STN_Pat

Hi

I'll try to make this simple. You can also provide your opinion in a simple form, without too much justification...just your pure thoughts.

I drive a 1996 Hatchback. Track only (including to/from)

550lbs F / 600lbs R.
22mm F / 22mm R swaybars.
-1.8 camber F / -2.3 R.
0 toe front / practicaly 0 toe R, slightly in.

I mainly use 205/50/15 RA1 and R888. Sometime I use street tires.

I want more rotation. I want that inside rear on the ground. I tried a coupé today, right before my car. 550F/400R, 26mm F / 22mm R. It rotated much more than my car. The inside rear didn't lift.


I was thinking to get some slight toe out in the rear, switch the springs F-R to have 600F/550R. I'd prefer to keep using my actual 22mm bar.

What would YOU do about it ? I do not want to spend a lot...but to understand why can't I get as much rotation as a totally anti-rotation set-up like the coupé I drove today.

Are the higher rear spring rate wrong, finally ? Is this what I should understand from this ?

Will toe out only really get me significative rotation ? Should I really get a 24mm ASR rear bar ? What about that rear inside lifting SOB ????

Thanks.

Patrick, who's mystified...and pissed.

tronic

Are you saying you want more rotation AND to keep the inside rear on the ground?

Is there some reason you want the inside rear on the ground? (I didn't think that was bad, and that all FWD cars do that)

-In any case, alignment is relatively easy to do, no extra parts required. Try a little toe out in the rear.
-Increasing the rear bar would definitely lift the rear inside tire more.
-You could also try increasing FRONT grip to change the balance. More front camber maybe? Staggered wider setup in front?

RR98ITR

Would it cost you any money to change your camber settings? To something more like -3.5 at the front and -1.5 at the rear.

Scott, who has heard that camber is important...

Stinkycheezmonky

This would also be my first suggestion.

CivicSiRacer

My 1st thought too. Your camber is backwards. With that much rear camber going into a corner you have more grip in the rear than the front. If you can dial out some negative camber in the rear and add more negative to the front you would probably get some more rotation.

raffaelli

1. Remove front sway.
2. Drive.
3. Enjoy instant increase in rotation.

Wallet the same? check.
Better time on the stop watch? check.

Enjoy.

STN_Pat

Thanks for the replies.

Tronic : Good observation. I think that, considering what i've experimented yet...every car that satisfied me were NOT lifting much. My car is lifting...I tend to make it correlate with my rotation problem, this is what I observe with the cars I get to test.

Scott : I've thrown every adjustable arm on my car to the garbage. Couldn't get any that would last more than a few months of track driving...probably because track here are pretty hardcore bump-wise. So, dialing out camber isn't the cheapest solution, ie it involves sending 200$ sooner or later to the garbage. PLUS, the car I am comparing mine to has exactly the same height, therefore almost the same camber....and it rotates to my taste. That is why I didn't suggest adressing the camber...I don't think it is the main culprit.

raffaelli : I had no front bar for a while. 550lbs in the front isn't enough to use no swaybar, and with the roll resistance I have right now, removing the swaybar will only increase the rear lift, and therefore probably accentuate understeer.

My girlfriend keep saying that the weight of her coupé give her car more weight in the rear, therefore making it easier to throw around. I do not agree much with that theory, but I like her naive way of thinking it. Maybe she is right. That said, her car, with everything almost identical as my car except what I gave you guys (front-biased, more pounds), rotates so much better, and is therefore faster and easier to drive (for me and my taste).

Would it be gunning my foot to put the 600lbs in the front, cutting some rear roll resistance, and dial some toe out in the rear..........to sit that rear inside and give more rotation ?

Patrick....he who thought would learn more things over the year about car set-up, instead of getting more and more confused.

Will I dare to go back front-biased and compensate with humongus front and rear swaybar.......and aggressive alignement.

Or maybe I could dial out some of the rear camber with washers, lower the front a little (bit more camber and toe out), and open the rear toe a bit.......

