Originally Posted by jlfx car audio (Post 11844533)

Wow at the information overload I asked for . Tks for the views .
Yea I'm just trying to apply the knowledge with this thread to my on road racing as well as of road .
On road we tend to change inner hinge pin location to deal with role center and the camber link is more for camber gain .
Not to mention offroad cars offer way more camber setting changes than on road (wide range )
But anyhoo , with carpet racing traction is super high at times and rolling becomes a issue and stiffening (less role ) setup sometimes makes it worse , so even tho less role scrubs traction it seems to make the rolling issue worse .AAlso with on road we r dealing with flat tires instead of rounded so that's something some of us don't think about when talking about camber setups.
With this said I have a team Durango desc410v2 and it traction roles in the sweeper on our indoor clay track .
It has a short low link in the rear with about 4deg of camber in the rear . But in slower areas it loose . I want to keep it from rolling in the sweeper but don't want to loose and mechanical grip in the rear thru the infield (tight track with a lot of tight turns) next weekend I'm going to try more role in the front and more caber in the rear first (local guys r telling me to go with stiffer front springs but I can't do that correctly without changing the rear for balance .
Am I off in my thoughts on my changes I'm wanting to make?

Originally Posted by tperazzo (Post 11846590)

In my view weight transfer doesn't depend on roll or springs. Physics say that weight transfer occurs from cornering forces applied at the center of gravity and only track width and ride height affect weight transfer. The springs can't add or remove any forces to the tires since the downforce can't exceed the weight of the car.
Now if you study the roll resistance of the front versus rear that is where you can see how traction moves around. The softer end gets the most traction because more of the weight is distributed to each tire versus the stiff end which may have one wheel off the ground in extreme cases.
This may differ than conventional tuning wisdom, but this is the basics. More complex discussions can involve camber and tire issues, but in my view its important to take a step back and understand the basics. If your car is rolling, lower the ride height, add aero forces, increase track width, reduce traction, or slow down.

Originally Posted by Turbo911 (Post 11847216)

"since the downforce can't exceed the weight of the car."

Down force is a force and weight is a mass. Basis physics is F=MA. Trying to imply that a force cannot surpass mass is a flawed starting point. A vehicle can and typically does create more force than it's mass, it is called acceleration. There is so much wrong here, but no time to write a book. It is imperative to understand basic physics/math to apply these concepts to an R/C vehicle, otherwise you will spends years on the wrong road.

Just my $0.02

Turbo

Originally Posted by Turbo911 (Post 11847216)

"since the downforce can't exceed the weight of the car."

Down force is a force and weight is a mass. Basis physics is F=MA. Trying to imply that a force cannot surpass mass is a flawed starting point. A vehicle can and typically does create more force than it's mass, it is called acceleration. There is so much wrong here, but no time to write a book. It is imperative to understand basic physics/math to apply these concepts to an R/C vehicle, otherwise you will spends years on the wrong road.

Just my $0.02

Turbo

Originally Posted by bds81175 (Post 11846804)

You need to watch the rate at which the chassis moves back up from a compressed state. Any other movement after the chassis moves back up is pretty much a result of extra inertia from the motor. That's why I prefer the push the chassis down and release it method. Its easier to see the return speed that way. Make sense?

Originally Posted by MikeXray (Post 11846871)

I agree with the sway bar recommendation, if you don't have one to add, I would try a longer front link or softer front springs.

Originally Posted by 400units (Post 11843605)

I disagree with your premise. Why do you suggest that reducing roll too much causes traction rolling? The physics should be the same regardless of the surface type. Less roll= less weight transfer= less traction, not less roll to a certain point and then massive traction kicks in.

Originally Posted by daniz (Post 11847628)

Imbalance on a Carisma GT14B 1/16 buggy:
*ww.youtube.com/watch?v=-SQAzbsJyGg
Balance:
*ww.youtube.com/watch?v=Qu9XiLHHVSY

I haven't done enough posts to post links, please replace the * with a w.

Used a slowmo app on my iphone to see it, hard to see on the small scale cars otherwise. It was easier to see with the naked eye on a 1/8 buggy.

Originally Posted by bds81175 (Post 11848141)

daniz, nice shaving video....