R/C Tech Forums

Go Back   R/C Tech Forums > General Forums > Nitro Off-Road

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-02-2007, 01:37 PM   #961
Tech Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 349
Default

My expecrience with the rear hub carrier adjustment is just the opposite of what you said SebsCustom. When I attach the hub carrier to the arm in the bottom hole the car has less forward and side bite. When it's mounted in the top hole the car has more forward bite and side bite. I run mine in the top hole all the time unless I need more steering. I originally ran my hub carrier in the bottom hole. When our track was blown out and dusty I was told by a Mugen Japan sponsored driver to change it to get more traction. Now it just feels right in that position.
kmorast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2007, 01:46 PM   #962
Tech Master
 
Merciless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,027
Send a message via ICQ to Merciless
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kmorast
My expecrience with the rear hub carrier adjustment is just the opposite of what you said SebsCustom. When I attach the hub carrier to the arm in the bottom hole the car has less forward and side bite. When it's mounted in the top hole the car has more forward bite and side bite. I run mine in the top hole all the time unless I need more steering. I originally ran my hub carrier in the bottom hole. When our track was blown out and dusty I was told by a Mugen Japan sponsored driver to change it to get more traction. Now it just feels right in that position.
+1
Merciless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2007, 04:15 PM   #963
Tech Champion
 
nobike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,029
Trader Rating: 147 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kmorast
My expecrience with the rear hub carrier adjustment is just the opposite of what you said SebsCustom. When I attach the hub carrier to the arm in the bottom hole the car has less forward and side bite. When it's mounted in the top hole the car has more forward bite and side bite. I run mine in the top hole all the time unless I need more steering. I originally ran my hub carrier in the bottom hole. When our track was blown out and dusty I was told by a Mugen Japan sponsored driver to change it to get more traction. Now it just feels right in that position.
+2
nobike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2007, 05:07 PM   #964
Tech Regular
 
Timox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 314
Trader Rating: 5 (100%+)
Default

I guess i should drop mine down a hole then because i have too much steering and not enough rear traction at the moment.

I can see now how it would lower the rear RC. By making the top camber link at less of an angle.

Thanks guys You have been very helpfull.
Timox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2007, 07:22 PM   #965
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 176
Default

You guys are correct, most (good\better) drivers use the second hole.

The problem that I found with the bottom most hole was that it had the grip up to a certain point and past that it would break loose and it was a handful to recover no to mention slow around the track if that happened.

PS: I run mine in the second hole (upper one)
SebsCustom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2007, 07:24 PM   #966
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 176
Default

Here is a question for all Mugen buggy owners:

How much does your buggy weigh? (no fuel, everything else reace ready)
SebsCustom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2007, 07:46 PM   #967
Tech Master
 
rcmike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: plano,tx
Posts: 1,702
Trader Rating: 40 (100%+)
Default

[QUOTE=Mugen 5r]I have put the 1.5mm spacers under the top arm blocks already.

What did that do for you? Thanks Just wanted your opinion
rcmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2007, 04:12 AM   #968
Tech Addict
 
keyesgood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: perth, australia
Posts: 510
Trader Rating: 9 (100%+)
Default rear hubs , position

hi , iv read every thing you guys have said and will be trying the upper hole to see the results , but i more agree with ryan barnes , when you use the lower hole , you are lowering the chassis, ie centre of grav , ? so there would be more weight over the rear end , and every set up iv looked at is lower hole , even scott h ,mbx5r worlds 2006 set up ,


oh , on his set up sheet for the worlds , scott hughes did not say what track width he run , and he run xtr bow ties which or not out yet , but he is a manager at proline ,


mike ,
__________________
MBX7, O.S SPEED , SANWA , STOCK CLUB CAR

MBX7 O.S SPEED , SANWA , FULLY BOMDED KEYSEY TURBO EDITION
keyesgood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2007, 09:23 AM   #969
Tech Elite
 
Turbo Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Corona, CA
Posts: 4,878
Trader Rating: 41 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by keyesgood
hi , iv read every thing you guys have said and will be trying the upper hole to see the results , but i more agree with ryan barnes , when you use the lower hole , you are lowering the chassis, ie centre of grav , ?
Uhhh...you can do THAT (lower CG) by lowering the ride height with shock clips.

Changing the outer pin location might raise or lower the chassis, depending on which way you go. Assuming that you go do the same ride height (for a given track), what you really changed is the roll center.

