Originally Posted by Slapmaster6000

I hit the track Friday night with the "weight forward" concept. I moved my servo forward, installed the ball studs facing back and moved the bats all the way to the front. Put 40wt in the center shock with 2mm under the nose. Screwed on a set of 2xpinks & yellows. .5mm chassis lift in the middle or -.25mm droop, the rear pod .5mm lower in the front vs the rear. Slathered on 2/3's Jack on the fronts, full rears. Pretty dang good. Keep in mind, this very same combo pushed off the track at 4 minutes in a previous test with weight back. It would seem that weight forward may solve the changing tire traction conditions through out the 8 minutes. This is the first bit of good news to help cure this issue since it showed up. In the good old days, we didn't have conditions change during the run. You either pushed or were loose.

When I got back to the shop, I set up the scale and did a little weight bias check. With the servo forward like I described, a 19t motor, the bats forward, the wieght bias is 41.6/58.4%. With the bats back, it's 40.5/59.5%. I would be curious to put the servo back were it was to measure it for comparison. This makes me wonder if there is a "magic number" to shoot for. I checked my MS2.3 and it was lighter on the nose; 38.9/61.1% and 40.1/59.9%.

Results at the track were: 3 other drivers really liked the weight shift and improved their times. I took a step sideways, no time improvement, but I liked the characteristics of the car better. I ran a 2xpink wrap with a yellow prism in practice and the 1st round that showed big potential. When I went to all prism, I actually went slower. I was quite surprised. My next test will be on all wraps in that combo. If that works out, I suspect that it will be quite fatal to the rest.

Is anyone in on this thread capable of making up an Excel style set up sheet that we can share between everyone? I don't know how and not affraid to admitt it. Something with scanned images?