80LikesDurango DEX210 Thread
02-03-2014, 11:51 AM
Thanks everyone for the input. I had a look on petit rc at all the setups and from what I saw and in my opinion everyone seems to be running a different piston depending on the track they are at. What I was looking for was a piston that worked at most tracks and all I had to change was the oil or spring depending on conditions.
02-03-2014, 12:07 PM
Thanks everyone for the input. I had a look on petit rc at all the setups and from what I saw and in my opinion everyone seems to be running a different piston depending on the track they are at. What I was looking for was a piston that worked at most tracks and all I had to change was the oil or spring depending on conditions.
02-03-2014, 12:11 PM
Most drivers will stick with one size piston (the piston size differs between drivers) and just change the shock oil accordingly. Changing pistons every time you go to a different track is a bit needless with such small increments of oil weight available. I personally go with larger hole pistons to help avoid packing since our local track has many small high-frequency bumps which can induce packing, then I simply adjust oil weight according to how the car feels on track after practice runs. Don't be tempted to use someone else's setup until you've tried to make your own; especially since track conditions can vary greatly between someone's local clay track and your own.
02-03-2014, 12:16 PM
Just start with that and adjust from there to work with your own driving style.
02-03-2014, 12:34 PM
02-03-2014, 12:37 PM
From my understanding, less hole area creates more pack because only so much oil can flow thru a given area. Thinner oil becomes turbulent faster and thus packs quicker than thicker oil which requires more velocity before it packs. However, thicker oil offers more initial resistance thus slowing the movement, but we are talking about pack, as when the shock shaft feels like it almost stops (pack).
I understand your point about leverage on the arm and slower shaft movement. I haven't seen too many cases where you want the front oil to be lighter than the rear. I understand your pack theory, but shock oil is more about controlling weight transfer.
Perhaps you can post the oil and piston combinations you are using, so we can test it out. I am always looking forward to learning or trying new theories or setups. Its all a learning process.
The velocity in which the oil travels thru the oil is in direct relation to hole size, number of holes and fluid viscosity. You have to address the shock in two instances. Laminar (weight transfer) and turbulent flow (pack)
From my understanding shock oil should be used to control weight transfer.. NOT PACK. Hole size and number of holes controls pack. Normally you want the front shock to have either equal or slightly heavier oil than the rear. Normally I prefer slightly heavier in the front, which allows it to compress slower under braking so that the front doesn't dive too much and you end up over steering entering the turn and have the back of the car compress faster under power to give you grip on exit. If you run thinner oil and smaller hole area, what happens is your transfer is quick then you get an abrupt stop cause it packs, and either you loose steering if the surface is low bite and push or wipe if it is high bite depending conditions. But at the same time your car should be balanced and the differences between the front and rear oil should not be that much otherwise you will have a car that is unbalanced thru the turn giving you either a hooking affect or mid-corner push. On extreme low bite conditions where I can't get enough steering, I may opt to use the same oil weight and piston area front and rear to get more weight in the front. I have seen some setups from the pro where they use super heavy oil like 60wt in the front on carpet and adjust hole sizes accordingly, but from watching the videos you can see they come in so HOT into the corner and brake, and they go heavy to stop the front from diving too fast.
There are several ways to setup a shock. Statically, you can have 50wt oil and 6x1.2 holes vs 30wt oil 2x1.6 and it may feel statically the same, but normally you will find thru testing that smooth speed and high grip tracks or carpet tracks favor heavier oils, while bumpier clay or dirt tracks favor lighter oils. The higher the speeds, the thicker the oil, That's why touring cars run heavier weight oils and buggies run lighter.
Normally in my 2WD, I prefer to run the same piston area. In my 4WD, depending on track either same piston and heavier oil or less hole area in the front and same oil for more pack cause the 4WD is more nose heavy.
