S2000 Racing and Competition The S2000 on the track and Solo circuit. Some of the fastest S2000 drivers in the world call this forum home.

handling issue

Thread Tools
 
Old Mar 15, 2007 | 09:55 PM
  #21  
AlpineFD's Avatar
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 111
Likes: 10
From: SoCal
Default

that sounds like the rear ride height is too high, rear cg becomes high which results in too much weight jacking from inside rear tire.

If u think it's a damping issue, wouldn't u wanna stiffen the rear compression to decrease the oversteer in this stage? You are exiting corner, unwinding the steering wheel, on throttle, weight transfers from outside front to inside rear, stiffen rear compression makes the weight transfer to inside rear quicker.
Reply
Old Mar 15, 2007 | 10:48 PM
  #22  
mikegarrison's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 22,888
Likes: 3
From: Covington WA, USA
Default

Originally Posted by AlpineFD' date='Mar 15 2007, 10:55 PM
that sounds like the rear ride height is too high, rear cg becomes high which results in too much weight jacking from inside rear tire.

If u think it's a damping issue, wouldn't u wanna stiffen the rear compression to decrease the oversteer in this stage? You are exiting corner, unwinding the steering wheel, on throttle, weight transfers from outside front to inside rear, stiffen rear compression makes the weight transfer to inside rear quicker.
That kind of makes sense to me.

Also, there is a slight rake angle. Not sure how much, though. Maybe the rear is too high.
Reply
Old Mar 15, 2007 | 11:01 PM
  #23  
rlaifatt's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,666
Likes: 2
From: Encinitas (San Diego), CA
Default

Agree also if it's happening on corner exit. BTW, there is significant rear-end lift at speed in this car so the rake may increase at speed, unless you have a good wing.
Reply
Old Mar 16, 2007 | 05:59 AM
  #24  
taz5's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
From: Athens
Default

I'd soften the rear comp./rebount two klicks different from front.

Thicker sway bars aren't supposed to make the car handle better and minimize in wheel lift???? Especially when used with r-comp?????
Reply
Old Mar 16, 2007 | 06:24 AM
  #25  
TubeDriver's Avatar
Member (Premium)
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,337
Likes: 1
From: Gods Speed #57 Lemons #77
Default

Originally Posted by 3312DC' date='Mar 15 2007, 07:23 PM
if your at the recomended factory settings with the V3s, id suggest stiffening up the front.... not softening the rear. the settings they gave all seemed way to soft.
Cale has a lot of track time with the V3s, I agree with him (start by stiffening up the fronts a bit). Actually I would first try decrease front rebound AND decreasing rear compression. If that did not work I would stiffen the fronts up a bit. I would certainly try this befor pulling parts like your rear swaybar off your car which will require you to completely redo your settings.
Reply
Old Mar 16, 2007 | 08:36 AM
  #26  
SR71BB's Avatar
Registered User
Gold Member (Premium)
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,760
Likes: 0
From: ghettoville, abq, nm
Default

Originally Posted by cthree' date='Mar 15 2007, 09:00 PM
Try less negative camber on the rear.
-3.0 on the rear is too much - you're giving up a bunch of contact patch. I'd go as low as -1.75, especially if you're getting any wheelspin on slow corner exit.
Reply
Old Mar 16, 2007 | 08:45 AM
  #27  
TrackStar's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,988
Likes: 3
From: Franklin Lakes
Default

AP2 rear subframe and control arms would probably do the trick. It got rid of the twitchiness for me. rear bsk as well
Reply
Old Mar 16, 2007 | 09:23 AM
  #28  
krazik's Avatar
Administrator
25 Year Member
Liked
Loved
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 17,004
Likes: 7
From: Santa Cruz, CA, US
Default

Originally Posted by SR71BB' date='Mar 16 2007, 08:36 AM
-3.0 on the rear is too much - you're giving up a bunch of contact patch. I'd go as low as -1.75, especially if you're getting any wheelspin on slow corner exit.
I totally disagree. -3 is about perfect in the back and about -4 in the front. even on stock wheels. You don't give up contact patch in a corner w/ those numbers.
Reply
Old Mar 16, 2007 | 11:57 AM
  #29  
TubeDriver's Avatar
Member (Premium)
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,337
Likes: 1
From: Gods Speed #57 Lemons #77
Default

Originally Posted by krazik' date='Mar 16 2007, 11:23 AM
I totally disagree. -3 is about perfect in the back and about -4 in the front. even on stock wheels. You don't give up contact patch in a corner w/ those numbers.
I agree. If anything, he should be increasing rear camber because this car likes a little more -cam in back compared to the front.
Reply
Old Mar 16, 2007 | 12:19 PM
  #30  
rlaifatt's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,666
Likes: 2
From: Encinitas (San Diego), CA
Default

Originally Posted by TubeDriver' date='Mar 16 2007, 11:57 AM
I agree. If anything, he should be increasing rear camber because this car likes a little more -cam in back compared to the front.
Actually, I think most of the racers would agree that this car prefers more camber in the front. We all modify our suspension arms so we can get -4* or so up front. With the stock arms, you can get more camber in the rear than the front, and more is better, so it just happens that the fast setup for stock arms is more camber in the rear.
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:12 AM.