Dlux has gone off the deep end

[durok]

So, if I'm following this correctly - we've mentioned using upper mounts for the front upper links to decrease dive - but which mounts to use in the rear for anti-squat?

For example:

I'm about to assemble 2 Bomber-based rigs, and I was trying to decide which link locator holes to use...

It seems that the manual shows the options and mentions what they do - but not WHICH location does what...

RTR Stock is front using upper of 2 choices, rear middle of 3 choices.

One build will be lightweight, and the 2nd will be quite heavy (lots of aluminum everywhere, larger motor & ESC)...

Trying to decide up front what would be best for which.

I'm hoping since this is a thread that discusses chassis and suspension design a great deal, this isn't considered a hijack!

[JohnRobHolmes]

I typically use the upper links at chassis to adjust AS/squat, but sometimes they need to go higher on top of the axle to get enough AS. On the rear they will be adjusted in the opposite direction than front, so lower at the chassis will increase AS on the rear whereas it will increase it on the front.

I think I got that right, lol! Its easier to just drive and adjust than to bang on the math. One test is worth 1000 opinions.

[CM9000]

the u joints off of the txt driveshafts, is that what you used for the dogbone driveshaft?

[Erik D_lux]

Just some pictures crawling....

[Erik D_lux]

Got some different body mounts done. I think these are going to do the trick.

[tapped-out]

Erik with body folded in like you have it in the picture.
Doesn't it make body out of spec?
It looks like you'd have to unfold the side of body to meet the 3" minimum.

Sent from my SM-J320V using Tapatalk

[Erik D_lux]

Originally Posted by Robbob

Dive happens when you lift the throttle/hit the breaks - weight is transferred forward. Anti dive = chassis stays more level when you apply breaks or drag break kicks in hard .... Dive = chassis rolls forward onto the front axle (dives down)

Down hill decents, your drag break kicks in and the rear axle lifts up. Anti-dive comes into tuning so you help keep the rear axle planted and the truck doesnt topple forward.

Sorry, I should have specified that everything I said is just when the front is driving and the effects that the front axle will have on the chassis. There is much more to it as you said above. The front will effect the back and vice versa. I was trying to go light as I think its important to understand how each individual axle force effects the chassis one at at time and then move further.

Originally Posted by Robbob

If youre lifting the nose or burying it down on power then I would lean to adjusting rear squat.

Unless the front is 100% neutral, it will either lift or dive under power no matter what. Just what happens when there are existing forces.

Originally Posted by durok

So, if I'm following this correctly - we've mentioned using upper mounts for the front upper links to decrease dive - but which mounts to use in the rear for anti-squat?

For example:

I'm about to assemble 2 Bomber-based rigs, and I was trying to decide which link locator holes to use...

It seems that the manual shows the options and mentions what they do - but not WHICH location does what...

RTR Stock is front using upper of 2 choices, rear middle of 3 choices.

One build will be lightweight, and the 2nd will be quite heavy (lots of aluminum everywhere, larger motor & ESC)...

Trying to decide up front what would be best for which.

I'm hoping since this is a thread that discusses chassis and suspension design a great deal, this isn't considered a hijack!

I think it depends on a lot of things. The best way to figure out what you want is to move things and understand what they do when they move them. A lot of time, understanding comes from testing.

I cant just tell you where to put your links. You might like a characteristic one way more than the other where I like the opposite. Also, no rides come for free. Every time you move something, it will get worse in some respects and better in others. I set all my cars up to be as neutral as possible so they are well balanced. That means sometimes people can have their setup completely "wrong" and maybe they can do an obstacle easier than I can. Just how it goes.

I think its easiest to say "my car is having this issue, how do I make that better" and then we can give advice?

Originally Posted by JohnRobHolmes

I typically use the upper links at chassis to adjust AS/squat, but sometimes they need to go higher on top of the axle to get enough AS. On the rear they will be adjusted in the opposite direction than front, so lower at the chassis will increase AS on the rear whereas it will increase it on the front.

I think I got that right, lol! Its easier to just drive and adjust than to bang on the math. One test is worth 1000 opinions.

Yep, so if you bring the links down at the chassis, thats the same as moving them up at the axle and up at the chassis is the same as down at the axle. Really, youre just looking at how flat the upper links are. If they are angled down, thats more anti squat. If they go up, thats less.

Not having enough adjustment on scale type cars is the biggest reason my trusses were created. The Yeti does not have enough anti squat to keep the truck from bottoming in the rear. Lots of people combat this with heavy shock oil or heavy springs but thats not correct. Increasing the anti squat is the best way to keep the axle from bottoming out. Also, see how on one car, the Yeti, I would run a ton of anti squat where on my crawler, I would not run near as much. Different uses get different settings.

Attached is a picture of my truss so you can see how it has the mounts up higher so you can get a lot more anti squat than stock or any other truss.

Originally Posted by CM9000

the u joints off of the txt driveshafts, is that what you used for the dogbone driveshaft?

Oh, no, thats not what I used.

Originally Posted by tapped-out

Erik with body folded in like you have it in the picture.
Doesn't it make body out of spec?
It looks like you'd have to unfold the side of body to meet the 3" minimum.

▪ 2.5.8 - Bodies must be 3” minimum height on sides. No less than 12.5”
total length and full original width, and no less than 5” in center.

Dead on at 3" height on sides, 12.5" total length and its full original width. I dont know what 5" in center means though. Its full width and only 4.5" wide.

Such a dumb rule if you ask me. I mean really, if you hit your sides on a rock raising that side, does that mean youre now out of spec? If I run into a rock on the front or rear, thats out of spec? Body rules.. pfft.

