RC10B4.1 FT/WC
12-20-2012, 06:46 AM
Honestly, I think the c-hubs are just nonsense--another 'team' part people think they need to shell out money for.
They LOWER your roll center, period. You can do this at the inside brace by adding washers, but if you notice, they started shaving their brace at the same time they started using the c-hubs, which RAISES roll center. So... buy the part that lowers roll center, only to turn around and grind your brace down to raise it back up? Come on.
If you find yourself with a stack of washers on your brace with the A-hubs, then perhaps its time to consider the C-hubs. Having to shave the brace just to run the c-hubs is just dumb.
I run the b44 0 degree plastic hubs on all my cars and they are hooked.
They LOWER your roll center, period. You can do this at the inside brace by adding washers, but if you notice, they started shaving their brace at the same time they started using the c-hubs, which RAISES roll center. So... buy the part that lowers roll center, only to turn around and grind your brace down to raise it back up? Come on.
If you find yourself with a stack of washers on your brace with the A-hubs, then perhaps its time to consider the C-hubs. Having to shave the brace just to run the c-hubs is just dumb.
I run the b44 0 degree plastic hubs on all my cars and they are hooked.
12-20-2012, 06:55 AM
My understand was that my lowering or raising the entire link evenly still changed the roll. For instance on the SC10 4x4, they raised the entire link 8mm. What were the results? For me, it greatly lowered your chance of a traction roll. I went back and forth and the +8mm inside and out definitely lower my chance of traction rolling. So I thought i understood its purpose. But then, on the b4 we lower the entire link and it seems to have a similar effect. The rear slides more and would reduce traction rolls on higher bite tracks. So I wont lie, I am kinda lost. When I looked at the diagrams of the roll cenets lines coming off the links, I can see how changing the height of the rod would change the roll centers. I was reading the JQ tuning guide and this is a quote. It has nothing to do with the b4 fyi.
"The rear link I find, is more critical to get right than the front. When trying different rear link locations, and you get it spot on, it feels like the car does everything better. The rear link will mainly determine the amount of traction the car has, and how it slides when cornering.
Lowering the link on the tower, will give the car more steering, as the rear will start sliding more in corners as you turn. It will also square up better when accelerating out of corners. Raising the link on the tower will add traction and reduce steering.
Lowering the complete link gives more traction, but the car seems to maintain more steering, than when lengthening the link.
In general, a long rear link makes the car more stable, have less steering, and be more predictable and easy to drive. A short link gives more steering, and initially the car can feel like it has more traction, but it will lose traction suddenly, instead of a predictable way.
Again, the further in the link is on the tower, the more stable and consistent the car feels, the further out it is, the more non-liner and and inconsistent it feels. The car will roll less and have less overall traction.
A longer link on the hub or tower will give more traction, and less steering, the car will be more stable. A shorter link will give more steering, specially into and mid corner, and the car will square up and accelerate straight better."
"The rear link I find, is more critical to get right than the front. When trying different rear link locations, and you get it spot on, it feels like the car does everything better. The rear link will mainly determine the amount of traction the car has, and how it slides when cornering.
Lowering the link on the tower, will give the car more steering, as the rear will start sliding more in corners as you turn. It will also square up better when accelerating out of corners. Raising the link on the tower will add traction and reduce steering.
Lowering the complete link gives more traction, but the car seems to maintain more steering, than when lengthening the link.
In general, a long rear link makes the car more stable, have less steering, and be more predictable and easy to drive. A short link gives more steering, and initially the car can feel like it has more traction, but it will lose traction suddenly, instead of a predictable way.
Again, the further in the link is on the tower, the more stable and consistent the car feels, the further out it is, the more non-liner and and inconsistent it feels. The car will roll less and have less overall traction.
A longer link on the hub or tower will give more traction, and less steering, the car will be more stable. A shorter link will give more steering, specially into and mid corner, and the car will square up and accelerate straight better."
12-20-2012, 07:00 AM
Wildcat, thanks for posting that, what book is that from? Is it available as a digital download? I'm mostly using the xray 1/8 buggy guide but want a more detailed source too
12-20-2012, 07:41 AM
12-20-2012, 07:43 AM
12-20-2012, 11:09 AM
Thanks for sharing that link Wildcat. A lot of great info.
