Go Back  R/C Tech Forums > General Forums > Electric Off-Road
Tune With Camber Links >

Tune With Camber Links

Like Tree65Likes

Tune With Camber Links

Old 10-08-2011, 04:35 AM
  #571  
Tech Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 14
Default

I've just read through all 38 pages of this and it's sounds such a great way of setting up a car/truck. But, i do just have 1 question.

When you are first setting up the springs (with no oil in the shocks) to get the spring frequency balanced i assume that with a 2wd truck (SC10), that the rear springs are going to be stiffer than the front. But, in all the team set up sheets i've looked at they have the front springs stiffer. It even comes that way in the kit. Just find that a bit confusing...
berry50 is offline  
Old 10-08-2011, 09:57 AM
  #572  
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 118
Default

Originally Posted by berry50
I've just read through all 38 pages of this and it's sounds such a great way of setting up a car/truck. But, i do just have 1 question.

When you are first setting up the springs (with no oil in the shocks) to get the spring frequency balanced i assume that with a 2wd truck (SC10), that the rear springs are going to be stiffer than the front. But, in all the team set up sheets i've looked at they have the front springs stiffer. It even comes that way in the kit. Just find that a bit confusing...
I believe the reason for that is the mechanics of the front suspension. It seems like it would be the other way around, because of the weight differences. But the front shocks are mounted farther inboard on the lower A arm, which causes the actual spring rate to become a fraction of its actual rating. If the shock was mounted on the outer hinge pin, it would be a 1:1 ratio with its actual rating, but the farther inboard it goes, the more leverage the arm has on it, so if it was mounted in the middle of the A arm, it would be a 1:2 ratio or half its actual rating. Where as the rear shocks are mounted farther to the outside of the arm. The shocks also tend to be more up and down, compared to the front, which also plays a roll. When the shock is laid over more, the beginning part of the compression stroke, there is more movement of the A arm for a given amount of shock compression, than near the upper bounds of the A arm movement, so its a little bit like a gear reduction issue. As the A arm movement increases in regards to a given amount of shock compression, there is less force needed to move the shock, so you need a higher rated spring to get the effective final rate you need That's my understanding of it at least.
jrspruitt is offline  
Old 10-08-2011, 12:36 PM
  #573  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 327
Default

Originally Posted by berry50
I've just read through all 38 pages of this and it's sounds such a great way of setting up a car/truck. But, i do just have 1 question.

When you are first setting up the springs (with no oil in the shocks) to get the spring frequency balanced i assume that with a 2wd truck (SC10), that the rear springs are going to be stiffer than the front. But, in all the team set up sheets i've looked at they have the front springs stiffer. It even comes that way in the kit. Just find that a bit confusing...
That would be a good assumption, but having stiffer front springs allow the vehicle to jump with a nose-up or nose-level attitude where as stiffer rear springs would force it to jump nose down.
kaycerc is offline  
Old 10-08-2011, 12:59 PM
  #574  
Tech Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 14
Default

Originally Posted by kaycerc
That would be a good assumption, but having stiffer front springs allow the vehicle to jump with a nose-up or nose-level attitude where as stiffer rear springs would force it to jump nose down.
So, how would i get stiffer front springs and still retain the frequency balance between the front and rear springs?
berry50 is offline  
Old 10-08-2011, 01:03 PM
  #575  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 327
Default

Originally Posted by berry50
So, how would i get stiffer front springs and still retain the frequency balance between the front and rear springs?
frequency balance?
kaycerc is offline  
Old 10-08-2011, 01:36 PM
  #576  
Tech Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Denmark
Posts: 283
Default

Originally Posted by kaycerc
frequency balance?
This kind of became the topic of this thread

Please go back and read it, its quite a good read.
kaan is offline  
Old 10-08-2011, 01:47 PM
  #577  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 327
Default

Originally Posted by kaan
This kind of became the topic of this thread

Please go back and read it, its quite a good read.
I read it, not that it made any sense relative to racing or getting a proper set up. It seems some of you have turned the whole topic into a weird boondoggle of confusion, scratching your heads while rubbing your stomachs. It's not about adjusting the car for the sake of achieving frequency balance, it's about adjusting the car to make it work on the track.
kaycerc is offline  
Old 10-08-2011, 02:08 PM
  #578  
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Adrian, MI
Posts: 823
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by kaycerc
frequency balance?






You could read it again slower
Lazer Guy is offline  
Old 10-08-2011, 02:19 PM
  #579  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 327
Default

Originally Posted by Lazer Guy
You could read it again slower
I'm not the one needing setup assistance.

It is rather bewildering that the whole topic, Tune With Camber Links, got so off topic into someone's overcomplicated theories.

Last edited by kaycerc; 10-08-2011 at 02:33 PM.
kaycerc is offline  
Old 10-08-2011, 06:48 PM
  #580  
Tech Regular
iTrader: (7)
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 313
Trader Rating: 7 (100%+)
Default

It's not any more complicated than other "theories" out there. In fact, it puts setup into a proper order of doing things which makes it alot easier to figure out what needs adjusting for different handling situations. Most people adjust things "seat of the pants" without really knowing what affects what. Or, they copy others setups(right or wrong) thinking/hoping they will get that perfect setup.

