210v2 rear mounted shocks

[jonathan may]

Got my shocks mounted on the rear of my 210v2 but the springs seem to catch the rear camber links is this normal or do I need to space the shock out on the tower ?

[Origineelreclamebord]

This tends to happen on my V1 too, but only when I have the car set to the longest wheelbase.

One would expect they would have solved something like this with the new suspension arms, so perhaps it's worth checking if you have the arms the right way around? (They are not symmetrical)

[Joshyjol]

I just changed the rod ends/ball cups as the ones on the rear are slightly bent at an angle to avoid the motor plate. I put straight ones on there and they work fine, no catching of the springs

['caster master]

Hi Jon, on my v1 I needed to space the shocks out on the tower. This also gets the shocks closer to running in line with the arms.

[jonathan may]

so one mid motor config I see if you want to run the shocks on the front of the tower you can only use the top 2 holes on the tower is this right on the v2

[jonathan may]

what have people found better shocks rear monted or front

[Origineelreclamebord]

Originally Posted by jonathan may

what have people found better shocks rear monted or front

The following things change when you swap between the FR vs. RR layout:

- The weight balance changes, which influences traction.
- The weight is placed further to or away from the centre of the car, changing the rotational inertia of the car.
- The suspension arm tends to flex differently (decreasing anti-squat with FR as the shock resists upward movement at the front, increasing it with RR as the shock resists this at the rear).
- The amount of usable setup holes changes (due to gearbox clearance).
- The shape (cutout) of the wing.
- The protection of the shock.

If you ask me, it's a matter of preference:

- The RR layout in a subtle way works like a rear-mounted weight or rear motor car: You might find slightly more traction, but once sliding/oversteering, it may be slightly harder to correct. I have heard the RR can help on carpet to increase steering.
- The FR layout places the weight further forward and closer together the CoG. The first may result in slightly less grip, but the latter may help you to correct the car more easily - in fact it may feel slightly more lightfooted (nimble, quick to react).
- Besides the handling, it also influences your access to the dampers, the protection of the dampers and the amount of holes available on the shock tower (where I must note that the inside 3 holes give a very progressive shock setting, I'd say you might use them if you drive on flat/smooth surfaces and high bite, but with a lot of bumps the more upright settings will have the preference).

I'd advise you just to try them both if/when you've got a car that feels somewhat dialled (the differences are not night and day, so don't use it to try and transform your car's handling). If you don't want to bother with trying them back to back, ask yourself what you find the better position for the shocks based on the practical considerations

['caster master]

Jon I always run the shocks on the back as it handles bumps better due to the way that the arms twist. I did the same trick on my DNX408 as well and it had the same impact.

[jonathan may]

I have only run them on the rear from day 1 know it makes car more stable but gived less steering

[av4625]

i run them on the rear on the dnx but not on the 10th cars, i like the feeling of them at the front of the arm on 10th cars

[HOTSHOT III]

Originally Posted by Origineelreclamebord

The following things change when you swap between the FR vs. RR layout:

- The weight balance changes, which influences traction.
- The weight is placed further to or away from the centre of the car, changing the rotational inertia of the car.
- The suspension arm tends to flex differently (decreasing anti-squat with FR as the shock resists upward movement at the front, increasing it with RR as the shock resists this at the rear).
- The amount of usable setup holes changes (due to gearbox clearance).
- The shape (cutout) of the wing.
- The protection of the shock.

If you ask me, it's a matter of preference:

- The RR layout in a subtle way works like a rear-mounted weight or rear motor car: You might find slightly more traction, but once sliding/oversteering, it may be slightly harder to correct. I have heard the RR can help on carpet to increase steering.
- The FR layout places the weight further forward and closer together the CoG. The first may result in slightly less grip, but the latter may help you to correct the car more easily - in fact it may feel slightly more lightfooted (nimble, quick to react).
- Besides the handling, it also influences your access to the dampers, the protection of the dampers and the amount of holes available on the shock tower (where I must note that the inside 3 holes give a very progressive shock setting, I'd say you might use them if you drive on flat/smooth surfaces and high bite, but with a lot of bumps the more upright settings will have the preference).

I'd advise you just to try them both if/when you've got a car that feels somewhat dialled (the differences are not night and day, so don't use it to try and transform your car's handling). If you don't want to bother with trying them back to back, ask yourself what you find the better position for the shocks based on the practical considerations

Top post, thanks

I prefer mine on the rear of the arms just so they're easier to get to but last Sunday on dry astro I wanted the car to be more nimble which I achieved by changing a few other things.

However putting the shocks at the front of the arms might help with this even more so i'll try this tomorrow as i'll be on the same track with the same bone dry weather conditions.