MR2 Owners Club Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
101 - 120 of 389 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,434 Posts
MicaCeli said:
Koni's for MK1's are not rebuildable as they are sealed. Or so I have been told.
it does look like the Koni Yellows for the MR2 are sealed units, most of them arent. ive had Koni Yellows apart a bunch of times, thats a shame then! i dont think it would prove worthwhile to service yellows anyway, in the UK a brand new set costs about the same as labour to service them. 8610/11's will probably be serviceable though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,434 Posts
sikrip said:
Could you post the dyno of yours?



these are mk2's with standard valving. not adjusted across a particularly wide range though, i was looking at something more specific. il have some better graphs in a few weeks time when ive got my dyno, il be putting mine in there to do some more testing
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,434 Posts
hard to tell from the pictures if they are sealed or not. that top cap will knock off, so it depends on whether there is a removable seal head underneath. if they are sealed then id expect to see some type of machine weld around the top as you see on the new sealed OEM struts, and i dont see one. so they may be serviceable afterall
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,013 Posts
My mr2 has wound up lower than XHead suggested, partly because of how I did the welding for the gc's, and partly because of me :p

Anyway, the thing is doing pretty good- this weekend's autox went well- even though I still have to finish alignment, and perhaps get a little more negative camber. What I wanted to ask though, was about the roll center. I've noticed in a tight, smooth fast turn on the street (can't feel it in autox, not the same) it feels like the car has 90% of the weight on the outside wheels, almost as if it was close to carrying both inside wheels. Is this a byproduct of the artificially low roll center (probably below the ground... RCA's, I need you) or some other problem I'm not thinking of? Or, is this how it's supposed to feel?

P.S. It looks like I'm stuck in SM cause of my gze. I'm sorta alright with this, cause it does things like set my minimum weight = 2025lbs, which means I don't have to go crazy w/ the stripping. Anyway, anyone have inputs as to things I should consider doing that can't be done in sts2 or csp?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,434 Posts
sliverstorm said:
P.S. It looks like I'm stuck in SM cause of my gze. I'm sorta alright with this, cause it does things like set my minimum weight = 2025lbs, which means I don't have to go crazy w/ the stripping. Anyway, anyone have inputs as to things I should consider doing that can't be done in sts2 or csp?
go as crazy with the stripping as you can. then you can put the ballast as low down in the chassis as possible and lower the CofG.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,603 Posts
sliverstorm said:
What I wanted to ask though, was about the roll center. I've noticed in a tight, smooth fast turn on the street (can't feel it in autox, not the same) it feels like the car has 90% of the weight on the outside wheels, almost as if it was close to carrying both inside wheels. Is this a byproduct of the artificially low roll center (probably below the ground... RCA's, I need you) or some other problem I'm not thinking of? Or, is this how it's supposed to feel?

The feeling of weight transfer is likely the low roll center. If you are as low or lower than my car, and have not corrected the roll center with RCAs or some other method, then the roll centers are well below ground. The resulting moment arm is very long and therefore the center of gravity has a lot of leverage, through the roll center, to roll the car over. That's likely the feeling you are getting.

Being that low will have your camber curves in the positive range so its not likely you can get enough static camber to make the car work without correcting the RC.

-Steve
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,013 Posts
Yeah, that's pretty much what I figured :smile:

How much camber do I loose when the strut compresses? I currently have (in my hackish, 30 minute camber job) -3 degrees on the front left, -2.5 on the front right. While it's obviously a problem, I was hoping that until I can fix the RC, camber loss would be minimal due to tiny suspension travel on a flat autox course.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,603 Posts
Well, the camber curve issue is compounded by the excessive body roll. The low roll center results in more body roll due to the longer moment arm. That compresses the outside suspension further than it would normally. Since you are already in the positive side of the camber curve, the more the suspension compresses, the worse it gets.

So add the camber loss due to body roll (on a strut chassis) to the deepening positive camber gain and you can go VERY positive, very quickly. Add that to the bump steer you get and the car will feel like it just gives up at the limit. Or worse, the car is not predictable and unforgiving.

The trick to making these chassis work at their full potential, is to keep it as flat as possible. That keeps the geometry at home so the camber and bump steer issues are negated.

-Steve
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
Just returned from the track.

Results:

2 seconds better time while the track being ~1 second slower

This means 3 seconds better time with only change being the suspension...

And I feel it has much more...

I am very happy the car was just awesome!!!

Thanks xHead :thumbup
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,310 Posts
XHead said:
The feeling of weight transfer is likely the low roll center. If you are as low or lower than my car, and have not corrected the roll center with RCAs or some other method, then the roll centers are well below ground. The resulting moment arm is very long and therefore the center of gravity has a lot of leverage, through the roll center, to roll the car over. That's likely the feeling you are getting.

