Quoted from another thread

"Buggies are starting to take on a standard sort-of look now.
So what makes up a typical place-contending buggy.
My guess is:
Around 75" wide.
101-104" long.
+/- 3k#
No rear steer.
?"

JR, I thought this was a good question and wanted to put it in the mainstream

:D

Dan

I guess another item that is seen a lot is 37x17" tire.

I don't know, look at Tiny. Awesome front visability, ultra low and no approach/departure angles to speak of. I think that a lot of buggies will start to go this way.

-Jack

COILOVERS
HYDRO STEERING
LOW CG

ALSO HOW MUCH TUBING DOES IT TAKE TO MAKE A TYPICAL BUGGY ?WHAT SIZE, WALL ,MATERIAL?

Originally posted by IronBenderII
I don't know, look at Tiny. Awesome front visability, ultra low and no approach/departure angles to speak of. I think that a lot of buggies will start to go this way.

-Jack

I love how "out of the box" Tiny is. But what really impresses me is how reliable it has been. Hats off to those guys:cool:

Dan

Very true. Reliable and consistant. I think a lot of it has to do with how simple he kept things. I haven't seen it in person but from the pics and videos, I'm very impressed.

The sad thing is Nelson never built a rockcrawler before. He throws that thing together without ever really being in the sport and it totally rocks. That is a spare time project for his team

Originally posted by Dan Dibble


I love how "out of the box" Tiny is. But what really impresses me is how reliable it has been. Hats off to those guys:cool:

Dan

It's going to be hard to beat Tiny as far as function goes.
I heard that it was feeling light so they added weight to it, not just anywhere, but in ingenious places like adding fake brake calipers made of lead.

Originally posted by IronBenderII
Very true. Reliable and consistant. I think a lot of it has to do with how simple he kept things. I haven't seen it in person but from the pics and videos, I'm very impressed.

its very small in person. think honda pilot with big tires, a front axle and room for a v-dubbya motor. it has to be a matter of time before we see more rigs like tiny.

The real question is:

How long before it is easier to take a large quad, and build up.

:rolleyes:

:flipoff2:

Automatics and straight axles ( non portal).
highbrid 60s.

I don't really get the whole 60 craze when everything else is moving towards smaller and lighter. I would have thought you'd see more portals. Gearing and ground clearance. What more do you want.

What lead.....are you kidding!?!? :p

What about a 454, with RockWells, and 44" boggers???

You are soooo right about most of the new rigs being close to the same.
I find it funny that so far we haven't seen any copies of Tiny...It WORKS...Still, it's not dominating as there is enough variety in obstacles to keep everyone on their toes.
I too am surprised there isn't more portals out there but I bet that'll change soon with everyone trying to build em custom.
As for the independant...Rumor says Walker's got his straight axles on order...bummer, I so badly wanted to see that work as it just looked so cool!
Autos will most likely go in the direction of the trusty PowerGlide more often.
Still, I wanna see more rigs like yours JR...truely a work of art and a great wheeler at the same time. Too bad it's like mine...FAT and HEAVY!

You bring up Lead in Tiny...is that lead or tungsten?

Originally posted by RedBullJeep
What about a 454, with RockWells, and 44" boggers???




I hear ya!!! :p :flipoff2:

Originally posted by RedBullJeep
I find it funny that so far we haven't seen any copies of Tiny...

I think getting a mid-engine setup in a relatively short wheelbase can present some challenges to a "traditional" engine/tranny combination. Now, if you have 150" to work with ;)

http://www.truckworld.com/Shows-Events/00-Essex-Junction/mud-23-400.jpg


TEX

Originally posted by RedBullJeep
.
I find it funny that so far we haven't seen any copies of Tiny...It WORKS

You bring up Lead in Tiny...is that lead or tungsten?

Spidertrax has built a rig very similar to Tiny...mid engine,low, light and a very similar suspension design. It's a beautiful machine. I believe Walkers new rig will be similar to Tiny also. Tiny's weights are lead, only Walker can afford Tungsten (did you notice the bricks on is rig?). Doesn't Tungsten cost about$5 a pound?

CA_YJ...The Nelsons amaze me too...They have dominated just about every form of motorsport that they are involved in and became a little bored. So they went to a couple of rock crawling events, with Jon Bundrant , looking for a new hobby and decided they could build a rig that could be competitive. After watching 2 events, Tiny and there new hobby was born. Tiny had the potential to win right out of the box. The only thing holding it back is Jon B. and I. learning each other and Tiny's capabilities. I think we are slowly bringing Tiny up to it's full potential. The reason that the Nelsons are successful car builders is that they are their own worst critics. They aren't afraid to admit if something isn't working and change it. If you pay close attention you'll see how Tiny is constantly evolving and Tiny 2 is already in the works.

