Go Back   RCCrawler Forums > RCCrawler General Tech > Tires and Wheels
Loading

Notices

Thread: Knuckle Weights vs. Wheel Weights

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-04-2011, 06:35 AM   #1
I wanna be Dave
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In the Dark Edges of your Mind
Posts: 6,386
Default Knuckle Weights vs. Wheel Weights

Scott mentioned this yesterday and it got me curious.. Knuckle weights have some serious advantages obviously,

but without wheel weights there will not be nearly as much rotational inertia when throttling forward / reverse to rock a truck to flip it back over.

Has anyone that uses knuckle weights experienced more difficulty rocking the truck when upside down? Is there a noticable difference?

Got any video or can you make a quick video of your truck with knuckle weghts instead of wheel weights flipping back over from the lid?

Thanks
Harvo is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 02-04-2011, 07:13 AM   #2
I wanna be Dave
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: 07456 N. NJ USofA
Posts: 8,315
Default

From what I have seen, there seems to be no real downside to knuckle weights OTHER than less room on some set-ups to get enough weight in.

For 2.2 & 1.9, there is little room for weight (depending on axle & wheel) while a super has a lot more room.

I would prefer to get weight OUT of the wheels to:
-Take load off gearbox/axles/hexes/pins/etc., this should help with wear and not breaking things as much
-Get wheel speed up a bit, less weight to spin up
Charlie-III is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2011, 07:50 AM   #3
I wanna be Dave
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 16,953
Default

Mine flips over just as easily with knuckle weights as it did with wheel weights.

No video though....
JeremyH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2011, 08:29 AM   #4
I wanna be Dave
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Having fun again...
Posts: 2,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeremyH View Post
Mine flips over just as easily with knuckle weights as it did with wheel weights.

No video though....
that must be that awesome chassis

no, seriously why are you on your roof so much?
krawlfreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2011, 08:32 AM   #5
I wanna be Dave
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 16,953
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krawlfreak View Post
that must be that awesome chassis

no, seriously why are you on your roof so much?
Haha....not on the roof that much....that's why there's no video of it.
JeremyH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2011, 08:38 AM   #6
RCC Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: St. Albans
Posts: 1,441
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie-III View Post
I would prefer to get weight OUT of the wheels to:
-Take load off gearbox/axles/hexes/pins/etc., this should help with wear and not breaking things as much
-Get wheel speed up a bit, less weight to spin up
Those are the exact reasons I'm looking at the knuckle weights for my losi. Even if I stll have to run a little bit of weight in the front wheels, the more I take off the wheels the better.
killswitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2011, 08:39 AM   #7
I wanna be Dave
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Having fun again...
Posts: 2,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeremyH View Post
Haha....not on the roof that much....that's why there's no video of it.
damn! your fast!

get back to work
krawlfreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2011, 08:43 AM   #8
I wanna be Dave
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 16,953
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krawlfreak View Post
damn! your fast!

get back to work
I'm at home now....a little bad weather and this city shuts down! A day off with pay, I'll take it!
JeremyH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2011, 08:53 AM   #9
I wanna be Dave
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Having fun again...
Posts: 2,641
Default

i like the idea of knuckle weights but i also like being able to throw some weight around in the wheels to help "bite in" in some situations.

if you want more wheel speed up the voltage.

as far as rolling over i cant see where knuckle weights would hurt, it is the weight bias of the truck you are depending on to get it rocking.
krawlfreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2011, 12:45 PM   #10
Wanna get? Gotta want.
 
Erik D_lux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 7,053
Default

I did notice a difference in not being able to roll back over. More importantly though the knuckle weights reduce rolling over becuase of the added stabilty. Yeah, you can roll over better but I would rather not roll in the first place. Make sense?

Its really hard to explain the difference that knuckle weights make. I was ready for the increase in wheelspeed and less breakage. I was not ready for the stabilty in all directions, espically going down hill. There was so much rotating mass that even going from .01mph to a stop would really make the rear lift becuase of the weight. After getting all of my weight out it just does not do it any more. Same idea of rolling back over really.

