60/40 and link length

[kineteks]

Is there a thread about the theory behind asymmetrical link length, 60/40, 55/45 etc?

[d-fly]

it is ussualy 60/40 or 50/50 must people run 50/50 60/40 used to be more popular but most rigs are 50/50 its depends on the rocks there you crawl the 60/40 is better for steep inclines becuase the weight it further foward. if you think about it it s kind of obvious. I dont know anythread but a search is easy to do. If you are looking for links go to xtreme hobbies they make some of the best custom links for a good price. And you can get them in many different materials.

[kineteks]

I've actually searched 60/40 etc... nothing comes up. I found one post on it by searching "links and geometry" but no theory there. I know it's no longer popular but I'd still like to have a better understanding of it...

[C-MuRdaA]

I believe it means this. If you run your rig with a 50/50 setup your lower links will both be the same length. If you run a 60/40 setup I believe you make your rear links 60% of your overall lower link length and your fronts lower links 40% of your total lower link length.


For a comp crawler you need your wheelbase to be 12.5" so if you were starting from scratch you would setup your axles 12.5" apart from the center of each wheel hex.
Next you would place your chassis in between the axles and if you were running a 50/50 setup the distance from each lower link mounting hole would be the same to each axle, front and rear. Now you take that measurement and make up your links.
If you wanted to run a 60/40 setup you would move your chassis a little closer towards the front axle which keeps the weight bias of your rig towards the front. Now your rear lower links will be longer then the front lower links and "60/40" is just a setup that has proven to work. In theory you can make it whatever you want as long as it works.





I hope that's right LOL.

[quickster47]

Back when RC rock crawling was in its' infancy and just getting a foothold, long about the end of 2004, the beginning of 2005, and into 2006, most crawlers were in the super class. Back then crawlin' was different and lots of folks were trying lots of different approaches searching for crawlin' nirvana. Of course in that respect, nothing has changed. Everyone is still searching for that ultimate, winner take all, setup.

I think it might have been RC Guy out of Canada that offered up the first 60/40 kit to the general public. And if I remember correctly from all the discussions that went on, the whole thing was about weight bias. Now I could be wrong about that as I do suffer from MBS.

I may have an article or two I saved from those days of long ago and will check my library archives later tonight.

Carl

MBS = Multiple Birthday Syndrome

[Greatscott]

I think in the RC world you see this because it is easier an cheaper to produce links that are the same lenth. In the 1:1 world most of the links are custom made to the crawler...

[d-fly]

idk about that xtreme rc hobby makes custom links. I know like atlest five venders that sell customs on here aswell.

[kineteks]

"And if I remember correctly from all the discussions that went on, the whole thing was about weight bias."

That's kind of what I'm trying to understand. Weight bias is the most easy to understand part of it and if that's the dominate function then that's all I need to know. I know at least one good running rig (and I'll bet more than one) is still running asymmetrical link lengths and I was wondering if you could say, offset some of the loss in climbing ability when switching to taller tires by shortening up the front links. I also wonder if longer/shorter links don't plant the tires differently so there'd be more than a weight bias effect. I'm not looking for someone to make links, I can handle that, I'm just looking for a little bit of the logic behind playing with link length.

[Defender]

I remember this thread was really informative

60/40 vs. 50/50....