I have got to be the luckiest S.O.B. in the world to be a part of this team. I went from just a regular guy who love's to wheel, to hanging out almost every weekend with driver's and spotters I've watched for years.
Big Lar

Originally posted by RedBullJeep
What about a 454, with RockWells, and 44" boggers???

Too bad it's like mine...FAT and HEAVY!



Yeah, the bronco's not competitive now. ( was it ever?)
I'm waiting for the nostalgia rock crawling comps to start up. You know, like when front engine dragsters have races.

Larry,
You guys are just plain in your groove. It is a honer to watch you guys run. In St. Gorge you guys ran with us both days. Made us look like ass but still great to say the least. I made the mistake of thinking that the line you took would be a good line for us. Like I said, It was a mistake. Tiny is unreal. When Jon opened her up on 10 that was the coolest thing I have seen in a long time. That rig boggles the mind of many and has been the presance of conversation many times of the way home. I love to think out of the box and just when I think I have Tiny figured out you three do something that blows my mind and puts me in a state of confusion. I have noticed changes at all three UROC events and it has become normal for me to look for them each time at tech. Good luck and keep kicking a$$. I think that if Curt had a little more time under his belt that he would be your most compitition. I dig that rig and think that it is just as capable as any other. Those two have to be my fav. single seats. Mitch's new rig is just plain sweet. For a duel seat truck without rear steer it just rocks.
See ya in Farmington.

Nick

Back to Walker.

If he had more motor would he been more competive???

Why didnt he use a stronger motor? Axle strength?

He has built to date, the most engineered and $$$ independent suspension, but did it work?

I cannot imagine how frustrated he must be. He is a trooper and I dont think his team will quit.

His truck still gets two thumbs up for the craftsmanship.

Dan

Walkers rig is one of thee most well engineered rigs I have ever seen. I think more motor would help a ton. It seemed to be working better in Cedar than in Farmington. I think he went with the 2.2 for weight more than any other reason. I think it has proved to be a little low on the power side. I don't really know if his IFS setup will withstand more power but I assume it should. I think if the rumor is true that he is going solid axle then it would be easier to build another truck rather than trying to fit them to his current chassis. I also think that they havent learned that truck fully yet. I have noticed quit a bit of change(Tuneing) and I think they are driveing a different truck every time if ya see what I meen. Granted it needs to be tuned but I feel given some more time and a little more skinny pedal then it would do alot better. I think Walker is frustrated and that efects your confidence witch inturn efects your ability to drive.

Just mt .02

GM is doing a lot of R&D with performance versions of the 2.2. It's kind of their hot-rod "darling" if you will. They're attempting to court the ricer crowd (check out the version Lingenfelter is drag racing in an S-10). That said, it isn't even going to be available in the S-10's replacement (for that matter, the 2.2 that was used in the current S-10 isn't the same as the Ecotec), so it seems like an odd choice even if he had used a turbo.

I'd like to see someone make use of the new 3.5L all aluminum I-5 that GM is bringing out. Probably wouldn't package all that well, but it'd certainly have decent output (215HP) and light weight. Not to mention, it'd be DIFFERENT & we all know that's cool :D


TEX

He put a 4.3 in it for moab, he seemed pretty negative about the suspension and was pumped on putting the live axles back in.

Originally posted by XtremeEngineering
Larry,
You guys are just plain in your groove. It is a honer to watch you guys run. In St. Gorge you guys ran with us both days. Made us look like ass but still great to say the least.


I think that if Curt had a little more time under his belt that he would be your most competition. I dig that rig and think that it is just as capable as any other. Those two have to be my fav. single seats. Mitch's new rig is just plain sweet. For a duel seat truck without rear steer it just rocks.
See ya in Farmington.

Nick


Nick,
You guys never look like ass. You're both great competitors. I look forward to seeing you at all the UROC events. You've done something that I don't have the balls or fabrication skills to do, you've taken your daily driver/ trail rig and made a competition rig out of it. Great work and I bet you're having just as much or more fun than anyone out there.

I agree that Curt should be finishing higher than he does. He has the right driver/rig/spotter combo, now all he needs is a little luck. If I could own any rig I wanted, that I could wheel the Hammers one weekend, Glamis the next and a rock crawl competition the next I would definitely own Mitch's rig. Or any Twisted Customs creation for that matter.

