the same concept is currently steering me clear of that particular idea.

More to come, then?


  • Like 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, I drove it:




As in the earlier session with the smaller dampers, the car exhibited pleasant handling characteristics. It behaved well over rough terrain and jumps, and was perhaps even better on turn-in with a better-dampened front end. It is clear that I still need to adjust my driving style when driving a rear-wheel drive buggy, but the result was still much sweeter than driving a stock Striker!



It looks a bit more purposeful with the modern tires, and their pattern is more suitable for more varieties of surfaces, but I may still reinstall the original wheels and tires to better evaluate the new suspension in isolation.

The new tires also tend to skip over the ground under hard turning. I may need to either add more ballast at the front (I already jammed all the self-adhesive weights I could into the nose), make camber adjustments to the front, or switch tread patterns. However, as I am not an expert at RC car setup, who knows what I actually need to do to amend this? All I know is that the original swing-arm front suspension and stock tires did not do this, but I still prefer this new behaviour over the old setup's propensity to slide for a few metres before actually turning!

Whatever the case, I am happy with the performance improvements that came with my slapdash revisions:


Edit: as an aside, here is kontemax's wonderful Striker - pictures below:



A restoration of this magnitude would be ambitious, but also a fine way to repay a car that I have come to enjoy for so many years :D More information and pictures are here!

  • Like 7

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The gearbox, through all of my sessions with the car, clicked aggressively under acceleration. Thinking it was a missing outdrive pin causing the two halves of the differential to shift, I opened up the gearbox to find that I managed to strip two teeth off the counter gear! It must have been a hard jump - and it was; I even remember the break in the pavement that caused it, looking back...

With unfortunately no spares, I have ordered two sets of Grasshopper gearbox innards, which incidentally cost about as much as one standalone counter gear :blink:

I wonder if a slipper clutch could have reduced the shock on the drivetrain, although since it happened at the interface between the counter gear and the differential, it would have been less likely... Whatever the case, I am amazed that my humble STRIKER could even do such a thing!

It all reminds me that a sealed differential, let alone a ball differential, let alone a slipper clutch, does not appear to exist for the Grasshopper - much less the Striker! A casing was proposed here on TamiyaClub, but it appears nothing came of that thought exercise.

Though my Striker could benefit greatly from either or both, it may be too much to ask for an entry-level buggy! :P

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some pictures of the affected gear:



Incredibly, just yesterday I found a spare counter gear lying in a bag of miscellaneous things (and not just miscellaneous RC stuff, either - I found bike parts and other odds in there!), so I took it upon myself to rebuild everything. While it was all apart, though, I took dimensions of the gear case, differential, and joint cups...

It does render my extra parts on order superfluous, but it will be nice to know that I have spares in case it happens again!

While I was at it, I refreshed the front dampers and reverted the car to its stock wheels and tires. Following this was a photo session:


It is now as I had mostly envisioned it:


I am interested in seeing how the car will drive on its stock wheels and tires:


The face of a survivor:


"Shakey" Roop has seen better days, but he still gets to see them:


Rubber bushings went back into the drive cups to keep the arrangement from shifting laterally. Here, the dog bones sit properly in the cups:


The "Stinger" in the tail:


The rear dampers use additional spacers to stiffen up the back end. They could use rebuilding to a similar rebound setup as the fronts, but for now they work smoothly, so I am leaving them:


Meanwhile, the front end gets a minor update, with the flange nut and washer arrangement on the screw linking the upper link to the hub carrier getting replaced by two plastic bearings/spacers:


Not quite visible here are the shaved front knuckles. Their reinforcing ribs were removed to allow clearance of the hub carrier at full lock. If the knuckles break under driving, I do have spares, and I will know not to repeat that again:


The stock steering links remain - for now. Threaded rods and adjusters are on their way to build up a sturdier steering system up front. The stock servo saver has since been replaced with a Tamiya Directly-Connected Servo Saver that creaks under full lock; I would have preferred Tamiya's High-Torque Servo Saver, but it did not have the offset required for the Striker's particular chassis. After adjusting the steering travel, servo saver, steering links, and front knuckles, the issue is now at a manageable level.

In summary:


The original wheels and tires mitigate the "reverse rake" that reappeared after I refreshed the front dampers. It is still there, but is less exaggerated than with the modern wheels and tires.

What is next for this buggy?

- The updated front shock tower will be completed sometime. My brother-in-law is a very busy man, but I am prepared to give him all the time he needs/wants for his princely service charge of FREE! What a guy :D

- The Tamiya CVA Super Mini dampers will be tried out with both front shock towers. I will reuse the top caps from the current CVA Mini dampers for anything involving the original tower, and round up the necessary pieces for fitment to the new design.

