Team Associated RC10 B5m Mid-Motor Thread
|
|||
#736
Tech Prophet
iTrader: (84)
Well, I dont 100% agree. For medium bite indoor, sure. But outdoors on non sugared dirt, I can disagree. My b4 was way too twitchy with a shorty in 17.5 outdoors. I tried to mess with roll centers and shock packages, but I could never lay down power without the rear breaking loose. The car always felt better with a full pack and was easier to drive. The downside was some layouts would have jumps that were an issue. So I decided to split the difference. I ran a shorty and added wight in the tray a little at a time until the car calmed down. I was around 260 grams with the shorty and lead. When I ran indoors, I always ran the shorty with only 1/4oz in the rear triangles and the ballast. My tlr22 was the same way. even though the base car weighed a lot more than the b4, it also felt better with a fill pack than a shorty. In fact, my current car has a shorty in it and I am not really liking it. It feels better with a full pack. Again, indoor I ran a shorty and it was great. Anyone that ran sct 4x4 outdoors on loamy tracks will also confirm that light trucks just could not bet the power down. It was one of the reasons the sc10 4x4 sucked outdoors and owners when to the alum chassis and added a bunch of weight.
#737
Well, I dont 100% agree. For medium bite indoor, sure. But outdoors on non sugared dirt, I can disagree. My b4 was way too twitchy with a shorty in 17.5 outdoors. I tried to mess with roll centers and shock packages, but I could never lay down power without the rear breaking loose. The car always felt better with a full pack and was easier to drive.
This is very similar to when we ran weight in the B4 with lipo until the team found a setup that worked better at minimum weight (ironically, pretty similar to the base setup of the original B4, when 6-cell batteries were lighter than they became).
#738
Tech Prophet
iTrader: (84)
yes, but weight also applies more friction. And it slows down the agility of the car, or makes it feel more calm. The b4 was always too twitchy for me. And Where the weight is can effect the pendulum effect. It the weight is more central, as it is with the battery, that weight is more split between the front and rear wheels. If its more in the rear, then you can overload that end of the car and swing it. But IMO its a balancing act. You dont want too much or too little weight. Imagine if the car weighed 1oz with an 6.5 motor. You would be hard pressed to get much of that power to the ground. My point is, you need the right amount of weight, for a given amount of power on a given surface. You can go too far in either direction. Some people like very nimble cars... I dont like them. I prefer a more balanced feel from front to rear traction.
#744
Well upgrades it is then
There is already a complete stainless steel set out there for the buggy
http://www.ebay.com/itm/RC10B5-Buggy..._qi=RTM1562569
There is already a complete stainless steel set out there for the buggy
http://www.ebay.com/itm/RC10B5-Buggy..._qi=RTM1562569
#745
Well upgrades it is then
There is already a complete stainless steel set out there for the buggy
http://www.ebay.com/itm/RC10B5-Buggy..._qi=RTM1562569
There is already a complete stainless steel set out there for the buggy
http://www.ebay.com/itm/RC10B5-Buggy..._qi=RTM1562569
#746
Tech Apprentice
Weight is a band-aid for setup. Remember when guys would put 6oz under their lipo batteries? Dakotah Phend just posted that he only runs 7gm in his 22 MM, a car with a reputation for needing a lot of weight.
If lots of weight must be added then either the setup hasn't been worked out (which can understandably take a while) or the car has adjustment limitations (Link locations, available spring rates, etc) to reach the right setup.
If lots of weight must be added then either the setup hasn't been worked out (which can understandably take a while) or the car has adjustment limitations (Link locations, available spring rates, etc) to reach the right setup.
#747
nothing Your screws will be 'shiny' though, but that's about it!
I can understand if people are worrying about stock class and saving weight in one place to put it where you want it somewhere else, but I like the extra 20 grams up front. And with how the plates on the chassis are designed it won't even give more room for the electronics so unless those 20 grams make a big difference, I don't see why. But I've never read too much into it either so that might be part of it
I can understand if people are worrying about stock class and saving weight in one place to put it where you want it somewhere else, but I like the extra 20 grams up front. And with how the plates on the chassis are designed it won't even give more room for the electronics so unless those 20 grams make a big difference, I don't see why. But I've never read too much into it either so that might be part of it
#748
Tech Apprentice
I can understand if people are worrying about stock class and saving weight in one place to put it where you want it somewhere else, but I like the extra 20 grams up front. And with how the plates on the chassis are designed it won't even give more room for the electronics so unless those 20 grams make a big difference, I don't see why. But I've never read too much into it either so that might be part of it
#750
Tech Prophet
iTrader: (84)
You are right that it will not give more room in either of the b5's. I only mean to point out that it is worth trying pulling weight instead of adding weight, as davidka has tried to point out the problems of simply piling on weight. In short, The c4.2 seems to me to be more forgiving when coming on power with less weight up front. I'm wondering if we have to reconsider how weight transfer works on mm cars and not think only in terms of rm weight transfer.