Cspurlock

iTrader: (31)

Wanted to see if any of you wanted to share your ideas on how to get the mid motor setp to work on dirt. Everybody knows that the rm setup is the preferred setup for dirt, but I know some of you are running mid motor and having some success. I would like to share ideas to see if we can help each other improve our setups. So let me know if any of you are running MM or want to run it. I personally have been working real hard on an indoor clay setup and have had good success, but still have a lot to learn. Look forward to hearing from others!

Cspurlock

iTrader: (31)

Here is a copy of my latest setup. I am using the +8mm chassis and it really made it come together. The trick seems to be to get as much of the % of weight over the rear wheels as possible. I have 65% of my weight over my rear tires. My RTR weight is 1600grams.

hacker

iTrader: (141)

I don't know if you could ever get a MM to lap quicker than a RM on anything but ultra high traction watered dirt tracks. Unfortunately they don't exist in my part of the world. But sure is fun trying to get it to work. I've got the tresrey weight on mine with shorty pack all the way back. Around 63% with standard chassis.

fredswain

iTrader: (1)

I can't speak for the 210 but in my mid motor car I run the battery across the chassis rather than inline. This helps quite a bit. I also run a little bit of weight under the motor but I'm not sure how much room there is in the 210. I made mine out of a material we make at work called Tungsten rubber. It makes brass look light and I can keep the weight small this way. I only added as much as I needed and definitely kept it within the wheelbase. I have 68% weight on the rear wheels and run 0 antisquat. My wheelbase at ride height is 10-7/8" btw but I don't know what wheelbase the 210 has. I may pick up one of these cars soon though.

Cspurlock

iTrader: (31)

Funny you mentioned the battery running across the chassis. I was thinking about that last night and couldn't wait to get up to see if it was possible. I looked this morning and am pretty sure I can make it work with some minor modifications, but I will need to put it on the scales 1st to see if it is going to put more weight on the rear wheels.

Jonny5

iTrader: (19)

Iwas cruising the Durango thread over on Oople and a few guys have modded the side pods to accept saddles side by side just in front of the motor, and are happier with the weight distribution that way. Might be worth a try for ya.

Cspurlock

iTrader: (31)

I don't know if I fully agree with you. I think it may be difficult on this car to get the proper weight back as far as it needs to be and that is the challenge. My track goes from what I would call medium-high grip when it is wet to low as it dusts off. It is no where near blue groove grip, just good wet clay. I can make it work really well on it when it is wet, and it works almost as good as the RM when it dusts off. My friend has 2 cars, 1-Rm, 1-MM and his lap times were faster MM. Try putting your weight back further. That has made all the difference for me. Going from 63%-65% does make it better, also try running your hubs all the way forward and run 4.5 deg of rear toe if you are still loose. The car really gets a ton of traction when you do that, and still will rotate through the corners well. Then only disadvantage is that you will loose a little speed if you are running a stock class.

Cspurlock

iTrader: (31)

I was thinking of that too, but I looked this AM and can see that a shorty will fit sideways and still have room for the ESC all inline, so I am going to try that first. I am excited to see how it works, I love the car in MM so I really want to keep perfecting the setup.

av4625

Wer get the chassis pm me please the details

fredswain

iTrader: (1)

Getting weight where it needs to be can be a little tricky due to a lack of space on a mm car. However the best place to start is to NOT add weight up front or in the middle as too many people do. I custom made my own rear weight but then again I also got my car to 66% rear weight without any additional weight but again it's not a 210. I did make my own chassis though. A mistake I see on the mm 22's is the added brass weight at the very rear. Yes they are getting more weight on the rear but I like to keep it in front of the rear axle centerline. The point of mm is not to get weight forwards with more on the front wheels. The point is to get the bulk of the weight within the wheelbase. That's it. With any 2wd car f/r weight distribution is something that should be adjusted by track conditions.

Jonny5

iTrader: (19)

Www.tresrey-usa.com. 8-Racing +8 CF chassis. We have it on my brother's RM 210 and he loves it. Much more stable on the large, fast tracks we run on.

Cspurlock

iTrader: (31)

can you post a link to this, I would like to check it out but haven't been able to find it yet.

thanks

Jonny5

iTrader: (19)

http://www.oople.com/forums/showthread.php?p=652437

Cspurlock

iTrader: (31)

thanks for the link!

I did some rough calculations with the shorty turned sideways in a similar manner to how they are doing the saddle pack(which should put a little more weight back then the saddle pack i think) and it doesn't yield me any better than how I am running it now. Bummer.

Jonny5

iTrader: (19)

Once we finish up outdoor season here I plan on flipping one of our cars to MM to try out for a while. My brother's car is just a tick over 64% rear weight bias in RM now with the battery in the middle position, and moving it to the rear position it's 65% on the dot. We'll see pretty soon here.