I whant ads with bypass1 and progressive springs and bump stops

I personally use standard pistons. No tapers. No dual systems. No bypass. Just good old pistons with straight holes in them. I don't use progressive springs either. I pick a rate and leave it. The only reason I run a bump stop at all is to guarantee that the piston does not hit the shock cap. Depending on the shocks this doesn't always happen though. I keep this very simple. I don't like to overthink it and personally don't feel a need to get into all of that. I just think you are going to create more problems than you are going to solve. I may get into that at some point in the future but I have no plans to do so now.

That's a shame I drop 2 sec of my lap times doing this and i think there is more to be had

Imo, progressive springs and tapered pistons won't win or lose a race for anyone. They are just another trick thing to try and gain advantage mentally over your opponents.

If a progressive spring would work better, it would only be in a very small window of the shocks travel. Even with them, big jumps will bottom the car out unless it's so stiff it doesn't handle. Similarly too soft at ride hieght will allow it to roll over further until it reaches a stiffer point in the spring to reduce the roll.
To compound it further tuning the shock oil to a progressive spring without a progressive dampening system means the oil will only be correct for part of the shocks travel that favors the oil/spring relationship at that point.
We haven't gotten into heats effect thru the shocks cycling, or how much the drivers/tuners ability to "really" feel any gains and when they may occur.

I think we mostly just like to buy stuff and gain a mental edge, but these items rarely make a real difference.
In fact people at my local track are still competitive with the 1.0 version of the TLR22. :)

The question is were they compensating for a setup issue somewhere else? I find that a properly setup vehicle with even standard pistons and springs is light years easier to drive than most setup sheets or setups devised by the old trial and error method. Perhaps those items could benefit over existing setup philosophies. As I said, maybe at some point in the future I'll get to it but as of now I don't see a reason to. The main thing I want to see people do is to stop copying setup sheets, regardless of who created it. You'd be surprised at how downright terrible some of them are. Pure driving skill can apparently overcome an awful lot and a smooth, high grip track also is far more forgiving to setup issues.

A few posts back people were talking about actually measuring a cars lateral and longitudinal accelerations. And while the eagle tree system is a good system, I've found the Novak sentry to be a fairly worthwhile system for the cost, even though it is only a 2-axis accelerometer. Although, the Sentry data acquisition software is TERRIBLE compared to Motec i2 which is what I've used in real race cars, you can export all the data into excel and then create more useful data and better illustrate it.

A while back I had compared geometrically how significant the different camber link locations affected a B44.2's lateral accelerations on a pavement skidpad (that way I would be less traction limited and to better show improvements of changes). Then goal was to then be able to see what the correlation between the changes made to the actual lateral accelerations was.

I created G-G plots to illustrate the cars 'traction circle'. As you can see the Sentry was able to record decent data and was able to generate a reasonable G-G plot. Although an even higher sampling accelerator would help improve resolution.

Anyways, I thought I would share that the technology is already easily available for those that are interested.

For every technical book I have I also have a biography or novel about the people of motor racing. Gets you in the "mood". Hey was that data an actual "skid pad" test or data from a run on a track. Would appear to be the latter.

I made the skidpad on a large flat parking lot, and I then also varied the turning radius to help 'fill' in the G-G plot until I was essentially full throttle and full steer to try and better define the outer edges of the G-G plot. I also figured that if the traction surface is higher then it should magnify what a change does.

The Novak isn't very good for offroad tracks just because you get a lot of erroneous spikes from G-ing out on the face of jumps, landing and crashing since it is only 2-axis. If this was a good 6-axis accelerometer than there would be no problems because then it would be very easy to identify the jumps, and then you would be able to actually analyze how your shocks are working!

I don't used the set ups from ae they are all rong for my Serface took a year of tuning to get the sc104x4 good and in one day of changing to mip I dropped 1 sec off my best and 3 off my average

My thoughts on setup sheets and why you shouldn't copy them:

Today was a fine example. Every Friday for about an hour at lunch I run over to a local dirt track. It has always been the one that has been perfect for people who love old school 1/10 based dirt running. Today when I went over there I was a bit shocked. The track layout was completely redone which happens about every 6 months. They layed it out to fit into the redneck basher mentality which I describe as a layout that is taylor made to people who only want to go as fast as possible over as large a jump as possible with as large a vehicle as possible. If you give these guys a layout that requires a good setup and a bit of skill and finesse, they'll cry and cry as they lose it again and again proclaiming things no fun. They'll get online as ask for a setup for their unique track from people who have never seen that track because they don't know how to tune things themselves nor do they care to learn. Sadly this is the predominant mentality on forums and with rc in general today. Thankfully if you are reading this it is because you have evolved away from this mentality.