Over 9oz on the knuckle

7oz tire/wheel/foam

Erik D_lux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2011, 12:47 PM   #11
Rock Crawler
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krawlfreak View Post
that must be that awesome chassis

no, seriously why are you on your roof so much?
For your answer, look to your first line.
Krawler Kev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2011, 02:36 PM   #12
I wanna be Dave
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Houston
Posts: 3,760
Default

I think the wheelspeed gained negates the lack of momentum in the front tires. I also thought it would be harder to get out of being high centered but haven't had any negatives there. But I run almost half knuckle weight/half wheel weight. That seems to be a great all around setup for me.
4xFord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2011, 02:42 PM   #13
I wanna be Dave
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Having fun again...
Posts: 2,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik D_lux View Post
I did notice a difference in not being able to roll back over. More importantly though the knuckle weights reduce rolling over becuase of the added stabilty. Yeah, you can roll over better but I would rather not roll in the first place. Make sense?

Its really hard to explain the difference that knuckle weights make. I was ready for the increase in wheelspeed and less breakage. I was not ready for the stabilty in all directions, espically going down hill. There was so much rotating mass that even going from .01mph to a stop would really make the rear lift becuase of the weight. After getting all of my weight out it just does not do it any more. Same idea of rolling back over really.

Over 9oz on the knuckle

7oz tire/wheel/foam
your weight system looks really great but i dont really see where the weight is placed in that much different of a spot than say a typical dirty harry or slugged wheel for that matter.

in fact most of the weight is farther inboard on the axle.

i think for a knuckle weight to truly make the biggest difference it would have to be at the farthest possible point out on the axle (closest to wheel face would be ideal) and under centerline of the axle.

dont get me wrong cause i am not knocking your set-up i just think it is alot of work on a 2.2 for minimal results.

you could just widen your track width a have 2 fold the stability all around.
krawlfreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2011, 03:46 PM   #14
Wanna get? Gotta want.
 
Erik D_lux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 7,053
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krawlfreak View Post
your weight system looks really great but i dont really see where the weight is placed in that much different of a spot than say a typical dirty harry or slugged wheel for that matter.

in fact most of the weight is farther inboard on the axle.

i think for a knuckle weight to truly make the biggest difference it would have to be at the farthest possible point out on the axle (closest to wheel face would be ideal) and under centerline of the axle.

dont get me wrong cause i am not knocking your set-up i just think it is alot of work on a 2.2 for minimal results.

you could just widen your track width a have 2 fold the stability all around.
In theory the weights are debatable of how much they help because of where they are located. I agree with what you said above, its not ideal. Its as close as I can figure out on a 2.2 though.

After running weights in my wheels and then running it where it is, there is no debate. All performance aspects that I have seen are much better with the exception of rolling over (debatable being high centered also). The instant I put on the weights I was able to do climbs and side hill obstacles that I had been trying all summer long. On some I was so far away from making them it was almost not worth trying, then I put on the weights and went up the obstacle for the first time ever. On the Losi saying "alot of work on a 2.2 for minimal results" is an ignorant statement (no offense intended). Its by far the biggest improvement I have done. I am positive you would agree if you drove my car with both setups. The other cars are yet to be seen. My guess is that you will not see as much performance gain since you will not be able to add as much weight but, wheel speed and straining parts is not debatable IMO.

Others who have the LOSI weights that I make can feel free to give input and as soon as the XR10 and Berg weights come out people can decide for themselves. I know where I have a TON of my money placed, literally.

If placing more weight towards the ends of axles caused an exponential difference wouldnt that make the LCC a far superior axle to the MOA's? From what I gather most MOA only need to run a w/f/t combo of 12-14oz(sorry lots of guessing for me) in their wheels? My losi needs more because my axle is so light. I really dont think it makes that big of difference that everybody should switch to LCC axles but in the theory above isnt that kinda what youre saying?

Some info on my weights that I run on my LCC:

My old w/t/f with DH wheels used to be 16oz

My w/t/f is now 7oz, knuckle weights are 9+oz.

Of the 9oz of knuckle weights, 2.6oz are exactly where the slugs would have been on my DH wheels (6oz).

Of the 16oz of my new setup, approx 11.5oz are where they would have been with the DH wheel setup.

Of the 9oz of knuckle weights approx 6oz are below the axle centerline or 9.5oz of my entire combo including the w/t/f. DH setup had 8oz below.

The highest the knuckle weight sits is .750 above center line. DH slugs sit .950 above center line.

Thought you might enjoy this picture too. Mini Juice with the knuckle weights.


