View Single Post
Old 04-26-2004, 12:05 PM   #11
Watkinsm3
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 51740
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: On an autox course in PA
Vehicle:
2004 STi A-Stock #24
Same as my Coffee : Black

Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jmott
camber loss due to body roll:

as the wheels move up in the wheel wells, they get MORE negative camber.

which is what happens to the outside tire

which is what you want, yes?


so why is there loss of negative camber due to body roll?
with the strut style suspension the amount of camber gain through compression is so small compared to roll over due to body motion. This is obvious from tire wear (i just corded two victoracers up front this weekend)... why? they corded on the front and the VERY outside edge was what went (about a half inch from the line that sperates the sidewall from the tread. The insides are near full tread. So the concept behind it is to help keep the tire flat in the corners with the limited negative camber gain (this ain't no double wish bone!!!). How do you do that? reduce body roll. How do you reduce body roll up front in stock? Massive stiffening of the front rollbar. Test different settings till you find the optimal balance between stiffness and contact patch.

If you get it right... the car should loosen up on turn in... exactly where it needs it. I'm still testing these things but I believe the theory sound. I believe that some of the FWD stock tuning techniques (such as a smaller front bar) should NOT be used with the STi. The vehicle should be treated as a strut equiped RWD car for setup purposes.

Adjustable front bar should be on the car next week... combined with an alignment this week (with weekend testing in between). We shall see... I'll have good benchmark drivers both weekends to help figure if an advantage was achieved. Then, of course, DC at the end of may.

-Matt
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Watkinsm3 is offline   Reply With Quote