Jay Dub wrote:
Also, it sounds as if you need to cut down your wing. A common misconception is that a bigger wing is better. Once the weight distribution is sorted, you need to trim the wing (wicker area) to allow for control in air. Cut off a 1/4" at a time until you are satisfied with the in air results. Another side affect of the trimming is that it really helps with is consistency. A smaller wicker area will allow the car to transfer from straight line to turning at speed with greater consistency. Because, as you turn the car (especially in high speed, or tight corners) the direction of air flow changes from a straight on to the wing, to a angled aproach into the wing (from the side). This allows the air to difuse and become disturbed. This disturbed air provides little downforce. So, your transitions from straight to turn, to straight again will provide smaller changes in downforce on the rear of the car. Any loss in traction will be tuned into or out of the car with chassis setup. Basically, if you have a really high downforce wing, you will have the weight (eg. downforce) coming into and out of play as the car changes direction. A smaller wicker area will help to negate this. -Jeff
Killer discription of a key tuning aspect of buggy! I run the 6.5" Jcon HC wing most of the time @ one wicker line (but they are super fragile so I carry 4 back ups

) but when the track is really really moist I switch to the Jcon 6" high flow with 1/8" exposed wicker (actually below the last molded cut line)- I tried the Proline High Flow wings as well (on all my cars) and didn't like how they stuck up at least 3/8 higher in the air and had no attack angle, plus you have a 3/8" rounded wicker no matter how you trim-
all the cars (especially my 44.1) hated that wing!
Lonestar wrote:Hi guys
I raised that question on a couple of my RC10 resto threads but never found a listening ear... sounds like this might be the place
My take on the RC10 front geometry with the std shocks/tower is that it doesn't like the tall sidewall, modern 2.2 tires. The front end was designed to work with arms level in conjunction with smaller tires from bitd... if you want proper ride height with modern tires, you need to remove some load of the front spring collars to lower the chassis (since the tires are taller) otherwise the chassis sits too high and traction rolls with modern tires' grip - this means front arms that are now in "V" shape, with less front travel and a font suspension that bottoms out and bounces (arms hit shock bodies, not chassis hits ground) when going hard over obstacles, for instance jump faces("could NOT get the nose down over the extra large triple/roller or quad") , and there is less mass transfer to the front when braking ("initial turn in was push")... Jeff, Reg, and the others who've modernly raced the RC10 with success - what's your take on this? Am I missing sthing?
Paul
The tallest front tire I have (HB Fullshot mounted on Proline wide B3 rims with Jcon And-1 inserts) are +3.25mm over my Proline Wide Fives mounted on B2 2.15 standard rims, which relates to an additional +1.75mm ride height in the front. All the other ribbed tires are within 2mm overall, and my Proline Scrubs with AKA inserts are actually smaller

.
I had attempted to address that exact issue however with my "Harris" type car, using the B4 front caster blocks and steering arms- I shaved the top and bottom meat on the junction where the kingpin intersects, and then shimmed the axle carrier/steering arm up and down via 1mm shims on between the steering arm and caster block and it may have made a difference......but the geometry changes in that front caster/axle system were too great to overcome and notice anything