You should come out to Prorock this weekend. The unlimited class usually has less than 12 competitors, most are Big Dogs and we all run in one group. It's a lot like a trail ride with your buddies, lots of fun. I've learned tons by being able to run so close to these guys.

I have more fun than I'll ever be able to describe. Mac gets frustrated here and there and we both know that with a little seat time we are capable of doing alot better. I know I can drive these obsticals as good as most. I just don't have the comp. presure handled yet. I have changed the rig prior to every event and we never practice. Running a new buisness sucks all my time. But the changes and trial and error have made me learn so much it is unreal. To me it is all about wheeling with guys like you and Jon. Tracy, Don, Jason, Mitch, Curt, Mike, Lance, ect... They have all been my mentors if you will for a very long time. This year is our learning curve and we have some big plans for next year that were started prior to this years Daily Driver thrash. That was the best choise that I ever made. It gave me the opertunity to see what works and what does not. The biggest reason has to be learning the comp. groove. Since the last event I have put a 60 up front and coil overs up front as well as lightened the truck even more. We are planning to run the ProRock here in CO. I just can't afford to run any more at this time. As I said you guys are great to watch and I allways look forward to running with you guys. Great Job out in Moab. A well deserved win.

Nick....

I THINK WALKER IS THE DARE TO BE DIFFERANT GUY.

HES GANNA TRY AND TRY THINGS TILL HE HAS SOMETHING AND EVERYBODY ELSE IS LEFT IN THE DUST.

OR WILL HE??
HAS ROCKCRAWLING/RACING REACHED ITS LIMITS IN OBSTICLES AND FULL THROTTLE ASSULTS?WILL AXLE,SUSPENSION,AND CHASSIS TECH GO FURTHER TO HELP WITH TERRAIN? OR WILL UPGRADES JUST BE A COOL FACTOR?

Originally posted by RedBullJeep
What about a 454, with RockWells, and 44" boggers???

You are soooo right about most of the new rigs being close to the same.
I find it funny that so far we haven't seen any copies of Tiny...It WORKS...Still, it's not dominating as there is enough variety in obstacles to keep everyone on their toes.
I too am surprised there isn't more portals out there but I bet that'll change soon with everyone trying to build em custom.
As for the independant...Rumor says Walker's got his straight axles on order...bummer, I so badly wanted to see that work as it just looked so cool!
Autos will most likely go in the direction of the trusty PowerGlide more often.
Still, I wanna see more rigs like yours JR...truely a work of art and a great wheeler at the same time. Too bad it's like mine...FAT and HEAVY!

You bring up Lead in Tiny...is that lead or tungsten?

I got a chance to check out Walker's rig a few weeks ago when I was up at his shop. It is a work or art. As for going straight axles I doubt it. He is fully convinced that indi is the to go. I don't think you'll see him go to something different before he works on his a while longer. As for the motor, yes it is underpowered, but I can lift it. Its light as hell. He is also in the process of ditching the cast header and building a new one. The motor should wieght about 175lbs.

Originally posted by CA_YJ


I got a chance to check out Walker's rig a few weeks ago when I was up at his shop. It is a work or art. As for going straight axles I doubt it. He is fully convinced that indi is the to go. I don't think you'll see him go to something different before he works on his a while longer. As for the motor, yes it is underpowered, but I can lift it. Its light as hell. He is also in the process of ditching the cast header and building a new one. The motor should wieght about 175lbs.

I don't argue that his rig is a piece of art but you should be in Walker's shop right now...the V6 is already in (it was installed in the couple of days between UROC and RCAA) and the straight axles are going in...amazing how things change in just a few weeks. They are saying that if they had more time, they would stick with and tweak the independant, but they need to get back into the winner's circle right away, so will go with tried and tested...

If I were to build a new rig of any type, not having to consider sponsors, I would build something very much like TINY...it is one of the few rigs that can turn sharp while climbing and can go downhill as stable as it can uphill.
If I was going to build a combo trail rig/comp rig...it would be like Guthries.
If I was going to build a rig just to be the coolest on the trail...FAT CITY BRONCO all the way!

What about unheard of creations. ie..chainlink or similar way out there ideas.

just watch guys like Shanon Campbell, and Jason Paule, and Walker Evans, they seem to be up to the latest before any one else.

