Question about adding wheel extenders to the rear of my mbx-5 on road project

[magman]

The rear tires on a 1/8 on road are wider and stick out a tad farther than the front tires. I am doing a mbx-5 on road project and was wondering if I added say 14mm extenders to the rear tires would it help or hinder performance....just curious

[DwightSchrute]

for an on-road project the narrower the roller the less steering responsive they will be.

so if you're looking for a top speed car, stay narrow...if it's a road course racer the wider stance will make turning alot sharper.

[magman]

Thanks for the input...you answered my question. I am going to run in p-lots w/quite a few turns so the cornering is a bit more imp't.

[magman]

So which wheel extenders should I use? (brand) I was thinking of 14mm longer?

[magman]

would these work?

http://www.amainhobbies.com/product_...-17mm-Wheels-4

[suicideneil]

Weirdness, I was looking at axle extension like that yesterday..

Assuming all 1/8 stuff uses 8mm stub axles, then those should work fine for adding 15mm of offset basically- remove the stock items, replace with those = job done.

I found loads of different brands, some which had different length adaptors for the fronts and rears to give more offset at the rear compared to the front, just depends how much or little you want to add really, and which color you prefer :)

[neweuser]

Odd, thought a narrower car would have a tighter turning radius than a wider one. Meaning it would turn sharper.

[magman]

Originally Posted by neweuser

Odd, thought a narrower car would have a tighter turning radius than a wider one. Meaning it would turn sharper.

Well, I may try the adapters and see what the difference is. For pure speed having all 4 the same would be better. I am basing my idea on true 1/8 on road cars where the rear wheels are wider than the front.

Actually, I may add 2-4mm in front and 15mm in the rear to widen the entire car a bit

[suicideneil]

I believe the wider rear tyres is down to a traction related issue (same with overpowered 1:1 cars whether 2 or 4 wheel drive). Offset is definately to do with stabilty- narrower will turn better, wider is more stable, all other things being equal (servo, tyres, steering throw).

[magman]

Neil, in saying what you did, what would you do....

[DwightSchrute]

Originally Posted by suicideneil

I believe the wider rear tyres is down to a traction related issue (same with overpowered 1:1 cars whether 2 or 4 wheel drive). Offset is definately to do with stabilty- narrower will turn better, wider is more stable, all other things being equal (servo, tyres, steering throw).

back in the 80's when i was racing road course, i was racing the RC10L pan car.....it turned better because it was wider...or so everyone thought. Team Associated then came out with a narrower version called the rc10LSS (superspeedway version for banked ovals). if wider was more stable then why would associated make it so slender? also, then why are dragsters so thin and funny cars and F1 cars as well.... and the mclarens GTP's wider that run road course?

[transtalon]

I know based on my buggy which is built for top speed that with the extended wheel hex it was more stable at high speed and it sure does not rollover like before. I am running a 43spur/25 pinion, 80 mm 2000kv medusa,
6S 5000 flightpower Evo25, and a PMT rally tires which is the best on road tires I have use. It doesn't balloon up and it gets softer like a drag slick after a couple of speed pass.

[suicideneil]

If the front and rear tyres you have are all the same width, then I would increase the axle length front & rear by the same amount probably- kinda thinking a wider rear would make the buggy more of a handful in the corners. If you have wider rear tyres vs the fronts, then I would add more offset to the front end to make it the same width as the rear pretty much. I dont imagine such a low slung vehicle would need much widening to increase its stability on flat tarmac, but then again it would look quite sexy with a wider track width. If the cost of wideners isnt an issue, it might be worth it just for the sake of experimentation, and if it works out well for you, then great, if not, never mind & sell the adaptors...

[suicideneil]

Originally Posted by DwightSchrute

back in the 80's when i was racing road course, i was racing the RC10L pan car.....it turned better because it was wider...or so everyone thought. Team Associated then came out with a narrower version called the rc10LSS (superspeedway version for banked ovals). if wider was more stable then why would associated make it so slender? also, then why are dragsters so thin and funny cars and F1 cars as well.... and the mclarens GTP's wider that run road course?

Dragsters are skinny because of areo dynamics I would guess- slip though the air more easily being narrow, getting most of the down force from the wings; they do roll over and flip quite easily I have noticed though, so its a trade off between stability and missile-like shape & acceleration.

Perhaps Associated introduced the narrower vehicle becuase they felt it didnt need to be so wide as was still perfectly stable at the same time?

One thing to think about is that longer or shorter a-arms wont make a vehcile handle any shaper neccessarily (buggy vs truggy) duw to the actual pivot point of the wheels; adding axle extensions forces out the wheels but the pivot point is still at the knuckle, adding extra strain on the steering.

Im not a car designer though, its all just principles and how I see things working- performance tweaks on this scale isnt too important to a basher like me, I just want a strong vehcile that can turn around in a field at least...

[DwightSchrute]

Originally Posted by suicideneil

Dragsters are skinny because of areo dynamics I would guess- slip though the air more easily being narrow, getting most of the down force from the wings; they do roll over and flip quite easily I have noticed though, so its a trade off between stability and missile-like shape & acceleration.

Perhaps Associated introduced the narrower vehicle becuase they felt it didnt need to be so wide as was still perfectly stable at the same time?

One thing to think about is that longer or shorter a-arms wont make a vehcile handle any shaper neccessarily (buggy vs truggy) duw to the actual pivot point of the wheels; adding axle extensions forces out the wheels but the pivot point is still at the knuckle, adding extra strain on the steering.

Im not a car designer though, its all just principles and how I see things working- performance tweaks on this scale isnt too important to a basher like me, I just want a strong vehcile that can turn around in a field at least...

makes more sense to me now. i guess that's why they kept the narrow design when touring cars started to come out. thanks