Back to piston area. Obviously more holes or bigger area less pack. But here is the thing. Given the same piston area. let say approx ratio 5.3-5.4
3x1.5 or 4x 1.3 or 5x1.2 or (3x1.0+3x1.1) or (2x1.1+2x1.5) all have the area, however each will react differently. Think of it like this, bigger holes allow more flow before its threshold is reached, while smaller holes restrict the flow faster. Larger and less holes will pack later in the stroke, and more smaller holes will back earlier in the stroke. Bumpy tracks favor a larger hole setup, smooth tracks favor a smaller hole setup. More holes equals more turbulence. If the track is really bumpy try the 3x1.5; smooth try 4x1.3 or 5x1.2.
For the DEX210: Sometimes you need to find something in between like the 1.1 and 1.5 split holes to give you good bump handling but it has small holes to give you the pack when needed on larger jumps. In the rear, try 25 or 27wt with the 2x1.1 and 2x1.5 and tell me how you like it. I think its the best piston setup for most conditions. For the front I use 27 or 30wt, and either 3x1.5 or 4x1.2. Mind you temperature will affect the oils, so hot days go heavier all the way around.
Heavier shock oil will make the shock pack later in the stroke as thicker oil requires a higher piston velocity to create pack. Lighter shock oil requires less velocity to pack. That's why sometimes when you go higher shock oil, and you still bottom out and you are left scratching your head. Instead you should have went lighter oil which packs earlier or use less piston hole area. Too light of an oil, and too many small holes and the pack my occur in 1/3 of shock stroke and you end up bouncing more than damping. There is a whole science around shocks. I just use the hole size to adjust where in the stroke I want the pack to occur. You can try the combinations I listed above or use one of the setups that the pros use. But in real world applications, its better to follow a suspension package that the pros use as they have spend the time and effort to figure all this science out.
Please don't get me wrong, I am not here prove or disprove a theory. The forum is about sharing information and learning from each other. And we all get better by sharing what we know, and the only way to move forward is to try new ideas. Heck I had a whole debate about LRC vs HRC on low bite tracks. Then we when out and tested it. You know what. HRC drifts more but controlled. Its harder to lose the back end. LRC, you have more traction but when you start to lose it, you really lose it in a corner.
I understand your point about leverage on the arm and slower shaft movement. I haven't seen too many cases where you want the front oil to be lighter than the rear. I understand your pack theory, but shock oil is more about controlling weight transfer.
Perhaps you can post the oil and piston combinations you are using, so we can test it out. I am always looking forward to learning or trying new theories or setups. Its all a learning process.
The velocity in which the oil travels thru the oil is in direct relation to hole size, number of holes and fluid viscosity. You have to address the shock in two instances. Laminar (weight transfer) and turbulent flow (pack)
From my understanding shock oil should be used to control weight transfer.. NOT PACK. Hole size and number of holes controls pack. Normally you want the front shock to have either equal or slightly heavier oil than the rear. Normally I prefer slightly heavier in the front, which allows it to compress slower under braking so that the front doesn't dive too much and you end up over steering entering the turn and have the back of the car compress faster under power to give you grip on exit. If you run thinner oil and smaller hole area, what happens is your transfer is quick then you get an abrupt stop cause it packs, and either you loose steering if the surface is low bite and push or wipe if it is high bite depending conditions. But at the same time your car should be balanced and the differences between the front and rear oil should not be that much otherwise you will have a car that is unbalanced thru the turn giving you either a hooking affect or mid-corner push. On extreme low bite conditions where I can't get enough steering, I may opt to use the same oil weight and piston area front and rear to get more weight in the front. I have seen some setups from the pro where they use super heavy oil like 60wt in the front on carpet and adjust hole sizes accordingly, but from watching the videos you can see they come in so HOT into the corner and brake, and they go heavy to stop the front from diving too fast.
There are several ways to setup a shock. Statically, you can have 50wt oil and 6x1.2 holes vs 30wt oil 2x1.6 and it may feel statically the same, but normally you will find thru testing that smooth speed and high grip tracks or carpet tracks favor heavier oils, while bumpier clay or dirt tracks favor lighter oils. The higher the speeds, the thicker the oil, That's why touring cars run heavier weight oils and buggies run lighter.
