Go Back  R/C Tech Forums > General Forums > Electric Off-Road
AE  B6.2D / B6.2 Thread >

AE B6.2D / B6.2 Thread

Like Tree1275Likes

AE B6.2D / B6.2 Thread

    Hide Wikipost
Old 10-30-2020, 02:57 PM   -   Wikipost
R/C Tech ForumsThread Wiki: AE B6.2D / B6.2 Thread
Please read: This is a community-maintained wiki post containing the most important information from this thread. You may edit the Wiki once you have been a member for 90 days and have made 90 posts.
 
Last edit by: Kraig
Reference Guides (courtesy of Ray Munday and Roger M.): What is the difference between 2 gears and 4 gears in the gear diff?
Please read these posts by Roger M. Maybe this has been answered but what are the little orings in diff do for tuning?
Please read these posts by Roger M.
Information on the rear axles and the different length dog bones from Roger M.

The 0 (option) and +2 (kit) axles are for using different length driveshafts with the different arm lengths

Kit +2 axles

73mm arms wih 67mm driveshafts
75mm arms with 69mm driveshafts

Option 0 axles

73mm arms with 65mm driveshafts
75mm arms with 67mm driveshafts

Why would you want to change the driveshaft length?
It is essentially to do with the fact that a drive joint will want to run straight under power and the position of that joint (the pin through the CVA joint into the axle).
The further that CVA joint pin is inboard of the lower hub hingepin (assuming you're running fairly typical outer link positions) the more bind you will generate in the suspension as the drive joint tried to straighten under power, this extra binding will 'stiffen' the suspension as it adds load on top of that from the weight transfer on the car.
Conversely the the nearer the CVA joint pin is to lower hub hinge pin the less bind and thus freer suspension movement.

When would you want to change this?

Basically on bumpy tracks, tracks with inconsistent grip or lower grip you want the suspension to be as free to move as possible so that you get the full benefit from the shock and roll centre tuning, also the car feels like it has more grip in the areas where you go on/off/on the gas.
To this end you will be running the longest possible dog bone you can for the arm length, hence why the +2 axles are in the kit.

On smooth super high grip tracks (EOS / CRC carpet for example) running a shorter dogbone will feel like it takes grip away from the rear as you get on power, aiding late corner rotation and reducing the on-power understeer that often plagues tight carpet tracks.
The only time I would run the 0 axles is with 67mm dogbones on 75mm arms and only then when I wish I could get let rear toe than the 1deg minimum we can get from the pills we have (actually I had custom pill made so I can get 0deg rear toe for those types of tracks but ...)

What are the handling differences between the 73 and 75mm arms.
Brief explanation from RogerM (thanks!)

The arm length effects the roll centre and more significantly the roll centre migration as the car rolls in the corners.

Shorter rear arms will encourage more tire loading so more grip as the car rolls, great for lower grip surfaces but on high grip surfaces they can stall the rotation mid corner costing corner speed. They can also make the car feel more reactive which is good when a low grip level makes the car feel less reactive so making it harder to place in technical sections.

Long rear arms the opposite, car will rotate more freely for more corner speed but won't generate as much side-bite so mid/late corner will be reduced. Make the car feel naturally lazier which is great on high grip surfaces as it makes the car easier to drive overall.

So the long Vs short rear arm is just like the flat Vs gullwing front arm, all about the grip level from the surface and how technical the track layout is.




Print Wikipost

Old 05-04-2021, 05:50 AM
  #2446  
Tech Apprentice
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 50
Default

Originally Posted by RogerM View Post
I'd get the B6.3 chassis then it is ready for when you want to update to the new servo mount in the future, which will be better on high grip surfaces.
Using the B6.1/B6.2 side rails that you already have you can mount the servo the conventional way until you get the upgraded servo mount.
Have you ran both servo mounting setups back to back? And can anyone confirm if the servo is still off of the chassis?
Shawn B is offline  
Old 05-04-2021, 06:04 AM
  #2447  
Tech Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 515
Default

Originally Posted by RogerM View Post
I'd get the B6.3 chassis then it is ready for when you want to update to the new servo mount in the future, which will be better on high grip surfaces.
Using the B6.1/B6.2 side rails that you already have you can mount the servo the conventional way until you get the upgraded servo mount.
If he wants to have the short chassis then it would be the B6.3D I think.
RogerM and daz_75 like this.
Pistol123 is online now  
Old 05-04-2021, 11:23 AM
  #2448  
Tech Rookie
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Posts: 12
Default

Originally Posted by Silverbullet555 View Post
Thanks for the confirmation. Is there any indication when mounting (i.e. clearance issues or would it hit weight plate?) as to why the bottom of the servo mounts aren't flat for maximum contact to the chassis?
Good question, I'll check when I get home to see what clearance under the servo to chassis is like. IIRC it's not much, but doesn't have to be to allow for some chassis flex, which I believe is the goal of the update. The old mounting system boxed everything at the servo mounts, effectively stiffening the chassis at that point. Floating the servo up off the chassis would allow for additional torsional flex/twist which would again serve their intended goal of the redesign. Think Kurt Wenger talked about this in one of the AE Facebook live sessions recently.
trf211 and Silverbullet555 like this.
Bicycle019 is offline  
Old 05-04-2021, 11:40 AM
  #2449  
Tech Addict
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: Idaho
Posts: 624
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Bicycle019 View Post
Good question, I'll check when I get home to see what clearance under the servo to chassis is like. IIRC it's not much, but doesn't have to be to allow for some chassis flex, which I believe is the goal of the update. The old mounting system boxed everything at the servo mounts, effectively stiffening the chassis at that point. Floating the servo up off the chassis would allow for additional torsional flex/twist which would again serve their intended goal of the redesign. Think Kurt Wenger talked about this in one of the AE Facebook live sessions recently.
Thanks. I'll go look for the facebook live session too.
Silverbullet555 is offline  
Old 05-04-2021, 11:36 PM
  #2450  
Tech Rookie
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Posts: 12
Default