I say if you think your way of doing things is better, then post your "theory" here so we can see it, and of course criticize it like you have done to Freds theory.

Last edited by nytryder; 10-08-2011 at 06:59 PM.
nytryder is offline  
Old 10-08-2011, 07:15 PM
  #581  
Tech Apprentice
 
cyljock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: southern indiana
Posts: 58
Default

In regards to the sc10 setup question. with battery in
the forward position, I ended up with
silver springs up front and gold springs in the rear. I'm
running #2 pistons all around with 30wt oil. Front camber
link in stock position with shock tower ballstud washer
removed. Rear camber link middle hole at hub and outer
hole at shock tower with ballstud washer removed. This thing
has traction out the ass from straight line acceleration,to on
power cornering! Currently enduros up front and wishbones
out back are what's working for me.
cyljock is offline  
Old 10-08-2011, 08:40 PM
  #582  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,766
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by kaycerc
I read it, not that it made any sense relative to racing or getting a proper set up. It seems some of you have turned the whole topic into a weird boondoggle of confusion, scratching your heads while rubbing your stomachs. It's not about adjusting the car for the sake of achieving frequency balance, it's about adjusting the car to make it work on the track.
It IS all about adjusting it for the track. You wouldn't run a stiffer spring rate between the left and right would you? Say no! That would be an imbalance. You balance them left to right. You also effectively balance them front to rear if you do it correctly. I refer to it as the dynamic spring rate but the technical term is wheel rate. Not each track requires the same spring rate. Not each track requires the same dampening rate. Not each track requires the same tires. Not each track requires the same camber settings. Each track however will always be easiest to drive if those settings end up with a balanced car.
fredswain is offline  
Old 10-08-2011, 08:57 PM
  #583  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 327
Default

Originally Posted by fredswain
It IS all about adjusting it for the track. You wouldn't run a stiffer spring rate between the left and right would you? Say no! That would be an imbalance. You balance them left to right. You also effectively balance them front to rear if you do it correctly. I refer to it as the dynamic spring rate but the technical term is wheel rate. Not each track requires the same spring rate. Not each track requires the same dampening rate. Not each track requires the same tires. Not each track requires the same camber settings. Each track however will always be easiest to drive if those settings end up with a balanced car.
Of course you balance the car left to right, because otherwise the car would turn better in one direction or the other.
Of course it's not "dynamic spring rate," because that's a pre-existing term.
Of course each track (could) require different tires and camber settings. At the same time it might not.
But I think you're confusing this whole discussion by referring to "balancing the car front to rear," and overcomplicating and confusing things by using incorrect terms to describe what you're trying to talk about. When much has been written about actual weight distribution of world championship winning cars, favoring one end of the car over the other, I'm not sure you're doing anyone any favors by saying otherwise or using other made up terms like "frequency balancing," IMHO.

I was just trying to help the guy understand common theory of spring choice, so I'll just leave it at that.
kaycerc is offline  
Old 10-08-2011, 09:10 PM
  #584  
Tech Adept
 
Oso Negro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: OC - CA
Posts: 135
Thumbs up

Originally Posted by fredswain
It IS all about adjusting it for the track. You wouldn't run a stiffer spring rate between the left and right would you? Say no! That would be an imbalance. You balance them left to right. You also effectively balance them front to rear if you do it correctly. I refer to it as the dynamic spring rate but the technical term is wheel rate. Not each track requires the same spring rate. Not each track requires the same dampening rate. Not each track requires the same tires. Not each track requires the same camber settings. Each track however will always be easiest to drive if those settings end up with a balanced car.
Well said! Don't let these people bother you!

I've tried your method and I am a true believer. I'm becoming one of the fast guys at my track thanks to you and expect to get even better in the short term. It's all thanks to you!

I've been racing on and off for over 25 years and I never quite understood how it all fit together 'till now. I've quit twice out of frustration in that time because I could never get over the knowledge hump and find consistency day to day, week to week.

Most of the guys at my track copy the settings of the factory guys because we host a lot of big events. We end up getting setup sheets specific to our track all the time from the winners.

I am proud to say that thanks to you I no longer need that crutch. My buggy is outhandling my competition and it is just a matter of time until my skills catch up to what my buggy is capable of giving me.

Bottom line, it is working for me!
Oso Negro is offline  
Old 10-09-2011, 02:25 AM
  #585  
Tech Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 14
Default

I think my question may have been mis-interpreted. I have read and understood the whole thread. And, i do get the theory behind Fred's set up technique. Apart from ONE question that i can't work out.

On a 2wd rear motor truck (in my case an SC10), i seem to need stiffer rear springs (due to more weight at the rear), to get a correct spring balance. Now, my simple question was, how come one all the SC10 set up sheets i see, including the AE team drivers, everyone runs stiffer front springs if having balanced front and rear works better?

Maybe i'm reading too much into this set up, but i just can't get my head around that.
berry50 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Your Privacy Choices -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.