Anyone have any comparison between these 2 chassis? I have my son currently on a 2016 Triton JR, been fast pretty much wherever we go but as of his last race last year we bent the back right rear of the frame. Potentially able to bend it back, but no guarantees there. Curious to anyone that has transitioned from the Triton JR to the Scythe .083 and how the 2 chassis compared? Any noticeable differences or anything you've had to adjust in preparation week to week?
Triton JR - Scythe .083?
- Thread starter jscholt
- Start date
hotelcalifornia
Member
I have heard that Triton Jr is easy to bend
racing promotor
Moderator
Pull the rear bumper, get a good solid bar with some length for leverage up in the tubing, tweak it back which takes good bit of force, reset the numbers and run it. We bent two different chassis over the years tweaked them back one was between the heat and feature went out and won the race.
Both chassis remained just as fast or little better after they were bent.
Wynn Racing
Member
I'll second that, we did the same with a Seraph for a friend and it was faster after bending it back.
hotelcalifornia
Member
How does bending it back make it faster?
racing promotor
Moderator
My take is you don't get it 100 % back down where it was, so your not actually bending it back.
hotelcalifornia
Member
So you're basically taking the RR out of the track a little bit and adding a tiny amount of camber to it
racing promotor
Moderator
Or in my one case it was the LR
hotelcalifornia
Member
It bent the left rear up?
racing promotor
Moderator
hotelcalifornia
Member
Nice, did you see that affect your percentages on the scales at all?
racing promotor
Moderator
Don't remember all the details, it got bent up over an inch did our best to bent it back down at the track, rushing to be ready for the feature of course we didn't get it back 100 % went out and was extremely fast in the feature coming from the rear to win running away, this was in blue plate on an older shadow chassis, scaled it as raced and just kept using those numbers and was always fast, of course the LR weight was less which lowered the cross.
hotelcalifornia
Member
This kinda thing makes me wanna experiment with the LR pills. Maybe instead of using 1/8" hole down, using 1/16" hole down in top hole or 0" in top hole to pick up the LR a bit
flattop1
Dawg 89
I have done that . You have the right in the bottom holes . Using different pillsin the top hole . Your kinda in no man's land as far as how far it's actually moved . In the end it was more trouble then worth . You may have better success with it .
will definitely change your scale numbers.
hotelcalifornia
Member
Well since 1/8" hole down in the bottom hole is the same as 1/8" hole up in the top hole, 1/16" hole up in the top hole should be 1/16" more rake in the rear end. Something I would do if the track was real small or needed the left rear to not be in the track as much, of course you won't have as much acceleration coming out of the turns but it should turn better through them. I remember when my pills were 1/8" hole up in the bottom hole, I would accelerate way faster off the line than anyone else would because my left rear was way down into the track, but then it wouldn't wanna go through the turn. It would just go straight out the track. I could imagine adding a bit more rake would take that straight line acceleration out and exchange it for better handling, all other variables equal.
So on a fairly cruddy, fairly small track I would do 1/16" hole up in the top hole, and on a very small or very bad track I would do 0" in the top hole.
But maybe you're right about it not being worth it. Having more rear stagger adds rake anyway and you of course add stagger on smaller tracks. I just don't ever like having to grow RRs, and using 8 3/4" wheels changes loading timings along with the increased stagger. Most stagger I can ever get with a 8.5" wheel is 1.5" and that's just not enough for some tracks. So maybe adding rake could be a viable way to compensate