belly skid height

[TacoCrawler]

Axial's specifications lists the Wraith's
belly skid at 3.20" static.

So what height does yours sit at ?

I'm looking for what is commonly utilized by the majority.
^ helpful information regarding an 1/6 scale Wraith suspended rig I'm building.

ps: I'm going for a low COG... but not sure how low I can go.

thanks for posting up your measurement


At near 4" underneath the center skid...
I can lift the tire about 4" before the drive shaft hits the upper link.









This seem acceptable ?

I actually wish I could sit lower...
but if I did... the DS would hit the upper link prematurely I think.

Guess I may need to swallow the price of the supershafty risers !? :sighs:

[Jeff@TireBalls]

The shocks should limit that up travel to keep your DS from hitting the link. I run mine pretty low but still have tons of flex and no DS contact.

[DeviledEggs]

Im lookin at 2 3/8" under my skid. About 4" of articulation using slash shocks. Fronts on the rear, rears on the front.

[TacoCrawler]

Originally Posted by Jeff@TireBalls

The shocks should limit that up travel to keep your DS from hitting the link. I run mine pretty low but still have tons of flex and no DS contact.

up travel isn't really an issue as far as DS - Link contact...

It's the compression side of things
that may allow the DS(s) to hit the upper link.
Well... that and articulation (still compression tho')

I'd like to be running around 3 -3.25" static...
but be able to compress fully to 2.5"
And raise upwards at around 4.0"
Tho' I really have no clue as to what the stroke length
is on these factory Wraith shocks ?
And so may change those later down the road.

If my skid were raised upwards beyond 4"
the wheel base would effectively become shorter then is acceptable.
So basically that 4" upwards extension would effectively be my max droop.

I don't know if relaying any of this to you makes sense...
maybe it's just clutter rolling around in my mind !? Lol

----------------

Originally Posted by DeviledEggs

Im lookin at 2 3/8" under my skid. About 4" of articulation using slash shocks. Fronts on the rear, rears on the front.

good to know... thanks

[fr8cture]

2 3/8" here too

[TacoCrawler]

Originally Posted by DeviledEggs

Im lookin at 2 3/8" under my skid. About 4" of articulation using slash shocks. Fronts on the rear, rears on the front.

Originally Posted by fr8cture

2 3/8" here too

When you both state 2 3/8"

is that the static ride height ?

And so the travel perimeter allows for further compression
as well as extension ? 50/50 - 60/40 ?

How low will it go during compression below 2 3/8" ?

How high does it extend above that 2 3/8" ?

Or are you guys saying that 2 3/8"
is the belly skid height measure off the ground
when the chassis's suspension is fully compressed ?

thanks for the clarification

[fr8cture]

3.25" extended 1 7/8" compressed. 2 3/8" is ride height.

[TacoCrawler]

Originally Posted by fr8cture

3.25" extended 1 7/8" compressed. 2 3/8" is ride height.

'bout what I was thinking...
thanks for that clarification

[Revoasian]

I'm sitting at 2 1/2 on a droop suspension set up. 0 up travel with 107mm shocks and a full 2" down travel at full extension. Rock crawler only, it tends to belly drag a lot but much much fewer roll overs with that lower center of gravity.

[TacoCrawler]

Originally Posted by Revoasian

I'm sitting at 2 1/2 on a droop suspension set up. 0 up travel with 107mm shocks and a full 2" down travel at full extension. Rock crawler only, it tends to belly drag a lot but much much fewer roll overs with that lower center of gravity.

Can you post a picture pertaining to the upper link - drive shaft clearance
at your particular static ride height ?

anyone else with a lowered suspension got pics they can share !?

I'm primarily looking to see the upper link - drive shaft clearance.

[fr8cture]

Mine with 4.7" tall tires too so take that into account. Could probably add 3/8" so so to those number for 2.2s. I plan on getting the dude front shock mounts to lower it down some more.

[TacoCrawler]

Originally Posted by fr8cture

Mine with 4.7" tall tires too so take that into account. Could probably add 3/8" so so to those number for 2.2s. I plan on getting the dude front shock mounts to lower it down some more.

got a picture of your upper link - DS clearance ?
If lowered more... no link - DS clearance issues ?

dang those seem kinda short for a Wraith !? 1.9's ?

I'm actually building a 1/6 scale...
so even 5.5" on 2.2's looks kinda short/small.
But nearer in looks to that of a scale production TJ.

I'm intending on utilizing 5.70 - 6.0 on 2.2's
be cool if I could find a 6.0.

