RedBullFiXX

iTrader: (34)

looks sweet, let us know how it works

JamesL_71

iTrader: (13)

Wanted to share some setup info for the new front-end... For those who purchased one, this should give you a good place to start if you feel like exploring outside the typical caster window that the standard old-skool provides.

This is not the setup I would go into a race like Vegas or Snowbirds with(we already have a great setup for the super-high bite, billiard table smooth stuff)... but since the majority of customers/drivers are going to be racing their cars at their locals tracks in conditions that are similar, it should transfer very well.

The facility that I have been racing/testing @ in Houston has pretty good grip... I would say it is Medium-High for a club track. This is not a subfloor track... so there are a few little bumps, but nothing serious. The layout that we have down now has a couple hairpins/180s, including one at the end of the straight. When I had the standard old-skool front end on my Rev8, the car just didn't carry the speed in these 180s that I thought it should. I had to wait to get on the throttle at corner exit. With the extra caster that you can easily tune in to the New-Skool front end, the car was much better in these areas.

In the past, Ive always tried to measure/compare caster with a standard adjustable camber gauge against the kingpin. This is cumbersome at best... The Slapmaster caster gauge is a god-send for dialing in the New-Skool front end. If you are planning on playing with caster on your new front end (which I strongly encourage, given how easy it is to adjust), get yourself one of these gauges.

Anyhoo... The setup that I ended up on is attached below. Along with a shot of the car.

I do want to note that, since I started driving the Rev8 back in Oct, I have almost always been faster with the transverse setup at my club tracks. Again, Snowbirds/Vegas/Etc is another story... but on lower bite carpet, the transverse has been the ticket for me with the old-skool front end. However, with the new front end and extra caster, I felt that I no longer had to depend on the weight transfer to get the car in and out of the corner quickly. My inline car with the New-Skool was wicked fast. I didn't have a chance to test the battery configs back-to-back... but my inline car did everything that I wanted it to.

sg1

iTrader: (79)

Nice looking ride James!

I like the motor too

JamesL_71

iTrader: (13)

Dialed chassis + fast motor = win

avink007

I just had my first race weekend with this car and it turned out well. I ended up taking 4th at the Minnesota State Champs race. There were 38 1/12 cars at the race, I had the only SM. Thank you to Joel and Bruce, it is a great car and I couldn't be more happy with it.

RedBullFiXX

iTrader: (34)

Glad to hear you got her all dialed in
That was fast

avs

iTrader: (2)

I have also been trying to get an inline layout to work, it seems like transverse is faster for me.

one detail question on your setup, when you indicate 1.5 turns on the side springs, does this mean 1.5 turns of preload on the springs or 1.5 turns from fully raised which are just lightly touching?

andrewdoherty

iTrader: (49)

I'm sure he means 1.5 down from the top, not 1.5 of preload.

avs

iTrader: (2)

thanks, glad I asked. I had been thinking they meant more preload, which really wasn't working so well.

JamesL_71

iTrader: (13)

Sorry... Yes, just like Andrew said, this is 1.5 turns from fully backed off. Which lets the springs just kiss the rear pod plate.

With the inline car, you have much less weight transfer to the front off-throttle... so you cannot simply jump off the throttle and let the car whip around the corner. This places a larger emphasis on the settings of the front suspension, springs, lube, etc. The front of your car really needs to be making the correct balance of mechanical grip (and making that grip in the correct stage of the turn, depending on track layout). This can take some time and testing to get it just right. And if you are using the old-skool front end, it can be a pain to adjust caster/camber and get everything perfect from side to side. The upside to this, IMO, is that once you get the car working well with the inline config, it seems to be more consistent and retains better steering towards the end of the run. Since you are depending less upon the weight transfer, you will find that the car makes very similar amounts of steering regardless of the corner type(or speed at which you are approaching the corner)... You will also find that the steering does not fizzle out towards the end of the race, when you are low on battery and digging into the throttle(and not letting off nearly as much) more and more.

Since moving to the new-skool front end, I have been having much more success with the inline config @ club tracks. I will get a chance to test it out in a higher bite setting @ MHIC in 2 weeks, as well.

avs

iTrader: (2)

thanks for the insight, seems like I was too focused on the change in lateral weight transfer and ignoring the difference in fore-aft transfer. with a transverse layout I had been most successful with minimal droop like 0.5mm and equal middle and rear ride heights, and .25mm of rake in the front.

so sorry this brings up another question regarding sag vs middle and rear ride height. (I had always equated rear sag with the difference between the middle and rear ride height, so in your case that would be around 0.5mm sag due to the 3.4mm mid and 3.8mm rear ride heights).
what measurement does one get 1mm sag from? if you measure sag from the upper travel limit to static ride height, then it would be closer to 2mm?

JamesL_71

iTrader: (13)

Sag is difference between the static center ride height and the center ride height at full extension of the shock. Basically... measure the center ride height, then pull up on the top of the shock or antenna, and re-measure. The difference between the 2 measurements will give you your chassis sag measurement.

I typically measure the pod droop by placing the car on droop blocks and measuring from the pit board to the rear edge of the pod plate with a pair of calipers... then subtracting the height of the droop blocks.

Using this method to measure droop has pretty much always left me with pod droop and chassis sag measurements that differ by just a little bit. But the exact #s aren't as important as making sure A) you have some sag in the car, and B) that you measure the sag/droop the same every time, so you can compare from setup to setup/change to change. If you have 1mm(+/- .5mm) of droop and sag, you will be in the ballpark.

LonnyJ1950

You're actually measuring droop 2 different ways. This is what Bruce says about it:

http://www.petitrc.com/reglages/spee...hassisSag.html

JayBee

iTrader: (31)

Someone please correct me....I may be wrong but when I read that, it seems to me that both measurements are predicated by the center shocks length and springs preload. In other words, at a certain chassis sag you will have a fixed amount of rear pod droop.
Or can both measurements be found independently of each other? For example...can you have 2mm of chassis sag & 2mm of rear pod droop?

JoelV

iTrader: (4)

Droop is strictly length of shock. It's the physical travel. Sag is the 'dead space' before the weight transfer.

Neither is something I measure. I'm going to steal James' tools or cars in Denver. I never measure ride height at the rear of the pod. Droop and sag is a visual and feel thing to me.

You can adjust sag by axle height and preload. But I never change my rear ride height adjusters and never touched my tamale pod. When your car is ready to go I load the car by pressing on the tweak brace body posts with thumb and pinky fingers. Then pull up on the body clips with those fingers. There should be some dead space (sag)