Tony

Balance the needs..... We know the 5 is graceful in weight, owns a small wheel diameter so must be dependant on every possible advantage concerning tyre grip.. The Directional footprint is the only option.

Blimey we are going to have the whole alphabet soon So let me get this right........The car has angular polar movement due to the flex being present which is due to the weight transfer no longer supporting the angular inertia, so therefore in theory a small pothole in the road would cause a worse long/short term effect to the geometry of the car than the lack of bracing Do I get my Physics degree now Well yes congratulations in truth with the chastity belt off the rear is M+J+A+I sensitive we will move on to 'roll centres' as soon as i can catch up with the math Bump M+J+A+I+......The suggested (?) Clue Mazda MX5 NA has 45/55.. find the missing denominator....

Well no? actually you are right!... i have never received a directive to use the 'Spreader rod' for run-out compensation on the Mercedes prior to Geometry testing....To Date this was only used to simulate rolling resistance as a conclusion........ well done Dan, this is another area of excellence

Yep.... your results after this will allow us to move on.

The report would suggest a pull to the right... so that can be dismissed.... Move the front wheels with tyres side to side then test drive the car to see if the pull is tyre drift.... remember this is only for testing so it doesn't matter if the tyres a directional. Move the wheels side to side? You mean while stationary? I dont understand, sorry. Never feel sorry in wim!... This area is complicated enough. This forum invites a relaxed reply! I suggest you remove the front wheels with tyres and swap their positions.... then test drive the car again, if the pull is reversed then we know the problem is pneumatic not mechanical or Geometric.

Interesting?... i never thought this would be requested as a 'run-out' requirement, but it does make sense... i assume the Hunter only needs 45degrees forward/backward to measure compensation?

Do you use a 'Spreader rod' when you set the toe?

Quote:TDIPLC Conclusively i think!..... Even i understood some of your explanation. Something i feel is strange is that after spending much money adding engine modifications is people would then want the mapping done on the cheap or with inferiore chips Is there graphical evidence of the mapping when done?..... Like a performance scale/peak.... If yes does TDIPLC offer a 'Validation' service by analysing the report. Example: Everyday i have people send me Geometry reports, in an instant i can see the good and bad within it... from there i would advise the customer if things are wrong.....At the moment this i do for free but in the future a 'Validation' fee is a reasonable request..... Also often i find that once i make the discrepancies obvious , the owner would just travel to me so i can set the car weather this is because the owner does not want conflict in the shop or realises there work is just not up to scratch i don't know.

We both suffer the same ignorance.. but for the right reasons The power house and Geometry are in a marriage, if wim is to continue to advise in the modified area then the evolution of the engine needs to be explored to encourage vision rather than ignore it though uneducated denial. tdiplc i feel may need to assist wim in this area.. i personally feel uncomfortable guiding people without the wim 'Motto'..... 'Excellence is not a skill it is an attitude'.

Curious question:.... I have never been into this modifying lark so my opinions are a little 'blinkered'... If somone needs to spend £20.000 blinging up a 1.1 Saxo... why not just spend £5.000 buying someone else's bord project or just go and buy a Skyline and be done with it!..... I assume most 'Chavs' don't do the modifications themselves hence the £20.000 so what is the end point!.......... other then the debt.

Mate you know what the Yanks are like with 'leverage'

I understand.... Mazda for arguments sake would have a global chip with the ability to cover all within the specific range.... In continuation though, since a car like yours is so modified how absolute is the mapping?... is it trail and error, set by previous nearest example or totally conclusive?.... i wonder in ore how with the complexities of induction/injection/compression/combustion then exhaust (new five stroke engine ) how accurate the mapping can be?

Bare with me here cos I'm very 'thick' in this area.... so dumb question.... if the ECU can be re-mapped then why are there so many models on the market... and why does the chip have a programmable memory if the target car is intended to be stock by manufacturer?.... it just seems generous that the manufacturer over-constructs the ECU for future development.... can you read my ignorance

I think you will find Pete that he wanted to do some 10mm spanner/tyre DIY at home..... in the garden

There is always a catch.... seemingly you cannot push more out unless the car breaths more in... 'ratio' is it 50/50 what is the expenditure? And i must ask....'Mapping' how personal is that? I am still very curious about 'Mapping'.... can anyone explain this for me?

Strangest reason for a puncture ive seen is a Hedgehog ..... Anyway bazza i bet that spanner is a whit worth... about all it would fit is a tyre

The report would suggest a pull to the right... so that can be dismissed.... Move the front wheels with tyres side to side then test drive the car to see if the pull is tyre drift.... remember this is only for testing so it doesn't matter if the tyres a directional.

Wise words indeed....

The Castor positions are in conflict! nsf +0 26' osf -022'.... nominal stock is +1deg 25'. no wonder the car feels strange... the camber positions also are in dispute... but we can discuss that later. Did the shop explain any concerns toward the Castor disparity?

Yes mate +15' is toe in (positive)..... Remember there are no correct settings or incorrect settings only suggestions.... Your initial set-up invited slight over-steer whereas my set-up invited slight under-steer.... pick a card

Any pictures would be welcomed..... Information like height/load ratio and any Geometry reports if done especially... wim awaits your return.

Application and evolution are very different.... The application of additional suspension related components would i feel deny any wealth in the Geometry area. If allowed this has to become more balanced and could complement the additions.... at the mo the car is set like a 4WD Geometrically.. This needs to change

Quote: janny Well did he do the car then? Or did it take a Sausage up the Trumpet to encourage any movement

Now add the sway % (times) the camber curve (minus) the KPI/SJI.... Also jon isn't that proportion diagonal to the Polar centre? I don't know?... nor am i the law in Geometry but i welcome education always!

Maybe driver preference is the only real answer here. Toe out front activates toot.... Toe in rear activates over-steer.... Mechanical Engineers will argue the disparity until a fight brakes out....By default this seems to be the most common configuration... but not necessarily the right configuration