Normally in my 2WD, I prefer to run the same piston area. In my 4WD, depending on track either same piston and heavier oil or less hole area in the front and same oil for more pack cause the 4WD is more nose heavy.
Back to piston area. Obviously more holes or bigger area less pack. But here is the thing. Given the same piston area. let say approx ratio 5.3-5.4
3x1.5 or 4x 1.3 or 5x1.2 or (3x1.0+3x1.1) or (2x1.1+2x1.5) all have the area, however each will react differently. Think of it like this, bigger holes allow more flow before its threshold is reached, while smaller holes restrict the flow faster. Larger and less holes will pack later in the stroke, and more smaller holes will back earlier in the stroke. Bumpy tracks favor a larger hole setup, smooth tracks favor a smaller hole setup. More holes equals more turbulence. If the track is really bumpy try the 3x1.5; smooth try 4x1.3 or 5x1.2.
For the DEX210: Sometimes you need to find something in between like the 1.1 and 1.5 split holes to give you good bump handling but it has small holes to give you the pack when needed on larger jumps. In the rear, try 25 or 27wt with the 2x1.1 and 2x1.5 and tell me how you like it. I think its the best piston setup for most conditions. For the front I use 27 or 30wt, and either 3x1.5 or 4x1.2. Mind you temperature will affect the oils, so hot days go heavier all the way around.
Heavier shock oil will make the shock pack later in the stroke as thicker oil requires a higher piston velocity to create pack. Lighter shock oil requires less velocity to pack. That's why sometimes when you go higher shock oil, and you still bottom out and you are left scratching your head. Instead you should have went lighter oil which packs earlier or use less piston hole area. Too light of an oil, and too many small holes and the pack my occur in 1/3 of shock stroke and you end up bouncing more than damping. There is a whole science around shocks. I just use the hole size to adjust where in the stroke I want the pack to occur. You can try the combinations I listed above or use one of the setups that the pros use. But in real world applications, its better to follow a suspension package that the pros use as they have spend the time and effort to figure all this science out.
Please don't get me wrong, I am not here prove or disprove a theory. The forum is about sharing information and learning from each other. And we all get better by sharing what we know, and the only way to move forward is to try new ideas. Heck I had a whole debate about LRC vs HRC on low bite tracks. Then we when out and tested it. You know what. HRC drifts more but controlled. Its harder to lose the back end. LRC, you have more traction but when you start to lose it, you really lose it in a corner.
02-03-2014, 01:32 PM
Dino_D
I have been running fred's method of pack/oil tuning on my shocks and I quite like the way my car drives and handles and jumps. It takes ruts pretty well, too.
I have 4x1.1mm in the front and 4x1.3mm in the rear. I can't remember the weights off the top of my head, but I think the front is somewhere between 5-10wt thinner than the rear. Both ends of the car pack up roughly equal and the weight transfer is also equal on both ends. It probably won't work that well if your front and rear springs are mismatched to each other. I do fred's spring balance procedure, too. I imagine if your springs aren't balanced, you won't have the same results.
I have been running fred's method of pack/oil tuning on my shocks and I quite like the way my car drives and handles and jumps. It takes ruts pretty well, too.
I have 4x1.1mm in the front and 4x1.3mm in the rear. I can't remember the weights off the top of my head, but I think the front is somewhere between 5-10wt thinner than the rear. Both ends of the car pack up roughly equal and the weight transfer is also equal on both ends. It probably won't work that well if your front and rear springs are mismatched to each other. I do fred's spring balance procedure, too. I imagine if your springs aren't balanced, you won't have the same results.
02-03-2014, 01:46 PM
I have to say, I'm really annoyed with Durango claiming their aluminum shock caps to include "All the items you will need to mount your shock caps" well, after ordering the shock caps, then the metal quick-change shock mounts thinking that would do the trick, I still cannot mount the damn things without the type-d pivot balls. Why these pivot balls are not included straight away? I have no clue, but here I am, ready to place another order just to pay shipping for some damn pieced of plastic. URgghghhh!
