Im curious what other people think on this issue.. im pretty sure i know what the suposed difference is but im curious what others would think..

on a traditional car the side shock ball studs are mounted on the toplate in a side by side manner..

On some of the newer cars they have all of the ball studs inline, and the shocks are offset fro each other..

so my question is what Is the difference, or the attraction that some cars chose to do it for..

When the top-plate shock mounts are side-by-side, the direction of pod movement is parallel with the direction of the shock shaft movement. When the top-plate shock mounts are offset, either forward or back, the pod movement would then be at an angle to the direction of the shock shaft movement and would require more force to move the shock shaft the same amount. Based on that, and with all other factors being equal, IMHO, the off-set shock mounts make the shock stiffer. I could be wrong (just ask my kids) but that's my $.02.

Doc,
Actually, I think you have it backwards. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that when the shock mounting balls are offset (ends of the shocks extend past each other) the shock seems stiffer because of the extra force to compress them. If thats what you are saying, you have it backwards.
If the shock is off-angle to the direction of pod movement (non linear), it will be softer because the same amount of chassis movement will compress the shock less. If the shock is direct in line with the direction of motion, (or linear) the shock will compress the exact same amount as the pod moves from left to right etc. This will yield the "stiffer" results. I think the real reason for mounting them like this is to either use a longer shaft or stroke or make a narrower pod plate. I hope this helps a bit.

I rhink we are saying the same thing, but in a different way. I assume that "off-set" simply means the shock is at an angle to the direction of pod movement instead of being in-line - not that it is longer. I think my answer specified "all other things being equal". Obviously, if the overall shock length changes, that would have an impact, too.

You said, "If the shock is off-angle to the direction of pod movement, it will be "softer" because the same amount of chassis movement will compress the shock less."

If the same amount of chassis movement compresses the shock less, then, IMHO, that means the shock feels stiffer as compared to a normal set-up.

I rhink we are saying the same thing, but in a different way. I assume that "off-set" simply means the shock is at an angle to the direction of pod movement instead of being in-line - not that it is longer. I think my answer specified "all other things being equal". Obviously, if the overall shock length changes, that would have an impact, too.

There is no difference in having the standard mounting (KSG, Hyperdrive) and having inline shocks (Raptor, Maverick).

And side shock "overall" length change does not affect anything. That is if you used longer ballcups to lengthen them.

You can do your own testing with the inline versus standard, but you will not come up with anything..... it's been done.

And on side shock length, IF you keep the same angle, length doesn't matter. It is the angle that changes things, and not the outer length. But most of you cannot test that because all cars, except ours has predetermined side shock mounting holes. Ours is adjustable, so we can run any length side-shock and still keep the same angle.

Raptor, I have to diagree with you on this one. The lenght of the side shock and position on the top plate (being inline or offset off centerline) does matter. It's not only the static side shock angle that matters, but the angle of the side shocks as the pod rotates. Which changes as you lengthen the side shocks (even if they are kept at the same static angle) or by having the shock on the centerline or offset to each side. I haven't seen your car, except for a picture here or there. But by sloting the side shock outer mounts, you also need to change the inner pivot ball height to get the same angle again, if you lengthen the side shock. Or ofcourse you can change the height of the outer shock pivot. You will be at the Arcor Nats this weekend right. Looking forward to meeting you in person.

I knew someone would dis-agree :)

Our upper ball mount is different than the standard as far as height is concerned. I would agree with you "IF" we had more pod movement then we do. I've seen people grab there pods and rotate them fully side to side, as if they actually were using the full shock length. All I can say is put an O-ring on the shock shaft, run the car a lap and look at what amount of shock travel your actually using, then go back and figure the angle of the shocks based on that maximum movement.

Oh, and by the way, I think your the first person that is "looking forward" to meeting me.... LOL!

KENNY I do agree with you to a point, but the amount of movement doesn't change the fact their is a difference in the mounting position, or length effecting the angle as the pod rotates. You state that we can run any length side-shock and still keep the same angle, whick isn't a true statement no matter how much, or how little the difference is. Funny by the way about meeting you, Any person who spends the amount of time doing RC as we do, is worth meeting, all other things aside. MSV

The way my car is sitting at this moment, my sideshocks are at a 9° angle. Throughout 3/4 pod rotation, my shock angle does not change one slight bit. My overall shock length is 3.04" with the ball cups I use. I think the standard side-shock length with the supplied ballcups is around 2.60". Don't quote me on that, I never run the stock ballcups.

