Tony Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 RWD toe can sometimes be sacrificial to enhance handling, although +20 total is hardly aggressive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CIH Posted April 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Well not so much agressive. "Sporty" ? (I hate that word). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Well not so much agressive. "Sporty" ? (I hate that word). Â Fast road may have +60' total, track maybe +60 per wheel, climb -60 per wheel . Toe is a "tuning angle" since it's normal domestic position is a dynamic 0. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CIH Posted May 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I had a quick look at the tendencey under squat and dive of my S12 on the ramp. Rear appeared to be minimal either way but front, under squat, and despite a static positive setting, was to move slightly more positive (IIRC +0.3 minutes to +0.6/7). Shame there's no way to see rear toe under transmission load. Â Oh, would you like to hear my thoughts on running +20 minutes rear toe ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 The front would migrate positive under squat because it's lifting...... So come on then +20', how did it feel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CIH Posted May 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 tbh i hadn't really noticed any change untill I did a quick left-right "flick" while driving dead ahead (only about a quarter lock either way) and I can really feel the rear shifting. I imagine it'll slide well if I give it a bit of a "scandernavian flick" but I've not had the balls to try it yet. I can really imagine the tyre sidewall loading up before the back-end shifts laterally. Â Feels much better than when it was running a 0/- rear toe figure though. Still a little twitchy but much more progressive. Less of a "knife edge". Be intersting to see how less negative camber/smaller tyre aspect ratio would change things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 See told you.... On some of the track cars we run +40 or even 1d on the rear.... On throttle/ corner out the lateral forces produce progressive over-steer, not snap over-steer. Â Less camber could produce roll over-steer which is much harder to catch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CIH Posted May 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Camber currently -1.15 ish. I figured about a degree, especially with lower/stiffer suspension with uprated ARBs ? I imagine 4-wheel steer feels similar to how it is now . Â What do you reckon for front camber ? I thinking maybe -20 minutes each side and go from there ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 With lower suspension you can afford a more aggressive camber since there's less dynamic gains, what your looking for is a steady-state chassis where there's minimal changes to the cars overall dynamics i.e Geometric/ suspension/ aero Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CIH Posted May 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 Yeah but I'm trying to tweak how the car behaves with stock suspension (for now). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 Yeah but I'm trying to tweak how the car behaves with stock suspension (for now). Â You said "Camber currently -1.15 ish. I figured about a degree, especially with lower/stiffer suspension with uprated ARBs ?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CIH Posted May 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 Stock suspension but with EZ camber bolts. Â I would have thought a shallower rear camber angle would be better if I were looking for oversteer ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 Stock suspension but with EZ camber bolts. I would have thought a shallower rear camber angle would be better if I were looking for oversteer ?  Depending where the front is then yes.... you could also use the toe angles but this would need to be aggressive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CIH Posted May 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 how does too shallow a rear camber cause problems ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 how does too shallow a rear camber cause problems ? Â If the front is deep then a low rear camber will cause over-steer...... basically "loose". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CIH Posted May 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 No I mean generally Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 No I mean generally  In that case i don't understand the question...... elaborate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CIH Posted May 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 "Less camber could produce roll over-steer which is much harder to catch. " Â Probably best if I keep my S12 experiments in the Car Blog thread as this is getting confusing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CIH Posted May 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Could you explain a little more about roll-oversteer please Tony ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Could you explain a little more about roll-oversteer please Tony ? Â Yes Two factors to complete first... Have you understood. 1: Polar moment of inertia 2: Lateral acceleration Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CIH Posted May 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Probably best if we go over it again hmmm.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Probably best if we go over it again hmmm.... Â Let's start with polar moment of inertia... A tease can be found here> http://www.wheels-inmotion.co.uk/forum/ind...?showtopic=2786 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CIH Posted May 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 Hnmmn, sounds like it's not so much the mass but how that mass is distributed in relation to it's centre of rotation(centre of gravity ?) Because if your double an onject's size a larger portion of it's overall mass is further away from it's CoG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 What direction would that mass be moving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CIH Posted May 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 not sure what you mean ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.