Originally Posted by John Stranahan

Marty- Probably best to move the suspension discussion off the pan car thread to here. I did make one more post over there since you posted a third diagram. So here is a sketch. Advantages are no protrusion above the upper arm. Rising rate (the suspension does not "break over center" or become weaker at full bump). coil over shocks or springs can be very low. Now the question is, is there enough room to do something like this. The suspension can be maybe only 1/16 inch higher than the Associated based on my experience with the Peugeot body slammed way down. Also there would be considerable force on the pushrod at the lower angle and lesser mechanical advantage at the bellcrank. Less spring tension would be required as a result.

I would also try and design the car to work with a short servo which are now available and maybe we can lay it down flat and feed off the front of the servo saver instead of the back. This would give the suspension more room and possibly allow some parts interchange left to right. My servo does not stay put mounted like it is. Mounts are too soft and slippery. I am always resetting steering trim. A one piece aluminum sevo mount for both sides in one piece would help my up angled servo.

Originally Posted by yyhayyim

Have tested both suspensions. The Corally C10X wide car suspension is TC like. Its smoother and lower than Associated's. I think that if we are talking about front suspension, this would be a good starting point. See the following links for pics:

(1)http://www.corally.net/Home/Produkte...0x_pro_10.html

(2)http://international.corally.com/images/C10X1.jpg

Originally Posted by yyhayyim

John & Marty: what's the best battery placement set up you have tested which gives best results for outdoor asphalt racing? Straight down the middle like the Pantoura, Corally CCT, Losi JRX-S, etc, or saddle pack style set ups? Maybe its better centerline/inline set up, so that weight is kept as much centered as possible, and thus keep the car from transferring so much to the outside on cornering, and prevent understeer/oversteer pblms, or some say its the opposite, the more weight on the edges, the better for low grip aspahlt, since more weight is placed on tires and thus more tractions...what has been your experience?

Originally Posted by John Stranahan

Here is the thing. Those full size cars have a real suspension in the front. Probaly have 3 - 4.5 inches of front travel.

I have exactly 2.5 mm of front travel. That's .1 inch. In real scale that would be 1 inch. That is just not enough. At speed the bump will lift the dam, all bets are off if there is not enough weight to pull it back down in the next few milliseconds. Forget lifting the throttle. It happens way too fast. I have some experience here on a long rough track. The pan car nats was discontinued from this very problem. I would rather the bump lift the wheels and scrape the dam. I stick by my statement. now if you are running 6 cells NiMH you have about 7 more ounces of weight on the car. Front end lift may not be such a problem. I have never liked saddle packs just from the Kiss principle that Pro-ten Holland brought up. Now tell me how a sideways six cell pack is different, other than appearance, than two 3 cell packs in a saddle pack placed toward the back. Certainly that angled center shock is not much improvement over a high shock except for a tiny bit smaller center of gravity. My car actually handled much better outdoors when I raised the center of gravity with the body.

YYhayhim-Tell me on the Corrally C10 X. Is the camber and caster Adjustable. Can you get front springs?

Roll Centers
I have done some thinking (and sketching) on roll centers at the front of the Associated car. I have a feeling that it does not change at all when you tinker with the angle of the upper arm, it always ends up centered at the level of the lower arms which are parallel to the ground. I welcome discussion on this. You do affect camber changes by tinkering with the upper arm. With two moving A-arms you would have the ability to actually lower the roll center for Asphalt. The front roll center is really high on my car, thats why a high center of gravity caused such an improvement.

I have though about the rear roll center on these cars as well. I don't think you can call the rear pivot the roll center and my test with lowering the pivot certainly reflect this. On a full size car with a solid rear axle, leaf or coil springs, no Panhard bar or Watts link, the rear roll center is centered on the axle. The panhard bar or Watts link is added to make this adjustable. I think that on our pan cars the rear roll center is at the ground and moves quickly to the outboard corner of the outside tire on roll since everything is solid back there.

Originally Posted by tallyrc

keep in mind part of this upswing of interest in pancars is the relative simplicity, ease of maintenance, low cost, and low weight.. the more complicated it becomes, the more it defeats the purpose for many of us..

Originally Posted by Marty Peterson

No you are looking at it right and it will work just like that and as for software to test it out No it was on my computer that got damaged in our flood and is not come back yet but I do know that I can make this as soon as I fill some orders and get some free time. When I am done with it I will send you the setup and Mathijs (Pro Ten Holland) and the 3 of us will test it and see what is what as they say ok.

And what body is this?