[tapped-out]

I'm only asking from looking at a picture.

Rule 2.1.2
It looks like the body on tech table wouldn't Measure 3" on the side.
maybe it does meet the 3" minimum.




Sent from my SM-J320V using Tapatalk

[Erik D_lux]

▪ 1.4.4 - Vehicle Out of Spec: If the Judge has reason to believe a vehicle is out of spec during a course run, he may call time to stop. At that point no additional inputs maybe given by the driver to the vehicle via touch or radio control. The Judge must mark the vehicle’s location and perform a tech inspection in the specified tech area (same manner as all other tech inspections). If the vehicle has been deemed within spec, the driver and vehicle will return to the location marked by the judge and the clock will start once again. If the vehicle is now out of spec and the Judge has determined that the vehicle has gained an advantage, the driver must take a repair (see rule 1.4.3) to correct the problem. If the problem can not be corrected to bring the vehicle back within spec, the driver will receive a DNF for that course (see rule 1.8 ). If a vehicle falls out of spec due to breakage on course and the Judge determines the driver has not gained an advantage, then the driver may be allowed to continue on course without stopping time and requiring a tech inspection. Bodies, and body panels are not included in this exception, and must be replaced immediately, standard repair procedures and penalties apply.






Shit! I have been called on being out of spec on a body that was falling off! I guess body stuff does not matter after the tech inspection unless it gets hurt.

[tapped-out]

OK... Whatever you win... LMAO....
I think you unfolded the side for the picture.

Sent from my SM-J320V using Tapatalk

[tapped-out]

Atleast you aren't trying to get away with this body.

I should have know better than to question "Mr Dlux" himself.

Sent from my SM-J320V using Tapatalk

[Erik D_lux]

LOL. Maybe gravity brought the sides down since the first time the pic was taken? Maybe it was hit by rocks and that brought it down? Dont know, its at 3" now so I dont care. Actually, if somebody told me my body was not legal, I dont think I would care enough to do anything about it.


Yeah, not a fan of those buggy bodies at all. I have voiced my opinion before. I am not sure how anybody sees that they should be allowed. Oh well. I dont think you will win because of it either.

[d-wray]

Originally Posted by Erik D_lux

▪ 1.4.4 - Vehicle Out of Spec: If the Judge has reason to believe a vehicle is out of spec during a course run, he may call time to stop. At that point no additional inputs maybe given by the driver to the vehicle via touch or radio control. The Judge must mark the vehicle’s location and perform a tech inspection in the specified tech area (same manner as all other tech inspections). If the vehicle has been deemed within spec, the driver and vehicle will return to the location marked by the judge and the clock will start once again. If the vehicle is now out of spec and the Judge has determined that the vehicle has gained an advantage, the driver must take a repair (see rule 1.4.3) to correct the problem. If the problem can not be corrected to bring the vehicle back within spec, the driver will receive a DNF for that course (see rule 1.8 ). If a vehicle falls out of spec due to breakage on course and the Judge determines the driver has not gained an advantage, then the driver may be allowed to continue on course without stopping time and requiring a tech inspection. Bodies, and body panels are not included in this exception, and must be replaced immediately, standard repair procedures and penalties apply.






Shit! I have been called on being out of spec on a body that was falling off! I guess body stuff does not matter after the tech inspection unless it gets hurt.

Eric! I told Matt that body was good but he kept insisting it wasn’t....see Matt

[CM9000]

I like this rig just staring at it.. just to recap, you put in all the chassis braces so the suspension can take the full work load.

how many packs do you have through it now? any changes you would make?

[JENS]

▪ 2.5.8 - Bodies must be 3” minimum height on sides. No less than 12.5”
total length and full original width, and no less than 5” in center.

What happened to the 8" x 3" x 3" rule ??


▪ 2.5.6 - Bodied Vehicles only, typically a lexan body that is removable from chassis. Bodiless vehicles are prohibited. Bodies must be of original width and resemble a 1:1 vehicle with cab, door, and hood panels. Vehicle “body” measurements must be greater than or equal to 8" overall length, 3" overall width, and 3" overall height.

[TSK]

If a picture speaks a thousand words, this one says "Dlux" 1000 times.

[JohnRobHolmes]

Where you pull the rule from? Since I'm no longer the owner, I can't say for sure, but maybe the shafty class body specs have been reverted back to the original specs to separate them better from MOA "buggies"?

Originally Posted by JENS

▪ 2.5.8 - Bodies must be 3” minimum height on sides. No less than 12.5”
total length and full original width, and no less than 5” in center.

What happened to the 8" x 3" x 3" rule ??


▪ 2.5.6 - Bodied Vehicles only, typically a lexan body that is removable from chassis. Bodiless vehicles are prohibited. Bodies must be of original width and resemble a 1:1 vehicle with cab, door, and hood panels. Vehicle “body” measurements must be greater than or equal to 8" overall length, 3" overall width, and 3" overall height.

[JENS]

Originally Posted by JohnRobHolmes

Where you pull the rule from? Since I'm no longer the owner, I can't say for sure, but maybe the shafty class body specs have been reverted back to the original specs to separate them better from MOA "buggies"?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...nfpTTEDKo/edit

Is this not the latest set of rules,-or have I missed something.....

The red text I have qouted from this thread,-maybe that was not clear,-I'm sorry

[tapped-out]

Last I read body specs are 8x3x3

Sent from my SM-J320V using Tapatalk

[JohnRobHolmes]

rules look fine to me. Maybe you pulled 2.5.8 from an older version. Now 2.5.8 is :

▪ 2.5.8 - Motor must be chassis mounted. Motor mount cannot be part of or directly coupled to an axle.