12-20-2012, 01:41 PM
Absolutely correct. It most certainly does. The changes at the inside have more effect than the outside, so lowering the link overall will raise roll center, and raising the link overall will lower the roll center. My problem with the C hubs is that, in my opinion, they lower the roll center when the car really needed a higher roll center in the rear if anything, at least with the OLD spring rates. On top of that, The more you reduce the distance between the hub hinge pin and the hub camber link position, the less fine-grained roll center adjustments you can make at the brace.
12-20-2012, 01:46 PM
All I know is. I tried both the A and C and I liked the A better. I felt like the rear was more predictable. I dont race blue groove, so I cant really comment on if the C would be better for that type of track.
12-20-2012, 01:47 PM
12-20-2012, 02:03 PM
A clue ...
He's
Santa's best driver ....
He's
Santa's best driver ....
12-20-2012, 02:18 PM
Tech Master
iTrader: (90)
Have you tried both A and C hubs with the brace? On high bite surface it does make a difference and the buggy does perform differently.
I do understand that money spent into the car won't make it faster nor is an investment.... but at the same time it's hard to see someone judge something without ever trying it.
I tried A hubs again last night and my buggy felt limp. It was more predictable and "safe" to drive but it didn't have that extra edge I prefer.
Also, the JQ guide is a great article and I have it saved on my devices. However, it's for 4wd vehicles and not all changes will act the same. Like anything, make one change at a time and see how it works for you.
I do understand that money spent into the car won't make it faster nor is an investment.... but at the same time it's hard to see someone judge something without ever trying it.
I tried A hubs again last night and my buggy felt limp. It was more predictable and "safe" to drive but it didn't have that extra edge I prefer.
Also, the JQ guide is a great article and I have it saved on my devices. However, it's for 4wd vehicles and not all changes will act the same. Like anything, make one change at a time and see how it works for you.
12-20-2012, 02:18 PM
My understand was that my lowering or raising the entire link evenly still changed the roll. For instance on the SC10 4x4, they raised the entire link 8mm. What were the results? For me, it greatly lowered your chance of a traction roll. I went back and forth and the +8mm inside and out definitely lower my chance of traction rolling. So I thought i understood its purpose. But then, on the b4 we lower the entire link and it seems to have a similar effect. The rear slides more and would reduce traction rolls on higher bite tracks. So I wont lie, I am kinda lost. When I looked at the diagrams of the roll cenets lines coming off the links, I can see how changing the height of the rod would change the roll centers. I was reading the JQ tuning guide and this is a quote. It has nothing to do with the b4 fyi.
"The rear link I find, is more critical to get right than the front. When trying different rear link locations, and you get it spot on, it feels like the car does everything better. The rear link will mainly determine the amount of traction the car has, and how it slides when cornering.
Lowering the link on the tower, will give the car more steering, as the rear will start sliding more in corners as you turn. It will also square up better when accelerating out of corners. Raising the link on the tower will add traction and reduce steering.
Lowering the complete link gives more traction, but the car seems to maintain more steering, than when lengthening the link.
In general, a long rear link makes the car more stable, have less steering, and be more predictable and easy to drive. A short link gives more steering, and initially the car can feel like it has more traction, but it will lose traction suddenly, instead of a predictable way.
Again, the further in the link is on the tower, the more stable and consistent the car feels, the further out it is, the more non-liner and and inconsistent it feels. The car will roll less and have less overall traction.
A longer link on the hub or tower will give more traction, and less steering, the car will be more stable. A shorter link will give more steering, specially into and mid corner, and the car will square up and accelerate straight better."
"The rear link I find, is more critical to get right than the front. When trying different rear link locations, and you get it spot on, it feels like the car does everything better. The rear link will mainly determine the amount of traction the car has, and how it slides when cornering.
Lowering the link on the tower, will give the car more steering, as the rear will start sliding more in corners as you turn. It will also square up better when accelerating out of corners. Raising the link on the tower will add traction and reduce steering.
Lowering the complete link gives more traction, but the car seems to maintain more steering, than when lengthening the link.