Quick update on servo mount - with my Power HD S15 servo mounted up, the servo is flush to the 25g steel servo plate I'm running.
Bicycle019 is offline  
Old 05-05-2021, 03:42 AM
  #2451  
Tech Apprentice
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 50
Default

Originally Posted by Bicycle019 View Post
Quick update on servo mount - with my Power HD S15 servo mounted up, the servo is flush to the 25g steel servo plate I'm running.
So now all of the impacts go directly to the servo...
Shawn B is offline  
Old 05-05-2021, 04:29 AM
  #2452  
Tech Fanatic
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 817
Default

Originally Posted by Shawn B View Post
Have you ran both servo mounting setups back to back? And can anyone confirm if the servo is still off of the chassis?
Yes, I've run the directly mounted servo on my carpet car for 2 years (from B6.1).

The aim is to remove the connection between the 2 side rails so the chassis can flex more consistently on high grip conditions which in turn gives move consistent front tyre loading throughout the whole corner.
For it to work properly you need to have the servo so it does not touch the chassis weights, as there is a little bit of free play on the mounting position make sure the servo is biased upwards.
jtodd57 and Silverbullet555 like this.
RogerM is offline  
Old 05-05-2021, 12:43 PM
  #2453  
Tech Rookie
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Posts: 12
Default

Originally Posted by Shawn B View Post
So now all of the impacts go directly to the servo...
Well lots of impacts going into the servo already via the front wheels. When you try to twist the chassis along it's length you can see that there is more flex available than before, the rails now have some room to move around in relation to the servo. First track time with the new front end setup is tonight, will see if it's noticeable. Already did the C/D block/73mm arm/69 bone changes to the rear last week along with new thinner shock pistons+2.5 heavier oil and car was feeling really good. The 6.3 upgrades seem to be a step forward.
Bicycle019 is offline  
Old 05-05-2021, 02:51 PM
  #2454  
Tech Addict
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: Idaho
Posts: 624
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Bicycle019 View Post
Well lots of impacts going into the servo already via the front wheels. When you try to twist the chassis along it's length you can see that there is more flex available than before, the rails now have some room to move around in relation to the servo. First track time with the new front end setup is tonight, will see if it's noticeable. Already did the C/D block/73mm arm/69 bone changes to the rear last week along with new thinner shock pistons+2.5 heavier oil and car was feeling really good. The 6.3 upgrades seem to be a step forward.
Any other changes when you went to the wider c and d blocks and narrow arms?
Silverbullet555 is offline  
Old 05-05-2021, 05:41 PM
  #2455  
Tech Apprentice
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 50
Default

Originally Posted by Bicycle019 View Post
Well lots of impacts going into the servo already via the front wheels. When you try to twist the chassis along it's length you can see that there is more flex available than before, the rails now have some room to move around in relation to the servo. First track time with the new front end setup is tonight, will see if it's noticeable. Already did the C/D block/73mm arm/69 bone changes to the rear last week along with new thinner shock pistons+2.5 heavier oil and car was feeling really good. The 6.3 upgrades seem to be a step forward.
Different then landing hard or bottom out from a large jump. I tend to like my cars with as little flex as possible and I adjust for more traction in other ways. Imo flex tuning is not consistent tuning
Shawn B is offline  
Old 05-05-2021, 09:44 PM
  #2456  
Tech Rookie
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Posts: 12
Default

Originally Posted by Silverbullet555 View Post
Any other changes when you went to the wider c and d blocks and narrow arms?
I have approached this as a "one change at a time" process.

Track is smaller high bite indoor clay, tires are always slick S3 Prolines w/yellow Liquid Wrench, running 17.5 class.

Previous setup was already pretty dialed in (confirmed by other drivers as well) and have been using Dustin Evans MHOR setup as starting point with changes being +3 chassis, 75mm arms, 69mm bones, 5mm hex, and the rear pills set to full outside/full down. Shocks were 1.6/1.7/32.5wt/V1 grey front and 1.7/30wt/V1 white rear. Ran a pack then changed to wider 6.3 C/D blocks and arms to 73mm, kept pills outside/full down. Rear end was a bit more planted, could push it harder, less snap at the limit. No increase to understeer, just easier to drive. This was noticeable.

Then switched to the 2mm shock pistons (1.6F/1.7R) and went up 2.5wt in oil as recommended. Car was calmer over the chatter, most noticeable at speed on front straight which had significant undulations depending on where across it you drove. Looked a bit "lighter on it's feet" but still had the same character as before in corner and jumping/landing. Less noticeable, but still better than before.

Tonight was first run of the 6.3 servo setup. The change was harder to tell as it wasn't trackside swap, and we're on a new layout and conditions have changed and grip is down; we've switched to treaded MC Proline's for now vs. the slick S3 that we'll be back to in a few weeks once the track settles in. Reserving judgement for now, but not going back to 6.2 spec as that would require new side rails.

Check this out, start at about 18:30 for Kurt Wenger's thought on 6.3 upgrades, with comments from Rivken and Thielke.
https://www.facebook.com/TeamAssociated/videos/461620888298062/
RogerM, Pistol123, Speed 8 and 1 others like this.
Bicycle019 is offline  
Old Today, 04:26 AM
  #2457  
Tech Rookie
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 11
Default Shock cups lengths

Hi,

If you keep all the car the same but change from +5mm cups to 0mm shock cups, what effect does this have besides having to wind the shock collar down more to get ride height back. Does it change where the piston sits inside the body?

Thanks
Tooldtorace is offline  

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


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.