Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I won't know for a few weeks as I've got a clutch to do, a cage to fit, a new seat mount to make, and a splitter to make and fit before I can get to the track =\

Keep tabs on my build thread though, I always talk results in there.

  • 2 months later...
  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What do people recommend for caster alignment for semis? Is it better to have more caster and less camber or the other way around? and how much is too much?

Thanks

yep more castor, less camber. Castor is dynamic camber so you get the benefits without the drawback on straight line traction.

you have too much caster when either:

* you cannot turn the steering wheel

* the wheel fits the guard or firewall

rightio, thanks duncan :)

getting an alignment next week, I think this should be ok

Front, -3deg camber, 1mm total toe out, 5deg castor

Rear, -1.5 camber, 1mm total toe in ( till i hit a bump, then 11ty camber and toe)

sounds like a reasonable start. I would go a little more camber in the GTR but I think your car is strut front end, right? I'd also go less toe at the rear but again it is different to gtr setup.

On the advice of other S13 drivers I ended up with almost -3 fron and -1.5 rear camber, and total 2mm toe out front and total 2mm toe in rear,

Castor I'm not sure, as much as I could get was the advice.

The toe will be interesting and may be finessed at the track.

Yep, mac strut.

Only issue with toe at the rear dan is my car has semi trailing arm irs, every time the suspension moves the alignment changes drastically. from static to full bump is something like .5mm to 12mm a side. same with camber

Don't worry, you'll go faster than me anyway, toe will make no difference when the driver is a ham sandwich (me).

:D

Would you try doing the alignment yourself? as that was why I started this thread.

Only issue with toe at the rear dan is my car has semi trailing arm irs, every time the suspension moves the alignment changes drastically. from static to full bump is something like .5mm to 12mm a side. same with camber

Get onto Stew Wilkins, he's been playing with 1600s and Z cars for a long time, should have some gear and know how.

http://www.swmotorsport.com.au/index.php

  • 9 months later...

thought id bump this thread up again. :)

i now have a r32/33 multilink rear setup in my car, what alignment do people recommend for them? im using A050s at the moment

No idea from me, but I can bump this also and say that my car handled quite well in my opinion at the logic day I did, it felt nice and direct.

It seemed to air on the id of understeer at the limit in a faster speed sweeper which I think is roughly how you want it anyway?

I wouldn't mind it to be a touch more neutral so I'm assuming a little less front camber or a little firmer in the rear?

James I reckon the big trick is to install adjustable upper links in that rear end. That will allow you to get the camber setting you want, and most importantly, to dial out bump steer from big toe changes as it moves through its travel. Dynamic change is what can make them a handful, as you'd know with the old semi trailing arms.

I'd imagine yours will not be using a whole heap of travel so it's going to be easier to dial things in. It should be possible to get minimal toe change if you're using 50mm of bump and similar for droop.

Static settings, I'd think the 1 - 1.5 neg camber and 1 - 2mm toe in per side. Run it and go from there.

Thanks man. It's had adjustable gear in so it so that won't be a problem. Yeah, the old semi trailing irs is/was quite a handful. Hoping even with some bump Steer the new setup will be a massive improvement.

I had it aligned today. Went with -1.5 camber as you suggested but dialed it back to 0.7mm toe in a side. Rear Toe is used mainly for stability is it not? If I need I can adjust it at the track.

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

    • Yeah, all the crude is used for fuels and petrochem feedstocks (pesticides, many other chemicals, etc etc). But increasingly over the last few decades, much of the petrochem synthessis has started with methane because NG has been cheaper than oil, cleaner and easier and more consistent to work with, etc etc etc. So it's really had to say what the fraction either way is. Suffice to say - the direct fuels fraction is not insigificant. Heavy transport uses excruciatingly large amounts. Diesel is wasted in jet heaters in North American garages and workshops, thrown down drill holes in quarries, pissed all over the wall to provide electricity to certain outback communities, etc etc. Obviously road transport, and our pet project, recreational consumption camouflaged as road transport, is a smaller fraction of the total liquid HC consumption again. If you're talking aboust Aussie cars' contribution to the absolute total CO2 production of the country, then of course our share of the cubic mile of coal that is used for power generation, metallurgy, etc adds up to a big chunk. Then there is the consumption of timber. Did you know that the production of silicon metal, for example, is done in Australia by using hardwood? And f**king lots and lots and lots of hardwood at that. Until recently, it was f**king jarrah! There are many such sneaky contributors to CO2 production in industry and farming. NG is used in massive quantities in Australia, for power gen, for running huge water pumps (like, 1-2MW sized caterpillar V16 engines running flat out pumping water) for places like mine sites and minerals/metals refineries. And there are just a huge number of those sort of things going on quietly in the background. So NG use is a big fraction of total CO2 production here. I mean, shit, I personally design burners that are used in furnaces here in Oz that use multiple MW of gas all day every day. The largest such that I've done (not here in Oz) was rated to 150MW. One. Single. Gas burner. In a cement clinker kiln. There are thousands of such things out there in the world. There are double digits of them just here in Oz. (OK< just barely double digits now that a lot of them have shut - and they are all <100MW). But it's all the same to me. People in the car world (like this forum's users) would like to think that you only have to create an industrial capability to replace the fuel that they will be using in 10 years time, and imagine that everyone else will be driving EVs. And while the latter part of that is largely true, the liquid HC fuel industry as a whole is so much more massive than the bit used for cars, that there will be no commercial pressure to produce "renewable" "synthetic" fuels just for cars, when 100x that much would still be being burnt straight from the well. You have to replace it all, or you're not doing what is required. And then you get back to my massive numbers. People don't handle massive numbers at all well. Once you get past about 7 or 8 zeros, it becomes meaningless for most people.
    • @GTSBoy out of the cubic mile of crude oil we burn each year, I wonder how much of that is actually used for providing petrol and diesel.   From memory the figure for cars in Australia, is that they only add up to about 2 to 3% of our CO2 production. Which means something else here is burning a shit tonne of stuff to make CO2, and we're not really straight up burning oil everywhere, so our CO2 production is coming from elsewhere too.   Also we should totally just run thermal energy from deep in the ground. That way we can start to cool the inside of the planet and reverse global warming (PS, this last paragraph is a total piss take)
    • As somebody who works in the energy sector and lives in a subzero climate, i'm convinced EV's will never be the bulk of our transport.  EV battery and vehicle companies over here have been going bankrupt on a weekly basis the last year. 
    • With all the rust on those R32s, how can it even support all the extra weight requirements. Probably end up handling as well as a 1990s Ford Falcon Taxi.
    • Yes...but look at the numbers. There is a tiny tiny fraction of the number of Joules available, compared to what is used/needed. Just because things are "possible" doesn't make them meaningful.
×
×
  • Create New...