Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I have a 2 way, but the understeer actually reduced when I fitted it - probably because I could push harder through the corners under acceleration.

The thing is the understeer is occuring under constant speed cornering, not if trail braking (must admit, I try and avoid trail braking:))- and when I power on, it goes away as well. I could understand it if it was only under accel or decel.

Ahh cool,

In that case I'd say the tyres. Constant speed corners should (I think) have the car balanced, but of course as your cornering you'll wipe off a little bit of speed (due to the change of direction) which would push the weight bias forward, working your front tyres harder.

Anyway, enough of my ramblings..

J

Steve,

I got my kg/mm to lbs conversion all wrong. Your right 8k (450lbs) is not massive and is certainly what I would use on the front end of the skyline on the road. What I said before may still ring true in this case. Your spring rate, front to rear is significantly different. The front springs (even with the extra weight of the front end) will stop compressing, causing the front tyres to slip before the rear end. 3K (170lbs) is pretty soft and creates a large ratio difference between front to rear. Id also be surprised if that 2 way locker LSD isn’t causing some turn in understeer. Like a welded rear diff, turn in is traditionally shocking.

ADM

Steve, I agree with the other guys on this one mate - I'd say a large part of your understeer issue is due to the differing grip levels of the Revspecs and RE540S's.

I also agree wholeheartedly with Pete (Fatz)... when the 540's do let go, they go BIG TIME!

Hi Steve, I would do 2 things and 2 only, until you thoroughly test the results.

1. Same tyre compound all round, you have rear tyres that are capable of 3 seconds per lap faster times at Mallalla than your front tyres. Even them up and you can then make a sensible decision.

2. Remove the rear HICAS, as you know we have NO Skylines with the HICAS still on them. A computer is deciding the rear toe angles for you, this is never a good thing.

When you have done those 2 things, then test it. At the same time you need to check for bottoming out, mid corner understeer is typical symptom of the lack of front suspension travel. Put a cable tie tight around the shock shaft, so that when the shock compresses, it moves the cable tie to the lowest point. Then you see how much it travels, measure the distance and make sure it is not hitting the bump stops too hard. If it is, then raise the ride height and see if that makes any difference.

If you still have mid corner understeer then soften up the front bar all the way. If you still have mid corner understeer then I would recheck the front spring rate. As you know I never run more than 450 lbs in a 2wd Skyline, which is the same as you have. With the 27 mm front bar on full hard, it lifts the inside front wheel off the ground. I can feel it, so I back the front bar off a bit to keep it on the ground, then adjust the rear bar to balance the handling. You simply can't get less body roll than that, you need the tyres in contact with the track as much as you can.

Lastly I assume you are running the 24 mm adjustable rear bar, there are some 22 mm ones out there, but we only use them on GTR's.

Hope that helps

Ooops I nearly forgot, I have to check in the box, but I don't think we have a rear spring rate lower than 190 lbs for the circuit race cars. I used 150 lbs on the drag GTST that I did, it worked a charm for that purpose. Maybe the 170 lbs is a little light, but 20 lbs (up to 190 lbs) is really fine tuning. If you can borrow a set of 200 lb springs and try them, it may be worthwhile. On high speed circuits, like Philip Island, we run up to 250 lbs, but it is one smooth track.

I may be able to find a set around 200 lbs for you to try, what dimensions are your springs? Top and bottom ID and free height, we use 90/75/250. They are ground flat both top and bottom. Let me know.

Hi Guys, tyres sizes vary lots. A quick example, we use Yokohama A032R's and there are 2 sizes that work OK for us on 8" rims, 235/40/17 and 245/45/17. Now from the sizes you would say the 245/45/17's should be 245 mm wide, but they are 242 mm wide, (-3mm or 1.2%) so not too much difference. The 235/40/17's are 239 mm wide, (+4mm or 1.7%) again not too much difference. But what looks like a 10 mm difference in width on paper is in reality only 3mm and that is from the same tyre manufacturer and the same tyre type.

The Yokohama A032R's have quite rounded shoulders, typical for an "R" type tyre. I recently tried a set of Hankooks that were labelled 245/40/17 and they measured 254 mm because of the square shoulders (+9mm or 4%). So if I compare them to the 245/45/17 A032R's there is a 13 mm difference between 2 supposedly "245" tyres.

Bottom line, tyre sizes are really only "indicators" the tolerances seem quite large at up to 4%. If the widths are this varied, makes you wonder what the real world circumference differences are as that affects speedo accuracy.

Interesting.

How did you find the hankooks?  Any chance of a review?

cheers

Sorry I can't, there is a secrecy agreement on that contract. They are not available for sale yet anyway. When they are, I think the contract releases me and I can then comment.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Very decent bit of kit. Definitely black it out I reckon.  
    • Because people who want that are buying euros. The people with the money to buy the aftermarket heads and blocks aren’t interested in efficiency or making -7 power, they’re making well over 1,000hp and pretty much only drive them at full throttle  best way to way make money is know your customer base and what they want and don’t spend money making things they don’t want. 
    • It's not, but it does feel like a bit of a missed opportunity regardless. For example, what if the cylinder head was redesigned to fit a GDI fuel system? It's worth like two full points of compression ratio when looking at modern GDI turbo vs PFI turbo. I'm pretty reliably surprised at how much less turbo it takes to make similar power out of a modern engine vs something like an RB26. Something with roughly the same dimensions as a -7 on an S55 is making absolutely silly power numbers compared to an RB26. I know there's a ton of power loss from things like high tension rings, high viscosity oil, clutch fan, AWD standby loss, etc but it's something like 700 whp in an F80 M3 vs 400 whp in an R33 GTR. The stock TF035HL4W turbos in an F80 M3 are really rather dinky little things and that's enough to get 400 whp at 18 psi. This just seems unwise no? I thought the general approach is if you aren't knock limited the MFB50 should be held constant through the RPM range. So more timing with RPM, but less timing with more cylinder filling. A VE-based table should accordingly inverse the VE curve of the engine.
    • I've seen tunes from big name workshops with cars making in excess of 700kW and one thing that stood out to me, is that noone is bothering with torque management. Everyone is throwing in as much timing as the motor can take for a pull. Sure that yields pretty numbers on a dyno, but it's not keeping these motors together for more than a few squirts down the straight without blowing coolant or head gaskets. If tuners, paid a bit more attention and took timing out in the mid range, managed boost a bit better, you'll probably see less motors grenading. Not to name names, or anything like that, but I've seen a tune, from a pretty wild GT-R from a big name tuner and I was but perplexed on the amount of timing jammed into it. You would have expected a quite a bit less timing at peak torque versus near the limiter, but there was literally 3 degrees of difference. Sure you want to make as much as possible throughout the RPM range, but why? At the expense of blowing motors? Anyhow I think we've gone off topic enough once again lol.
    • Because that’s not what any of them are building these heads or blocks for. It’s to hold over over 1000hp at the wheels without breaking and none of that stuff is required to make power 
×
×
  • Create New...