I am starting a web search and will be asking specific people, but I figured let me start on this forum, because usually you guys give GREAT info. (I did do a search within this forum, didn't come up with much, but will probably do a better search once I get home).

The Problem: Setting the suspension for my Type R for road racing. (In the near future I will be getting the car cornerweighted and aligned.)

Parameters:
Car: Type R weighing about 2600lbs (not sure, it is not corner weighted yet)

Suspension: Buddy Club with 670lb (12K) Front and 550lb (10K) Rear Springs. Stock Sway bars. Skunk2 front camber kit and Ingalls rear camber kit. (I may go with stiffer springs mid season next year)

Ride Height: I honestly do not know right now. I have a buddy (THK on this board) who has the exact suspension. He gave me his measurements and I am going to start there. I guess it may be about an inch+ lower than a stock ITR. Right now the car is up on jack stands waiting for some suspension pieces, so I do not have the ride height available.

Tires: Toyo RA1 205/50/15

Race Tracks for next year: Summit Point, Beaver Run, VIR and whatever else ECHC may choose. The tracks in the Carolinas may be too far for me to attend.

Driving Style: I will be a rookie. I need to learn how to deal with a loose car. At this point I am not comfortable with an oversteering beast. So, I will like a car that can be induced into rotation, at will, but not so loose that it will rotate immediately.

Questions: What camber and toe do you suggest? and why? (I realize that I may change things in the future, based on my own style and my growth as a driver, but a ballpark figure would be great. I have ideas of my own, but I am curious to see what you guys think.)

 

What I once considered loose is now neutral. It just takes some time to get used to it. 12k/16k is a very mild setup, imo. You just have to get used to pulling the trigger earlier. Anyhow, it's good training because this forces you to get on the throttle harder before the apex, and that's how you go faster at the end of straights.

Also, what most people don't realize is that fwd cars are horrible towards the end of races, so if it understeers a bit from lap 1, it's going to be miserable by lap 10. If it scares you on lap 1, it'll probably be just right towards the middle.

Camber? Try -3 up front and -2 in back. Play with it from there. As far as toe goes, 0 to 1/16" total toe out up front, depending on the track, and zero in back.

Warren

 

If you stay that soft run the ride height at something like 6 inches to the bottom of the rockers to start with.

Scott, who agree's with Warren - if it's not loose enough to require your full attention the first couple of laps it's gonna suck in about 10 minutes.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Suspension: Buddy Club with 670lb (12K) Front and 550lb (10K) Rear Springs.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Swap those rates. 550 fr, 670 rear.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by MaddMatt &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Swap those rates. 550 fr, 670 rear.</TD></TR></TABLE>

That is an interesting idea...especially since I am keeping stock sway bars

I know this will get me used to the feeling of a looser car, so that when I do decide to upgrade my springs... the upgrade will just be an enhancement of a feeling that I am already used to as opposed to an all-together different feeling...

something to think about.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Warren &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Also, what most people don't realize is that fwd cars are horrible towards the end of races, so if it understeers a bit from lap 1, it's going to be miserable by lap 10. If it scares you on lap 1, it'll probably be just right towards the middle.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

What's the explaination for this, tire temps?

 

Front tires heat up a lot faster than the rears, since that is where the power is being applied, and the braking. Cold rears equals loose rear end until you get them up to temp, which takes a while, so you have to be careful not to have the rear overtake the front. Then when the rears are hot, understeer is your is your sidekick.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by MaddMatt &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Swap those rates. 550 fr, 670 rear.</TD></TR></TABLE>

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RR98ITR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">If you stay that soft run the ride height at something like 6 inches to the bottom of the rockers to start with.</TD></TR></TABLE>

so with the 550's up front you'd need what, like 6.25-6.5" ride height? maybe more? no thank you. i say run as much front spring as is needed to make the car work at the lowest legal ride height, then as much rear spring as you can stand/is needed to balance the car out.

for now, work with what you got.

nate

 

David, for what it's worth, this is the setup I've ended up with. The car feels great, I just need to relearn how to drive it after YEARS on a "streetable" setup.

- Shocks: Revalved (SST3) Koni Singles. Ground Comtrol upper hats instead of short bodied shocks (same effect but cheaper). The revalve is very much worth doing.
- Springs: 600# front, 1000 # rear. Some folks run harder springs but I find this keeps the car on the ground more at a bumpy place like Summit.
- Bushings: Energy urethane. I know there are people who think this stuff is trash, and they make a good case for why it is trash. But I remain convinced that properly maintained (e.g. greased) they're fine.
- Swaybars: stock front, 22mm Progress rear. A Saner adjustable rear would be nice though...
- Alignment: 1/16 out front, zero rear. Lower the car until you have 2 degrees of neg. camber or more at all four corners, then crossweight it, and you're done. My tire temps look good (I'm usually on Hoosiers). FWIW, my car's pretty low, but it's not "tucking tire" as the ricers would say.
- Special trick: switch the front upper control arms side to side. This moves the upper balljoint rearwards and nets you about 3 degrees of caster. This means you gain neg. camber as you add steering input, which is A Good Thing.

