No, this can't be so. Try drawing some simple roll center diagrams and you will see.

Looks like the shaved u-bracket is being used in conjunction with "C" hub towers, which have their ball stud mounting holes positioned lower than the "A" towers. So no SC10 magic here.

So why do it that way and not just raise the ball stud on the tower? I tried to draw it up and dont see much difference.

I have the question as well. Not trying to defend the practice - was just trying to figure out why people were shaving the u-bracket in order to lower roll centers. Turns out they are lowering both ends of the camber link - not just the inboard end.

Not sure if this was posted here before, but came across it on the 'tube, very relevant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWdRQaz_Xq8

+1 on this question! Shaved brace and C hub just lowers the entire link and seems to me would add more stress on the ball cups. I think if you sketch the instant center and roll center lines out it does change things slightly, but not as much as changing the link angle using more spacers on the tower.

This is so popular on AE cars and I never understood it. Seems like a bad idea to me.

Hideeho
On a B4.1 shaving the u-brace & using the c-hub tower reduces rear traction on turn in but adds traction to the rear coming out of the corner. This only helps if the track is high bite. The combination allows the buggy to rotate as it goes into a corner & accelerate hard out. Slow in, fast out.

Hi Fred,

I have been reading this for a few page....

Just want to ask if this also work on onroad rc car as well since this is an off road thread.....

Thanks

I run an SC10 on an outdoor sandy clayish track that is quite often dry, dusty, and quite slick. My SC10 handles much better with a higher rear roll center (short link, low inner link mounting). I've gone as far as shaving the u-brace and then recessing the mount location an additional 1/32" with my router table. I use the inner hub link mounting hole with the RTR hub. My thinking is that this setup resists the chassis roll and the force resisting that roll loads up the outside rear tire. Fred mentioned many posts ago towards the beginning of this thread that the higher roll center will break free more violently, but on this track, the thing is sliding around anyway, so I just try to maximize the traction all the time by using the higher roll center and loading up the outside rear tire.

Now, I ran at a different track a few times last summer, too. This one was very different in that it was a blue groove track with more hairpin turns (where the track mentioned above is not quite as technical). This setup was difficult to drive here due to the fact that the truck was too responsive and twitchy (plus, I'm not that good of a driver). Traction was acceptable up to a point, and then would suddenly let go. I had lowered the rear roll center a bit to try and adjust for the different track surface/layout, but not enough.

its seem no body reading this thread anymore...

anyway if someone still is... can you help me with my question??

i did try on onroad tc for spring balance.... i use harder spring at front and lighter on rear... can't see which one going up first....
i use the video and still can't see which going up first...

anyway lets say that i have done the spring and damping....

so i still use chamber link and roll center for tuning the car....is that correct? can it be use in tc as well?

and 1 more think.... someone told me that using thicker oil will give less traction on the car... is that true?

thanks

This method would be hard on an ONroad car. but could be done by removing all of the droop limitations then adjusting the springs for 1mm less than max ride height then compress the chassis and without oil i the shocks and video the release. 60fps or better would help.

this just to get the spring rate balanced. once balanced when you change springs, change both to keep in balance.

Thicker oils will just delay the car's leanover (slow the side to side action down) which will yes lower traction initially then have the same one fully compressed. so in theory initially there would be less on corner entry

Most onroad setups already produce a balanced car in this regard, and their springs are available in much smaller increments, so I don't think this "rough" balance test is going to help much. The rest of the information still applies though.

Thanks for the info....

I put this method to test on my B4.1 WC, I am running BB's with AE springs. Prior to the test I had settled on Grn/Grn springs, on the drop test the rear was so soft it slammed down. I ended up using the push and release method and found the front was way oversprung in balance. I dropped 2 springs to brwn/green and it was balanced. I had also been running fairly similar F/R pistons and oil, 1.6's and 32.5/30, I also changed the rear to 1.7/30 and on the bench damping front/rear felt very similar.

I only got one pack on the car and it worked well, I could tell that front and rear was indeed more balanced, either could be pushed too far, but if you didn't push it, it turned nicely. I am going to try the next spring up on both ends and see how that feels, I could use a little more "pop" over some jumps. We run on slicks on a nice clay mix, M4 seems to be the best combo, or JC blue/green.

After the springs I will play with camber links, I would like to be able to drive the car a little harder and have it keep its composure..

Ignore post. Found my answer

Someplace in this thread Fred had said how to figure out the balance of the forward/aft and lt and rt sides using scales and a formula but I can't find it now does anyone know the formula? Or if Fred still checks this thread Help Fred lol thanks