Team Corally RDX Touring Car
#6706
Hey Jeff!!...whats the word on the new arms??..........just joking!!!!....
#6707
I would like to thank Ray Derrock and Danny Hartman on this thread as well for all their help and support throughout the weekend. You guys really made my car 100 times better than whet it was. All they have to do now is work on the driver, lol. You guys and the AB Charles team are really making this a really fun hobby and I can't wait to see whats in store in the future. Thanks again for all your help.
#6708
Originally Posted by kobiwan
On the subject of the lowered front shock tower, Are you supposed to cut both the shock shaft 3mm and the eyelet 3mm or just one or the other?
#6710
Originally Posted by gibbous
Are people cutting the e-clip end and just cutting new slots for clips? Or does there happen to be enough thread on the threaded end to take some off there? Alternatively, is there another part that you could swap in?
No other parts.
#6712
Originally Posted by syndr0me
I wonder if Corally will come out with a lowered shock tower kit for the shocks in the future? Some shortened shafts and ball ends would be sweeeet.
#6713
Don't mean to stir the pot, but I've found that cutting the ends of the shock shafts it completely unnecessary.
I only cut 3mm off the eyelets, and use the Associated spring retainers, and have plenty of room.
And before anyone tells me the piston will hit the bladder/top of shock....
take a look at your shock while it's on the car and at the correct ride height. Push down until your chassis nearly hits the ground and notice how far the shock shaft moves in....less than 3/16 of an inch. The threaded portion doesn't even enter the shock body.
So there's no way the piston is going to go "too far" while the car is running on the track. If you're THAT worried about it, get the Tamiya 3-hole pistons that's everyone's raving about, and put them in the "lower" position (since they're thinner than the Corally ones and have to be shimmed...put the shim on the top).
I only cut 3mm off the eyelets, and use the Associated spring retainers, and have plenty of room.
And before anyone tells me the piston will hit the bladder/top of shock....
take a look at your shock while it's on the car and at the correct ride height. Push down until your chassis nearly hits the ground and notice how far the shock shaft moves in....less than 3/16 of an inch. The threaded portion doesn't even enter the shock body.
So there's no way the piston is going to go "too far" while the car is running on the track. If you're THAT worried about it, get the Tamiya 3-hole pistons that's everyone's raving about, and put them in the "lower" position (since they're thinner than the Corally ones and have to be shimmed...put the shim on the top).
#6714
Tech Elite
iTrader: (10)
It's more than that, McSmooth.
When you make the piston's "neutral" position higher in the body, there is less volume of shock oil for it to push up and against. It changes the dampening characteristics.
I've also found that it is hard to get less than 2 mm droop over ride height (without compromising ride height) if you do not also cut the shock shaft.
When you make the piston's "neutral" position higher in the body, there is less volume of shock oil for it to push up and against. It changes the dampening characteristics.
I've also found that it is hard to get less than 2 mm droop over ride height (without compromising ride height) if you do not also cut the shock shaft.
#6715
Haven't had a single problem with either, and I've been running them this way for the last 6 months.
#6716
Originally Posted by McSmooth
Don't mean to stir the pot, but I've found that cutting the ends of the shock shafts it completely unnecessary.
I only cut 3mm off the eyelets, and use the Associated spring retainers, and have plenty of room.
And before anyone tells me the piston will hit the bladder/top of shock....
take a look at your shock while it's on the car and at the correct ride height. Push down until your chassis nearly hits the ground and notice how far the shock shaft moves in....less than 3/16 of an inch. The threaded portion doesn't even enter the shock body.
So there's no way the piston is going to go "too far" while the car is running on the track. If you're THAT worried about it, get the Tamiya 3-hole pistons that's everyone's raving about, and put them in the "lower" position (since they're thinner than the Corally ones and have to be shimmed...put the shim on the top).
I only cut 3mm off the eyelets, and use the Associated spring retainers, and have plenty of room.
And before anyone tells me the piston will hit the bladder/top of shock....
take a look at your shock while it's on the car and at the correct ride height. Push down until your chassis nearly hits the ground and notice how far the shock shaft moves in....less than 3/16 of an inch. The threaded portion doesn't even enter the shock body.
So there's no way the piston is going to go "too far" while the car is running on the track. If you're THAT worried about it, get the Tamiya 3-hole pistons that's everyone's raving about, and put them in the "lower" position (since they're thinner than the Corally ones and have to be shimmed...put the shim on the top).
Plus, you may be fine without cutting the shock shafts but I definately had too. What works for one does not work for another. Plus with having the best car out there and all the money invested into it that you have, why half-ass it? It takes about 1/2 hour to do correctly and once it's done, it doesn't have to be done again!!
As far as the Tamiya piston, still does not solve the problem because the shock shaft is still the same length and the shaft is what will hit the bladder.
Plus there will always be the chance that the shock will hit the bladder. Just pushing the car down on a flat table until the bottom of the chassis "nearly" hits does not cut it. Forces under racing are always more extreme than playing with the car on a set-up board...Murphy's Law...if it can happen it will!!
#6717
You can try to justify it all you want, I have found it completely unncessary. If you have nothing better to do and want to cut them, then knock yourself out.
If you want to get into Fluid Mechanics, dynamic systems, and mechanical vibration (shock theory)...then bring it.
It all is nothing more than "Hey, so-and-so did it, so I better do it too!"
Nobody is going to convince me otherwise.
If you want to get into Fluid Mechanics, dynamic systems, and mechanical vibration (shock theory)...then bring it.
It all is nothing more than "Hey, so-and-so did it, so I better do it too!"
Nobody is going to convince me otherwise.
#6718
That may be true for full scale, but I don't think it's much of an issue here.
All in all, I don't think it matters either way, but FWIW,
The amount of oil resting on top of the piston does change, but the dampening action should not signfiicantly change, it will still take a certain amount of force to move the piston through the oil at a certain speed. As for wear, you're looking at having the o-ring rub against the shaft at a different location than usual. Unless I'm missing something I don't see the issue here, to be honest.
All in all, I don't think it matters either way, but FWIW,
The amount of oil resting on top of the piston does change, but the dampening action should not signfiicantly change, it will still take a certain amount of force to move the piston through the oil at a certain speed. As for wear, you're looking at having the o-ring rub against the shaft at a different location than usual. Unless I'm missing something I don't see the issue here, to be honest.
#6719
Tech Lord
iTrader: (32)
I can't think of an ulterior motive for suggesting people trim their shock shafts, since nobody is making money on it. Presumably, people are making that suggestion in good faith, and the honest belief that is makes a difference.
McSmooth, instead of trying to intimidate us with the threat of debating fluid mechanics with you, perhaps you can "bring it" to us first by using that knowledge to provide definitive proof that this is an unnecessary modification.
McSmooth, instead of trying to intimidate us with the threat of debating fluid mechanics with you, perhaps you can "bring it" to us first by using that knowledge to provide definitive proof that this is an unnecessary modification.
#6720
Doesn't get any simpler than this:
1. I've tried it both ways already.
2. Didn't make a bit of difference.
1. I've tried it both ways already.
2. Didn't make a bit of difference.