RR98ITR

It sometimes seems like mostly those plagued with struts appreciate the sometimes counterintuitive tradeoff between the weight transfer effects and the camber effects of roll stiffness. That coupe you drove had alot more front roll stiffness and likely a more productive outside front contact patch at assumed ride height and static camber. The cost of a bigger front bar won't go into the garbage - try one and see what you get?

Scott, who isn't inclined today to attempt yet another refutation of the ever percolating idea that inside rear lift is correlated to if not in fact actually causal of understeer...

raffaelli

Can't agree. But, post what you find out.

STN_Pat

What I am saying may not apply to the CRX.

I may add too that, while my camber settings may seem sub-optimal, it is the first time in 9 years that I get even wear out of them. It does, in my opinion, support that the camber isn't the problem. But what do I know...I am a life scientist, far from an engineer...

beanbag

So your girlfriend rotates better coz she has more weight in the rear, huh?
I think this is true in both instances.

TunerN00b

Rear tire pressure. Too high, or too low, both produce a reduction in grip and an increase in rotation.
Yeah, it's a hack, but it does work...

Get rid of any rear toe in.

The 96 Civic doesn't need a "camber kit" or anything adjustable to reduce rear camber, just some washers and bolts. Try less rear camber.

slammed_93_hatch

Pat shoot me an email, ive got something that will work and last (you still have the EG right?) jimmysc13 at gmail dot com


I was fighting a pushy car, used tire wear to set camber (stupid stupid stupid idea).

I got a test day in and used the pyrometer and found i needed WAY more camber.

I threw all the camber i could at it.

AND BOOM the car had tons more front grip, so much so that the car was WICKED loose.


RE-remove the front bar

If he is on Ra1 and has those rates, and is at a decent ride height (~5" to the jack points) hell be on the bump stops like crazy, or hitting the UCA on the chassis.

Street tires it might be fine.

Kinda OT but just because a car pushes DOES NOT MEAN there is too much front roll stiffness. The car could be (and in this case) is probably rolling too much up front, cause a lack of grip.

solo-x

Go plot an EF camber curve and an EK camber curve and get back to us. What you suggest is a fools errand in the car being discussed.

I'm with Scott and the others that said your camber settings are off. I fully understand if you can't get more front camber, but that shouldn't prevent you from buying some longer bolts and a handful of washers and shimming out the rear UCA to reduce rear camber. You don't have enough front camber, don't compound your push by giving the outside REAR tire enough camber.

I also agree with Scott that with how little front camber your car has and how soft the spring and bar rates are currently, you may find that you haven't really done yourself a disservice by increasing either front bar or front spring, or both. The outside front will be closer to a happy place and provide more grip. Since you're already able to get 100% load transfer across the rear axle and then some, you have a bit of room to work without changing the rear suspension.

Having played around with the EG chassis, which has a slightly better front camber curve then the EK, I think 600lb front springs are still far too soft. 700-750lbs would be a touch better, and depending on the corner entry feel you like, anywhere from 550 to 850lb rear springs. You may still lift the inside rear with that setup, especially under combined dive and roll, but it'll be minimal and not problematic.

I'd caution against rear toe out. It tends to make cars spooky under braking. If it were an autocross car, yeah, do it if you can't get enough rotation by backing off the rear camber. For a track car I am much more hesitant to suggest that sort of a change.

It isn't surprising that you correlate inside wheel lift with understeer on a car with so little front camber. Once the inside rear lifts, you get no more roll resistance from that axle pair, so for every incremental increase in lateral acceleration post wheel lift you get proportionally more chassis roll then prior to wheel lift. The real problem is insufficient camber for the roll stiffness.