If you can explain that, I'm more than interested in hearing your side.

kh

Kenny see you this weekend, I'll bring drawings.

Kenny assuming the distance from the inner side shock pivot, to the t-plate pivot ball is similiar to the Pro 3 car, and using .120 of side shock travel, 3/4 of .160 is where is set my side shock travel. you will get a small be present side shock angle change when rotating your pod.

I'm not getting into this conversation too deeply, but ....

Mike and Kenny are having a discussion about two different setups. Mike and Kenny are both right in what they are saying. This is because Kenny is comparing the inline ADX style rear shock setup, Mike is comparing the side-by-side rear shock setup from Hyperdrive.

So, when Kenny says "There is no difference in having the standard mounting (KSG, Hyperdrive) and having inline shocks (Raptor, Maverick)." I find that he's proving himself wrong. Both Mike and Kenny are discussing the fact that they are both coming up with different conclusions, while looking at two different cars ... Kinda funny :) Of course you both will have different conclusions, inline and standard shock arrangements not the same!

The inline setup has much less shock angle change as the pod rotates. As the pod rotates, there is less vertical drop in the pod ballstud with the inline setup. That's why ADX came up with it and why Brad and I adapted it to the Maverick chassis'. It works.

Jake

When I said, there's no difference between the 2 types, I meant "On-track". Meaning one way is not better than the other.

I personally cannot tell a difference considering all things equal. Because we have had both styles on our pod. I choose inline for other reasons, not "on-track" performance.

kh

just pop the shocks on get travel correct and start turning left just my opinion you can't prove it by me which is better i have done both with equal success

I know this isnt about geometry, but do you use a stiffer side spring with more banking or a softer one.

I know this isnt about geometry, but do you use a stiffer side spring with more banking or a softer one.depends on the track really but usually more banking means stiffer spring but the grip factor of the track plays a big roll in that

yeah it definatley depends on the track.. Ive found on the tri ovals. the olive soft spring works best.. Now a tru oval like bms you would want alot stiffer setup.. same goes for banked carpet tracks..

JPH Racing not knowing the Maverick or Raptor dimension, i'll base my statement on the facts that Kenny gave me above. The inline ball studs, at 9 degree angle and 3.04 long, has more angle change thruout 3/4 of it's shocks travel then having the ball studs offset as the Pro 3 does. The amounts of angle change is small, but the difference in % between the inling and offset is huge. The inline ball stud arangment has over 500% more angler movement then the offset design, in the progress direction.

OK, I was not going to get in to this, but here it goes…. Check this link for a graph showing the roll stiffness of the Maverick setup with the different outer shock mounting locations. This is based on our inline center mounting configuration.

http://www.swiftracingproducts.com/Side_Shock_Geometry.cfm

This is a simplified graph that I made just to demonstrate the concept. I have the actual numbers and graphs to prove this, I am just not sure we want to share that detail with all of our competition. When I designed this shock geometry, I benchmarked the KSG and Associated designs, and plotted the same curves for those designs. Just to summarize, the KSG with the widely spaced center ball studs, can give a very digressive roll stiffness. As the chassis rolls in the corner, it actually becomes softer. This could be good in low bite conditions. Maybe this explains the success they have had on cap tires. The Associated design, with the center balls fairly close to each other, and the outer studs mounted fairly low gives a progressive roll stiffness. I wanted to be able to achieve both progressive and linear roll stiffness. It becomes easier to achieve a linear roll stiffness throughout a larger % of the travel, by moving the center ball studs in-line. I am not saying that the same effect can not be achieved with the offset mounting. And I am not knocking the other designs, especially Mike's designs, because he knows what he is doing. The offset mounting designs have all been very successful, but I feel that under some conditions, a more linear roll stiffness gives more predictable and consistent handling. And the way we chose to go about achieving the more linear roll stiffness was with the in-line mounting configuration. But it is not just the in-line mounting that is important, it is the combination of that and the outer mounting geometry.

Also, Mike is correct that the longer shocks do reduce the change in shock angle throughout the travel. This in turn gives a more consistent roll stiffness throughout the travel. This was one change (longer side shocks) that I made from the ADX3 prototype car to the ’05 Maverick, and it did make a difference on the track. This may be a very small improvement, but as today's cars are all very similar, I think it is attention to details like this during the design phase that can set one car apart from another.

The high amount of progressiveness that Mike has calculated based on the Raptor dimensions is due to the combination of the in-line mounting AND the large shock angle.