- I alluded to new steering turnbuckles (and I do mean turnbuckles - courtesy of the aftermarket) - these will be fitted once they arrive.

- Maybe one day, I will remember where I put that hop-up rear wing...

- There is a reason I have been measuring the gearbox. I hope what I have in mind works ;)

The test drive will be sometime this week!

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2021 at 3:48 PM, Grastens said:

What is next for this buggy?

- The updated front shock tower will be completed sometime. My brother-in-law is a very busy man, but I am prepared to give him all the time he needs/wants for his princely service charge of FREE! What a guy :D

- The Tamiya CVA Super Mini dampers will be tried out with both front shock towers. I will reuse the top caps from the current CVA Mini dampers for anything involving the original tower, and round up the necessary pieces for fitment to the new design.

- I alluded to new steering turnbuckles (and I do mean turnbuckles - courtesy of the aftermarket) - these will be fitted once they arrive.

- Maybe one day, I will remember where I put that hop-up rear wing...

- There is a reason I have been measuring the gearbox. I hope what I have in mind works ;)

The test drive will be sometime this week!

What has happened since then?

- The updated front shock tower has now been completed. My testing has shown that I could indeed use a taller tower, so in addition to a stock-height tower with mounting holes for upper damper eyelets, I specified a second one with a height increase of 10 mm over the stock part. I handed over a spare stock front shock tower and one R-part to my brother-in-law for reference material, so I am confident that these new parts will be up to spec.

- No word on the CVA Super Mini dampers, though... The modified tower means I could run the regular CVA Mini dampers, however.

- Steering turnbuckles are on their way now. I believe I will require one 68 mm rod and one 52 mm rod to duplicate the effect of one 75 mm linkage and one 60 mm linkage as used in the stock Striker. Additional ball end adjusters are also in the post; I have the requisite 5 mm ball ends to create a proper turnbuckle tie rod system for the buggy.

- I learned that the hop-up rear wing I mentioned is in fact Tamiya part number 53055 - and it turns out these are expensive!


As much as I love my Striker, I think I will be shelving this idea for now. If I want a similar aesthetic, I can always order an Egress or Super Astute rear wing, as I have the hardware to complete it. Instead, a (much more common) Rising Fighter rear wing will be on its way, providing both a better colour match and possibly better resistance to rollover damage!

- The gearbox measurements have been made, and the parts have been ordered.

To model the Tamiya 53055 rear wing, I used the leftover wing from my long-departed Astute, stuck onto the stock Striker wing using double-sided tape!


I think I had the right idea, but it looks a bit strange with the stock wheels... And, of course, in red :P A change to the modern setup yielded a slight improvement, in my opinion:


To me, it looks better-proportioned this way.

The front end received yet another minor update with some further shaving of the front c-hubs:


This particular cutout allows the damper spring seats to sit more evenly. The resulting effect on structural integrity has yet to be determined.

But the biggest leap of faith was taken for the back end:


Here, we see a mock-up chassis prepared for testing rear gearbox and suspension arm fitment. It may eventually be used for bench testing, as well, once all parts are sourced.

And what is it testing? The outdrives look different, don't they?


And surprisingly, not Thorp Dirt Burners! 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The project, in fact, is an experiment to fit a Striker with a sealed (or a facsimile thereof) gear differential. The open-gear differential is durable and effective, but is difficult to tune using different-viscosity greases or oils.

My own research has suggested that the Tamiya Rising Fighter has a differential that is similar in circumference to the Striker. The unit is much wider, but should fit in the gearbox. It uses three significantly-smaller metal bevel gears under a cover which should provide some measure of sealing for grease retention, though not oil.

In theory, then: a Rising Fighter differential, should it fit, would offer a bit of tuning adjustment with the added benefit of using more common parts. The Striker's differential is entirely in common with the Grasshopper's et al., but I found the large bevel gears use a shaft flat for the outdrives instead of the hexagonal shapes for the Grasshopper's outdrives/axles.

The Rising Fighter's differential does use splines for its outdrives, meaning the Striker cups (and the rare Thorp Dirt Burners) will be useless. I therefore need to figure out alternatives, meaning either a proper metal dog-bone system or even CVDs will need to be installed.

The offset nature of the Rising Fighter differential also indicates that two very different drive cups are required, with one being significantly longer than the other. It is not too common in RC cars, but appears on buggies like the Vanquish...

