Jujutsuka

Ok so Honda basically says that they went with the Macpherson not because of cost efficiency(like we all say), but for the space to put the K20 in and the high mounted gearbox allows for better "tracking" stability.
So are there any merits to this? Were they able to save a little bit of weight, while being able to mount the bigger K20 in? And does the RSX have advantages in braking(with of course modifications of suspension bushings)? Should we set the RSX up to brake well; to make up for its lack of geometry range of caster/camber?

B serious

iTrader: (1)

Yes, Mcpherson struts are lighter because there are less parts.

Any car should be set up to brake well.

Jujutsuka

True, but sometimes in order to increase corner handling you decrease braking and acceleration traction. Such as when you add camber and toe. So since we can't get much camber angle should we focus a little more on providing stable braking entry in order to have an advantage? Even though the RSX is like a little more than 100lbs more heavier than DC2 it's still a pretty lightweight car for today's standards.

B serious

iTrader: (1)

Are you asking if it would be more advantageous to give up a little bit of braking to pick up cornering stability?

Up to a certain point, its definitely advantageous to add negative camber.....especially on Mcperhson strut cars that don't gain much negative camber on compression. -3 to -3.5 degrees would likely be the magic numbers, depending on about 1000 outside factors.

You can make up for the loss in braking power by using wider tires up front. You can also help rotation by using a front-biased staggered tire setup.

Jujutsuka

I was suggesting just the opposite. perhaps give up a little bit of handling in order to take an advantage in braking. I was always told that when you have a lightweight FF that it takes "***** and Brakes". Giving up some of the Camber/Caster in order to maximize braking traction. Our Macpherson doesn't do that well with Camber/Caster to begin with. I even saw Matt Mcneal take the BTC DC5 Honda ITR and made an amazing pass where NO driver would of ever expected to be challenged. His DC5 demonstrated amazing braking capability. Made me think about what Honda "claims" about their "Control-Link" Macpherson strut system about "Improved" tracking stability. I do realize that the Type R is way ahead of the RSX in terms of reinforcements and fine tuning.

B serious

iTrader: (1)

Lol. You're over thinking it.

That BTCC car has a ton of camber and caster on the front wheels. You're not going to go faster by giving up cornering speed in lieu of braking.

Braking can be regained in some of the same ways that makes a car go faster around a corner. The loss in braking is not as much as you'd think when the camber is set properly for the tire compound/size/construction, and suspension.

Also...you don't need to slow down as much if the car can corner faster. Late braking isn't always the answer. Etc. Etc.

Hopefully you're setting the car up by driving it....

Jujutsuka

Oh yes, driving the car will definitely be how I tune my suspension. But I was just giving that a thought. I realize that with the Macpherson strut system in the front. The camber and dynamic camber is going to be real low. For instance with a static camber of -3 we might get a dynamic camber -7 while turning. So I figured hey... Maybe I should just leave the static camber at -1.5 and allow the car to brake with more traction and see if working on Braking points aka point where I choose to get on the brakes and point where I get off the brakes(of course when not trail braking) will net me a better lap time.

Anywho I guess I'll start by seeing the difference in braking traction with varying degrees of negative static camber. I guess my thing is that I'm trying to see if there's any benefit to Honda putting a Macpherson on the front other than them trying to cut cost.

B serious

iTrader: (1)

-7 while turning???? Probably never...

If the car was able to gain an extra 4 degrees on compression, it wouldn't need a lot of static camber. And you'd be out of control on every corner.

Jujutsuka

I was thinking that's why higher performance cars are able to have lower static camber... Because their double wishbones set up would allow for more positive caster. Which I I'm not sure 4 degrees of positive caster would be a lot? I could be wrong. I haven't been able to use camber plates yet to determine how much degree of caster you can net on an RSX.

B serious

iTrader: (1)

Caster isn't automatically more for double wishbone cars.

My ITR came with like...+2 degrees of caster
My S2000 is spec'd around +6 (adjustable) from the factory
My S13 was like +7 or 8 with mcpherson struts and adjustable tie rods. I forget what the factory setting was.
My TSX is like +4 degrees.

You're muddying caster with camber...maybe because you're thinking of a caster/camber curve or sweep.

Again...too complex of a mindset. Its more important of a relationship for high angle turns and should be kept in mind for tire wear on street cars.

-Wide tires in front (255/40/17).
-Buy a lifetime alignment.
-Adjust camber little by little until you find a sweet spot for your tires, driving style, and OVERALL setup. Youre likely going to end up with a lot of camber. Never just adjust camber or caster without getting a full alignment. Toe changes with any angle change.
-Narrower tires out back. 225/45/17

I wouldn't adjust anything without driving the car and realizing what to adjust and by how much. Don't blindly set up a car. You'll never know if you improved or detracted.