BTW, your 2600lb guess is probably pretty close. I'm at 2650 with my out-of-shape-*** in it, and we both have a lot of cage in our cars.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by solo-x &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
so with the 550's up front you'd need what, like 6.25-6.5" ride height? maybe more? no thank you. i say run as much front spring as is needed to make the car work at the lowest legal ride height, then as much rear spring as you can stand/is needed to balance the car out.

for now, work with what you got.

nate</TD></TR></TABLE>

Since I have camber adjustment (Skunk2 up front and Ingalls in the rear), my camber may not be as dependent on ride height as a car without adjustment.

I guess with ride height my main concerns are bottoming out and roll center issues (which I don't fully understand, but that article in Grassroots with the Mustang was a good explanation about roll centers and ride heights...but of course I don't have that issue anymore )

 

Don't swap the control arms.

Warren

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by davidnyc &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Since I have camber adjustment (Skunk2 up front and Ingalls in the rear), my camber may not be as dependent on ride height as a car without adjustment.

I guess with ride height my main concerns are bottoming out and roll center issues (which I don't fully understand, but that article in Grassroots with the Mustang was a good explanation about roll centers and ride heights...but of course I don't have that issue anymore )</TD></TR></TABLE>

camber wasn't my concern. higher ride height=higher cg=more weight transfer=lower total grip. and roll centers move nearly 1:1 on these cars, so that isn't an issue either.

nate

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Warren &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Don't swap the control arms.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Note: All suspension parts must retain their original attachment points at the chassis, and the suspension must maintain its original configuration.

Caster is good.... but rules are your friend.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Warren &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Don't swap the control arms.

Warren</TD></TR></TABLE>

What Warren said. Very not good idea.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Willard &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Caster is good.... but rules are your friend. </TD></TR></TABLE>

The attachment points don't change, so it's legal for HC. Aside from that though, this is primarily to increase stability of the car under braking.

Well, frankly, there's a really good mechanism to stabilize the car. It's round and it's already in my hands. A little sensitivity from the right foot, and you're all set. Honda got it right the first time around on this one.

Try it if you like. You'll have to push hard to notice the difference.

Warren

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Warren &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
The attachment points don't change, so it's legal for HC. Aside from that though, this is primarily to increase stability of the car under braking.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Warren, isn't that up to interpretation? I realize the bolt holes that the UCA attaches to do not change but how the UCA attaches does. You are now attaching the upright to the control arm in a way different than supplied by the factory no? I realize the same holes and ball joint threads are what connect a to b to c but seems one could argue that its not using the attachment points the car was designed to use. I believe I have asked about the legality of this for IT and was told it was not so assuming the rules have similar language, I'd think it might be questioned. Basically, I'd think that you'd have, by the rules, to be able to run aftermarket non-factory replacement UCAs such that this would be legal. I am not sure if there is an allowance for such.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Warren &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

The attachment points don't change, so it's legal for HC. Aside from that though, this is primarily to increase stability of the car under braking.

Well, frankly, there's a really good mechanism to stabilize the car. It's round and it's already in my hands. A little sensitivity from the right foot, and you're all set. Honda got it right the first time around on this one.

Try it if you like. You'll have to push hard to notice the difference.

Warren</TD></TR></TABLE>

Warren,

You appear to be saying two things here.

1) "Honda got it right the first time around on this one" - which says the car works better with stock caster.

and

2) "You'll have to push hard to notice the difference" - which suggests that swapping to the higher caster position IS of benefit (though perhaps minimal).

You got some 'splainin to do!

Scott, who's waiting with arms crossed and fingers drumming...

 

Adam: Yeah, we can run alternative upper control arms, so it's a bit of a moot point to argue swapping left to right. Skunk could just stamp L and R if we asked.

Scott: The car feels better coming out of turns to me. We don't really need the dynamic camber gain. I wonder too if any of the alignment setup info takes into account that we're dumb enough to race fwd cars

I fully agree that more caster is great on my E30 M3. I'm at 9 degrees I think, but it's a different animal altogether.

Warren

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Warren &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">... The car feels better coming out of turns to me. We don't really need the dynamic camber gain...</TD></TR></TABLE>

Feels Better - How?

Do you still have your power steering?

If not, is there a perceptible difference in steering effort between the two settings?

Scott, who is not only dumb enough to race a fwd car, but he's so dumb he doesn't care and actually enjoys it...

 

No power steering. It's amazing how much more you feel when you ditch it. Stock ITR's feel weird now, and wholly disconnected from the road.

I don't think there's a noticable steering effort increase going to swapped arms. Post apex, I feel like I need less steering. Other things have changed, so maybe it's not fair, but I'm staying with the stock setup.

I didn't say I didn't enjoy racing fwd. We can get away with murder when it comes to recovery of a loose car.

Warren

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> Very not good idea.</TD></TR></TABLE>
On some platforms it is, on some it is not.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Warren &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The attachment points don't change, so it's legal for HC. </TD></TR></TABLE> original configuration. is changed. :shrugg:

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Willard &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> original configuration. is changed. :shrugg:
</TD></TR></TABLE>

By that logic having adjusable camber is illegal too.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Warren &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Don't swap the control arms.

</TD></TR></TABLE>

and why ?

I dont think just over 3 degrees is enough to have any bind issues , and caster will allow you to run less static camber.

...which will do wonders for everything else.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by sackdz &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
By that logic having adjusable camber is illegal too.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

3.3 Suspension
- Camber adjustment devices are allowed on all vehicles

-&gt; you don't need logic when it's spelled out clearly in the rules. Swapped arms, or caster in general, is, however, not spelled out. Assuming it's legal is... well, assuming.