Here is a stock Striker differential (with new large bevel gears) in a gearbox with a stock-style spur counter gear:


And confirming my suspicions, the same gearbox with a Rising Fighter differential:


However, I was not spot-on: for some reason, the Rising Fighter differential is in fact ONE TOOTH SMALLER than the Grasshopper's! That is 49 teeth vs. 50 (somehow, I did not think to count them before acquiring the parts to build one), but both at the same module (0.8). The minuscule yet distinguishable difference is pictured below:


THAT CLOSE to being a perfect fit! However, aside from a bit more gear backlash, the gears still spun well. It remains to be seen how the reduced contact area will affect high-speed/high-impact running, but as the original differential was famously durable, I may yet get away with the discrepancy in measurements.

More incredibly, I borrowed a rear diff outdrive from my Tamiya VQS and paired that with one from my Comical Avante (I think) to fit into the gearbox, and they work! Engagement is positive, with more than 5 mm of the splines on each outdrive meshing with the differential's large bevel gears.

Revisiting an old picture:


I had some leftover axle cups and drive shafts from my Lancia 037, having swapped these parts out for CVDs. As such, I had the axle cups on hand and they fit perfectly. On the mock-up chassis, they are plugged in with plastic 1150 bearings; new metal ball bearings are on the way, and I am also refurbishing my used ball bearings as I type.

What I did not have were appropriate dogbone drive shafts. Somebody did successfully install CVDs on their Tamiya Falcon, though. This gave me a guide on finding the correct dogbone shafts, as well as exploring CVDs, since the Falcon and Striker share driveline components. The user over on RC10Talk discovered that dogbone shafts measuring 52.5 mm from centre to centre gave the best performance, but mentioned that XRay measures their dogbones from end to end (so a 52 mm CVD from them was in fact 46 mm centre to centre), and that HPI dogbone ends are slightly too big for Tamiya diff cups (he eventually reamed out said diff cups with a 6 mm drill bit, and everything worked well after that). My own experience with my mock-up chassis and leftover Astute dogbones suggested that drive shafts between 52 mm and 56 mm in centre-to-centre length would work.

The CVDs in question over there were MIP-1182 types, or long-axle CVDs for the HPI Nitro RS4. I had no luck finding them, so I do have some alternatives:

- dog bones for the HPI WR8 Flux. Some sources indicate that these measure either 72 mm or 77 mm long, but I found ones that were measured and stated as 56 mm, centre to centre.

- CVDs for the HPI WR8 Flux, with similar equivalent dimensions to the dog bones mentioned. The axles do appear to be 3 mm longer than the ex-TA-02S axle cups I am using, so I will need to account for that if they do fit in the chassis.

- unbranded CVDs from an overseas online seller. These are mentioned as having 53 mm driveshafts and 27 mm axles, so even less of a certainty that they will fit in the Striker. My primary concern would be with the axles, though.

I could be incorrect about the 56 mm measurement, especially in the face of another established build. Despite this, I had even more trouble finding a 52 mm dog bone drive shaft, as the several dozen available online are all marked for WLToys-branded 1:18 RC cars, which appear to use a smaller dog bone end than the drive shafts on 1:10 cars.

So, in the absence of additional research, my findings have been:

- a Rising Fighter differential will fit in a Tamiya Striker, although the tooth counts are not identical (49T vs. 50T stock). Diff cover must be on the right-hand side of the car (facing up when installed in the left gearbox half), or else the arrangement will not spin freely.

- to fit a Rising Fighter differential, one differential cup from Tamiya 53218 (with pin) and another differential cup from Tamiya 9804449 (without pin) will work.

- dogbone drive shafts of at least 52 mm should work, with the (unconfirmed) potential to go up to 56 mm.

I will update my findings once the drive shafts arrive.

Aside: all of this happened before my revelation that the Striker probably needs a wide-open differential to mitigate its understeering tendencies! Nonetheless, this has been a very engaging exercise, and may be useful later if/when I sort out the understeer on the front end.

In the meantime, I have an all-new gearbox out of this:


The Rising Fighter differential lives in here for now, packed full of lithium grease, with a Grasshopper spur counter gear and a steel 0.8 module pinion (18T) to keep it company. All of the parts seen here were spares I had available, and appear to be unused. This entire assembly is ready to drop into the Striker when the time comes ;) But I am more likely to disassemble the current gearbox and drop it in there :P

The Striker may be approaching uncharted territory now...

  • Like 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Striker was wheeled out for another run - minus the new differential, of course, pending proper dogbones/CVDs:




These pictures were taken after the buggy had rolled over after hitting a sizable pothole. It knocked one of the Astute wing side plates askew, so after the session I took the time to properly secure them:


Also observable during the session was some positive camber on the front end. I shortened the upper suspension links to about one degree negative camber, which had a slight positive effect on front-end grip.

