Ideal 4wd wheight distribution

[Mr. Red]

What is The generell ideal front to back distribution for a 4wd buggy?

I can not spell either....

[RogerM]

When I designed Mako it was targeting a perfect 50/50 balance. On the track it proved that a slight rearward balance proved best, about 48/52 IIRC.

Not sure on others thoughts on this though and really should get the FS2 on the corner scales as I don't think she is far off 50/50, again maybe just a fraction rearward by feel. Won't know for sure until we measure I guess.

[Rebelrc]

When I built my carbon cc4 that was 50/50 and on the few times it run (6) it was ace
I wanted a mako

[Mr. Red]

I am doing a serious mod of an old B44 and bought a B44.1 just to get some more measurements of it. That is why I asking. It is going to be more like the trf502 but it looks like that car has got the weight more forward than others.

What is this Mako you speak of. Sorry, I have totally missed it. Please show me

[Rebelrc]

The mako was a shaft driven yokomo mr4bd made of carbon sheet like a bj4 and was quite ahead of it's time back then when the only competitive 1/10th 4wd buggy available was the losi xxx4!
I thought it was a one off made by a model shop and someone who used to post on here and rcracechat ( sorry for swearing C•€k ) but I cannot remember their name?
Didn't realise it was yours Roger.

[gps3300]

Roger designed it and the shop you were thinking of is D.C. Racing. Be interesting to know what happened to the buggies - how many prototypes were out there?

[kek23k]

Ooo that sounds interesting, any pics of this mako?

[Gaz_Stanton]

Originally Posted by kek23k

Ooo that sounds interesting, any pics of this mako?

Jimmy's pics from back in 2004 http://www.oople.com/rc/photos/mako/index.html

[RogerM]

Gaz, I can't remember the result but IIRC you went well with the car at the Euros that year.

The weak point was the Yokomo front gear case ... I did come up with a solution for that but by then the moment had passed and it wouldn't have been an economically feasible package to market ... or so I thought until people started spending over £600 on S4s

As for the cars, I have one and a half (Gaz's and mine combined to build up a shelf car ... although it still comes out occassionally when I want a bench mark for trials as does my old Pred P8). I don't think there are any more cars left in existance now

I was going to do something similar with the Lazer ZX5-SP but then the FS came along with more or less perfect weight distribution and a nice moulded chassis so I decided to just run one of them

[Mr. Red]

Cool car there Roger!

Any more input regarding the balance? Also think 50/50 would be best. If anything else it should be shiffted more to The rear perhaps. My tc has a 47/53 front to back ratio.

[Richard Lowe]

Around 45/55 always seems to feel 'right' to me for 4wd

[Rebelrc]

I always thought 60 to the front 40 rear so as to be able to gun it a bit more inthe air with out lifting the front too much
And so that when accelerating the weight is more centred infront of the back wheels aiding traction not thrown so far back that it makes the front light
Not sure really . I don't know anything!

[fastinfastout]

are there any current cars that are capable of the 50/50?

I'm thinking maybe the zx5 sp as the motor is towards the rear. Maybe mid type mounted losi xxx-4 & db01?

everything else seems to have the motor just fore from centreline

[RogerM]

Remember that the cells are still heavier than a motor!

[AmiSMB]

I think you can look at static weight distribution like they did with the x-5 where the weight over each wheel is the same.
But I think there has to be something said for the motor position and how the torque of this is applied front and rear. I am interested to see how the Schumacher SX3 is compared to the SX2 as the new SX3 is much more like the XX4 in layout as per where the motor is located. The TRF511 certainly seems to go well with a similarly positioned motor.

[SHY]

I've heard 45/55 for 4WD and 35/65 for mid motor 2WD

[digitrc]

Originally Posted by AmiSMB

I think you can look at static weight distribution like they did with the x-5 where the weight over each wheel is the same.
But I think there has to be something said for the motor position and how the torque of this is applied front and rear. I am interested to see how the Schumacher SX3 is compared to the SX2 as the new SX3 is much more like the XX4 in layout as per where the motor is located. The TRF511 certainly seems to go well with a similarly positioned motor.

Bear in mind that the Cat SX design runs the motor in reverse compared to the other 4wd cars on the market - the torque effect is very different.

[AmiSMB]

But that again is why it is interesting to see what the SX3 does with this layout compared to all the other cars that have motors going a different way as when I had my X-6 3 gear it made a big difference when I went to a 4 gear as the torque of the motor went into the rear wheels. I used to run a XX-4 then converted to X-5 and then had a Cat SX but now roll Durango DEX410. Have not tried the later CAT incarnations or a TRF.

[Bomberpilot]

Hello,

if you read the books of Caroll Smith, Neil Roberts and so on, weight distribution should match tire width, even a bit more rear biased, Neil roberts said for a car with equal width tyres f/r, round about 53 % on the back...

What do you think?

Greetings from switzerland
Maurice

[fastinfastout]

Originally Posted by RogerM

Remember that the cells are still heavier than a motor!

my SP motor weighs 160grams.

much more than most single saddle packs.

so what did the FS ended up weight ratio F/R?