Tein SRC's compared
#102
Originally Posted by afzan' timestamp='1414555909' post='23386362
[quote name='andrewhake' timestamp='1414551759' post='23386311']
[quote name='helothere' timestamp='1414549079' post='23386278']
to Andrew,
on his post Rob states:
"The rear was raised by 3 turns to compensate for the “non-staggered” setup and to give it a slight rake towards the front"
[quote name='helothere' timestamp='1414549079' post='23386278']
to Andrew,
on his post Rob states:
"The rear was raised by 3 turns to compensate for the “non-staggered” setup and to give it a slight rake towards the front"
[/quote]
That would make sense if it actually was a matter of just evening out the ride height due to the differences in front tire heights, but that isn't the case. It sounds as if the car was specifically setup with higher rear ride height for the non-staggered setup, but maybe that's not the case. It's not like the car was setup for staggered tires and then 255s were thrown on all around, it was setup from the beginning for non-staggered.
[/quote]
I always have rake on my cars. 3 turns is probably not even a quarter of an inch so it is more minimal than you're assuming it is. It's better to have that extra bit of rotation than not. Even heights or lowered rear would yield some high speed understeer which is a bad idea in a wingless car. Correcting an error almost certainly guarantees snap oversteer unless you're a left foot braking pro.
#103
Originally Posted by helothere' timestamp='1414549079' post='23386278
to Andrew,
on his post Rob states:
"The rear was raised by 3 turns to compensate for the “non-staggered” setup and to give it a slight rake towards the front"
on his post Rob states:
"The rear was raised by 3 turns to compensate for the “non-staggered” setup and to give it a slight rake towards the front"
#104
sorry to go off topic, but how much weight do you guys bias towards the front?
I'm just starting to understand how scary high speed understeer is when the car won't respond to steering input and dollar signs and insurance numbers fly across the windshield
I'm just starting to understand how scary high speed understeer is when the car won't respond to steering input and dollar signs and insurance numbers fly across the windshield
#105
Does this hold water?
#106
Originally Posted by andrewhake' timestamp='1414571278' post='23386443
[quote name='afzan' timestamp='1414555909' post='23386362']
[quote name='andrewhake' timestamp='1414551759' post='23386311']
[quote name='helothere' timestamp='1414549079' post='23386278']
to Andrew,
on his post Rob states:
"The rear was raised by 3 turns to compensate for the “non-staggered” setup and to give it a slight rake towards the front"
[quote name='andrewhake' timestamp='1414551759' post='23386311']
[quote name='helothere' timestamp='1414549079' post='23386278']
to Andrew,
on his post Rob states:
"The rear was raised by 3 turns to compensate for the “non-staggered” setup and to give it a slight rake towards the front"
[/quote]
That would make sense if it actually was a matter of just evening out the ride height due to the differences in front tire heights, but that isn't the case. It sounds as if the car was specifically setup with higher rear ride height for the non-staggered setup, but maybe that's not the case. It's not like the car was setup for staggered tires and then 255s were thrown on all around, it was setup from the beginning for non-staggered.
[/quote]
I always have rake on my cars. 3 turns is probably not even a quarter of an inch so it is more minimal than you're assuming it is. It's better to have that extra bit of rotation than not. Even heights or lowered rear would yield some high speed understeer which is a bad idea in a wingless car. Correcting an error almost certainly guarantees snap oversteer unless you're a left foot braking pro.
[/quote]
Originally Posted by andrewhake' timestamp='1414551759' post='23386311
[quote name='helothere' timestamp='1414549079' post='23386278']
to Andrew,
on his post Rob states:
"The rear was raised by 3 turns to compensate for the “non-staggered” setup and to give it a slight rake towards the front"
to Andrew,
on his post Rob states:
"The rear was raised by 3 turns to compensate for the “non-staggered” setup and to give it a slight rake towards the front"
[/quote]
Ah this makes sense thanks for clarifying. High speed understeer to snap over steer is definitely not fun. I agree bias toward more rotation as it is much easier to control the rotation as it is more linear. Thanks.
#107
Lets say you use very stiff springs on the front and soft on the rear to deal with oversteer. If you want to raise rear you can do it without preloading soft springs, that way you not taking away from extension.
#108
Good news is if you can see dollar signs flapping across the windshield you're not driving fast enough!
#109
Just wanted to post an update
I am currently on a set of EVS SRC now and have been for a little bit so this is long overdue. Did 2-3 track days since owning them and have been able to hit decent lap times. I didn't feel anything very dramatic except that the setup is more compliant over very bumpy surfaces. The car doesn't seem to catch me off guard so I think my set of EVS SRCs are as they intended them to be.
I was experimenting in the garage and I was able to create 2 scenarios.
1. the car at full raised ride height and have it sit on the bump stop.
2. used lower collar to lower the car to lowest setting but still maintain a 2 finger gap.
I was able to accomplish setup Scenario 1 by unloading the spring and by that it would lower the car and sit on the bumpstop no matter how "high" you try to make the car with the lower collar. This may have been the issue that Ivan was seeing in his car which ultimately lead to revalving. It may have been the bumpstops that Ivan was riding on but I'm out of town a lot and I'm no professional, just a friend who volunteered to help out. Ivan then decided to revalve to Guys spec which is same as OP. Tein has revalved Ivan's set of coilovers and he is happy with them. I am currently happy with my off the shelf EVS Spec SRCs as well.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the shock can be valved correctly per manufacturer spec (whether it be good or bad is your choice) but if the setup of the actual suspension is wrong then that's a different story.
I am currently on a set of EVS SRC now and have been for a little bit so this is long overdue. Did 2-3 track days since owning them and have been able to hit decent lap times. I didn't feel anything very dramatic except that the setup is more compliant over very bumpy surfaces. The car doesn't seem to catch me off guard so I think my set of EVS SRCs are as they intended them to be.
I was experimenting in the garage and I was able to create 2 scenarios.
1. the car at full raised ride height and have it sit on the bump stop.
2. used lower collar to lower the car to lowest setting but still maintain a 2 finger gap.
I was able to accomplish setup Scenario 1 by unloading the spring and by that it would lower the car and sit on the bumpstop no matter how "high" you try to make the car with the lower collar. This may have been the issue that Ivan was seeing in his car which ultimately lead to revalving. It may have been the bumpstops that Ivan was riding on but I'm out of town a lot and I'm no professional, just a friend who volunteered to help out. Ivan then decided to revalve to Guys spec which is same as OP. Tein has revalved Ivan's set of coilovers and he is happy with them. I am currently happy with my off the shelf EVS Spec SRCs as well.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the shock can be valved correctly per manufacturer spec (whether it be good or bad is your choice) but if the setup of the actual suspension is wrong then that's a different story.
#110
Could definitely have been the case. If the perches are setup with drastically different preload than recommended and the car was just always sitting on the bump stop that would make a lot more sense.