Furadi

First race of the season is this Saturday so I spent my day off rebuilding both of our 2.0s. Up to 37 packs on my new car with the AGFrc servo.

romanmotruk

I know that this question has been asked a thousand times, but I will ask because I have no information why the rear shock absorbers are made longer than the front ones, in classic buggies, in 48 2.0 they were made the same length, I understand that the butterfly became lower and narrow , but I am interested in the theoretical answer why others make long ones, I want to make short cors 410.3 on short shock absorbers and I want to know the theory of the process

Matthew_Armeni

iTrader: (31)

Simplest answer is because the front shocks are mounted further in on the arms than the rears. The further in on the arm you go, the more shock travel compared to wheel travel you'll get. The 2.0 shock positions are a lot closer F/R so we were able to get away with using equal length shocks. I actually prefer the longer length rear shock option on the 2.0 buggy though. I feel it's more forgiving and works better on bumpy tracks.

frewster

iTrader: (1)

Do you need longer shock shafts as well as the taller tower for that setup?

Kave

iTrader: (17)

Yes you do.

UK.hardcore

No, just tower and shock bodies.

tobamiester

iTrader: (360)

Yup, shafts and bodies, as well as Tall Tower.

Wiggins runs an extra shock collar TKR6013 (minus the O-ring) to take up the slack so you can run a regular spring. for 127mm droop.

To Matthew's comment, it may only feel beneficial on certain tracks. I tried it recently and didn't feel any benefit, so went back to regular shocks/tower. But useful to keep in your pit bag for specific track conditions.

themountain

LOL...you know your stuff

Matthew_Armeni

iTrader: (31)

You have the option to run the longer shafts when you run the tall tower and long bodies. If you just swap the tower and bodies you'll maintain your droop and you'll have increased volume inside the body for the shock shaft displacement. This means that you'll have the potential for less rebound and the shocks won't seem to pack up as hard on big landings. It also loses a little bit of support on the rear under power.
Now, if you run the longer shafts, you can get more droop and you won't need to unscrew the shock ends. The extra droop will really help if you decide to run the #3, 4, or 5 hub insert.
Originally I always ran tall tower, long bodies, short shafts. I have since switched to long shafts, mostly so I don't have to unscrew the shock ends to get the amount of droop that I like. If we offered a shaft length in between the 2 current ones I would probably run that, plenty of droop and increased volume compensation.

UK.hardcore

rcgod

iTrader: (33)

What are the part numbers for those parts? Also what is the camber link mod and when would you use it?

Matthew_Armeni

iTrader: (31)

The tall rear tower is TKR9269. The longer shock bodies are TKR6060. The longer shock shafts are TKR6061.

I think you're asking about the kingpin link on the carrier, like what Thornhill offers. If that's the case you can pretty much run that everywhere. The only types of track where it might be at disadvantage is a small tight one, especially if there's a lot of single pipe 180's.

rcgod

iTrader: (33)

Thanks for the part numbers. Yes I was talking about the kingpin link.

teamreidy

So whats the general consensus emulsion or bladder shock build ?

Matthew_Armeni

iTrader: (31)

Amongst the top guys I would say it's driver and track dependent. Choose whatever you feel most comfortable on or are most comfortable building.