How long until mid motor takes over.
06-11-2014, 02:04 PM
#61
Tech Master
06-11-2014, 04:05 PM
#62
No need for the parrot remarks, was just pointing something out that may have been overlooked by some newer people.
Most of my experience is on outdoor or medium traction tracks.
3 gear mm negates some of the reward momentum or weight shift when power. In order to make this work you have to use even less anti-squat (to achieve the reward momentum for added traction). This can have a negative effect on rear suspension performance on square edged bumps as the suspension is at the wrong angle... it doesn't let the suspension work as effectively. Most of the time when driving a MM, your extra corner speed is because there is less bite in the rear allowing the car to turn in. Most mm drivers that I have spoke with want more forward bite.
There is a reason AE and X factory (newest) both use 4 gear on their MM.
Most of my experience is on outdoor or medium traction tracks.
3 gear mm negates some of the reward momentum or weight shift when power. In order to make this work you have to use even less anti-squat (to achieve the reward momentum for added traction). This can have a negative effect on rear suspension performance on square edged bumps as the suspension is at the wrong angle... it doesn't let the suspension work as effectively. Most of the time when driving a MM, your extra corner speed is because there is less bite in the rear allowing the car to turn in. Most mm drivers that I have spoke with want more forward bite.
There is a reason AE and X factory (newest) both use 4 gear on their MM.
Your comment about antisquat is pretty far off base. Most people will tell you to run less anti-squat on bumpier tracks because it actually soaks up the bumps better.
06-11-2014, 06:50 PM
#63
Tech Adept
Not actually owned, driven plenty yes. 0 anti squat is/was better for jump landing, but kicked up more on square edge bumps and rough stuff. We ended up having to go to 0 anti squat to get the weight to transfer for enough rear traction in our conditions. With MM4, when he was on the gas this was automatically happening for him and plain had more traction.
06-11-2014, 07:33 PM
#64
IMO the issue isn't mid motor or rear, but the expectations of some guys when running this class. 2 wheel buggy is not a set it and forget it class. If you want that run 4x4 sc. Minor details can make or break how well the car works. I see plenty of guys throw their car on the pit table after a qual, and never touch it until just before the next race when they slap a charged battery in and go. On any 2wd buggy if everything isn't right the car can be inconsistent and hard to drive at best.
In my experience mid has a narrower window where the sweet spot is. But I have my mm car (xfactory) set up with a lot of rear weight bias compared to most mm cars and it works great pretty much everywhere with a change in battery position depending on traction.
In my experience mid has a narrower window where the sweet spot is. But I have my mm car (xfactory) set up with a lot of rear weight bias compared to most mm cars and it works great pretty much everywhere with a change in battery position depending on traction.
06-16-2014, 02:21 PM
#65
Tech Adept
I think it's more a driver's preference. Just choose what suits you the best.
Mid motor works whatever the grip, as rear motor.
Here is my friend and i racing our 22 mid at the track
TLR 22 mid motor onboard (low grip track)
Mid motor works whatever the grip, as rear motor.
Here is my friend and i racing our 22 mid at the track
TLR 22 mid motor onboard (low grip track)
06-16-2014, 03:00 PM
#66
My "parrot" comment wasn't meant as an insult but rather as a call for people to finally stop repeating everything they hear and instead learn how to think for themselves. There's nothing insulting about that.
In regards to things being done for a reason, of course everything is done for a reason. It doesn't always make the reason a good one though. Morton Thiokol had a reason for using the O-rings that they did in the Space Shuttle booster engines. One failed and the Challenger went down. Thomas Andrews had a reason for not running the water tight bulkheads all the way to the deck of the Titanic. White Star Lines had a reason for taking half of the lifeboats off of the "unsinkable" ship. Most safety regulations today are retroactive based on improving things after failures of parts that were all designed that way for a reason. To blindly accept that "the reason" something was done a certain way is fundamentally no different than the parrot analogy. It's blindly following others and accepting that their way is the best way to do it. I guess that's why people are so excited when some new and improved piece of technology comes out.
I came to my conclusions about MM and motor orientation through personal trial and error. Before I played with MM, I blindly repeated the accepted methods too. I didn't like they way the car handled and proceeded to try to figure out why those things were the way they were. I wasn't content with the answer that this was just how mid motor cars drove. Why? Incidentally my first MM car was a XXX conversion from Atomic Carbon. It started out as a 3 gear with external idler and later had a 4 gear. Then I went to the X-6^2 and tried their earlier 3 gear and their standard 4 gear before I sold them both off and went DEX210. I actually bought it to just try MM3 but quickly confirmed what I suspected about what things did and why.
I'm not sure why encouraging others to think for themselves is always met with backlash here? I'm not saying to blindly follow me either. Just learn how to think outside the box and independently. You'll do better in the long run.
In regards to things being done for a reason, of course everything is done for a reason. It doesn't always make the reason a good one though. Morton Thiokol had a reason for using the O-rings that they did in the Space Shuttle booster engines. One failed and the Challenger went down. Thomas Andrews had a reason for not running the water tight bulkheads all the way to the deck of the Titanic. White Star Lines had a reason for taking half of the lifeboats off of the "unsinkable" ship. Most safety regulations today are retroactive based on improving things after failures of parts that were all designed that way for a reason. To blindly accept that "the reason" something was done a certain way is fundamentally no different than the parrot analogy. It's blindly following others and accepting that their way is the best way to do it. I guess that's why people are so excited when some new and improved piece of technology comes out.
I came to my conclusions about MM and motor orientation through personal trial and error. Before I played with MM, I blindly repeated the accepted methods too. I didn't like they way the car handled and proceeded to try to figure out why those things were the way they were. I wasn't content with the answer that this was just how mid motor cars drove. Why? Incidentally my first MM car was a XXX conversion from Atomic Carbon. It started out as a 3 gear with external idler and later had a 4 gear. Then I went to the X-6^2 and tried their earlier 3 gear and their standard 4 gear before I sold them both off and went DEX210. I actually bought it to just try MM3 but quickly confirmed what I suspected about what things did and why.
I'm not sure why encouraging others to think for themselves is always met with backlash here? I'm not saying to blindly follow me either. Just learn how to think outside the box and independently. You'll do better in the long run.
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
