I’m not sure if it’s because i used round tungsten weights or because i took a little more out in the middle than his plans but the first time I put it on my CoG stand it was a 1/2” and i then rearranged to move it just ahead of 1/2”. I didn’t use the screw design either. It’s pretty much just the shape of the flying wedge but hollowed out 1/8 on the top, sides and around the weights.FatSebastian wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 2:48 pmIt has been a long time since we built a wedge, but IIRC I suspect it will be nearly impossible to acheive a CoM placement that is 1/2" ahead of the rear axle, if the rear axle is put back as far as possible (< 3/4" from the rear of the block). In fact, 3/4" CoM may even be a generous assumption with the Flying Wedge design (because the bolts put extra mass far ahead of the rear axle, and lead is being used). I didn't see anywhere about what CoM to expect with the design...BSAdadGriffindork wrote: ↑Sat Jan 27, 2024 11:00 pmI’m also curious to see where the flying wedge COG ends up being and if I’ll need to mess with the weights much... Do you think I should aim for 1/2”? 3/4"?
A car becomes more unstable as the CoM is placed further aft. It seems that the Flying Wedge has screws with adjustable weights (nuts and washers) underneath as a means to partly control CoM placement, and hence, stability. But because you are building a rail-rider, IMO the stability aspect is already addressed. So, there may be no need to complicate your wedge design with a movable weighting system; there's not much mass in a #8 steel nut relative to lead (Pb) or tungsten (W) anyway.
Should I use my last blank to remake it with a COG that’s closer to .75” or 1.0”? Or think 1/2” is good?