I'm not sure about some of the conventions (terms) used for it in this application, but you are lengthening the instant center distance (theoretical intersection point of the arms) and giving the chassis less leverage to roll/transfer weight (traction). I know some about this stuff from 1:1 cars, but there are several good RC chassis tuning sites that have great animations to explain it.
Turbo Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2007, 12:11 PM   #970
Tech Adept
 
gasman517's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: vancouver
Posts: 121
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbo Joe
Uhhh...you can do THAT (lower CG) by lowering the ride height with shock clips.

Changing the outer pin location might raise or lower the chassis, depending on which way you go. Assuming that you go do the same ride height (for a given track), what you really changed is the roll center.

I'm not sure about some of the conventions (terms) used for it in this application, but you are lengthening the instant center distance (theoretical intersection point of the arms) and giving the chassis less leverage to roll/transfer weight (traction). I know some about this stuff from 1:1 cars, but there are several good RC chassis tuning sites that have great animations to explain it.
You are right as far as i know all you will change is the instant centre if you lower the buggy, to change the centre of gravity you will have to change the weight distribution .
gasman517 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2007, 12:58 PM   #971
Tech Elite
 
Turbo Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Corona, CA
Posts: 4,878
Trader Rating: 41 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gasman517
You are right as far as i know all you will change is the instant centre if you lower the buggy, to change the centre of gravity you will have to change the weight distribution .
Sorta...if you lower the center of mass (the chassis), by definition you lower the CG. The instant center (of gravity) is more a theoretical construct that illustrates the chassis leverage points.

If you lower the chassis, you move the instant center as well, but it's the relationship between the center of gravity and the instant center that really matters.

When you mess with anti-squat and kickup, you're messing with the fore-aft instant center vs. CG to add/subtract forward bite. When you play with arm/link pivot angles, you mess with the roll center...which is the CG vs. the ("lateral" or side/side) instant center for adjust roll/side bite. It's all about leverage, either way.
Turbo Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2007, 02:45 PM   #972
Tech Master
 
Merciless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,027
Send a message via ICQ to Merciless
Default

I think what Turbo etc are saying is ......

Given that your going to need to maintain your ride height, after moving the pin location on the hub you'll then raise the chassis back up to where it was before to get the correct ride height !!

Now all your left with is a roll center alteration to your car ???

Which is the way i see it too

I think the guys have done a really good job of explaining this, but if your still having trouble i know the XXXmain set-up book covers it
Merciless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2007, 05:17 PM   #973
Tech Elite
 
Turbo Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Corona, CA
Posts: 4,878
Trader Rating: 41 (100%+)
Default

Turbo Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2007, 06:13 PM   #974
Tech Addict
 
keyesgood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: perth, australia
Posts: 510
Trader Rating: 9 (100%+)
Default mbx5r ,

iv got the xxx main book , im trying to work out what you all are saying , so if i use the upper hole in the hub it will give me more roll , thus more traction , is this what your saying ,



thanks ,

mike ,
__________________
MBX7, O.S SPEED , SANWA , STOCK CLUB CAR

MBX7 O.S SPEED , SANWA , FULLY BOMDED KEYSEY TURBO EDITION
keyesgood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2007, 07:27 PM   #975
Tech Regular
 
Timox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 314
Trader Rating: 5 (100%+)
Default

Yes Mike i think that's exactly what they are saying.



Am i also correct in thinking that you could also lower the inside of the rear lower arm by using a rear tow in block with -1 squat and the lowest anti squat spacer ? So you still maintain the 2deg anti squat but the inside of the lower arm is now in a lower position ?

That would also lower roll centre too wouldn't it ? BUT, in this case it would RAISE the centre of gravity a tiny bit yes ? So its probably not a desirable thing to do is it ?

I am just trying to explore every available and possible adjustment.And get an understanding of what it all dose.
Timox is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FS Mugen MBX5-T Prospec & MBX5-R Both less than 3 gallons! V-Spec Less than 1 gallon! ffpm46 R/C Items: For Sale/Trade 20 08-01-2008 06:27 PM
whats the difference mbx5 prospec / mbx5 r lynell90 Nitro Off-Road 6 04-24-2008 02:31 PM
Mugen MBX5 Electric Conversion, MBX5 and MBX5R Spare Parts! Cain R/C Items: For Sale/Trade 18 04-10-2008 03:16 PM
Mugen MBX5, MBX5 Pro Spec, MBX5R Differences Cain Nitro Off-Road 12 10-01-2007 10:35 AM
MBX5 or MBX5 PROSPEC? Realworld differences? Jeel Electric Off-Road 5 12-05-2004 07:46 AM



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. It is currently 05:42 PM.


Powered By: vBulletin v3.9.2.1
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Advertise Content © 2001-2011 RCTech.net