Rear Camber Link (inside) Question

[dentmaster]

On my X5 rear shock tower assembly there are 11 holes on each side of the tower for the camber link ball stud to attach to in 3 rows; 4 holes on top, 4 holes in the middle and 3 holes on the bottom.

However, on the X5 set-up sheets there are only 8 possible positions for the camber link ball stud to attach to listed and it seems that position '7' or '8' seem to be most popular. Which positions are '7' & '8' and why is there a difference between the set-up sheet and the physical part?

Cheers
Mark

[MikePimlott]

Theres actually 3 holes on the top row, 4 holes in the middle and 3 holes on the bottom.

7 is the middle hole on the bottom row and 8 is the outer most hole on the bottom row.

[JohnM]

Didn't the early XX4 shock towers only have 2 rows of holes for the camber links? if so maybe the set-up sheet is showing the older type of tower.

[Paul_Sinclair]

It does have to do with the evolution of the XX4. Very early cars did in fact have only 2 rows of holes, 2 on top and 3 on bottom for 5 in total. Check an early Matt Francis set-up sheet here to see: http://www.losi.com/Content/PDF/Setups/xx4/xx40001.pdf

Losi quickly changed to a beefier tower - even before the WE came out, as the original towers snapped very quickly - and they added more camber link holes as well. For reasons I'll never understand, they didn't redo the numbering system for all the new holes. The hole that got added to the outside top row was numbered 2.5, so that the inner three holes of the now middle row stayed 3, 4 and 5. The outer hole added to this middle row was labeled 5.5, and then the three on the "new" bottom row were numbered 6, 7, and 8. There's a very inner hole on this new bottom row that's not actually usable, I don't believe, so it was not numbered. That's how 11 holes have 8 numbers: one isn't used and there are two "half holes." You can see this numbering scheme on the XX4 WE blank set-up sheet, here: http://www.losi.com/Content/PDF/Setu...we/xx4we00.pdf

[dentmaster]

Guy's, thanks for the replies, I don't think i'd have figured it out with logic alone!