One for the Suspension Gurus..
02-09-2011, 02:22 PM
#12
In general, a increased roll resistance at the rear will bias towards oversteer.
Be that from bigger rear bars, or stiffer rear springs.
The car understeers like all road cars out of the box, so IMO its much preferered for 'ambitious' drivers.
I have upped the 3'er rear bar from a whimpy 13mm to a solid 20mm.
Just when you think you are at the cornering limit of grip in a long steady bend, you push more and it tucks in nicely.
I wish I did a bigger rear bar on the S2000 now
Be that from bigger rear bars, or stiffer rear springs.
The car understeers like all road cars out of the box, so IMO its much preferered for 'ambitious' drivers.
I have upped the 3'er rear bar from a whimpy 13mm to a solid 20mm.
Just when you think you are at the cornering limit of grip in a long steady bend, you push more and it tucks in nicely.
I wish I did a bigger rear bar on the S2000 now
02-10-2011, 02:08 AM
#13
Originally Posted by lovegroova,Feb 9 2011, 09:10 PM
I don't think the MY08 cars have CR suspension, but Type-S suspension - there's hints at a slightly softer setup here http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/FirstD...-Type-S/229147/
and here http://www.autoblog.com/2007/10/23/officia...a-s2000-type-s/
Nick, any thoughts on that paper I linked to - does it makes any sense?
Is the MY99's waywardness principally down to that stiff anti-rollbar?
and here http://www.autoblog.com/2007/10/23/officia...a-s2000-type-s/
Nick, any thoughts on that paper I linked to - does it makes any sense?
Is the MY99's waywardness principally down to that stiff anti-rollbar?
I couldn't read all those tiny jpgs - I wish it were possible to link into a .pdf here.
Basically though, yes. The '99s were finally (last-minute fiddling) fitted with relatively stiff rear springs & a very stiff ARB. Keeps the tyres very upright whilst the front rolls more & understeers a bit. Trouble is, it's the roll that yer ears detect & brain interprets as yer arse sliding, which means the car is reaching its limits.
Now the correct thing to do would have been to soften it up, so the breakaway was detected earlier, or (since rice bits were available) fit a stronger front ARB, which allows the rear to begin to roll more in a corner and although that creates MORE oversteer by raising front adhesion, it's easier to detect its onset. Which is what the US used to do.
Indeed, I bought the car believing I might need to make such a fix, but the answer turned out to be something rather surprising; a wobbly chassis!
Honda probably went too far the other way, stiffening up the fronts & slackening the rears of the 17" cars. I suppose at least one doesn't need to pee so often...
Anyway, it WAS the Type-S which had spring rates closer to the 99 and seemed to fix the handling. I should imagine it adversely affects the miles per piss figure though.
That's my only real caveat; IIRC, rates DO vary between US, EU & JDM cars from year to year. I've never found a definitive listing for EU.
02-10-2011, 02:26 AM
#16
Just to add; Mikey/Nitron seem to have wound up fairly close to the CR (I wish I could find out what the actual S rates were) but I'd add the caveat that it depends on ARB rates too!
The very high rear ARB rate in conjunction with high spring rates made the original cars a tad poor on bumpy corners (unless you're nuts).
Ideally for road use one needs a more compliant spring to maintain contact (which is why all rice kits are NFU in the UK) and a compensatory ARB.
The problem with ARBs is, aside from roll/breakaway detection (which is why the sublime X1/9, like most FIATs didn't use ARBs at all) is they ruin the ride by interconnecting your IRS.
You can spend MONTHS fine-tuning this stuff, which is why Honda & tuners do.
Point to note is; for track use, the CR is notably faster than the US standard car. So cribbing its spring rates & ARB rates is a good start. The Type-S likewise for fast road.
Another caveat; springs do not act on their own! Since we do not know the damping rates, we have another variable error!
All I can recommend is; the Nitron kits seem to offer an excellent ride/handling compromise on the UK roads, IME. Especially for more nose-heavy S2000s. But I'm sure they ain't about to reveal their damping settings!
The very high rear ARB rate in conjunction with high spring rates made the original cars a tad poor on bumpy corners (unless you're nuts).