In many other respects, the car drives very well compared to its stock form. Sorting out the front end has helped the car's understeer to the point that it behaves predictably: letting off the throttle on the corner actually helps sharpen turn-in, whereas on the stock Striker, the car tended to go where it was last pointed before the front tires were able to convince it otherwise!

It also jumps beautifully, landing with great stability. The bounciness of the stock Striker was fun for a time, but having a much more capable buggy has its merits, too.

With the larger tires and Astute rear wing, it actually looked better, too - or at least in my opinion.

With the note that the car feels better balanced with the stock open-gear differential, testing with the "sealed" Rising Fighter differential will wait - but I am aware that I will be taking delivery of the new printed front shock towers this weekend. More to come!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few more test sessions this week:







The car is now running beautifully. Oversteer on demand is now a thing, and I feel I am now at a point where I can start learning it. That geared differential may yet become useful as I begin proper tuning.

But the big news:


The advent of 3D-printed parts in this particular buggy will make things interesting!

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

What you see here are 3D-printed front shock towers:


One is printed to the standard height of the Striker's original front shock tower, while the other is 10 mm taller. The measurements of the damper mounts were taken from a rear wing stay/damper mounting piece, so a sufficiently-long M3 screw, a brass eyelet spacer, and a nut are all that are needed to fasten each damper.

Most importantly, these will allow me to run unmodified damper top caps, somewhat broadening my options.

These were printed by my brother-in-law, who went on to explain that he has parameterized the CAD model for the parts; hence, the ability to print a model with a 10 mm increase in height. Should I so desire, different models can be printed to different tower heights, widths, and at different angles to accommodate varying kickup options (although the Striker really only has one!). It is all solid infill, which means either piece is quite strong, and while heavier than the stock part, in my opinion, the Striker can use the extra weight at the front end.

If anybody is interested in getting one 3D-printed from him, he may consider it ;) Although postage will definitely be a bit of a hassle...

I elected to use the taller of the two pieces. The tower did not sit flush until I removed some printer support material from the bottom, after which it fit perfectly. Four holes for mounting to the chassis only needed some slight reaming, and I drilled two more for ball ends, to fit the upper suspension links. In process:


And fitted:


The dampers (still Tamiya CVA Mini dampers, using new unmodified top caps) now have unimpeded motion throughout the entire suspension stroke, although ground clearance has not changed considerably. The chassis is also still far from bottoming out at the front, but having seen the Sonic Fighter's arrangement and driven the car in a similar state as this, I am satisfied:


(image from the Tamiya Sonic Fighter promotional video issued by Tamiya)

In period, the Sonic Fighter's front CVA dampers did not have significant travel, and the chassis does not bottom out at the front here, either. In effect, then, I have created a suspension setup that is similar to the Sonic Fighter's in stroke, but the system is of course improved by the conversion to a double-wishbone configuration.

The new design also seems more in character to the Striker, looking a bit sleeker than the Sonic Fighter's very upright front tower. However, that may just be my opinion!

Since the new design also lacks the protrusions for chassis screw clearances as in the original Striker's part, I was also able to add more weights to the front end:


The original tower as I had modified it is on the left, while the new one is mounted on the right:


I believe that as pictured, I was able to add 28 g more weight (four more 7 g weights) to the heavier new shock tower as compared to the original. This may yet improve handling, shifting the centre of mass a bit closer to the middle of an otherwise very rear-heavy design.

I would have reservations about adding more weight to an old buggy chassis, but the Striker was known as a lightweight design - sources suggest 1.465 kg for a complete model, compared to 1.6 kg and over for its contemporaries. Having seen some positive effects already from adding ballast, I am confident this will work even better!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

A second look at the CVA Super Mini dampers convinced me to give them a go. With not much less travel than the CVA Mini dampers but comparably-lower length (losing 3 - 4 mm travel while being about 10 mm shorter), they may work well with the lower damper tower.

Building up all four in the set, but with two giving up their top caps to the CVA Mini dampers, I now have shocks for all three tower types:


The CVA Super Mini dampers have their own short springs. I dug around my spares and found two more sets:


The middle springs actually came from the CVA Mini dampers as an extra option. The springs on the right could have been from the DT-03 CVA set that was once fitted to my dearly-departed Avante Black Special. The ex-DT-03 CVA springs were actually quite good, but the bores were just every so slightly too big for the dampers, and so I used the middle set.

Actually, I used both the ex-CVA Mini and CVA Super Mini springs, the latter of which fit with a thick pre-load spacer:


And now I have dampers for the other two shock tower options!

