Great post man.

 

That was exactly my conclusion, when running the toddler settings.

Also, the throttle-adjustability was dialled out.

Remember too, it's not a static setting, since the loaded wheel toes-in under roll or power. (PRWS)

 

Good thread

 

I absolutely agree, 25min either side is pretty uncomfortable on poorer roads as well. When I get a chance to do my geo again I'll be reducing it to between 10min and 15 which will make the tail feel less twitchy back to the original homo 04+ settings

 

Toes out.

Take a stock chassis and lower it, do nothing else.
All the wheels toe out.

 

 

Here's the full explanation at the bottom

 

Nice explanation re the NSX stolen from Honda:

Rear Suspension
The rear also uses an upper and lower control arm design, coil over shock absorber, a lateral control arm and an anti-roll bar. The hub carrier is made of cast aluminum. The rear suspension is mounted on a cast aluminum sub-frame which is mounted to the chassis.
Like the front, the rear suspension is also subject to a certain amount of compliance and bump steer. They are subjected to torque loads imposed by the driveshafts which do create bushing and control arm deflection under acceleration, deceleration, cornering and braking.
To overcome this, the upper and lower control arm bushings and the geometry were optimized to produce desirable deflection under given conditions. Under braking, acceleration, and during suspension compression, toe change at the rear is allowed a small degree of toe-in. Under braking and acceleration, this toe-in enhances straight line stability. During cornering, controlled toe-in under compression yields quicker and more responsive turn-in and helps to steer the car through a comer.
Additionally,the suspensionwas optimized to enhance anti-dive under braking and anti-squat under acceleration.
The net result of the development program is a sports car which remains virtually neutral up to the limits, is without quirky handling behavior such as drop throttle oversteer, and not only offers extremely high levels of lateral adhesion and responsiveness, but also makes the NSX easier to drive at the limit.


*Footnote: The cars' geometries are actually very similar; Honda wastes nothing!

The longer wheelbase wider track and lower height make the NSX seem a lot more stable and forgiving, especially as TC is standard. However, lose the rear of an NSX and suddenly the S2000 seems like a pussycat! ME cars seem to travel sideways forever.....

 

You know it's just possible you can over analyze things. Honda are reasonably wise and have offered a geometric template that can be tuned if neccasery by a good calibrator.

I think Chris will agree all that the manufacturer offers is a geometric average?

Example
I always drive on the motorway, you don't
I always have a full fuel tank, you don't
I take my wife to work, your not married
My washer bottles always empty, yours is not

Add a kebab on the way home then fact dissolves into theory...........

No one can offer an absolute "covers all" geometric solution because the variables are to vast..... We would rely on the complaint, the actual chassis positions and the intentions for the car.

It's an evolutionary process.

 

Also, people have different preferences; I tend to prefer a more aggressive set-up, although the Honda one is very good.

It's more about undersatnding the basic principles and that adding excessive rear toe-in will NOT cure the car's handling "problems" per se.

More that having insufficient toe will add a few interesting new ones!