whats your front spring matt? I wanna compare a couple numbers on my spread sheet real fast. A few people are running that bar on that setting, you, dave, dr. jay, and I'm sure theres a few others. Although random1, thenick, and a few others are way way soft. the car has alot more steering wheel degrees avalible before it begains to push with less bar, feels like it has more bite, and the shocks acually move with less bar but it transitions like a minivan. My bar on full stiff transtions perfect but half to watch it and not ask for to much from the front tires. For example you couldn't turn the steering wheel 90 degrees and exspect it not to push, It didn't like any steering inputs over 65-70 degrees. On the other hand a car with a softer bar you can turn the steering wheel 90 degrees and it won't push at all but the inputs feel delayed. Thats why on day one I couldn't slalom for shit. I was making my normal 60 degrees steering input and exspecting the car to "turn" but it wasn't. So I pinched every cone in the slaloms and my timing on getting in and out on boxes was way off. Des was able to drive it because he's used to a softer bar and from watching his video he was making 80-90 degree inputs where I was trying to get the car to do the same thing with my 60 degree inputs. This is really wierd for me since last year when I was at the blytheville evo school andy was braging about how perfect my slaloms were. After adding a click of bar the car felt alot better.

Now I know why I thought your car was pushy to me. Running that big of a bar really limits the useable steering degrees. I was asking to much of the front tires. It's all about what you get used to I guess. I myself need a pretty stiff bar although I don't want to add any more to my front roll stiffness. I need that magical 850 spring hyperco doesn't make.

 

800lb

 

matt,

your front roll bias is alittle higher then mine but not by much. I'm at 69.5 and your at 70.77. your natural frequency rate is 2.563 front and 2.375 rear. Thats a 8% difference. I'm at 2.719 front and 2.295 rear, A 18% difference. I wanted to be at a 15% difference because according to the chassis set up book it said to be at a 15% natural fequency rate difference with the end of the drive wheels on the lower end. I'll prolly end up going 800f/650r or 850f/700r if I can find a 850 spring. 900f/750r I think is just too stiff. Plus I'd like to have my NF rate in the 2.563-2.642 range, not in the 2.719 range like I am now. Although I'm worried about eatting fenders with softer springs.


ps- anyone that wants my spead sheet is more then welcome to it. I got it from random1 back about a year ago. I added the miata bar and the monster bar to it. Pm me your email and I'll send it that way.

 

Fwiw I haven't got into the fenders yet and I'm 625/500. Or maybe I have but the car is just too beat up to tell

 

Eric your on the akne bar or how ever you spell it on full stiff. There's no way in hell you'd eat some fender. The fender comes into play when you run a soft bar

 

Blade is clocked at almost 45* and on the small local lot I turn it to full soft.

 

71:29 roll bias?? Holy crap! That sounds like an AP1 BS bias.

I'm liking my 56:44 distribution. It's a handful at lapping days...

 

We are both in ap1s but alot of ap2s are like that too. It's to transition fast and keep the rear wheels on the ground

 

In BS, AP1 vs AP2 made a difference with how much bar it took to keep the inside rear tire on the ground. With all of the parameters you can tune in STR, it doesn't make much difference which generation you have for spring/sway/balance tuning. I agree that a high roll stiffness feels good in the transitions, but a high roll stiffness setup doesn't have to result in a high front:rear bias. Have you tried a stiffer rear bar and slightly softer front bar setting?

 

the car gets very oversteery.