Rake and ride heights
12-25-2010, 05:57 AM
#11
Originally Posted by m1bjr,Dec 24 2010, 12:30 AM
I ran 2deg of fwd rake for a fair time.
And then changed it to level.
Level was better on track with a bigger front bar.
Rake fwd looks nice but tends to loosen the rear on entry unless you bang the hammer down
And then changed it to level.
Level was better on track with a bigger front bar.
Rake fwd looks nice but tends to loosen the rear on entry unless you bang the hammer down
Front rake here too at the moment.
12-26-2010, 12:07 PM
#12
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Played around this a bit this year. I measure the std honda measure of center of wishbone bolt to floor. I've gone for quite a low rear ride height, ending up with front ride height large than the rear. Reasons....
1. Running 245's on the front so have more front grip.
2. Much thicker front ARB than rear (Tenabe F and std 2003(?) rear)
3. I have J's ball joint sot compensate for rear ride height.
4. I can always use more grip from the rear.
I've also got the Nitrons (you need the ride height adjustable rears if getting the Nitrons). I've run harder springs (375 or 400lb) compared to the Bilsteins which on circuits has worked great but on hillclimbs probably has been a bit hard.
In general it worked well this season. Good grip under drive and transition from braking to drive. Could do with softer springs on bumpier surfaces.
245's give great front grip but made braking vaguer. Probably need to play with F wheel offsets and softer brake pads.
Ride heights were R: 144mm F: 165mm (std is R: 225 F: 197)
Matt
1. Running 245's on the front so have more front grip.
2. Much thicker front ARB than rear (Tenabe F and std 2003(?) rear)
3. I have J's ball joint sot compensate for rear ride height.
4. I can always use more grip from the rear.
I've also got the Nitrons (you need the ride height adjustable rears if getting the Nitrons). I've run harder springs (375 or 400lb) compared to the Bilsteins which on circuits has worked great but on hillclimbs probably has been a bit hard.
In general it worked well this season. Good grip under drive and transition from braking to drive. Could do with softer springs on bumpier surfaces.
245's give great front grip but made braking vaguer. Probably need to play with F wheel offsets and softer brake pads.
Ride heights were R: 144mm F: 165mm (std is R: 225 F: 197)
Matt
12-26-2010, 01:30 PM
#13
Thread Starter
Hi Matt,
I saw your car when mine was in at TGM. I noticed your Nitron setup too.
I thin kthe Nitrons have changed a little since your and certainly since some of the other members got them. I've got the recently changed Nitron Sports and they now have height adjusters front and rear that are separate to the spring perches.
The car ended up going to Nitron to be setup so I need to check with them and Tom for the specific of the setup they've done.
Reading Redun's comment a few posts up can I assume that rake and corner weights are directly linked or can you still be corner weighted, babalnced front to rear and have a choice on the rake?
No problems with mine just curious.
I saw your car when mine was in at TGM. I noticed your Nitron setup too.
I thin kthe Nitrons have changed a little since your and certainly since some of the other members got them. I've got the recently changed Nitron Sports and they now have height adjusters front and rear that are separate to the spring perches.
The car ended up going to Nitron to be setup so I need to check with them and Tom for the specific of the setup they've done.
Reading Redun's comment a few posts up can I assume that rake and corner weights are directly linked or can you still be corner weighted, babalnced front to rear and have a choice on the rake?
No problems with mine just curious.
12-27-2010, 09:21 AM
#14
Originally Posted by RedUn,Dec 24 2010, 10:49 AM
Corner weight it and what will be will be.
Mine was basically flat when corner weighted IIRC.
Mine was basically flat when corner weighted IIRC.
A little too far for rural B roads IME
12-27-2010, 11:34 AM
#15
Registered User
NB - When they corner weight your car they do that by adjusting the height of the suspension at each corner so you get what your given if you follow? I.E. they lower a corner to increase the weight and do the opposite to decrease the weight.
12-27-2010, 12:58 PM
#18
Originally Posted by The Loon,Dec 27 2010, 09:28 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the point of corner weighting is to get the two diagonals the same (otherwise it wouldn't work on most cars). So you can still have the rake.
12-27-2010, 01:02 PM
#19
Registered User
Originally Posted by Dembo,Dec 27 2010, 10:58 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the point of corner weighting is to get the two diagonals the same (otherwise it wouldn't work on most cars). So you can still have the rake.
12-27-2010, 01:50 PM
#20
Originally Posted by Dembo,Dec 27 2010, 10:58 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the point of corner weighting is to get the two diagonals the same (otherwise it wouldn't work on most cars). So you can still have the rake.
The reason for trying to get the diagonals the same is to ensure equal behaviour on entry to either left or right corners
You can still change the attitude of the car, set that first and then corner weight.
Jacking a corner may change the height very slightly but thats not the important variable
Dont get too hung up on rake, its VERY subtle in its effect.
Rake cannot alter weight distribution either, only physically movign weights about the car can do that - another common misconception.