Still, I tried the silver-spring pair on the tall shock tower; it is fitted on the right side of the following photo, with the CVA Mini damper on the left:


I found a lower (but still useful) ride height, slightly reduced stroke, and a chassis that was a bit closer to bottoming out at full travel, but still far from it. These characteristics were not a deterrent, though I proceeded with the CVA Mini dampers up front. The Super Mini pair may be a good choice for flatter surfaces (or circuits?) with the tall tower; in the meantime, they will be set aside for use with the shorter 3D-printed tower.

"Flatter circuits?" Could I seriously be thinking about racing this?! :P

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

And as if racing was still on the brain, I took another look at fitting a Tamiya Hi-Torque Servo Saver. Previously, I had been searching for an offset design similar to the "off-road" option available in the Tamiya Directly Connected Servo Saver, which I was using. Revisiting an old picture:


The reason this design was required was due to the very forward positioning of the servo, which was created by... forward-offset servo posts. If I fitted servo posts without this offset, then, I could move the servo towards the rear and fit a Hi-Torque Servo Saver.

I found some spare posts - undoubtedly from a TL-01/WR-02 sprue - and cut them down to size to match the height of the Striker's posts:


And indeed, my suspicions were correct:


At first, I used the short servo horn from the Hi-Torque Servo Saver set, only to find that after copious readjustments to fit (probably a sign), I ended up with reverse Ackermann effect! Switching to the longer servo horn (and readjusting the steering links to more reassuring lengths) restored the proper Ackermann effect:


And so, the inside of the chassis now looks like this:


I managed to find the missing piece from the Hi-Torque Servo Saver (the front spacer/cover) and fit it, and managed to add a few more weights to the nose of the buggy. The new servo saver is not as useful with the stock steering links, but an upcoming conversion to proper turnbuckles and open ball end adjusters will hopefully tighten up the tolerances on the front end.

This is the car now:


Curiosity compelled me to weigh it; the result ended up at 1.664 kg, including a 1800 mAh battery:


(the stand was tared on the scale and so does not contribute to the total)

If a fully-loaded stock Striker weighs 1.465 kg (I think TamiyaBase cites this figure), my modifications have added 200 g. About half of that - if not more - is ballast for the front end. That change is illustrated here:


It is not a perfect system for finding the centroid, but by approximating the shaft's reaction force as a point load, I should be able to locate the centre of mass a little more accurately. The car was the closest to perfectly-balanced at the point you see here, which by my estimation pushes the centroid at least 2.5 cm forward, to a maximum of 4 cm. Applied lengthwise, the car was only slightly unbalanced, with a slight weight bias to the right-hand side. As before, the chassis was carrying a 1800 mAh battery.

What is conclusive is that the car sits a lot more nicely on a stand platform, whereas it previously needed to be positioned with the rear of the chassis almost entirely on the platform to prevent tipping backwards. And with the observed changes in driving behaviour, it is clear the car's centre of mass has been moved forward, to good effect.

Also conclusive is that this Striker has come a long way from stock!


  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is next?


Well, what parts am I still waiting on?

- steering turnbuckles and corresponding 5 mm ball end adjusters

- correctly-sized drive shafts/CVDs to enable use of the "sealed" Rising Fighter differential (hopefully, they will be somewhere in the first batch I ordered)

- a Rising Fighter rear wing

What do I still want/need to do?

- fit the aforementioned new parts to allow more direct steering, use of a "sealed" gear differential, and "better proportions"* :P

* if the Rising Fighter wing is not to my liking, I will order a separate Egress/Super Astute rear wing

What am I considering doing after that?

- ... if the Striker's design was based on contemporary Formula 1 cars, what would a front wing look like? :o

- definitely a restoration, but right now, it drives better than it looks!

- ... go racing?! :ph34r: (if I can ever find a club around here, that is... Maybe I can start one?!?)

The saga of this particular Striker will continue, I think!

As an aside: I have tentatively nicknamed it the "Super Striker," as that name has stuck throughout its planning, drawings, and development. I may incorporate that into the new wing decals, as well as the decals following restoration (really just taking the 'Super' text from a 'Super Gripper' decal and sticking that on!). However, the use of Rising Fighter parts has me considering "Rising Striker," which would be a completely Anglicized-Japanese name for what is a very odd buggy.

Whatever the case, we draw closer in specification to the "TRFaux Striker" produced by TamiyaClub member B.M.T.:


As well as this neat example which appeared in this thread a little while back:


I also saw an aftermarket set of rear suspension arm bushings for sale online. These apparently consist of a set of bushings/cups much like those which contain the rear suspension ball joints, but with varying degrees of eccentricity to allow for rear toe and camber adjustments. It is very expensive, though... Still, having those options available would bring the Striker closer to (get ready for it)... race readiness! :ph34r: Running some sort of rear toe-in would be a good thing for most racing machines, and so the Striker may benefit - though not perhaps with this particular set.

