R/C Tech Forums - View Single Post - Tekno RC SCT410.3 Thread
View Single Post
Old 05-01-2016, 06:48 AM
  #3523  
celt
Tech Elite
iTrader: (5)
 
celt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: /dev/null
Posts: 2,570
Trader Rating: 5 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Josh L
The thing is, the manufacturers don't think otherwise. The original weight bias was more than likely a very balanced one, with a nose heavy 60/40 give or take 5%, toward the nose.
Considering what I was told about Tekno using a light weight low mah pack with a light weight RX8 ESC paired to a 540 motor with a light weight servo, I would imagine it would have been very balanced.

Unfortunately for many of us, especially on the east coast where the majority run on small to medium sized rutted, loamy, or both (less groomed) outdoor tracks than they do in Cali where this thing spawned.
Considering a loss in surface grip means we can't manage the throttle as well which causes burn outs randomly, we need beefier electronics to reliably do the job for a 10 minute main without hitting LVC by the time it's over.
Fact is, 90% or the SCT people, including myself are using more power than we can possibly lay down to the track to begin with.
This factor has it's highlights, but energy efficiency is not one of them.
Hence the larger motors and batteries.

That being said, since we do run heavier equipment we are penalized in the balance department. Hence the birth of mods, like the battery back trick and ESC behind the battery deal.

And while I can understand why you would think having a heavier static rear end weight bias would be beneficial, I can assure you it's not in the long run.
You have to realize that when accelerating a vehicle with as much suspension travel as these trucks have, inertial weight shift becomes apparent real quick.
When accelerating a 50/50 balanced vehicle, depending on G's pulled and various other little factors, the rear end all of a sudden becomes heavy automatically.
This destroys stability in the dirt, especially the loose stuff.
Typically, you will almost always want at least a 5% over-front weight in these conditions.
Having a front heavy vehicle makes it much easier to save from a spin out as well.
Understanding this concept paired with a 4WD is also the reason why I want my truck to land nose first off a jump that I will be accelerating away from once I land. That front end will plant the rear while pulling you straight if you set it down first while managing throttle, which is what baffles me about so many complaining about a nose down attitude off a jump.
I understand you don't want it to nose over to much, but some is more than acceptable and actually more optimal in my experience.

Think about what I have said and ask yourself why you don't see many full scale mid engine rock crawlers and dessert racers with that 50/50 weight bias.
Finally!!

Someone who gets it and put it into words. The slight weight forward bias of the Tekno is THE reason I run their kits - if they where to change that, it would ruin this chassis.

The last thing you want in a 4WD chassis is to heel and toe over jumps. Nothing wrong with Tekno's weight bias.
celt is offline