Originally Posted by
stanleyw808
Hello shesha,
I just want to share my understanding about shock position.
If You,
Move the "Upper" shock mounting "In" then it will get softer initially.
Move the "Upper" shock mounting "Out" then it will get harder (more linear).
Move the "Lower" shock mounting "In" then it will get softer (more linear).
Move the "Lower" shock mounting "Out" then it will get harder (progressive).
You were mentioning that, "move the lower shock position out first". Then the car will be more stable but felt harder. Then You compensate with lowering the upper shock position until one point You get the good feeling. Or You need to lower the oil if the suspension felt too stiff.
So, there is actually nothing wrong with the Theory. It is still goes according with the natural law of physics.
Cheerrss..
Yup that sounds about right, if you read the Hudy Handbook and JQ guide, they both dont focus on the fact what the upper adjustment does and what the lower adjustment does in correlation to each other, for any newbie that would seem like lean shocks over means angle the overall shock up and down, so it does not stand up.
I do recall my exact question to Reno was;
"The car handles very good all around the track but lacks acceleration stability and side bite"
His reply, was; " Place the suspension arm mount on the outer hole to gain side traction, and lower the upper shock tower to square the car out on acceleration"
Now theory says outer holes on arms for more side bite, but what would be the theory between the outer hole arm to the first outer hole shock position and one step down each, from my observation maintaining stock upper shock position and leaving the shock out on the arm, yields the best squaring up factor on a loose track , going one more innner gave it a little more forward traction but increased the overall stability and increased the cars overall smooth handling, hence less roll.
Also I do recall having spoke to JQ at the previous Nitro Party in Thailand, about suspension theory, and his point was always to focus on the suspension to pack the landing and not pronounce the landing, he was also prototyping pistons for the WE edition he was working on.
If I was to go on theory alone, then for the number of years racing from one continent to the other, my theory is to always select a piston that I am always happy with that would work at 90% of the track I am on, then base shock oil selection on the overall outside temp, Thailand most oil selection hovered around 60 to 70 cst values due to High weather temps, how do you relate this with Reno running 70cst at Neobuggy and Temps were in the 10c as opposed to thailand being 40C ???
Theory would say to me more pack, logic says to me Temps would make the oil more or less dense in various temps.
I could go on and on about this, logic sometimes does not seem to mesh with the setups some drivers race with, yet they are able to achieve outstanding results, driving being a major part of this, but one would agree that proper tyre selection and correct suspension setup is more then 60% of the work.
Driving a track that has alot of traction would not make alot of difference whether you land correctly or not or suspension being setup right, the only observation you would have is how much pack you would get from the landing, since traction is high, the buggy would square out on acceleration.
Driving a low traction track is a totally different ball game, with high Jumps and that was the case with Neobuggy, large jumps, high speed jumps, suspension has to pack and maintain traction at the same time.
If it goes more towards theory, then 1+1 = 2, but in all honesty the logic and correlation of what the shock position adjustments do in relation to the oil selection and the overall dampening process, and when it occurs does significantly affect the overall cars performance.
Just my 2 cents.