That is crazy news about Walker. I understand why but did not think he would imply a live axle to that chassis. The center is built so low to acount for the IRS and IFS. I was hopeing to see them as a team stick through it and make them work. I feel that if anyone could they have the $$ and resorces to do so. I am sure that the new setup will be just as well designed and thought out. Good luck to them. Now about outside thinking such as Chain Link. I feel that Tiny, Walkers and Curts are just as outside as the Chain link just in a different way. Hats off to the guy that built that rig and I would love to watch it in action. I just feel that it is to complex, heavy and just hard to drive for a comp. rig. Again I have never seen it in real life so all that is just a matter of my opinion. If you look into the design on ther three rigs I mentioned you will see atleast one thing very different about each one that in no way compares to another truck. All work very well for the situation or place they were designed to be used. I thought we would see more forced suspensions or hydrstatic drive systems than we have but at the same time I now see why we haven't. Simple, light, and nimble seems to be dominating. Another reason I don't think you see portals on more of the top rigs is the fact that they are heavy, they raise the GOG and make designing a good suspension all that more difficult. Not saying that it can't be done. Look at Ken(Go-2-Guy) for that matter. He has managed to build a light rig that climbs well and is very stable as well as being very low. I still think 60's will be the norm but I think that you will see plenty of crazy sh$t. I do think we will see more mid or rear engine trucks. Mine has gone through exstensive work to get it as close to a mid engine as I can. All the weight from the rear fuel cell to the crank shaft pulley is in front of the rear axle and behind the front axle. We shall see.

Originally posted by JR


It's going to be hard to beat Tiny as far as function goes.
I heard that it was feeling light so they added weight to it, not just anywhere, but in ingenious places like adding fake brake calipers made of lead.

WTF :eek:

When my bronco was built, the sniper was cuting edge and kicking ass. The bronco was built to be one-up on it, that was the goal. A lot has changed in what, two-and -half years.
I dig where the buggies are going. It all makes since now.
I still like the buggies that look like something familiar though. Tiny looks like a go-cart, albeit a sweet high tech one.

Originally posted by XtremeEngineering
I do think we will see more mid or rear engine trucks.

This is interesting. My engine sets back quite a ways ( to clear the portal) and the rig climbs well, even though many people have commented that a good climber has the engine as far forward as possible.
When first seeing Tiny, I thought it was going to flip over backwards. Nope, it works great (especially with the lead and water :D )
If the weight is down low, I think mid-engine buggies would give the most neutral feeling ride. It would be hard to make a mid-engine two seater though.

i am probaly gonna really get flamed for this but what the hell ...
what exactly makes a buggy a mid-engine. for instance my current project has the front axle about a foot behind the front most part of the engine and the rear axle is basically right behind the main hoop all this is squeezed into 110" wheel base. so is it a mid-engine or what. not a comp buggy purely recreational (sp?)

flame suit on..:flipoff2:

A lot of stuff well said, stay away from portals.. bad news:D

they don't mean much in Farmington and moab but put me in a boulder field and look out!

You can't lower the CG much more than Tiny has- hats off for thinking outside the box.

See you guys sonn in Farmington.
Ken

Portals are bad- stay away from portals:D

Originally posted by Go2Guy
stay away from portals.. bad news:D
Portals are bad- stay away from portals:D

A-men, brother ;) :D

Originally posted by bobo
i am probaly gonna really get flamed for this but what the hell ...
what exactly makes a buggy a mid-engine. (sp?)

flame suit on..:flipoff2:

This is Tiny the buggy we have been refering to

ok...so mid-engine refers to rear mounted motors i was :confused:



Dan we will have to get to together and wheel when both our buggies are finished....i'm also buliding a rockwell shod thing on 44's but hopefully 49's soon. (about 60% complete)

Originally posted by bobo
ok...so mid-engine refers to rear mounted motors i was :confused:


mid-engined has always been rear engined, sort of. Look at Lambo and Ferrari. Both of their engines are in the rear, however they are considered mid engined. I think this has to do with the fact that it isn't the VERY VERY rear. Tiny might actually be considered rear-engined. It's a very gray area on that.

Originally posted by bobo
i am probaly gonna really get flamed for this but what the hell ...
what exactly makes a buggy a mid-engine. for instance my current project has the front axle about a foot behind the front most part of the engine and the rear axle is basically right behind the main hoop all this is squeezed into 110" wheel base. so is it a mid-engine or what. not a comp buggy purely recreational (sp?)

flame suit on..:flipoff2:

I can't believe some moron would ask such a stupid question. WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?


