• Welcome to RCCrawler Forums.

    It looks like you're enjoying RCCrawler's Forums but haven't created an account yet. Why not take a minute to register for your own free account now? As a member you get free access to all of our forums and posts plus the ability to post your own messages, communicate directly with other members, and much more. Register now!

    Already a member? Login at the top of this page to stop seeing this message.

How much flex is enough

mindless

Rock Crawler
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
770
Location
West Seneca
Hey guys well i just changed up the set up on my wk. Basically i did the 90* turn of the control arm and shock bracket. Now the only way i have to describe the flex was before i did this i could flex no problem on 3 of the stock wk tires stacked up now i can only get up on two of them.

Pretty much i just want to know if a ton of flex is the best or a low cog and ok flex is better. With it being winter i dont really have any rocks around to try out on but would like to have a good set up for once sping comes.
 
ive been told that a 12oz soda can is a good amount of flex for 2.2 rigs, i can put a 24oz can under mine and i like it, its more than enough imho
 
ive been told that a 12oz soda can is a good amount of flex for 2.2 rigs, i can put a 24oz can under mine and i like it, its more than enough imho


x2..i have the strc extension kit and stock wk shocks and its more then enough flex "thumbsup"
 
Yea i was liking the lowered cog but then i was getting hung up on the center of the chassis so i relocated the shocks got a little more lift out of it and it seems to be a good mix. Im sure ill tear it apart again lol but seems like i have an ok balance for now.
 
I have a soda plus 3/4" and it is perfect. Too much flex will give you a hard time if a tire gets stuck. The torque will actually force the chassis to lay over.
 
about 45 degrees is all I run.
 

Attachments

  • Calico 2-2-08 055.jpg
    Calico 2-2-08 055.jpg
    70.5 KB · Views: 570
I always tend to start off with too much, then find ways to work it down to how it works best...................for me, and on the terrain I run. Ultimately, limiting is easier than creating IMO, so I would rather create more in the design phase and limit it later rather than vise-versa.

By conventional means of measuring articulation, both front and rear are used together for some sort of overall score or degree. The problem with using either is that no determination is scheduled out as a proportion of front to rear articulation. From my experience, I would like to see a greater articulation [and overall compression/drop] of the front axle than the rear. I tend to do better with very little [or no] axle drop or articulation in the rear.................with quite a bit more in both regards in the front. Creating equal amounts front and rear always tends to lead to too much in the rear in my experience.

Just how it works for me though. There is no perfect answer here.................
 
I also prefer the fronts to do the work more than the rear, whether it be by physically limiting the flex or by running stiffer springs out back.
 
I was told by my trailing buddies a good rule of thumb is the flex should be equal to the height of the tires you’re using and it’s worked well for me ����
 
Back
Top