i got one of those too...!mrlexan wrote:hijacking, but speaking of which my wife is becoming "mrslexan"..... she is unemployed = my new ebay bi%ch
Please correct me if I'm wrong
- Dr. Robotnik
- Approved Member
- Posts: 1442
- Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 3:05 pm
- Location: Nutterham, United Kingdom
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: lol
Just the one?asashaw wrote:i got one of those too...!mrlexan wrote:hijacking, but speaking of which my wife is becoming "mrslexan"..... she is unemployed = my new ebay bi%ch
Hahaha couldn't resist.
- templeofspeed
- Approved Member
- Posts: 2088
- Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:02 am
- Location: Central Ohio
- Been thanked: 8 times
I thought the four holes were to allow rear toe change by swapping from left to right. Nothing was ever mentioned in the manuals or box text about adjustable wheelbase...just rear toe.scr8p wrote:no, all the arm mounts had 4 holes so you could move them front and back. if you wanted to move the mounts front with the org. style bulkhead, you had to notch it out for clearance.
- Tadracket
- Approved Member
- Posts: 1302
- Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 3:57 am
- Location: Southport North Carolina
- scr8p
- Administrator
- Posts: 16638
- Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:46 am
- Location: Northampton, PA
- Has thanked: 29 times
- Been thanked: 1071 times
you'd have to change the degree of the arm mount or the hub carrier to adjust the toe. moving it front and back only changes the wheelbase. switching them left to right would give you positive rear toe, without changing the hub carriers, and why would you want that? plus the pitch of the arm itself would be lower in the front and higher in the rear. i don't know if that would have any ill affect on handling. probably not.templeofspeed wrote:I thought the four holes were to allow rear toe change by swapping from left to right. Nothing was ever mentioned in the manuals or box text about adjustable wheelbase...just rear toe.scr8p wrote:no, all the arm mounts had 4 holes so you could move them front and back. if you wanted to move the mounts front with the org. style bulkhead, you had to notch it out for clearance.
- Tadracket
- Approved Member
- Posts: 1302
- Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 3:57 am
- Location: Southport North Carolina
I would think that would put more load on the front of the arm and make it prone to shock breakage. Just a thought.scr8p wrote:..... the pitch of the arm itself would be lower in the front and higher in the rear. i don't know if that would have any ill affect on handling. probably not.
He's an idiot. Comes from upbringing. His parents are probably idiots too.
- templeofspeed
- Approved Member
- Posts: 2088
- Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:02 am
- Location: Central Ohio
- Been thanked: 8 times
Thus, if you swapped the 1.5º 6360 arm mounts from left to right and kept the 1.5º hub carriers in their normal orientation (or vice versa) you'd have 0º toe per side. Right? I know the early kits had 0º hub carriers, so that doesn't apply there...scr8p wrote:you'd have to change the degree of the arm mount or the hub carrier to adjust the toe. moving it front and back only changes the wheelbase. switching them left to right would give you positive rear toe, without changing the hub carriers, and why would you want that? plus the pitch of the arm itself would be lower in the front and higher in the rear. i don't know if that would have any ill affect on handling. probably not.templeofspeed wrote:I thought the four holes were to allow rear toe change by swapping from left to right. Nothing was ever mentioned in the manuals or box text about adjustable wheelbase...just rear toe.scr8p wrote:no, all the arm mounts had 4 holes so you could move them front and back. if you wanted to move the mounts front with the org. style bulkhead, you had to notch it out for clearance.
Stupid toy cars...
- scr8p
- Administrator
- Posts: 16638
- Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:46 am
- Location: Northampton, PA
- Has thanked: 29 times
- Been thanked: 1071 times
well, i'm sure the arm mounts are designed with that pitch to the rear for a reason. one that i don't know.templeofspeed wrote:Thus, if you swapped the 1.5º 6360 arm mounts from left to right and kept the 1.5º hub carriers in their normal orientation (or vice versa) you'd have 0º toe per side. Right? I know the early kits had 0º hub carriers, so that doesn't apply there...scr8p wrote:you'd have to change the degree of the arm mount or the hub carrier to adjust the toe. moving it front and back only changes the wheelbase. switching them left to right would give you positive rear toe, without changing the hub carriers, and why would you want that? plus the pitch of the arm itself would be lower in the front and higher in the rear. i don't know if that would have any ill affect on handling. probably not.templeofspeed wrote: I thought the four holes were to allow rear toe change by swapping from left to right. Nothing was ever mentioned in the manuals or box text about adjustable wheelbase...just rear toe.
Stupid toy cars...
so, i would leave the 1.5 degree arm mounts in the correct l&r position, and get 1.5 hub carriers, and switch those. then, you'd have 0 toe.
- templeofspeed
- Approved Member
- Posts: 2088
- Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:02 am
- Location: Central Ohio
- Been thanked: 8 times
The pitch is "anti-squat". You're right, better to swap the hub carriers... what were we going on about... oh yeah, wheelbase...scr8p wrote:well, i'm sure the arm mounts are designed with that pitch to the rear for a reason. one that i don't know.
so, i would leave the 1.5 degree arm mounts in the correct l&r position, and get 1.5 hub carriers, and switch those. then, you'd have 0 toe.
You would have thought Associated might have provided some help explaining all the tuning options they provided originally... I mean everything on the early kits needed hand fitting anyway.
- scr8p
- Administrator
- Posts: 16638
- Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:46 am
- Location: Northampton, PA
- Has thanked: 29 times
- Been thanked: 1071 times
well, shortening the wheelbase would help the car turn better. it would also help off corner traction, since there would be more weight transfered on the rear of the car. or, i could be talking out of my you know what. so, if anyone has anything to add, feel free.
lack of tuning options from ae, i don't know. they gave a base line setup-up. maybe not the best, but it was a place for the owner to start.
lack of tuning options from ae, i don't know. they gave a base line setup-up. maybe not the best, but it was a place for the owner to start.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 2 Replies
- 550 Views
-
Last post by Daddeo
-
- 21 Replies
- 1227 Views
-
Last post by Tadracket
-
- 3 Replies
- 342 Views
-
Last post by LoCoCNC
-
- 8 Replies
- 1960 Views
-
Last post by bearrickster
-
- 31 Replies
- 3027 Views
-
Last post by DumbstixLars
-
- 10 Replies
- 1731 Views
-
Last post by Coelacanth
-
- 8 Replies
- 1364 Views
-
Last post by ca-rj
-
- 12 Replies
- 1023 Views
-
Last post by slow_jun
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], Mojeek [Bot] and 1 guest