But I've no interest in moving up to 3.8 wheels
and dealing with hub/hex size variables.

I do however have eight 3.8" MT tires laying around...
that measure in at near 6.25" dia.
So if I decided to monstersize my 1/6 TJ build...
I already have the tires that could do that.

[fr8cture]

Mines scx axles no driveshaft clearance issues.

[TacoCrawler]

^ oh gotcha

I already have an 1.9 honcho for that scale business.

[Szczerba]

I build almost all of my trucks with the lower links parallel to the ground (or just above) at ride height and maximize up-travel. From crawlers, to go-fast crawlers to 1/6 scale 15-30lbs trucks.

[TacoCrawler]

Originally Posted by Szczerba

I build almost all of my trucks with the lower links parallel to the ground (or just above) at ride height and maximize up-travel. From crawlers, to go-fast crawlers to 1/6 scale 15-30lbs trucks.

That's what I was attempting to do...
but I think my upper links are going to cause DS interference.

guess I'll hafta' find out when I get to that step

[maslin]

If your lower links are flat and you don't have some ridiculous amount of flex you won't have interference.

Unless you have the upper or lower link lengths modified?

Looking at your pictures I noticed you're checking the flex with the belly at 4", drop that down a lot and recheck. I bet the angles work out.

[TacoCrawler]

Originally Posted by maslin

If your lower links are flat and you don't have some ridiculous amount of flex you won't have interference.

once again... the lower links do not cause interference or hamper anything...
Whether at ground zero or 4" up.
Utilizing flat links would make no difference beside having something to drag on the rocks.

I can set the belly skid flat on the ground...
and the lower links do not touch the DS...
But the uppers hit/rub the drive shaft enough
that the belly skid cannot lay fully flat to the ground.

Granted... I don't need to have that much compression.
So in going forward... I will only know... when I know.

I'm not looking for ridiculous amounts of articulation...
this rig will be set up to replicate a 1:1 in scale function.

The problem is the window at which the suspension articulates (comp/rebound).
Because I had hoped to set up for a low COG.
I'm beginning to realize these links are more designed to work
on a Wraith that is equivalent to the factory ride height.
And so lowering it... is going to be problematic using these uppers as is.

Originally Posted by maslin

Unless you have the upper or lower link lengths modified?

not even sure what you mean with that ?

Originally Posted by maslin

Looking at your pictures I noticed you're checking the flex with the belly at 4", drop that down a lot and recheck. I bet the angles work out.

It's actually the opposite...
If I raise the center skid... I net more upper link clearance.

If I lower it (which is what I hoped to do) the upper links
will hit the drive shaft.

So... that is my dilemma
The question I've yet to discover for myself is...
how low I will be able to establish the static ride
before the upper links hit the DS.

Once I weld up the frame and mount the suspension to that...
I guess I'll net my answer.

[fr8cture]

Who makes that link set? that is probably your issue. I notice they dont have any sideways bends like VP or stock.

[TacoCrawler]

Originally Posted by fr8cture

Who makes that link set? that is probably your issue. I notice they dont have any sideways bends like VP or stock.

The link set was bent/machined by Titanium Mike @ hardcorerc.net.
...and I don't fault him whatsoever.
^ yes, he is a vendor here

I had special ordered a custom length link set made from 1/4" Ti
Mike's normal offerings are made using 3/16" Ti.

I guess we initially had some communication deficiencies.

The first link set he completed for me was not to my liking
because all the added length was included into the rear link set.
And tho' maybe good for U4 or similar... was not what I wanted.
So Mike... was gracious enough to re-do those more to my specifications.

Tho' I did not think to question Mike as to whether the upper link rise
might be of issue.

Mike used to work for Blue Monkey and now freelances
with his own offerings.

Mike does good work... and is very considerate and communicative
with his customers.

I have nothing but good things to say, when I speak of him.
And I'd recommend him to anyone.

But custom work is not something that is generally generic...
and like what would be found on most pre-made RC kits

Replicating or copying an original design is one thing...
custom work... well that's another game altogether.

In all honesty... I doubt a sideways bend would correct for my concerns.

bottom line...
I wished I had known something about these Wraith's from the beginning.
had I...
I may have asked Mike to extend the rise with a slight more bend
for the upper links...
but I didn't... so it is what it is... would seem.

I will likely attempt to utilize the super shafty riser kit...
and see if that set up will net what I'm looking for.

Hopefully it will not cause issue with the geometry or upper link length(s).