RC10B4.1 FT/WC
12-20-2012 | 02:32 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,616
From: New Jersey
There is no wrong answer.....that also means there is no right one either
12-20-2012 | 02:32 PM
Different people have different setups. Can people not understand that not everybody has to have the same setup? For high bite tracks. C-Hubs makes the car feel like it rotates more but gives the car more foward bite coming out of the corner. While A-Hubs lock the rear end down through the corner. Some people like the car aggressive, and some like it easy to drive and smooth. There isnt 1 setup that everyone will like perfectly. Just go play with setup and figure out what works best....sorry for the rant but i dont like when people say you HAVE to have this setup or your car sucks....The end.
12-20-2012 | 02:33 PM
Different people have different setups. Can people not understand that not everybody has to have the same setup? For high bite tracks. C-Hubs makes the car feel like it rotates more but gives the car more foward bite coming out of the corner. While A-Hubs lock the rear end down through the corner. Some people like the car aggresive, and some like it easy to drive and smooth. There isnt 1 setup that everyone will like perfectly. Just go play with setup and figure out what works best....sorry for the rant but i dont like when people say you HAVE to have this setup or your car sucks....The end.
12-20-2012 | 02:34 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,616
From: New Jersey
Different people have different setups. Can people not understand that not everybody has to have the same setup? For high bite tracks. C-Hubs makes the car feel like it rotates more but gives the car more foward bite coming out of the corner. While A-Hubs lock the rear end down through the corner. Some people like the car aggresive, and some like it easy to drive and smooth. There isnt 1 setup that everyone will like perfectly. Just go play with setup and figure out what works best....sorry for the rant but i dont like when people say you HAVE to have this setup or your car sucks....The end.
12-20-2012 | 02:37 PM
The same is true for a lot of us at our track. I never went to the c-hubs, but quite a few who did go to the c-hubs eventually went back to a or b hubs. IMHO, the largest benefit of the C hub is they have less chance of rubbing on the wheel when running a t4.1, but if you're like me an you run the b44 plastic hub, then that's not even an issue, it's only an issue on the a/b FT alu hubs.
12-20-2012 | 03:19 PM
One thing with the u brace that I noticed was that at one point the u brace came stock shaved (early B4's if I remember right), then Ae went to the u brace that everyone is now shaving. I'm sure there are reasons for this, but just seemed a little bit odd to me. I'm not sure what changed to the point of needing the new brace.
I run on a med.-high/high traction track about 90% of the time. When I first got the B4.1, the setup was good. Not perfect, but good. Then I added in the +8mm chassis and the car felt a lot better to me. Then I went with the C hub option and shaved rear barce. On the high traction it felt pretty good, but if the track dried out, not so much. I switched back to the A hub and added washers to the inner ballstud to get it back to what the kit called for. Something didn't feel right to me. When the traction was high, I felt it had a little too much chassis roll. When the traction was down, it seemed to work a lot better, or at the very least "felt" better to me.
I have since talked with many racers at the local track and they all have gone back and forth between the A and C hubs and have played with the outer ballstud hole location on the hubs. I think many have opted to stay with the A hubs now. Who knew that a 2mm link hieght change would make that much of a difference.
Just for fun last night I decided to try a front ballstud hieght change on the tower. I usually run 2mm spacing and went to 1mm. The car seemed to have a little better trun in, but felt like it had just a little bit of on power push comin gout of the corners. I'm sure if I had played with the shock oil and spring rate, I could have fixed that. In the end I went back to the 2mm I orginally had and it felt more consistant to me.
With all the talk about roll centers on the front and rear, it's for sure given me plenty to ponder. I have a basic understanding on that. It's seems that a few have spent a lot of time working on just that part alone. Though from reading some of the posts, it's almost like talking/reading onroad stuff.
Has anyone thought about using the TC6.2 ballstud washers? I'm thinking more for the rear inner ballstud. They come in three sizes, .5, 1, and 2mm. With all the talk of ballstud hieght and roll centers, using those could add in another fine tuning option.
I run on a med.-high/high traction track about 90% of the time. When I first got the B4.1, the setup was good. Not perfect, but good. Then I added in the +8mm chassis and the car felt a lot better to me. Then I went with the C hub option and shaved rear barce. On the high traction it felt pretty good, but if the track dried out, not so much. I switched back to the A hub and added washers to the inner ballstud to get it back to what the kit called for. Something didn't feel right to me. When the traction was high, I felt it had a little too much chassis roll. When the traction was down, it seemed to work a lot better, or at the very least "felt" better to me.
I have since talked with many racers at the local track and they all have gone back and forth between the A and C hubs and have played with the outer ballstud hole location on the hubs. I think many have opted to stay with the A hubs now. Who knew that a 2mm link hieght change would make that much of a difference.
Just for fun last night I decided to try a front ballstud hieght change on the tower. I usually run 2mm spacing and went to 1mm. The car seemed to have a little better trun in, but felt like it had just a little bit of on power push comin gout of the corners. I'm sure if I had played with the shock oil and spring rate, I could have fixed that. In the end I went back to the 2mm I orginally had and it felt more consistant to me.
With all the talk about roll centers on the front and rear, it's for sure given me plenty to ponder. I have a basic understanding on that. It's seems that a few have spent a lot of time working on just that part alone. Though from reading some of the posts, it's almost like talking/reading onroad stuff.
Has anyone thought about using the TC6.2 ballstud washers? I'm thinking more for the rear inner ballstud. They come in three sizes, .5, 1, and 2mm. With all the talk of ballstud hieght and roll centers, using those could add in another fine tuning option.
Nice radio!
i may consider painting one up. How is the feel compared to a finnisher or bulldog?
12-20-2012 | 03:33 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,616
From: New Jersey
One thing with the u brace that I noticed was that at one point the u brace came stock shaved (early B4's if I remember right), then Ae went to the u brace that everyone is now shaving. I'm sure there are reasons for this, but just seemed a little bit odd to me. I'm not sure what changed to the point of needing the new brace.
The reason they did this is that the C tower wasn't out yet
actually I'm not kidding (well maybe a little).
Since everyone found that you run the A tower (the standard back then) with .060 washers (2 ball stud washers), AE changed the mold slightly. Why you ask? People were bending ball studs when running 2 washers.
That is the story that was passed down by our trackfather and now I pass it down to you. Take it for what it's worth....... or don't..... doesn't matter to me