Long ago, there was also a Striker "Camber Adjustment and Lowering" set for the front end by Miracle Speedway. No idea where that went, if it got sold, or how it worked...

Testing will resume next week!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

A test session proved curious: the front left steering knuckle kept coming loose, taking out the kingpin with it. It spoiled the excitement of the handling improvements brought on by the new 3D-printed shock tower: the slight increase in suspension travel and smoother articulation really kept the front end planted, and turning was subsequently improved. This Striker is definitely approaching the performance of a higher-calibre buggy...

Initially, I changed the layout of the screws and spacers at each front hub carrier, believing the kingpin was exiting out the top. By using a cutoff from the modified servo posts I installed earlier, I was able to obstruct the kingpin hole, and switched the sleeved spacer around to move the suspension link back towards the front arm. This was done to reduce the distance between the hub carrier and the link, thereby reducing the room for flexibility in that particular mounting point:


Instead, I found that the shaved hub carrier was actually now weak enough to flex open, allowing the kingpin to actually pop out of the carrier. The forces sustained under hard cornering would spread the top and bottom out, pivoting right at the section where I had removed plastic from the carrier to allow the lower damper collars to seat:


It was then clear that I needed to secure the hub to the carrier using a screw and a nut on the opposite side. I elected to use a long M3 screw with a nyloc nut on each hub carrier to prevent the flexion I had observed earlier. A 3 x 27 mm screw would have been perfect for this, but all I had were 3 x 32 mm hex-head types among my spares (machine-threaded, of course).

To accomplish this, the hub carriers needed some light reaming to allow the screw head to clear the carrier's mounts for the upper suspension link. This prevented me from using a tapping step screw as featured in the stock Striker, as the heads for those were too large to allow enough material to remain on the pieces.

Thus fastened, it looks like this:


And a slightly different angle to appreciate the depth of the screw:


There is a bit too much excess thread for my liking, but the likelihood of the end striking the ground is low, as it is sheltered by the front wheel. It may increase the likelihood of large rocks jamming the front wheels, though...

While I was at it, I replaced the shafts running through the front arms with a 3 x 32 mm screw, secured by a flange nut and a bushing-turned-washer to take up the space:


This is, of course, where the lower damper eyelet would link to in the stock Team CRP FX-10 suspension kit. I did this in the interest of increasing some sort of stiffness in the front suspension arm, even though more flexibility may allow it to sustain more impacts.

I then took the liberty of screwing together two spring preload spacers using a long grub screw from my CVA Super Mini dampers. I had the materials and wanted a single spacer of this exact width on the back end:


With peeling decals, I also did some Striker-grade touchups:


(I have since cleaned up the excess paint)

The XF-1 Flat Black substituting for the air intake stickers was fine; the X-3 Royal Blue attempting to fill in for the dark blue decals was a bit less inspired. They were both done by ancient Tamiya Paint Markers which surprisingly still worked!

The front suspension today looks like this:


Once I replace the stock steering links with turnbuckles and 5 mm ball ends and adjusters, I will call the front end complete. All that remains beyond that is to fit a new rear wing and drive shafts.

Your turn, Canada Post...


  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

A highly experimental session ensued with the arrival of the turnbuckles:


I bought four different lengths: 52 mm, 55 mm, 68 mm, and 72 mm. I speculated that for replacing steering linkages at 75 mm and 60 mm length, I would require tie rods that were about 7 mm shorter to allow room for another ball end adjuster at the opposite end. As the Striker uses an offset steering servo position, the linkages are of course different dimensions.

However, seeing that I got two of each length now explains why they were so expensive :P

I ended up using one 68 mm rod and one 52 mm rod to match the stock steering linkage lengths:


And soon discovered why few people (if any) fit proper steering turnbuckle tie rods to their Striker or Sonic Fighter:


Somehow, I did not consider that the ball end adjusters would not fit through this slot, where the servo saver and steering system resides.

I had to renege on my initial promise to keep the Striker intact, although at least I still do not need to modify the upper shell:


Disappointing, but nothing to be sad about. It does make running the car with its stock plastic bumper (and therefore no metal chassis brace) even less feasible, but I had no intention of doing that regardless. I ended up shaving even more material to make the new parts work...

With the enlarged opening, the new ball end adjusters now fit:


However, the steering links foul the suspension arm pivots, of all things!