Being that low will have your camber curves in the positive range so its not likely you can get enough static camber to make the car work without correcting the RC.

-Steve
I figured this was my problem at last Sundays race. Would I be able to band aid my car by up the spring rates to counter my problem until I fix my RC problem at the end of my season or am I going to compound the problem?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,603 Posts
sikrip said:
Just returned from the track.

Results:

This means 3 seconds better time with only change being the suspension...

And I feel it has much more...

I am very happy the car was just awesome!!!

Thanks xHead :thumbup
:thumbup

You are very welcome. I love getting these reports. :smile:

I get some really funny looks when I tell people the same setup will work equally as well at an autocross or a full road course. The only changes I make are a slight adjustment to the compression dampening (more for road courses, less for autocross) and a slightly more conservative rear toe setting (less rotation at turn-in).

That's it.

-Steve
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,603 Posts
verno-dub said:
I figured this was my problem at last Sundays race. Would I be able to band aid my car by up the spring rates to counter my problem until I fix my RC problem at the end of my season or am I going to compound the problem?

Anything that keeps the car flatter will help, but, you will have to go A LOT stiffer and that is likely to be counter productive. There really is no substitute for a geometry problem.

Fixing the roll center issue isn't hard. A set of RCA's is quick and easy and is better than nothing.

Any reason you don't want to do that now?

-Steve
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
I am very happy it worked out. Many people (almost everyone) was saying to me:
11kg/mm in front? It won't turn at all...you will be going straight...
Today there were a few asking about the bar-less setup...

The most important is that I believe that I have one more second because I was VERY carefull in braking (had a issue in my brakes).

XHead said:
The only changes I make are a slight adjustment to the compression dampening (more for road courses, less for autocross)
You mean going stiffer in full tracks? Ohlins has 30 positions (0=full stiff, 30=full soft). Initially I run 15f/15r and had under-steer. I then adjusted to 20f/15r and the car was fine.

Do you think I should go stiffer next time? I was in the soft side of the suspension today...

XHead said:
and a slightly more conservative rear toe setting (less rotation at turn-in).
Could you explain this a bit more? I currently run 2.4mm toe in rear.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,448 Posts
Discussion Starter #116
verno-dub said:
I figured this was my problem at last Sundays race. Would I be able to band aid my car by up the spring rates to counter my problem until I fix my RC problem at the end of my season or am I going to compound the problem?
Get some longer springs if your perches are too long.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,603 Posts
sikrip said:
I am very happy it worked out. Many people (almost everyone) was saying to me:
11kg/mm in front? It won't turn at all...you will be going straight...
Today there were a few asking about the bar-less setup...
.
Welcome to my world. ;)


The most important is that I believe that I have one more second because I was VERY carefull in braking (had a issue in my brakes).


sikrip said:
You mean going stiffer in full tracks? Ohlins has 30 positions (0=full stiff, 30=full soft). Initially I run 15f/15r and had under-steer. I then adjusted to 20f/15r and the car was fine.
.
Not really. If the car is fine, stay on that track. I run very low compression dampening at autocrosses to help the car transition better. Slightly more compression on road courses to help control body motion at speed.

sikrip said:
Could you explain this a bit more? I currently run 2.4mm toe in rear.
That explains the understeer you had to dial out.

Explaining my above statement will take a LOT of time. And I haven't published this on this forum previously. Its enough of a controversey that I don't use swaybars and do use VERY stiff springs. Its taken this long for people to come to grips with that. Now I have to tell you that I run toe-out in the rear. A LOT of toe-out. For road courses, I run slightly less rear toe-out.

-Steve
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,448 Posts
Discussion Starter #118
XHead said:
Now I have to tell you that I run toe-out in the rear. A LOT of toe-out. For road courses, I run slightly less rear toe-out.

-Steve
Seriously when you told me that I had a :wtf: moment....then when I did it, I got it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,310 Posts
XHead said:
Anything that keeps the car flatter will help, but, you will have to go A LOT stiffer and that is likely to be counter productive. There really is no substitute for a geometry problem.

Fixing the roll center issue isn't hard. A set of RCA's is quick and easy and is better than nothing.

Any reason you don't want to do that now?

-Steve
No reason other than i only have one more race for this season and wanted a "band aid" as I have springs to replace right now. On the subject of springs, i kinda weary on upping the rates substantially due to the fear of my car become too skiddish (is that even a word?) with the higher rates.

Ive always thought that I had to measure for a proper RCA height, im guessing i could call T3 and just grab a set of O.T.S RCA's for the time being. Do you have interference problems with RCA's with your 13" panasports? The only other real problem would be the tie rod/bump steer issue.
 
101 - 120 of 389 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top