Originally Posted by MugenDrew

Backwards.
Understand roll center?
Understand centrifugal force?
Understand castor and its ability to force chassis roll?
You placed weight above the front roll center.
This added weight due to centrifugal force tremendously helped your castor angle to greatly increase roll rate versus the front tires traction circle to equate this into grip.
Due to this forced increase in chassis roll the rear of the car translated this into traction.
Push.
When the weight was moved below both the front, rear and actual roll centers of the car it did nothing but attempt to keep the front contact patch from leaving the race surface for a longer time when it was accelerated up and because of the excess weight when in the air it will accelerate down to the racing surface or droop quicker.
More traction because you have not overloaded the contact patch and have not forced the chassis to roll more and at the same time lowered the chassis roll center.

Originally Posted by stanleyw808

MugenDrew,

Thank You very much for Your True Technicalanation. When You mention Roll Center and Centrifugal Force then I understand it right away..

Thanks again..

Btw, what do You think when Robert Battle opted to put the Heavier Ball and Nut on the Upper side when He won the WC in Argentina? What do You think is/are the technical decision that support the placement of the weight at the top part?

Do You think there will be a situation that we need to put the Weight on the Upper side?

I remember when I put the Heavier Weight on top, it makes the steering numb and felt slow but it might also makes the car more forgiving for large open fast flowing track.

Thank a lot again for sharing Your valuable thoughts..

Btw, are You Drew Moller??

Cheerss…

Originally Posted by MugenDrew

I was not at the Argentina race so I really can't comment. Roberts car is definitely his own. A long way from kit stock.
If I were absolutely desperate for a stable rear end and could not rid the chassis of steering I would try this.
Track surface falling apart, ruts, craters and the track still had grip and was not producing a bunch of dust (if the track was junk and still had a bunch of grip) I would try this.
There are much better tuning options for a large open flowing track that will make the chassis more efficient= quicker lap times.
Putting the weight on top of the front up rite is just backwards.
Andrew Schweitzer

Originally Posted by Ricky H.

Tim Long's recent setups have a much harder rear spring black 10.0 and the shock more inclined inward. Sometimes combined with a longer wheelbase (3.5 mm in the rear upright), I assume the longer wheel base purpose is to slow down the rotation due to the harder rear spring. Has anyone tried this rear setup on a blown out bumpy track?

I usually would not use such a hard spring for the rear on Mugens so I am curious if the new 7R rear suspension geometry works better with harder rear springs. Thoughts?

Originally Posted by BermyDomRepRC

Question where can I find these Tim Long set ups to anybody have a link to them ? Thanks

Originally Posted by Ricky H.

Tim Long's recent setups have a much harder rear spring black 10.0 and the shock more inclined inward. Sometimes combined with a longer wheelbase (3.5 mm in the rear upright), I assume the longer wheel base purpose is to slow down the rotation due to the harder rear spring. Has anyone tried this rear setup on a blown out bumpy track?

I usually would not use such a hard spring for the rear on Mugens so I am curious if the new 7R rear suspension geometry works better with harder rear springs. Thoughts?