In general, a long rear link makes the car more stable, have less steering, and be more predictable and easy to drive. A short link gives more steering, and initially the car can feel like it has more traction, but it will lose traction suddenly, instead of a predictable way.
Again, the further in the link is on the tower, the more stable and consistent the car feels, the further out it is, the more non-liner and and inconsistent it feels. The car will roll less and have less overall traction.
A longer link on the hub or tower will give more traction, and less steering, the car will be more stable. A shorter link will give more steering, specially into and mid corner, and the car will square up and accelerate straight better."
The moment arm is the theoritical link, between the RC and CG. The longer or shorter it is, the more leverage it can apply over the suspensions movement, or not.
That being said, if you have a vehicle with a high CG (AE 4x4), it may, i dont know off hand, but it may have a low RC. When you combine them too, you have a long moment arm, and it will behave in a high traction, then traction roll manner. Same would go in the opposite hand, short moment arm, no traction, skid.
Then, you can add into the mix Centrifugal force, generated by the CG. If you remember the XX4, add a Quarter to the rear shock tower, up at the top, and the thing went from geek to sheek, back in the day. Raise the CG, and creates grip.
So most cars are only relative to there own design. Unless both share simlar size and weights. So basicly its a package deal you need to look at.
12-20-2012, 02:18 PM
Honestly, I think the c-hubs are just nonsense--another 'team' part people think they need to shell out money for.
They LOWER your roll center, period. You can do this at the inside brace by adding washers, but if you notice, they started shaving their brace at the same time they started using the c-hubs, which RAISES roll center. So... buy the part that lowers roll center, only to turn around and grind your brace down to raise it back up? Come on.
If you find yourself with a stack of washers on your brace with the A-hubs, then perhaps its time to consider the C-hubs. Having to shave the brace just to run the c-hubs is just dumb.
I run the b44 0 degree plastic hubs on all my cars and they are hooked.
They LOWER your roll center, period. You can do this at the inside brace by adding washers, but if you notice, they started shaving their brace at the same time they started using the c-hubs, which RAISES roll center. So... buy the part that lowers roll center, only to turn around and grind your brace down to raise it back up? Come on.
If you find yourself with a stack of washers on your brace with the A-hubs, then perhaps its time to consider the C-hubs. Having to shave the brace just to run the c-hubs is just dumb.
I run the b44 0 degree plastic hubs on all my cars and they are hooked.
I've run C-hubs on the car almost the entire time i've had it and now i'm going back to As... even steven hartson runs A blocks and he's tried Cs numerous times and always ends up going back.
12-20-2012, 02:30 PM
One point i would like to make in this thread. Roll centers are only one part of the equation, CG and moment arms all come into play. Then some argue another one, called the roll couple, front to rear RC's connected.
The moment arm is the theoritical link, between the RC and CG. The longer or shorter it is, the more leverage it can apply over the suspensions movement, or not.
That being said, if you have a vehicle with a high CG (AE 4x4), it may, i dont know off hand, but it may have a low RC. When you combine them too, you have a long moment arm, and it will behave in a high traction, then traction roll manner. Same would go in the opposite hand, short moment arm, no traction, skid.
Then, you can add into the mix Centrifugal force, generated by the CG. If you remember the XX4, add a Quarter to the rear shock tower, up at the top, and the thing went from geek to sheek, back in the day. Raise the CG, and creates grip.
So most cars are only relative to there own design. Unless both share simlar size and weights. So basicly its a package deal you need to look at.
The moment arm is the theoritical link, between the RC and CG. The longer or shorter it is, the more leverage it can apply over the suspensions movement, or not.
That being said, if you have a vehicle with a high CG (AE 4x4), it may, i dont know off hand, but it may have a low RC. When you combine them too, you have a long moment arm, and it will behave in a high traction, then traction roll manner. Same would go in the opposite hand, short moment arm, no traction, skid.
Then, you can add into the mix Centrifugal force, generated by the CG. If you remember the XX4, add a Quarter to the rear shock tower, up at the top, and the thing went from geek to sheek, back in the day. Raise the CG, and creates grip.
So most cars are only relative to there own design. Unless both share simlar size and weights. So basicly its a package deal you need to look at.
12-20-2012, 02:32 PM
Wayne