How much rake

[jsbm]

Come hell or high water I will start my build this winter. I am going to build a gmaxx single seater running quad tires (26" max). I know when running smaller tires you need more rake but how much. It will be used for trails and some hills and the occasional small jump nothing major. I know other things come into play like kpi, camber, and caster gain, but I need to find out how much rake so I have a starting point.

[LiveWire]

A TRX250R has 15 degrees rake on the lower arms and 22.5 on the uppers for anti dive rotation (caster gain).

[jsbm]

Thanks LiveWire. Any more takers on what you run or what would be a good place to start. By the way does any one know of a suspension calculator that's still out there. The one that everyone recommended over at mbn doesn't work anymore.

Thanks, Jeff

[fabr]

IMO something in the range of 10 degrees for a smaller buggy.IMO also too much rake on a buggy is not a good thing. Of course this is a question that has no "right" answer-just opinions based on preferences and experiences.

[fabr]

BTW,I'm running zero rake on my build based on the Rorty plans for the R16. I say based on because I mad some minor mods. Anyway I followed the zero rake because of the larger diameter tires I am running. I feel that the smaller the tire the more rake is desirable. I MAY wish I had put in at least some rake with my 31" tires. I think it is sort of borderline which way to go on a 31" tire. As with many things the terrain will play a big role in what will work best also. The list of factors goes on and on.

[LiveWire]

Short course with short tires - high rake
Desert with big tires - little to no rake

[jsbm]

Thanks Faber, I know there is no exact # just needing a starting point so I can go from there.

I assume the gmaxx is close to the same size as the cuda and piranha so how bout it Doug and Rick, can I get your guys input.

 How about the calculator? Or am I SOL on that.

By the way faber, about your second post. WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO BE DONE. I have read all 39 pages several times and sit in anticipation to see your ride get done along with many others I suspect. Oh, looks like you may have gotten a new camera from the looks of the newer pics if not GET ONE you have been saying that for awhile. Some one has to give you a hard time. 

[BDKW1]

It's a trade off actually. The tire size has nothing to do with it. The weight of the vehicle, CG height and weight bias do. The heavier the vehicle the more pronounced the brake dive from the rake is going to be. You can offset this to a certain extent with some anti-dive geometry. Jimco's are heavy desert racers and run 6* with little anti-dive geometry. On a light car, 10* shouldn't be a problem.

[BDKW1]

Did somebody say rake?
 

 
I love that truck, but it was an idea that was taken a little to far.

[fabr]

Thanks Faber, I know there is no exact # just needing a starting point so I can go from there.

Your welcome.
I assume the gmaxx is close to the same size as the cuda and piranha so how bout it Doug and Rick, can I get your guys input.

 How about the calculator? Or am I SOL on that.
I dunno I haven't used one in quite a while.

By the way faber, about your second post. WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO BE DONE. I have read all 39 pages several times and sit in anticipation to see your ride get done along with many others I suspect. Oh, looks like you may have gotten a new camera from the looks of the newer pics if not GET ONE you have been saying that for awhile. Some one has to give you a hard time. 
Hell if I know.Body has taken up over 3 months alone but tomorrow all fiberglass fabbing will be done. Belly pan is next-material here tomorrow. Next is some welding,front wiring, plumbing. Then comes finalizing the tranny adapter.  Nope same POS camera. Just better lighting .  Finally you might as well join the crowd of guys that enjoy giving me shit!    DAMN you got any more questions?

[fabr]

It's a trade off actually. The tire size has nothing to do with it. The weight of the vehicle, CG height and weight bias do. The heavier the vehicle the more pronounced the brake dive from the rake is going to be. You can offset this to a certain extent with some anti-dive geometry. Jimco's are heavy desert racers and run 6* with little anti-dive geometry. On a light car, 10* shouldn't be a problem.

That point has been debated at length and not all agree with that.

[Carlriddle]

http://f-o-a.com/calculator.html

I like the look of the front end with rake.     I'm running 25" tires, and I think it lessens the stress on spindle and frame mounts if the wheel is able to swing back as it goes up.  But that depend on where you drive and what you hit.  I have 8 degrees. 

The more ingredients you put into the front end, the more chances something being wrong.  But if done right you will have the best that all those ingredients can add.   

But I'm no engineer.

[SPEC]

I like rake for woods driving A minimum of 10*
My experience has been a smoother ride when hitting rocks and Sharp edged obstacles with 21" front tires
My unfinished 750 has 15* but I haven't driven it yet...A while back I did 2 460's one with around 10* and one with the 0* (pure left hander)
the raked 460 wasn't as fast on the track but was better riding off-track where the 0* had a more of a jolt when hitting potholes and rocks...
At slow speeds it really didn't matter (or so the seat of my pants told me)

[jsbm]

Thanks guys for all the info.

This is the calulator I was talking about. It is working again for now.
http://www.racingaspirations.com/?p=286
It helps show your camber change, I thought it did more, oh well it still helps.

C'mon faber that wasn't that many questions. If we all didn't give you shit who would it's just our way to show you we care.

[fabr]