Blackedout011TC

iTrader: (2)

Shoot me some pics of your r/c's sometime, still got a ton of my money pits in photobucket. I miss the hobby but the Tc is my only indulgence at this point.
On topic, you get the car dialed in? plenty of good info here....I knew the engineers would be all over this one.

engifineer

Call names? I simply questioned why you are making up things. I never said anything about balancing my car without scales ... you made that up, imagined it, etc.

You cannot practically balance the load on all tires on a practical street car.

What do the numbers mean in my formula? The two cross weights should EQUAL. That is the way every race car, performance street car, etc with adjustable ride height is set up to balance the loads as best as is possible. Doing a side to side comparison just attempts to equal out side to side loads, it does nothing to make a consistent handling car since you completely ignore front to back weight distribution. That is why everyone uses a corner balance approach, which uses cross weights to properly include front/rear and right/left weight distribution. Do that and what you are describing is not needed. Why take the time to halfway do the job, when with the same effort and tools you can properly corner balance the car, which is the part you need in the end. Corner balancing in a sense makes sure your car is not acting like a chair with a short leg when you are in a corner, which makes the car corner differently in a right hand corner than it will in a left hand corner. The idea is to make it corner consistently in both directions. There is no mystery to the numbers, it is not "theory", it is the way people have been setting up coilovers forever.

In your example, you would raise/lower the appropriate corners to get the cross weights equal (using your approach would NOT do this, which is why you came out with unequal numbers). I balanced my car side to side with a tape measure and level ground to get it to the alignment shop so I could put it on scales and properly corner balance it. After corner balancing, my cross weights are 50/50 using the method I described. This is VERY common, VERY well known, not my own method. It is also very easy to understand. I feel like you are still trying to slowly add validity to your point so people dont think you were incorrect ;) And I will leave it at that. People can go out and read what thousands of others with experience have done and see how to set it up. They dont need this thread to tell them that.

If it makes you feel better to try to pick a fight, tell me I (and everyone else that has ever set up a car) am wrong, you are the know it all, etc, go right ahead and do so. I will continue setting my car up the correct way. Hopefully if anything others on here will go learn for themselves and do it the right way as well.

2tCornot2tC

It looks like you are spreading all kinds of misinformation. In another thread, you wrote that TEIN SSs are junk, yet that’s what you’ve got on your ’05 tC. Statics don’t compute with your method (cross balancing) but it is probably close enough for the masses. All you need to know is how to add to do it your way…any mechanic can do that. The accurate method (mine) requires the one doing the setting to also know how to multiply. There is only one winner and a bunch of losers. He who makes the combination of compromises wins! And that’s why we run the races.

engifineer

No, I (very clearly, but you only include what fits in your argument) stated that in the world of high end suspension systems, Teins are considered low quality. So are JIC (they are considered JUNK in most serious circles) and even Koni has its big shortcomings when it comes to linear adjustments and damping rates. I have stated this a million times, including stating that for off the shelf options for the tC, the Teins are decent, but are not considered "high quality" when it comes to serious competition setups. Like I said, you just like to include what fuels your arguments.

So corner balancing is used by race teams and professionals everywhere, but somehow it is not the best way ? The predominant knowledge in the real world says otherwise, but live in your own world if you like. You actually told me that my computations on spring rates were wrong because coilovers "move the mounting point out to the wheels" making the motion ratio change ... yet you claim to know more than anyone. In other words, you are arguing to prove YOUR so called knowledge, nothing else.

engifineer

And yes mods, I know ... dont feed the trolls ... I will let it be now. And I know he will come back with some creative way of saying he was right and the rest of the world is wrong, get his last word in .... but that sounds like a few others we used to know on here doesnt it ?

speterson82

to get the thread back on track...on page 1 I posted about the line in the sand, how low is "too" low, blah blah blah. Basically I was saying that suspensions may be modified to compensate for dropping the vehicle beyond the 1.-- inch that is considered detrimental. Engifineer commented regarding some ways this can be achieved...notably custom spindles. So I'm watching this hot rod show last night and the dudes were putting 2" lowering springs with what they called 2.5" drop spindles on a 1978 chevy truck (pro stock) for a total drop of 4.5". Now its a short show, so the only way they explained the benefit of custom spindles was to say that they basically set the wheel higher in order to compensate for the amount of drop. I was wondering if someone could elaborate more specifically on custom spindles and how beneficial they are in dropping the car.

dropzone

Someone is thinking way too much into it of corner balancing, and may have asked for video....



Best to leave it to suspension tuning pros.
Good day.

Sciond

yep

2tCornot2tC

In both statics and dynamics, all forces act through the center of mass. We know where the center of mass is on any car and we both know how to measure it and calculate it. Does it ever move? No! (burning fuel is too slow of a change to count here…we are simplifying the analysis) As long as your tires are not sliding, we can approximate the reactions/trajectory pretty closely with just utilizing static analysis. Once your tires are sliding, you are completely in a dynamic condition. Now when you setup your car under static conditions to have one center of pressure (cross balancing) and your car starts to slide, you will get a shift in balance. That shift will feel like instability/unpredictability. Now if you set it up so that you have the same balance (65% front to rear in the example above) you will have the same feel in a turn weather your tires are sliding or not. The best handling car is a predictable car and that gives the driver confidence to drive comfortably right on the limit. If he exceeds that limit, nothing has changed. The dynamics of the car are exactly the same. You recover and go on pressing forward. Where is my analysis flawed? What am I missing?
Here is your chance to argue the physics of it all. I’m not interested in what other people do, say or your experience. Don’t tell me your wishful experience or your bloated resume. I’m not interested…I don’t think that anybody else on here is either. You call yourself an engineer…talk to me like an engineer. If you were not borne with the analytical mind of an engineer, you should have been taught analytical problem solving skills in engineering school. Solve the engineering problem analytically. Prove your case…I proved mine and all you had to say was that everybody else in the world does this.