:laughing: hey, I'm totally kidding :D , it's a good question. I'm kind of thinking that riders would sit farther forward and in front of the engine or at least besides it, if it were a mid engine buggy.
The engine still in front of the rear axle.
On a rear engine buggy it seems the engine would be in back of the rear axle or at least on top of it.

I'm still amazed at that "Tiny". To me it seems like it shouldn't be performing as well as it does. I mean with the rear engine and climbs- on a steep ascent how does he keep the front end down and most of all how does he get up them! Second thing is the clearences he has with that thing. It seems so low (never got a good profile shot of it) that it would hit every ledge/ridge that it could go over. We have almost 2 ft. on the bottom of our comp. rig and we still hit the bottum, I just couldn't imagine him competing over here (Neuroc) becuase he would hit his botom on every rock. I guess he is so light weight that he could probably slide over anything he gets hung up on no matter what?

Mid-Engine has the engine behind the driver, but the transmission & T-case are still BEHIND the engine.

Driver up front + Engine in middle + Tranny in back = mid-engine.

If the engine is at the rear with the tranny & T-case reversed so that they are closer to the driver, that is a REAR-engine machine.

At least that's how we've always defined them.

TEX

How does Tracys, Mike Shaffers and the Red bull truck differ??

Tracy has rear steer but dont they have very similar setups?

They seem to be very competitve.

These rigs seem to be proven and consistant.

This is a mid engine two seater. This is KrazyKrawlers Buggy.

http://www.members.aol.com/blazerzr2/images/sean/midengine2

http://www.members.aol.com/blazerzr2/images/Carnage/carnage042703-7

Wow! Tell us about it. What's the power plant?

Hes got a 4.3 to a 350 tranny to the rear 205. The rear 205 goes to the middle divorced 205 turned backward where it is split up to the front and rear 9 inch axles. It has a 150 pound rear weight bias. So far it has been in one comp and on the trail a few times. He thinks there is no advantage to the mid engine except the VERY good visability. But there has also been very few bugs with the design. Mainly front axle breakage but warns and CTMs have done very well.

http://www.members.aol.com/blazerzr2/images/Carnage/carnage052503-1

http://www.members.aol.com/blazerzr2/images/Carnage/carnage052503-2

http://www.members.aol.com/blazerzr2/images/Carnage/carnage052503-7


Ill have more pics from this weekend at Indy here in colorado.

got head room?

http://www.members.aol.com/blazerzr2/images/Carnage/carnage042703-7

Originally posted by bobo
ok...so mid-engine refers to rear mounted motors i was :confused:

Mid-engine is always behind the driver and has the engine/transmission(and transffer case) in front of the rear axle, rear engine is engine/transmission behind the rear axle and everything with the engine in front of the driver is considered front engine regardless of it's position in relation to the front axle.

Originally posted by thejeepjeepkid
(never got a good profile shot of it)

took this pic just for this reason,looks like plenty of ground clearance to me.

thanks all i had been wondering about that one.

Originally posted by JR


This is interesting. My engine sets back quite a ways ( to clear the portal) and the rig climbs well, even though many people have commented that a good climber has the engine as far forward as possible.
When first seeing Tiny, I thought it was going to flip over backwards. Nope, it works great (especially with the lead and water :D )
If the weight is down low, I think mid-engine buggies would give the most neutral feeling ride. It would be hard to make a mid-engine two seater though.

In all fairness, Jon probably weighs more than the engine and sits well forward. I think the weight bias (with the driver in the rig) is forward. Tiny has something like 20" of clearance at the belly. I did not measure, but that's about what it looked like to me. I did see it get hung up at moon rocks.

Originally posted by Wilson
I think the weight bias (with the driver in the rig) is forward.

i say no way. yes even if he weighs more than the motor he still sits centered in the rig. only his legs are out foward. the only way that rig has more weight bias to the front is with water in the tires and/or added weight. just my op.

If you looked at it up close, you'd walk away with an appreciation of how good a job they did keeping the CG low and yes- forward, without H20. There could be some in there to help even more but make no mistake, The CG is forward without the wheels bolted up.

On second thought, yea, the reason it works so well is because the cg is so far back, I think all my friends & competitors should move their CG's further rearward to keep up;)

Originally posted by Go2Guy
If you looked at it up close, you'd walk away with an appreciation of how good a job they did keeping the CG low and yes- forward, without H20. Their could be some in there to help even more but make no mistake, The CG is forward without the wheels bolted up.

well i have never seen it up close and personal. i was just giving my thoughts on pic's i have seen.