Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 8:27 am
Anyone tried these kind of plates? Lowers 25 mm
The car vs. the LCA?
Page 7 of 9
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:03 am
Lower?
The car vs. the LCA?
The car vs. the LCA?
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:07 am
This moves the LCA mounting point up? Widens the track too?
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:34 am
Mats: Maybe not be the right thread to post this on, but yes it fixes the lower mounting points for LCA.
Zamani: Yes with new adjustable upper arms you can design it almost as wide as you want
Zamani: Yes with new adjustable upper arms you can design it almost as wide as you want
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 2:30 am
Exactly the right thread as it moves the RC as well as increases track. Nasty to use with thick torsion bars though.
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:56 am
Mounted on the car. Hopefully it gives me better traction on the track 
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 2:19 pm
Nice. Tell us how it works out!
Are the holes in the bar for adjustability or for saving weight?
Are the holes in the bar for adjustability or for saving weight?
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 7:38 am
The front swaybar from RS-racing is very heavy, so the holes are for lightening.
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:03 am
how many is the thicknes of the plate ?
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 7:32 pm
So after doing some preliminary camber adjustments (~1.8 degrees negative per side up front) I think that Micke (it was you wasn't it?) was spot on about the front anti roll bar being effectively stiffer now. The car actually feels much better on tight turns and quicker in transistions, but on sweepers or any smooth long bends, the front wants to understeer even harder than before, even with the drop spindles!
The thing is, I feel that the car is actually developing more grip somehow, even though the front end seems weaker.. I'm not sure how that one works out, but at 8-9th's driving, the car feels much better with the drop spindles. The tires don't squeal as loud under high load as before, probably because the camber is looking better under load now. I'll evcentually get a picture up of the car cornering from the front.
So, if the front end is now too stiff, will lowering the RC on the dedion make things even worse? Why do people lower the pivot point on the dedion? If I don't find another way to make the rear end stiffer, I'm going to either have to find a smaller AR bar up front, or figure out some kind of 2.5" spring setup, which I'm not too keen on, as this is a daily driver.
The thing is, I feel that the car is actually developing more grip somehow, even though the front end seems weaker.. I'm not sure how that one works out, but at 8-9th's driving, the car feels much better with the drop spindles. The tires don't squeal as loud under high load as before, probably because the camber is looking better under load now. I'll evcentually get a picture up of the car cornering from the front.
So, if the front end is now too stiff, will lowering the RC on the dedion make things even worse? Why do people lower the pivot point on the dedion? If I don't find another way to make the rear end stiffer, I'm going to either have to find a smaller AR bar up front, or figure out some kind of 2.5" spring setup, which I'm not too keen on, as this is a daily driver.
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 9:57 pm
lowering the RC in the rear will REDUCE the roll stiffness not increase it. So, as you guessed it will get worse.So, if the front end is now too stiff, will lowering the RC on the dedion make things even worse? Why do people lower the pivot point on the dedion? If I don't find another way to make the rear end stiffer,
You can do it now or delay it but in the end you will need to get the right springs in the back.
BTW, if you don't know why - then why do you want to lower the rear RC
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:56 pm
Not sure what I should do for rear springs then...
As to why on the rear RC, for starters, my Watt's is all twisted up and the arms are angled the opposite direction from the original design, couldn't be too healthy I can assume. But then again, I am asking what can be gained from that modification, and not asking how to do it aren't I
I'm going to have to do a lot moree reading before I adress the rear end though, so you're right about that.
As to why on the rear RC, for starters, my Watt's is all twisted up and the arms are angled the opposite direction from the original design, couldn't be too healthy I can assume. But then again, I am asking what can be gained from that modification, and not asking how to do it aren't I
I'm going to have to do a lot moree reading before I adress the rear end though, so you're right about that.
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:26 am
Interesting idea with the LCA plates..How do you feel about using alluminium in this application?? 
Id thinka mild steel bracket instead??
Id thinka mild steel bracket instead??
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 1:42 am
barry: Thought of making them in mild steel.Work in a maskinshop so I am aware of the possibility of alu cracking, but as these are quite thick massive bars (25MM) I decided to go for alu. Bolts used are M12*90 10.9 quality.
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:41 am
Micke wrote:
I will try adjustable droop stops in the front. I've been warned it might not be a good idea but there are some reasons for trying it.Anyway, it is for racing only.Micke wrote:Then I'll let you think about it.
OK for a few hours back to the living peopleMicke wrote:Then I'll let you think about it. Anyway, it is for racing only.
I see, your making a the ultimate ar bar, with infinite stiffness
who said bigger is not better...@Jarle/Barry I wouldn't trust alu with these kind of loads.
I would make the plate longer on the bottom side. Make sure you have defined contact pads to the chassis. And outside of the bolt holes to spread the forces nicer and don't create a very nasty load on the alu plate. Created by the torque due to the cornering G-forces.