Question for all the buliders out there... skid placement on chassis.

[mudweaver]

As I start to embark on my first chassis build, I came up with a question I was hoping someone with more knowledge on the subject could shed a little light on.

As far as front to back skid plate placement...
If I were to mount the skid closer to the front of the chassis and make the front links shorter, and the rears longer
-vs-
Mounting the skid farther back on the chassis and akeing the front links longer and the rears shorter..
Seems to me that mounting the skid farther back would in turn move your weight bias more over the front wheels without actually having to add weight to the rig.

I hope my rambling on makes sense and someone can shed a little light on it for me.
Thanks ahead of time.
Daniel

[DrewHammer]

I've always personally just let the skid wind up where the bolt on parts I'm using put it. I drive the crap out of my trucks and don't always want to have to make custom parts if I damage anything. Even with the best of parts, when pushing limits things break. As an example, with my most currently wraith based truggy build, the cab ends about 3/4" in front of the back of the skid. It looks a little odd since it's not complete yet but when I break a link I can run to my parts box and get it going quickly. Once its finished and you can't see the skid through the chassis it'll be perfect.

[doublej]

Your thinking is right - move the skid forward. Free forward weight with ought adding weight.
If you want to model the basic layout look at sporty comp rigs.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Mnster]

Yes quite popular back in the day, known as a 40/60 setup referencing the front and rear link lengths. Bulking components at either end does effect the weight bias especially the bulk weight parts like the skid. The problem I've found with a 40/60 setup is the breakover angle. When climbing over a ledge it's much easier to get hung up on the long downward links than if the skid was centered in the middle. However, ground clearance is something that can be addressed with bent links. I tend to prefer 50/50 setups as they are more predictable and balanced with equal travel, weight and movement at both ends.

[TacoCrawler]

I'm working on a 6th scale...
and originally had links made
but they were longer in the rear, then the front.
Wasn't what I was going for.

Might be something I would use on a high speed rig...
ie: formula - U4 build - other go fast basher
Just not what I wanted for the production scale build I'm working on.

So I asked my vendor to re do them
so that the Fr/Rr links were designed for equal lengths.
the vendor did... and I'm happy for that.

already mentioned ^
I prefer the equal balance and predictability when precision crawling.

But for a high speed rig...
I think it might handle better
with say the 40/60 deal.

Bottom line...
first determine where your battery will mount.
and balance the chassis with that in regard.

My 12.3" honcho sports longer links out back and shorter up front.
I believe that is by design.

The shorter Dingo 11.4" WB utilizes equal length links Fr/Rr

[Big Daddy]

Originally Posted by mudweaver

As I start to embark on my first chassis build, I came up with a question I was hoping someone with more knowledge on the subject could shed a little light on.

As far as front to back skid plate placement...
If I were to mount the skid closer to the front of the chassis and make the front links shorter, and the rears longer
-vs-
Mounting the skid farther back on the chassis and akeing the front links longer and the rears shorter..
Seems to me that mounting the skid farther back would in turn move your weight bias more over the front wheels without actually having to add weight to the rig.

I hope my rambling on makes sense and someone can shed a little light on it for me.
Thanks ahead of time.
Daniel

Not sure how moving the skid back would move the bias forward. The amount of adjustment isn't really that great before link geometry and drive line angles become an issue.
Is this on a scaler or comp rig?

[hotwheels000]

If this is a shafty, moving the skid back will move the heaviest component of the truck (motor) rearward. Thus giving the greatest chance of the weight bias being towards the rear of the vehicle.

[mudweaver]

Thanks for the replies guys.
Right now on my SCX C2 rig, I'm running the skid in the factory location but my front links are about 1/2" longer then the rear. I find it works a lot better for me set up like this. Without adding any weight to the rig at all, I can notice better performance with the longer links up front, seems to be more weight over the front end. The front tires stay planted better on steep inclines. Thanks everyone for the replies.

[mudweaver]

because more of the sprung weight is over the front of the vehicle. this will be on a scaler. truggy chassis tf2 body

[Big Daddy]

Originally Posted by mudweaver

because more of the sprung weight is over the front of the vehicle. this will be on a scaler. truggy chassis tf2 body

You said moving the skid rearward would add weight to the front axle. Maybe I'm not picking up what you're putting down, but I'm with Devlin here. Moving it back will move your sprung weight back.
I think all of my SCX based builds have longer rear lowers (12.3"+) or equal length (12.0").

[351Beno]

Do both two rigs better then one