Roger440

I should pop in more often. Some of my handiwork

The lite stuff is OK, just not as good at holding its shape, unless you put some ridges into it.

Try some of this stuff, http://www.nimbusmotorsport.com/ProdShop.asp?category=252 Its superb, is easily bent to shape with your hands and if you trim it neatly it looks factory. Ive used some here:

Im probably a bit late here, but on these cars we normally strip the rear hub from the steel plate/arm, clean up and then lubricate before attempting any rear camber/toe adjustments. Its very rare that they ever move when adjustment is attempted!!! Out of interest, what type of bushings are you running at the rear of the front lower arms?

The need for a cam belt change frequency to be increased would primarily be governed by the load. If you fitted a high lift cam and stronger valve springs, then clearly the load on the belt will increase. Just fitting a massive turbo won't increase the load or wear on a cam belt. That said, if it spends its life at high rpm, then it may still be worth doing more frequent changes.

Ive been using the Dunlop SP9090. Very pleased with them too! Much much more grippy than my previous bridgestones, in fact quite amazingly so. The effect might be enhanced by the fact the bridgstones were a bit hard though!

Certainly so in the initial readings. Here are my immediate concerns with this calibration. 1: Where are the after measurements. 2: Why is the nsf toe 12mm out and the osf 12mm in 3: Why is there such a disparity in the toe-out-on-turns 1. On the right hand side off the screen? 2, Cos some numpty didn't centre the rack when they fitted it? But centred the steering wheel during the alignment chack 3, See 2 Well thats my take on it. Interesting the stering coupling etc(ive no idea what it consists of) was unaffected by the racks incorrect location.

We use a similar)ish) set up on Monaros. Very similar to an omega, so spring is further up the arm, but it is seperate from the damper. It is not possible to fit coilovers to the damper position as there is insufficent strength in the shell. Im not sure i see the problem? It replicates the OEM design and operation, just with a different spring and damper rates?

would this be easy to do or is it a garage jobby Was going to suggest "bring her in for some free diagnostics" but Sheffield is quite a trek. Is it possible you can take the car to a local MOT testing centre and have the brake performance measured front/rear... Offer the tester a fiver and get some valuable diagnostics so we can help?.... Leave the knocking complaint for now, we will deal with that later. Re the judder, has the disc runout been checked? Is it within spec? Was it OK when fitted, but developed over time?

The 993 Kinematic tool still bothers me?... It's position is longitudinal, so am i correct in saying the measurement is for "drive axel" longitudinal displacement allowing independent adjustments per axel.. ensuring each wheel is correctly placed under load? Can't be quite sure as yet. When i next have one in, i will take pictures and post. Havn't seen a 993 in the workshop for a while Once we can see the suspension on the car, im sure it will become more obvious.

A 50mm adjustment!!!!! Thats a lot! Like the mod though. I have a similar, though less extreme problem with my old Triumph 2000. Had considered the "turn it upside down" idea, but its as Tony says, has no adjustment. Might have to have a dabble some time. The triumph does suffer from bump steer but there other influencing factors i need to deal with first. Re the kniematic toe we talked about last year, my understanding of it is that it is effectively being used to describe a rear steering tendancy which is built into the design, at least in this application (Porsche 993)

I don't think Rover is a good example though! Thats why they are no longer with us!! But i know what you mean. Now i don't know, but why do i suspect that there are not too many Jap DI disasters around?

I think the key fact, whatever we might call it the, result, is to reduce the risk of comeback to the manufacturer to the minimum. Im sure occasionally they still get it slighlty wrong, but doubt there are and "classic VW" type handling issues out there any more. Just look at the ford explorer? tyre problem to see how getting it just slightly wrong can cost big! Different issue i know, but it is ultimately about risk reduction (to the manufacturer).

Refer to my post above. I believe it is because the average car driver suffers from extreme numptiness! From a legal perspective an understeering car is easier to control for these numpties. If a car gained a reputation for being difficult to control and more accidents followed, this could be very damaging and possibly expensive. I understand that final development will still be achived by a bloke driving it with adjustments to produce the desired understeer tendancy. With regard to the legal perspective, this still bothers me slightly. recently had a 944 turbo back in, a regular customer, whos setup i thought was very good, with progresive controllable oversteer. During my inital setup, i had run the rear antiroll bar at its stiffest setting, but found that it was quite twitchy, very difficult to catch the rear when it did break away. So i put it back to its mid setting. On his most recent visit he wanted it set to the stiff postion to take advantage of the better level of grip this offers. I discussed the downsides of this but did it for him nonetheless. He is a competent driver, with considerable track experience so i went with it. The same car in the hands of someone less capable (ie numpty) however, is likely to end up in a hedge! I think we are actually faced with the same choice as the manufactureres, but on an individual vehicle basis. To date, i don't think anyone has ever considered pursuing the individual who has setup a car following an accident, but i do think it will happen one day.Imagine getting it wrong on a mass produced basis. Understeer = minimum risk. I think that all makes sense, even if i did ramble a bit.