Ideally for road use one needs a more compliant spring to maintain contact (which is why all rice kits are NFU in the UK) and a compensatory ARB.
The problem with ARBs is, aside from roll/breakaway detection (which is why the sublime X1/9, like most FIATs didn't use ARBs at all) is they ruin the ride by interconnecting your IRS.
You can spend MONTHS fine-tuning this stuff, which is why Honda & tuners do.
Point to note is; for track use, the CR is notably faster than the US standard car. So cribbing its spring rates & ARB rates is a good start. The Type-S likewise for fast road.
Another caveat; springs do not act on their own! Since we do not know the damping rates, we have another variable error!
All I can recommend is; the Nitron kits seem to offer an excellent ride/handling compromise on the UK roads, IME. Especially for more nose-heavy S2000s. But I'm sure they ain't about to reveal their damping settings!
02-10-2011, 02:42 AM
#17
UK Moderator
Originally Posted by Nick Graves,Feb 10 2011, 11:08 AM
Type-S acutally sounds right - my memory is a bit ...something.
I couldn't read all those tiny jpgs - I wish it were possible to link into a .pdf here.
Basically though, yes. The '99s were finally (last-minute fiddling) fitted with relatively stiff rear springs & a very stiff ARB. Keeps the tyres very upright whilst the front rolls more & understeers a bit. Trouble is, it's the roll that yer ears detect & brain interprets as yer arse sliding, which means the car is reaching its limits.
Now the correct thing to do would have been to soften it up, so the breakaway was detected earlier, or (since rice bits were available) fit a stronger front ARB, which allows the rear to begin to roll more in a corner and although that creates MORE oversteer by raising front adhesion, it's easier to detect its onset. Which is what the US used to do.
Indeed, I bought the car believing I might need to make such a fix, but the answer turned out to be something rather surprising; a wobbly chassis!
Honda probably went too far the other way, stiffening up the fronts & slackening the rears of the 17" cars. I suppose at least one doesn't need to pee so often...
Anyway, it WAS the Type-S which had spring rates closer to the 99 and seemed to fix the handling. I should imagine it adversely affects the miles per piss figure though.
That's my only real caveat; IIRC, rates DO vary between US, EU & JDM cars from year to year. I've never found a definitive listing for EU.
I couldn't read all those tiny jpgs - I wish it were possible to link into a .pdf here.
Basically though, yes. The '99s were finally (last-minute fiddling) fitted with relatively stiff rear springs & a very stiff ARB. Keeps the tyres very upright whilst the front rolls more & understeers a bit. Trouble is, it's the roll that yer ears detect & brain interprets as yer arse sliding, which means the car is reaching its limits.
Now the correct thing to do would have been to soften it up, so the breakaway was detected earlier, or (since rice bits were available) fit a stronger front ARB, which allows the rear to begin to roll more in a corner and although that creates MORE oversteer by raising front adhesion, it's easier to detect its onset. Which is what the US used to do.
Indeed, I bought the car believing I might need to make such a fix, but the answer turned out to be something rather surprising; a wobbly chassis!
Honda probably went too far the other way, stiffening up the fronts & slackening the rears of the 17" cars. I suppose at least one doesn't need to pee so often...
Anyway, it WAS the Type-S which had spring rates closer to the 99 and seemed to fix the handling. I should imagine it adversely affects the miles per piss figure though.
That's my only real caveat; IIRC, rates DO vary between US, EU & JDM cars from year to year. I've never found a definitive listing for EU.
PDF file link is in the thread, it's a good read - http://www.mccanless.net/Characterization_...prings_rev1.pdf
02-10-2011, 02:42 AM
#18
Originally Posted by Nick Graves,Feb 10 2011, 12:26 PM
Point to note is; for track use, the CR is notably faster than the US standard car. So cribbing its spring rates & ARB rates is a good start.
But the CR has working front and rear aero.
So no good comparing track times between them
and wrongly assuming its down to suspension.
02-10-2011, 02:43 AM
#19
Thread Starter
So as far as a 99 model is concerned, getting the spring rates equal may provide the best solution for a blend of fast road and track?