So I did what any sensible person would do and shaved down the pivots :ph34r:


I ended up taking even more material out of both suspension arms to finally get the steering rods to clear them. The irony is that I did this with the car suspended on a stand, i.e. with no sag. I could have saved much of this time, effort, and plastic had I just set up the suspension with more droop, and under most running conditions the front suspension will not be at full decompression, anyway.

But what was it that Colin Chapman said? "It is easy to make a bridge stand; hard to make it just stand."

I see the suspension arm pivots failing under two specific conditions:

- the ends of the pivot rotate to differing degrees, likely due to dirt ingress, causing the pivot to fail due to torsion at the reduced cross section

- the car sustains a heavy impact to the front end, causing the pivot to fail due to buckling at the reduced cross section when the chassis flexes

Careful maintenance may address the former, but I believe that with the metal chassis brace I am using, chassis flexion will be greatly reduced to the point where the suspension arms bear little to no axial loading. This would be under normal running conditions; in the event of an impact, I still believe this will be the case, or else an impact that would cause the suspension arms to fail in that manner would create more significant damage elsewhere (meaning the broken arms will be the least of my concerns!).

I am therefore taking a calculated risk, trading structural integrity for less obstructed steering. This was never going to be a problem with the stock wire linkages...

(While the Colin Chapman quote may not be completely related, his work and philosophies came to mind!)

Initially, I suspected that I only needed to shave the right pivot to clear the longer right steering rod, but found later that the left one fouled its suspension arm, too. Both got bites taken out of them, and the opening for the steering system was enlarged further to ensure clearance at full steering lock. No going back now...

The still-recalcitrant steering was later addressed with a change in the damper mounting (photo from the underside of the buggy):


Where there had once been a 3 mm nyloc nut securing the lower damper eyelet screw, there is now a flange nut inboard of the suspension arm, hopefully allowing me to run a shorter screw. The nyloc nut was actually obstructing the steering upright, and dispensing with them on each arm finally allowed the system to reach full lock in both directions!

This was only a problem because I replaced the original 4 mm ball connectors on each steering upright with 5 mm equivalents, using the type which secure from the bottom using a 2 mm screw. The screw heads on the underside of each upright were making contact with the nyloc nuts at the damper eyelet mount, so removing the nuts (and excess threads they were securing) meant the uprights could rotate freely.

Nevertheless, I definitely observe more steering travel now than I did in any of the Striker's previous iterations, so it is a bit exciting (for such an understeering chassis). It is also suspenseful, considering that I am not certain how my modifications will affect its durability...

Everything seems a bit happier now:


Two of the front-end weights were relocated during the widening of the steering hole opening; these now sit on top of the servo.

A closer look at some of the modifications:


The tie rods could actually each be 2 mm shorter - I had to screw in the ball end adjusters past their recommended limits just to prevent excessive toe-in. They work for now as more durable and less sloppy replacements for the stock wire links, but if I am to be able to tune this buggy in any meaningful way, I should locate shorter rods to allow for greater freedom of adjustment.

The sturdier rods do help to reduce scrub radius, but may prove even more spectacular in action:


I recall the time I upgraded my F103 from wire linkages and a stock servo saver, to turnbuckle tie rods and a Hi-Torque Servo Saver. That chassis improved dramatically with that particular addition; could the Striker see a similar benefit? There are more moving parts in this buggy than the F103, but I am hopeful that this steering modification will produce noticeable positive effects on handling.

Despite this, at this moment this may be the instance where I am the most aware of "diminishing returns," as I was evidently already enthusiastic about the Striker's handling without the steering modifications. It felt as though there was a lot of trimming and compromising just to fit these parts...

The front end is now complete. What remains?


I am starting to believe that the Rising Fighter rear wing will not be significantly wider than the Striker's, but will test the fit when it arrives in the mail. It will be an Egress/Super Astute rear wing if I do not like the result.

Otherwise, it is only a matter of fitting proper drive shafts (also still in transit by mail) to get the Rising Fighter differential into the gearbox. Then, my original vision for this buggy may be complete!*

* (the evolutionary nature of this particular Striker has me convinced that I will find ways to continue pushing its proverbial envelope, though I will still be much farther ahead than I could have imagined if I stop here)


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got out for a drive on an overcast day:



The steering turnbuckles made a slight difference to the Striker's performance: it tracked straight more easily, and steering response was improved. The upgrade was not as revelatory as it was on my F103, but for an off-road chassis that still has plenty of play in the front end, it made a difference.

