S2000RJ

I've been watching all of the threads about the causes of crashes with interest, but has anyone considered the wheel alignment?

I've had my car for close to three years, the first two I was commuting 36 miles a day through all weather including ice/snow. Since I had the revised suspension settings applied last may, I have found it very easy to spin the rear wheels. I find that too much/heavy throttle will cause the tyres to lose grip when pulling away from standstill, even on warm dry roads. I know I was very critical of the new settings at first, but this was because Chiswick Honda had applied the rear axle settings to the front as well and the steering rack / EPS was off centre after John Coopers bodge.

I haven't used the car much over this winter, so have not tried the new (correct) settings on snow / ice. I used to be able to drive at about 25mph on snow, before the rear started to fishtail. I am concerned that if the wheels can spin easily in the dry, there must be less rear end stability in poor conditions. I presume the original settings were calculated by Honda Japan after taking into account many variables and after months of testing. The UK settings were based on experimentation at MIRA with a datalogged car. Is it possible that Honda (UK) have overstepped the mark? I realise that they have tried to achieve a more gradual break away of rear end grip, but has this left the car with too little rear end stability for poor conditions?

Turtle

Any fault on the car - tire pressures, tire type, wear, lsd problems, alignment, etc, etc, change where the limit is.

But the car won't go over the limit without input from the driver. It's the driver responsability to check the condition of his/her vehicle, and drive appropriately for the conditions.

I might not be popular for saying this, but it's very rare for a crash to be caused by anything other than driver error. I haven't read about any crash that I wouldn't attribute to driver error.

-Brian.

S2000RJ

Brian, I would agree with you on that point, especially where greater anticipation or awareness of the conditions is concerned. My question is concerning the changes, which were designed to give greater feel to the steering, presumably to allow drivers to go faster with more confidence. I believe this has reduced the total grip and rear end stability. Has anyone else found the limit so low in poor conditions to make the car more dangerous as a result? In previous winters, I felt it was only safe to drive at 25mph on snow, with everyone overtaking me. I'm not sure what I would have done if the car was fishtailing at 15mph.

R33

Tell that to Firestone

UK Paul

Rob,

By 'correct' do you not mean 'revised'. I've always been happy with the original (3 year+) settings on mine, they fall in the range apparently that the revised settings cover, if one felt compelled to get the revised settings where they just at the 'opposite' end of the spectrum?

Recent crashes have been newer cars I think, are some people maybe wrongly under the impression 2002 settings make the car like a limpet perhaps?

Personally I try not to get close to the edge of 'drifting' as its far to easy to panic and lift, I only really let the rear go on the track or on mini roundabouts, with plenty of opposite lock its a riot!

s2000db

Didn't the new settings inrease the amount of negative rear camber?? (applied to pre 2002 cars)

The result would be more lateral rear grip, but less staight line traction - i.e less tyre contact patch in static conditions.

Turtle

The car's only more dangerous with a lower limit if the driver pushes past it. Since you know the limits lower, you've got the choice how hard you drive.

The alternate geometry setting change the feel, and the breakaway primarily. Whether they change things in different conditions is in part, down to how you drive. For example, increasing the rear toe-in adds a little more self correction to the back end with weight transfer/throttle changes. Whether this works better for an individual depends not just on how the car is ultimatly reacting, but down to how the driver perceives this.

Anyway, closer to the original topic, if you feel the original chassic alignment worked better for you in the past, change back. The only way to know is to try the same alignment when everything else is in the same condition - tires, driver, weather etc.

-Brian.

Turtle

-Brian.

Turtle

I suppose it would be interesting to see if there are more MY2002 with the changed dampers, spring rates, and anti-roll bars.

On alignment, if alignment is a factor, I suspect it would be more a care of a car badly out of alignment than anything. I know my car was supplied aligned like a bananna - how many S2000's are out there that have never been properly 4 wheel aligned? (Mine's been done 3 times so far. The 3rd was to check if it had drifted over 6 months - there was barely any change.)

-Brian.

S2000RJ

Paul,

I mean correct and revised. I did not have much choice about the new alignment, as Honda (UK) told me that I would have them When it was performed by Chiswick Honda, they used the wrong setting for the front toe. They set the front toe the same as the rear (twice the max tolerance). This made the steering very heavy and the car handled like a dog, because they had not undone the previous bodge, by John Cooper. The steering wheel was 30 degrees out with the wheels straight ahead, so they adjusted the track rods. This resulted in more lock and different steering assistance depending on which way I was steering. Anyway, I had this corrected by Marshall Honda in October, but I was never able to compare the car back-back with the old settings.

Is this because the drivers of the older cars are more experienced, or are the newer cars more prone to flying off the road?

IIRC it was very hard to drift the car on the original suspension settings. I never really pushed the limits, because the steering was so neutral and the car always felt so capable. With the new settings, I find the rear stepping out all the time if I am pushing hard.