STN_Pat

Jimmy, I do own a 96 Honda now. Go figure out why, I didn't have these kind of problems with my 92-95.

solo-x, I am kind of stuck with my spring rates I think, since I do not own koni race units anymore (they were amazing, but I needed the $). I use sport units, OTS. Unless someone confirm that 750lbs is manageable in the front (wich I doubt, but still, they feel fine even at full soft with 550), I may not go much higher than 600. Also, the track I run on can be very rough.

Also, will I destroy my front tires with more camber ? I understand that I may get the rotation I desire and require, but I don't want to overdo it and destroy tires.....

So what I understand now is :
- give a try to a 26mm front bar.
- go for a very small bit higher height in the rear to get some weight there.
- decreasing rear camber with washers.
- get a bit lower in the front to get more camber maybe ? Scared for travel...more caster would be amazing, but bumpsteer is a bitch isn't it ?
- leave the toe as is for now, or try to get it zeroed (adjusting slot are maxed last time I cheked, giving a slightly IN toe...0.12 degree total, does that make sens ?)

Patrick, who still cannot believe he may be going the JDM way soon.....

solo-x

Don't bother raising the rear ride height. Lower in the front if you can, but travel is pretty hard to come buy up front, so that will dictate how low you can run the car. For a track only car, Koni sports will handle the rates I mention, though not quite ideal. If you aren't comfortable with it, then the 600's will be OK. Don't bother with more caster. Leave the toe as it is right now.

Make two changes for the first round. Put the 26mm front bar on, and dial rear camber back to 1.5*'s. Drive it that way and see where you are, if you're moving in the right direction, and if it rotates adequately or could be freer still.

<- relearned the lesson of making too many changes at the same time recently. No matter how smart you are, you are the one person who'll always outsmart you.

descartesfool

Camber is wrong. Buy a pyrometer. Let it tell you when the tires are happy. Best money you'll ever spend to tune your car.

RR98ITR

This thread is so full of disappointment for me...nobody arguing for planting that inside rear Firmly!...nobody suggesting the OP try wider tires at the rear...Or a wider Rear track...Claude...Et Tu Claude?

Scott, who knows that ultimately there's only so much you can do when you're putting the power down thru the front wheels...why people who don't have vtec do it I will never understand...

A Blue Lude

Could go for the "bend the knuckle" route if you don't mind the lack of adjustment after the fact (and permanent effect).

descartesfool

I'm busy trying to plant my VTEC back into the engine bay. At the moment both my rear tires are very firmly planted on the ground while the fronts hover over the jack-stands. My camber looks all wrong (oops, front forks disconnected!). Soooooon to be using my pyrometer again.

meb58

A lifting inside rear tire indicates too much rear roll stiffness. This might be the only way around an autoX course but it's generally not the fastest way arouond a road course.

Big picture...you can increase front bar or spring rates or reduce the rear.

Camber is reveresed too...you have to experiment for speed and ease of driving. I might try something like 1/2 - 3/4 deg neg rear with a little toe in if you are driving on a road course.

...I thought koni yellows - single adjustable - are at their max with 400lb/in springs?

tronic

Most people would say 500lbs max for off-the-shelf Koni Sports/yellows.
I've been using 500-400lb springs on Integras and Civics with Koni Sports for many years. I think my rear shocks have well over 100,000 miles on them and are still working fine.

beanbag

One needs to know the dyno plot of the shocks, motion ratio, and sprung mass to determine what is the maximum spring rate the shocks can handle. IOW, if you have a gutted out race car, you can afford to go a little higher on the spring rates.

meb58

I think I grabbed that info from TrueChoice a long while back...1999 perhaps. I had mine rebuilt for heavier rates and modified for bound and rebound.

I would think you could lower spring and damping rates in a gutted car...less weight to control. That's been my direction anyway - moving strictly from road going fare to a gutted car...same car.

STN_Pat

I will be installing the 26mm front swaybar tomorow, as well as dialing out some of the rear camber. I will only be able to test it on the track next week.

I feel like ordering 750lbs springs already. Is it still thinkable to have more rotation out of 750lbs front springs than 550lbs in my specific case ?