Speaking of different:


Courtesy of Tony's Tamiya Parts ^_^ I was a bit disappointed that the wing got scratched in transit, but it will be plenty scuffed by the time it gets fitted for a few sessions! Decals will also help, and I intend to use at least one.

Happily, the dimensions were what I required:


However, the mounting system was not. Screw holes are fine, but the Rising Fighter rear wing has thick moulded-in stays that are quite sturdy and therefore difficult to remove. The mounting of the Astute wing, as well as the unique rear wing mounting of the Striker (two screws through the top and two through the sides!), gave me an unorthodox idea:


It began with drilling holes about 40 mm apart in a spare Striker wing I had. Perhaps not the best use of vintage parts, though not completely consequential. 40 mm represents the distance between the screw holes in the Rising Fighter wing. With a combination of machine screws, rubber tubing, and bushings-turned-washers running through the built-in stays:


We get:


I was unusually pleased with how this turned out. A two-tier rear wing was not what I had originally planned, but this layout is not terribly unaesthetic while evoking the Formula 1 cars that inspired the Striker! It has clearance over the rear shock/wing stays, and is a good deal more substantial than the original Striker wing - while using said original :P It also keeps access clear for all screw holes, so I can still remove the rear dampers and/or the wing without needing to remove other parts. The original rear wing did need to go on first, though, since the top screw holes for those are covered by the Rising Fighter wing. Disassembly is simpler.

Had I left said top screws off, I could even have a wing with variable incidence! I elected to affix it for now.

My vision was to use an original (read: reproduction in the original style) decal for the rear wing, and adding a "Super" or other adjective sticker above it on the wing to acknowledge the modified nature of this particular Striker. All I had for "Super" text was the first half of a "Super Gripper" decal that was reproduced from a Tamiya Hotshot sheet. It nearly became the "Magna Striker" or "Magna-Power Striker" since I had Magna-Power decals in the size I wanted, before I decided that one compromise was enough:


And so, the Super Striker emerges (as does a change of thread title)! I may source a larger "Super" sticker later; hence, the extra space above and below the added text. It is quite a big rear wing!

For sideplates, I felt that adding the numbers to them was a bit redundant, given the racing number is already fairly prominent on the chassis' sides. I dug up some spare decals and went for simplicity:


I think that will do nicely!

The car's new profile:


... Does it look too much like a Rising Fighter? I thought so - the result had me thinking the spare Egress rear wing I ordered on impulse might be useful after all, although what I have now is a big rear wing that requires no painting and can take a few hits. For a car that gets driven hard, this works!

I believe I ended up using 3 x 32 mm screws, with plenty of thread out the bottom, to affix the larger wing:


This new addition may still be a bit rough, but at least the Striker now complies with rollover protection legislation:


And with that, another modification is complete:


It looks a bit more convincing now!

  • Like 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excitement awaited its next session:


As did slightly-better photos:



This was actually the first time I have driven the modified Striker on a damp day. On the stickier wet dirt, the Striker was sharp! The mini-pin tires must have helped, as well as possibly the open-gear differential (that sealed-differential upgrade is looking a bit redundant now...), but there is no dispute from me now: "It's ready to strike out into the fast lane!" [- Tamiya promotional video]

I was very pleased with its performance. With the newfound penchant for power oversteer, I may even have a buggy that is beyond my current driving skill... I did not expect to be learning intermediate/advanced 2WD driving techniques with a Striker, yet here we are!

The motor seems to be performing well, too, and I can even run multiple battery packs in succession without overheating issues. We have a winner!


"Shakey" had it a bit rough, though:


But even after multiple passes at top speed over speed bumps and other jumps, this Striker stands tall:



It was a fantastic time. Since I usually run my RC cars on break at work, it was the end of the work day when I went to service it:


Some lubrication for the bearings, a dusting, and a quick motor clean/lubrication were all that it needed. I sure do love having a workshop :wub:

I was also able to substitute shorter screws and lower-profile nuts for the top wing, so the installation appears a bit cleaner:


You know, for aero gains :P

Interestingly, I began noticing a nose-up attitude on jumps that I did not get with the stock or Astute rear wing fitted - could the dual-element rear wing actually be producing more downforce? Or just more weight? More weight might be likely. Nonetheless, the car is still superb over jumps, and remains completely parallel to the ground on jumps at lower speeds. It is a far cry from the stock Striker!

For a buggy that is older than me (according to TamiyaClub, the last Strikers were produced around 1992, from a 1987 introduction - or maybe they did not sell?) and was designed with the beginner in mind, it has been immensely gratifying to be able to push this one to the limits of both design and sanity. And in the bargain, I got a very special buggy that drives way better than it should ^_^

Now, only the drive shafts and differential remain...

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...