Now where am I going with this and why is it relevant to a setup sheet? The old layout was a very nice layout. It was perfect for 1/10 2wd or 4wd and required a good setup for decent performance. The corners used to require a good solid line with proper braking. They didn't have large berms on the outside of the corners. A good smooth line worked well but even point and shoot worked well on it. The jumps weren't too large, had good run up area but required good throttle control to land the downsides well. Traction was high when the track was watered but changed as it dried out getting loose off line. It's dirt. In short, it was a real track. There was a sweeping corner that required good on power cornering and tight hairpins. There was also a whoops section which really showed who had their pack sorted out well and who didn't. You can tell from this that a good dirt track setup was important compared to an entirely different one for a smooth carpet track with wooden jumps. It was a layout that wouldn't give an advantage to an 8.5T motor vs a 13.5T motor. Tons of power wasn't going to win it for you. If you put this into a setup sheet and loaded it online, someone may look at it and think they've got a good dirt track setup. But do they really?

The new layout is very different. When I saw it I immediately told myself that it might be time to hang up the 2wd for a while at this location and stick with 4wd only for a while. The new layout has very large jumps. Most of the corners except for one are tight 180 degree and they all have berms on the outside. The last 180 degree corner is a wider radius corner that you will need to be taking while on throttle. It leads into a tall, long jump so on power traction is critical here. I don't see how a 2wd could get enough. The back of the large jump is a steep drop off so you commit to making it on power or you wreck. There is no longer a whoops section. It is either a long straight or mostly tight 180 degree corners that lead into large jumps. Smooth driving technique goes out the window on this layout. If you want to clear those jumps, you need to hit those berms on the outside of the corners. You need to accelerate on the downside of them to give yourself enough traction to accelerate to a speed fast enough to clear these jumps. Whereas a 13.5T motor was plenty for the old layout, you need power here and lots of it. You need lots of traction too so if your technique isn't perfect with a 2wd, you'll most likely want a 4wd. Whatever can overcome a lack of skill is a must here. The old track needed far lower levels of shock pack. The new layout requires plenty of it. If you plan to run a 2wd here, you need as much weight rearwards as possible. This is one of those times where it will be more difficult in mid motor since you only have so much room to add weight. Mid motor worked fine on the old layout though. Keep in mind that with any 2wd you are going to be fighting it.

As you can tell, each track layout requires an entirely different setup and weight balance. Now let's say we create a setup sheet for it. It's the same physical track location with the same track surface, dirt. But the setup requirements are entirely different. If we had 2 setup sheets posted online for this particular dirt track, which one does a person choose? They have no way of knowing. The fact that there are dozens of different setup sheets out there should be a clue that copying one is almost guaranteed not to work well for you. You are also going by the assumption that the person who created it knew what the hell they were doing. This is a dangerous assumption.

A carpet track will have far less variation as will any track with high traction but don't assume that just because a setup sheet was created for any particular type of surface that it'll work well for you. It probably won't. Learn to tune your own vehicle and you'll have far more fun in the long run.

I had my b4 tuned perfict and the same happind to me jumps got bigger and the buggys went away now 2 years later its back but my buggy is goon I have a t4 with j consepts buggy body trying to keep up and can't get it tuned was using rpm pistons befor good for big jumps now mip but having a had enuf spring is a problem and the one big jump kills me

Apologies if any of this has been posted before.

If you are interested in visualizing roll centers, you may find this roll center calculator interesting. Unfortunately it uses actual car tire sizes so you will need to scale everything up if you are looking to replicate your car.

They also have a spring frequency calculator. Unfortunately this does not take into account shock angle, but it is fun to play around with.

I find it very difficult to tell much of a difference with the bounce test. I found this alternative method that some may find easier:

from: http://www.timskelton.com/lightning/...on/springs.htm

Fred Swain: Excellent points on why you shouldn't copy setup sheets 100%.

One persons definition of "high bite" or "bumpy" might be another persons "low bite" and "smooth".

I find they are better used as an learning tool. If you have educated yourself on what all the different changes do, you can read through the setup sheets for a particular car and see what changes people are making. This will help you figure out what kind of issues people are trying to work around with the car.

Also, carpet actually can have quite a bit of variation, especially at a big race. At Cleveland it normally is what I would call "high bite" by the end of the first day of practice, but by the end of the weekend it has enough bite that the 1/12 mod cars can literally do backflips off the line (not really sure what to call that. "glue"?).

A few of us have actually shot video of the drop test or even just video of pushing the center of the vehicle down and releasing it. You can then slow the video down on replay and see the front to rear difference very clearly. I've generated a spreadsheet for calculating suspension frequencies for the SC10, as well. It assumes a static ride height, though, but I've used it for going up or down in spring rate to keep the balance at least approximately the same.

Shoot, if it's faster then by all means use it.