|
[QUOTE=hacker;8803188]I have heard of losi lcd's being used on the tc5, however apparently you need to use losi steering knuckles and hubs too. Currently wheeling a losi, have a tc6 on the way and will look at converting with the losi lcd's QUOTE]
I jumped on this thread to ask if this would work on the TC6. By using the Losi C-hub and knuckles you also get to run a much bigger bearing. :nod: I hope someone can confirm this will or will not work. Thanks!!!!!! |
[QUOTE=Murray;8807640]
Originally Posted by hacker
(Post 8803188)
I have heard of losi lcd's being used on the tc5, however apparently you need to use losi steering knuckles and hubs too. Currently wheeling a losi, have a tc6 on the way and will look at converting with the losi lcd's QUOTE]
I jumped on this thread to ask if this would work on the TC6. By using the Losi C-hub and knuckles you also get to run a much bigger bearing. :nod: I hope someone can confirm this will or will not work. Thanks!!!!!! It can be done but I think that the ackerman geometry is different and will give you a different feel to your steering. |
Can anyone explain me what is the main difference of changing the RC in the camber link vs suspension arms?
|
Changing your camber link is just a minor change. Moving the arms creates a much larger change in the roll center of the car.
|
Ok thanks mate.
|
My steering linkages on the steering bellcrank balls are very tight. Do they wear in over time or is there a easy fix?
|
Originally Posted by woozer71
(Post 8811159)
My steering linkages on the steering bellcrank balls are very tight. Do they wear in over time or is there a easy fix?
|
Originally Posted by jorgesimes
(Post 8810965)
Can anyone explain me what is the main difference of changing the RC in the camber link vs suspension arms?
Lowering the arm mounts by about 1mm would do this (e.g. going from B1 to B0). Raising the inner camber link by about 3mm would also do this (so going from hole 3 to 1 will be close as that is 2.3mm apart - you could then lower the outer ball by 0.7mm and you'd be spot on). However moving the camber link will have more of an effect on camber gain than moving the lower arm. The lower arm position will have negligable effect on camber gain, the camber link will affect it quite a bit. So if you wanted to lower the RC and keep as much camber gain as possible for maximum grip, you'd lower the wishbone. If you wanted to raise the RC to keep the car flat, but add some camber gain to maintain traction, you'd lower the inner camber link which would raise the RC and add some camber gain (about half a degree on the outside wheel at full roll from 5mm RH). |
But lowering the wishbone could also add more shock pack and affect the shock behaviour. Is this correct or it's hardly noticed?
|
Originally Posted by daleburr
(Post 8811785)
Lets say you want to lower the RC by 2.5mm.
Lowering the arm mounts by about 1mm would do this (e.g. going from B1 to B0). Raising the inner camber link by about 3mm would also do this (so going from hole 3 to 1 will be close as that is 2.3mm apart - you could then lower the outer ball by 0.7mm and you'd be spot on). However moving the camber link will have more of an effect on camber gain than moving the lower arm. The lower arm position will have negligable effect on camber gain, the camber link will affect it quite a bit. So if you wanted to lower the RC and keep as much camber gain as possible for maximum grip, you'd lower the wishbone. If you wanted to raise the RC to keep the car flat, but add some camber gain to maintain traction, you'd lower the inner camber link which would raise the RC and add some camber gain (about half a degree on the outside wheel at full roll from 5mm RH). thats a fantastic explanation on RCs!, thank you for takeing the time to type it im sure others apreciate it as much as i do Ed |
Originally Posted by woozer71
(Post 8811159)
My steering linkages on the steering bellcrank balls are very tight. Do they wear in over time or is there a easy fix?
|
Originally Posted by jorgesimes
(Post 8811911)
But lowering the wishbone could also add more shock pack and affect the shock behaviour. Is this correct or it's hardly noticed?
|
Thanks Dale awsome explanations. I've asked this because i've made some measurements and i'm interested in maintain the shock links on 7 position, but i think i need more roll. And like once Grainger said that the perfect position for the arms is 5 mm for the chassi and the 0B is kind a off, i'm thinking in playing with this, but i have some doubts about the consequences.
You have cleared me up, thanks. |
Originally Posted by jorgesimes
(Post 8815830)
Thanks Dale awsome explanations. I've asked this because i've made some measurements and i'm interested in maintain the shock links on 7 position, but i think i need more roll. And like once Grainger said that the perfect position for the arms is 5 mm for the chassi and the 0B is kind a off, i'm thinking in playing with this, but i have some doubts about the consequences.
You have cleared me up, thanks. http://www.rc-timing.com/other/TC6_Roll_Centres.Png I took measurements of the car when I was building it and put them all into a roll-centre calculator. I performed a sweep of the lower and upper link positions which is what that table shows. The one thing missing from the table is the main effect of going from camber link position 1 to position 7. This only has a small effect on the camber gain and initial RC (which adding a 0.5mm shim to the outer ball would pretty much eliminate), but position 7 will cause the RC to drop a lot more as the car rolls. This tends to give a lot of grip, but can make the car feel quite lazy. So good for low grip conditions |
Really awsome, can i get a hand at that RC calculator LOL
|
| All times are GMT -7. It is currently 04:26 AM. |
Powered By: vBulletin v3.9.3.9 Patch Level 3
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.