Pro Body Tool 3.0

[Speedster]

Murphken, I think I'm finally going to get my answer.

"The rear axle alignment is everything" I agree. For the past 36 years, I race only with scouts, I can't use oil, wheels must be straight up and down. There's a little bit of an angle allowed on that straight up and down rule.

I bend 3 nails 1 1/2 degree's on that expensive bender you can buy. I'm probably not perfect but I'm close. All 3 wheels will run on their edge. The stress on the system is so slight the wheel will not migrate to the axle head both forward and backwards unless it is parallel to the block. If the angle was 2 1/2 degrees or more I think the stress would be so great it would keep the wheel to the axle head even if it were not parallel to the block. Trying to run straight axles on the rears seems counter productive to me. Putting a 2 1/2 bend in the nail I think is also counter productive because it makes it more difficult to adjust.
I'm eager to hear anyone's thoughts.
I'm a senior citizen. Please be kind.

[murphken]

Well, I am 60 years old so you don't have an issue my friend! Yes, you can make a fast car with canted rear axles! When running with angled rear axle holes, we put a slight bend in the axle to find the sweet spot so your ideology is right on!
Murph

[Speedster]

Thank you, Murph. I never knew that.
In all your racing did you ever wonder why the back wheels were usually recommended to be at a 2 1/2 degree camber? We were never allowed to do it but it had to originate somewhere. It has always seemed to me to be counter productive. At that much of an angle I would think there would be more friction.

[Loud2ns]

Well, I am 60 years old so you don't have an issue my friend! Yes, you can make a fast car with canted rear axles! When running with angled rear axle holes, we put a slight bend in the axle to find the sweet spot so your ideology is right on!
Murph

I've heard of some fast league guys doing this. I haven't tried it as I don't have a track to test on. I do think it's almost necessary to have one to get the tune fully in the sweet spot and not cause issues if you're just close to it.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Loud2ns]

Thank you, Murph. I never knew that.
In all your racing did you ever wonder why the back wheels were usually recommended to be at a 2 1/2 degree camber? We were never allowed to do it but it had to originate somewhere. It has always seemed to me to be counter productive. At that much of an angle I would think there would be more friction.

When the weighting gets more aggressive the car gets more unstable. The 1.5 angle isn't enough to keep the wheel at the axle head therefore the wheel will travel causing instability/wiggles. This goes for the dfw as well. 1.5 is not sufficient bend in my opinion for the same reasons as above. However when the front gets unstable it's worse as it's rubbing the rail constantly.
I know you're bound by your rules, but if you weren't I believe more bend would give you more stability allowing a more aggressive car.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Speedster]

I'd like to explain my exact situation.
I have a 2 lane Best track with MicroWizard timer. Our Pack has a 4 lane Best track which is used for Pack races and our District race. I never go below 3/4" on the COM. I want the steer wheel to stay on the rail from start to finish. I stand my scout behind my track to show them how straight a car will run when it rail rides. The rear wheels have no reason to leave the nail heads. It is fairly easy to adjust the rear wheels so they migrate to the axle heads and stay there both forward and rearward. I set the drift to 2" in 4' and then take it to the track. The slightest adjustments are made and then the axles are glued in. The drift seems to end up 2" in 3'. That's the way it's going to run.

I talked to a gentleman and his son this year and he said he set the car up to rail ride. He bent the rear nails to 2 1/2 degrees but said one of the rears kept going to the block. Yep, that needed a bit more adjustment.

[Loud2ns]

Bill, have you ever used Stan Pope's of tuning bent rear axles? A good test would be to tune your car the way you always do. Then tune it using Stan's method and see which one is faster. My guess is that the latter will be faster. It's significantly more complicated than just making sure the wheel is at the head forward and back. This is the process I was using on my kids and my cars. Ultimately it burned me out tuning 3 cars in the season. We were running significantly more aggressive com than 3/4". I also think 3/4" for a railrider on an aluminum track is pretty conservative in my opinion. I actually recommend starting at 3/4 and working it down from there for a competitive car.
Have you ever built a car with an aggressive com? I'm talking 5/8-11/16?

Our church has a very competitive Awana
Grand Prix. It has driven how we build cars over the past 7 yrs. We went with straight rear axles on a 3 deg cant 4 yrs ago and I don't regret that decision one bit. I have continued with that on my league cars.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Speedster]

I am familiar with Stan's tuning but have never tried it.
The 5/8" COM scares me. This is a scout car. We need to keep it on the tracks. It might add speed but it also is taking weight off the dfw and I don't know what affect that might introduce. We have never won or lost by a few thousands of a second like they do in the Mid America. However, you bring up good points and I'm going to build a car that will be legal for our District and make sure I get a 5/8" COM. I have a scout coming over this summer when I have my track back up because he wants to test his car. We will see how each of us do. I'll let you know in a few months.

[Loud2ns]

I definitely wouldn't recommend experimenting on a kids car either. Just challenging you to advance your methods which will help the next scouts be even faster!!

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk