|
||
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
#41
22-08-2013
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
|
#42
22-08-2013
|
||||
|
||||
|
Heres what I got
I have an 83/21 with 5.5t (what I got) SP motor with an orion rotor Shorty, which is a pain to get in now that I have put in the extra bolts   With saddles  
|
|
#43
22-08-2013
|
|||
|
|||
|
210 weight distribution
Origineelreclamebord & OneKiwi
I've got an 87/24, SP esc & frsky rx. Standard alloy chassis. I just took the pinion off & moved the motor all the way to the rear - virtually no difference in weight distribution (3g more on rear with 3g less on front). Interestingly it seems as if I've got more weight on the rear than OneKiwi - I made both the shorty / saddles at ~60% rear from the pics & the overall weight is about 70g more than my 210 - so I could start to play with this much weight, pretty sure I'd get close to 65% if I did. Wheelbase is obviously different. I do weigh then slightly differently - see pic, not sure if this has any affect.
|
|
#44
22-08-2013
|
||||
|
||||
|
Nice Ill do mine that way as well so we can compare
|
|
#45
22-08-2013
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
You need a better way to weight your car. small changes to where you are suspending your car at the rear while weighing the car will make a massive difference to how much it appears to weight. even the vertical angle makes a big difference. A good way is with 2 sets of scales, weight the car with the wheels on the scales, So that you centres don't change. Then turn the car around and take the average of the two weights.
|
|
#46
22-08-2013
|
||||
|
||||
|
I have 4 small scales ordered.
I re did like how CC44 done his I got: Saddle pack F 642 R 1024 total 1666 Shorty F 611 R 984 total 1586
|
|
#47
23-08-2013
|
|||
|
|||
|
I got home from this week's work trip and had some time to work on the car. If the rain holds off, I should also be able to race tonight, too. I figured out what was causing my issue with my lopsided wheelbase. One of my holes that holds the front on was about 0.5mm too far back, and my shoddy countersinking job worsened the issue by forcing the bolt backwards. this caused my front end to be skewed. the car drives straight now.
|
|
#48
25-08-2013
|
|||
|
|||
|
I had plenty of time behind the wheel of my buggy this weekend. Overall, I'm very pleased with how the car drove.
I have never driven my car at this particular track before this weekend, though I have driven other cars/classes at this same track, so I don't have any kind of baseline to compare the buggy against. Friday night I raced the car. For night racing they sweep and water the track. After the sun sets the track holds the water like a champ and grip levels are moderately high. Unfortunately I didn't have the right tire for the track that night, so I didn't have as much rear traction as I'd have liked. I was running m3 calibers and everybody who was fast that night was raving about their jconcepts 3Ds. Even though I didn't have the rear grip I wanted, the car still felt decently planted. I tinkered around with camber link lengths and added a brass r/f hanger for more weight, but wasn't really able to make much of a difference. I went back to the same track the next day for practice with a set of green barcodes since the track was so smooth. The track wasn't watered all day, but we did sweep the dust several times. With the green barcodes on the dry track, I had more grip in the back end than with the calibers. Another guy showed up with a brand new set of 3Ds on his car and instantly started raving about how good they were. The instant I got home I wasted no time ordering a set of 3Ds!  They should be here when I get back from my next business trip and I should be ready to mount them and race at the same track again. I've also got a 69t spur on the way so I can move the motor back further, too.
|
|
#49
31-08-2013
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have another update! Last night was another race night and it went really well. As mentioned previously, I ordered a pair of jconcepts 3D's for this weekend. I mounted them up at the track and they made a huge difference. My car had much more rear bite than with the calibers. After getting the tires right this week, I was able to tweak the setup a bit. I was about .5s/lap faster with the tires and gained about another .5s/lap with the setup tweaks.
I have the 69t spur as well, but I probably won't get to that until later this weekend. I still need to get the car on the scales, which should happen this week. I'll finally be able to see where I'm at and determine how much weight I want on the rear. From there I'll finally be able to get the rest of my setup dialed in. OneKiwi, any updates on your car?
|
|
#50
12-09-2013
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've been thinking about the weight distribution number and after thinking about it I don't think the weight bias in percentage between front to rear is really all that critical. Total weight on the rear wheels is what counts. If you've got enough weight on the rear to get the traction you need it doesn't really matter if you've got 62% weight back there or 72%. It does the job. The weight bias however will affect the steering abilities since a higher rear bias favors oversteer and a higher forward bias favors understeer. If you've got it tuned well this really isn't going to be much of an issue though. If you've got too much front grip you can always dial some out with different inserts.
I was playing with the layout in my car tonight. I have a hunch but I haven't gotten the scales out to verify it though. I was looking at my car sitting in MM mode with a shorty battery mounted straight and all the way back. I placed the receiver on one side pod and the esc on the other both all the way back. Then I looked at the shorty battery sitting sideways across the chassis as far back as it would go. The receiver and esc would have to go in front of the battery. They too have weight. I have a suspicion that the different in weight on the wheels between each layout is so small that there is no appreciable difference. A longer wheelbase chassis will only equalize it even further. Again, I haven't weighed the car in each orientation but I'll bet it's close. The cg of the battery shifts front to back less than 1" between each orientation. The receiver and esc however move forwards 2" between each orientation. Although their total weight may be less than the relative weight difference of the battery orientation, the fact that they would now mount ahead of the cg of the car would have a far larger impact than their static weight alone would imply. I need to try each layout but I suspect it's not really worth the extra effort of cutting up a stock chassis just to get the battery sideways. These aren't large stick packs anymore. The cg shift from the battery orientation along with their lower weight just isn't as drastic as it once was.
|
|
#51
13-09-2013
|
|||
|
|||
|
%weight or total weight, the rear of my car is much more planted with my sideways shorty chassis. I enjoyed the process and the car drives better as a result so I'm happy.
I should also mention that by going to a smaller spur gear, I was able to move all the electronics (battery, esc, receiver) back about another 4mm. I did have to dremel away part of the motor plate to do this. The car now has a 35/65 distribution and is 50g lighter than when I started. It is interesting to note I have nearly the same total weight on the rear as I started, but the weight on the front tires has decreased by about 20g/wheel.
|
|
#52
04-01-2014
|
|||
|
|||
|
how does the car jump at 35/65, compared to a normal 210MM? as I find the 210 to be rear heavy already without any mods. Sometimes hard to keep the nose down on the 210 compared to other cars I've had.
|
|
#53
12-01-2014
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