Last edited by Erik D_lux; 02-04-2011 at 03:50 PM.
Erik D_lux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2011, 04:37 PM   #15
I wanna be Dave
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Having fun again...
Posts: 2,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik D_lux View Post

On the Losi saying "alot of work on a 2.2 for minimal results" is an ignorant statement (no offense intended). Its by far the biggest improvement I have done. I am positive you would agree if you drove my car with both setups. The other cars are yet to be seen.
maybe so, but have you tried the original setup with a wider track width?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik D_lux View Post
If placing more weight towards the ends of axles caused an exponential difference wouldnt that make the LCC a far superior axle to the MOA's? My losi needs more because my axle is so light. I really dont think it makes that big of difference that everybody should switch to LCC axles but in the theory above isnt that kinda what youre saying?

not really...

i think your losi needs more because it is narrow.

it doesnt matter if your axles are heavy or light, the axle pretty much rotates from the center like a teeter totter. the more weight on the outside the more stable it will be. adding weight to the center will do nothing for balance.


again i am not bashing your setup in any way. i think the idea of knuckle weights is good, i have just not witnessed a cut and dry case where they were indeed the factor for making a line or not.
krawlfreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2011, 04:37 PM   #16
I wanna be Dave
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Having fun again...
Posts: 2,641
Default

oh yeah nice mini
krawlfreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2011, 05:04 PM   #17
Wanna get? Gotta want.
 
Erik D_lux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 7,053
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krawlfreak View Post
maybe so, but have you tried the original setup with a wider track width?
Before the weights I felt I was forced to run wider (I like running a bit narrower), now I run .250 overall narrower (depending on the situation) than before and still feel more stable.

Maybe I will try and get some video of the two setups to see how much of a difference it makes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by krawlfreak View Post

i think your losi needs more because it is narrow.

it doesnt matter if your axles are heavy or light, the axle pretty much rotates from the center like a teeter totter. the more weight on the outside the more stable it will be. adding weight to the center will do nothing for balance.
Maybe I am not understanding...

Take a Berg. Its motor is somewhat centered. Worst case for weight, right? Now say my Losi axle weighs the same as a Berg but all the weight is where I have it with my knuckle weights. That is a lot of difference in distance from center to knuckle, right? Shouldnt my Losi in that example be FAR superior to a Berg? To put it in perspective. My Losi axle is 6.8oz with steering links, hexs, wheel nuts. Just the motor should be close to that much on the Berg(?).

I think we both agree. Its obvious that you want weight at the furthest point out. I just dont think its a deal breaker (or even worth debating) that 4.5oz of weight is 0-.5" further in than it would be with weighted wheels.

P.S. Still 1:1'n it? Been a long time since I talked to you.
Erik D_lux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2011, 05:05 PM   #18
Wanna get? Gotta want.
 
Erik D_lux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 7,053
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krawlfreak View Post
i think the idea of knuckle weights is good, i have just not witnessed a cut and dry case where they were indeed the factor for making a line or not.
You run them on your super, right? Do you not think they make that big of a difference, have you not tried wheel weights or is it that you can squeeze more weight to the face of the wheel that makes it worth it on the super?
Erik D_lux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2011, 05:13 PM   #19
I wanna be Dave
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Having fun again...
Posts: 2,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik D_lux View Post
You run them on your super, right? Do you not think they make that big of a difference, have you not tried wheel weights or is it that you can squeeze more weight to the face of the wheel that makes it worth it on the super?
the super is a whole nother story.... there they are worth their weight in gold because we are 1.75-2" below centerline...

agreed there is no reason to over debate it was just an observation about them on a 2.2

anyway...
1:1 has become so expensive and my wife and two kids think they need to eat before i play with toys....jeez what is this world coming to.

one of these days, like in 18 years i will be able to get back on the big rocks
krawlfreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2011, 05:20 PM   #20
I wanna be Dave
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: I miss Rowdy
Posts: 2,238
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik D_lux View Post
You run them on your super, right? Do you not think they make that big of a difference, have you not tried wheel weights or is it that you can squeeze more weight to the face of the wheel that makes it worth it on the super?
Well, I believe that with the rotational inertia on a super, there would be A LOT of parts breaking, they just cant handle that much stress. The closer the weight is to the hub, the less rotational stress there is. The knuckle weights hang lower on a super too.
jcboof is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2004-2014 RCCrawler.com