1/10 touring car weight distribution
#1
1/10 touring car weight distribution
If we use 6 4600 cells on one side, the motor side will be around 100 g less, which is a lot for a 1.5 kg touring car. Did any one concern about the weight distribution? I tried to move one cell to the motor side to make the weight more even, but it looks no body really does this kind of modification. Is it because more weight on one side has no effect on the car's performance? or people add some weight on motor side? now new 5000 cells are on the market which will make the difference on both sides more apparent, does any body have tips to keep the car in balance?
#2
regardless the weight of a 6-cell pack, the most important is how far (or how close) the pack is form the centerline of the chassi.................
for example I got a corally Phi and here in Brazil we race 6-cell, and even with the pack being heavier than the electronics on the opposite side of the chassi, to balance the car I need to add some lead pieces on the battery side...........
for example I got a corally Phi and here in Brazil we race 6-cell, and even with the pack being heavier than the electronics on the opposite side of the chassi, to balance the car I need to add some lead pieces on the battery side...........
#3
well if you are talking about oval track it makes sense
regardless the weight of a 6-cell pack, the most important is how far (or how close) the pack is form the centerline of the chassi.................
for example I got a corally Phi and here in Brazil we race 6-cell, and even with the pack being heavier than the electronics on the opposite side of the chassi, to balance the car I need to add some lead pieces on the battery side...........
for example I got a corally Phi and here in Brazil we race 6-cell, and even with the pack being heavier than the electronics on the opposite side of the chassi, to balance the car I need to add some lead pieces on the battery side...........
#4
Look......
10grams - - - - - - - - - - 5grams
O________________________O
- - - A - -/\- - - - B - - - -
If "B" part is twice longer than "A" part, the system is balanced.........
So my explanation makes sense for everything, not only oval, by the way oval can take advantage of being out of balance as the track has only 2 corners, at high speed and same direction.........
sorry for the ridicolous txt drawing
Last edited by SalvadoriRacing; 11-27-2008 at 06:00 PM.
#5
Hey man, thanks for your drawing. There is one thing different from the car is your drawing shows the supporting point is in the middle which makes your theory work, but on a car the supporting points are located on two ends(tires), so the heavier weight will always make that side heavier, there is no middle point allows you to balance out the heavier end. You may shift the heavier side towards the center, but that side is still heavier until the shift crosses the center line of the chassis then more weight will be added on the other side.
Well above is just based on simple physics, the real car may behave a little differently.
Well above is just based on simple physics, the real car may behave a little differently.
#6
it depends on a point of view, if you consider that all forces act on CG (and that's the way it works), put your chassi on 2 balancing posts and make it balanced.......of course the battery side will be heavier but the car will be balanced and you're supposed to get the best handling from that.........
the CG of the front view of the chassi will be perfect 50/50 and you still have one of the sides heavier.........
it makes sense because when most of the top guys run 5 cell they end up moving the receiver and transponder (or sometimes the ESC!) to the battery side..........
the CG of the front view of the chassi will be perfect 50/50 and you still have one of the sides heavier.........
it makes sense because when most of the top guys run 5 cell they end up moving the receiver and transponder (or sometimes the ESC!) to the battery side..........
#7
Tech Master
iTrader: (8)
Assuming your running a TC (not an oval car) with exact left to right weight. However, you need to add weight to make the minimum.. Is it better to put the additional weight evenly at the front or the rear?
I'm tempted to put more on the front to get more turning on/off power... At least this is what I think would happen.
I'm tempted to put more on the front to get more turning on/off power... At least this is what I think would happen.
#8
Assuming your running a TC (not an oval car) with exact left to right weight. However, you need to add weight to make the minimum.. Is it better to put the additional weight evenly at the front or the rear?
I'm tempted to put more on the front to get more turning on/off power... At least this is what I think would happen.
I'm tempted to put more on the front to get more turning on/off power... At least this is what I think would happen.
if you want a little more steering, yes you should add weight to the front........
#9
Your theory may work but at the same time you lose acceleration a little because when you turn on the gas you want more weight on the back. However there is no perfect setting but balanced car. In your case I might try stiffen the front shock a little bit instead of adding more weight on the front, I would prefer the back carries a little more weight. But when you make the shock stiffer your car may run slightly differently, so I think all depends on the racer's preference, there is no right or wrong setup.
Assuming your running a TC (not an oval car) with exact left to right weight. However, you need to add weight to make the minimum.. Is it better to put the additional weight evenly at the front or the rear?
I'm tempted to put more on the front to get more turning on/off power... At least this is what I think would happen.
I'm tempted to put more on the front to get more turning on/off power... At least this is what I think would happen.