02-03-2014, 01:53 PM
Dino_D
I have been running fred's method of pack/oil tuning on my shocks and I quite like the way my car drives and handles and jumps. It takes ruts pretty well, too.
I have 4x1.1mm in the front and 4x1.3mm in the rear. I can't remember the weights off the top of my head, but I think the front is somewhere between 5-10wt thinner than the rear. Both ends of the car pack up roughly equal and the weight transfer is also equal on both ends. It probably won't work that well if your front and rear springs are mismatched to each other. I do fred's spring balance procedure, too. I imagine if your springs aren't balanced, you won't have the same results.
I have been running fred's method of pack/oil tuning on my shocks and I quite like the way my car drives and handles and jumps. It takes ruts pretty well, too.
I have 4x1.1mm in the front and 4x1.3mm in the rear. I can't remember the weights off the top of my head, but I think the front is somewhere between 5-10wt thinner than the rear. Both ends of the car pack up roughly equal and the weight transfer is also equal on both ends. It probably won't work that well if your front and rear springs are mismatched to each other. I do fred's spring balance procedure, too. I imagine if your springs aren't balanced, you won't have the same results.
02-03-2014, 02:16 PM
Unfortunately that just isn't possible. We balance tune. Balance tuning is doing just that. You are balancing your particular car and setup. Change anything on it and it isn't balanced. Both he and I run custom chassis. They are very different from each others. Mine is set up to run saddle or a sideways shorty. He runs a sideways shorty up against the motor. I use side braces which add rigidity and as a consequence weight. We couldn't trade setups with each other and still have them work since our esc's are different with different weights and in different locations as well as every other component. My setup must change based on if I run a saddle pack or a shorty since they each weigh different amounts. A setup sheet would do you no good and we haven't even gotten into track types yet. This is why I don't like them and don't share them.
02-03-2014, 02:25 PM
I have to say, I'm really annoyed with Durango claiming their aluminum shock caps to include "All the items you will need to mount your shock caps" well, after ordering the shock caps, then the metal quick-change shock mounts thinking that would do the trick, I still cannot mount the damn things without the type-d pivot balls. Why these pivot balls are not included straight away? I have no clue, but here I am, ready to place another order just to pay shipping for some damn pieced of plastic. URgghghhh!
02-03-2014, 02:53 PM
The kit did come with those pivot balls but they are too small for the shock caps mounted on the original shock mounts. And using the shock cap inserts that are provided with it won't squeeze over the stock shock mounts either. Did you not have trouble mounting your with your stock shock mounts using the Durango alum. caps?
02-03-2014, 03:13 PM
that would be the kit
The kit did come with those pivot balls but they are too small for the shock caps mounted on the original shock mounts. And using the shock cap inserts that are provided with it won't squeeze over the stock shock mounts either. Did you not have trouble mounting your with your stock shock mounts using the Durango alum. caps?
The kit did come with those pivot balls but they are too small for the shock caps mounted on the original shock mounts. And using the shock cap inserts that are provided with it won't squeeze over the stock shock mounts either. Did you not have trouble mounting your with your stock shock mounts using the Durango alum. caps?
02-03-2014, 03:28 PM
Hey thanks for the response. I just got the steel quick change mounts from Durango today so maybe that will be the end of it all if they have worked for you. I just worried since the website says the quick-change mounts need the type-d pivot balls to work, but if you haven't had to buy them then I'm sure I will manage with the new mounts and the hardware provided. It was a shame the stock plastic mounts didn't work though, I would have liked to use them until they break, then upgrade.
02-03-2014, 03:38 PM
Hey thanks for the response. I just got the steel quick change mounts from Durango today so maybe that will be the end of it all if they have worked for you. I just worried since the website says the quick-change mounts need the type-d pivot balls to work, but if you haven't had to buy them then I'm sure I will manage with the new mounts and the hardware provided. It was a shame the stock plastic mounts didn't work though, I would have liked to use them until they break, then upgrade.
