sprint/hill climb geo setup

[dirkpitt]

hi fellow SE'rs

I was thinking of getting the car in for an alignment, some time soon, as I am planning to do some sprints and hillclimbs next year....

So, before taking the plunge, was wondering if any of you guys have any info on what i should be going for on alignment

The car in question will be a exige s2 .....ill be on the standard blisteins and springs, with r888's and standard ARB......although this may change when budget allows.

Thoughts please!?

leigh

[tut]

Advice will normally be to go for 340R's settings as a good compromise between road and track. N1 and N3 are both on these as set up by Wullie.

For more track work as in the Scottish Championships you could go more aggresive on camber.

tut

[roadboy]

Will you still be using the car on the road?

If you are I'd get as close to 1.0 degree of negative camber as you can on the front and ~2.5 degrees on the back. Parallel toe at the front and 1.0mm In either side at the rear.

Running any more agressive than that on standard dampers and springs will be pointless.

If you change to different dampers/stiffer springs then you'll need a different setup.

HTH

Dan

Dan

[tuscan_thunder]

Check your tyres fit class rules.

Some of the tyre regs on Scottish hills are a joke.

(Example: you could buy a brand new Evo 9 from Mitsubishi with Yoko Ao48 tyres on it. Road legal, etc etc. But you couldn't drive it up a hill in the road class. You had to downgrade the tyres. This was because the Ao48 generates more grip and the car would go faster; therefore insurance costs dictated a less grippy tyre..... which was more likely to result in an accident.....moronic)

There were different rules for sports car classes though so you might be ok but might be worth double checking.

[alicrozier]

Set geo to book IMO, you want something predictable and progressive.

[dirkpitt]

Check your tyres fit class rules.

Some of the tyre regs on Scottish hills are a joke.

(Example: you could buy a brand new Evo 9 from Mitsubishi with Yoko Ao48 tyres on it. Road legal, etc etc. But you couldn't drive it up a hill in the road class. You had to downgrade the tyres. This was because the Ao48 generates more grip and the car would go faster; therefore insurance costs dictated a less grippy tyre..... which was more likely to result in an accident.....moronic)

There were different rules for sports car classes though so you might be ok but might be worth double checking.

tuscan

I have had a look at the MSA year handbook notes on tyre requirements and as I understand, there are two lists A1 and B1 that apply.

A1 is for production saloon car racing/ production sports car racing

B1 sports/up rated tyres suitable for competition

R888 fall under B1 list …it also states this
Clubs wishing to use these tyres in events or championships must apply in writing to the MSA and SRs must provide for their use. These tyres are prohibited for production car racing

So, I figure that means that r888 are permitted as long as the clubs have written permission from MSA???

So, I think I’m ok! Will ask the question to the club I guess ...

leigh

[dirkpitt]

for the replies,

it looks like that there are three different ideas......standard, 340r and an aggressive chamber with little toe....

all are relevant, so I’m a bit stuck.... think ill go for the one in-between and try the 340r set up and see how i get on...the standard set up i did notice a bit of under steering, which is okay but i think i would prefer neutral if i can get it........however, if i was forced to compromise i would probably opt for a little under steer as this is probably a little safer??

leigh

[roadboy]

The settingsI posted aren't agressive camber at all. It should give you a nice progressive feel. Standard setup is far too road orientated, as is the 340R setup. You need to remember how much heavier your car is than a 340R also.

To put the above into perspective, I run -2.5 front and -3.8 rear cambers on my race car. That's also on R888s and consideray lighter than your car.

HTH

Dan

[Shug]

Most professional racing drivers will tell you that a car set up to transition to understeer a little at the limit is quicker. Easier to nudge it up to the limits with less time loss in correction compared with oversteer. That doesnt mean a car that understeers everywhere, but one that, when it lets go, does so gradually from the front.

TBH, I'd go with factory settings, then remove equal shims either side at the front until you lose the worst of the understeer (TBH, you could probably pull them all out if the shim stacks are the same size as each other - the S2 plinths won't give you excessive neg camber). That would be safe and quick enough while you learn. The cunning design of the uprights means that any toe change with changing camber is negligible to the point of not being there (Porsche certainly didn't think it was enough to change anything on the 962, which pioneered the idea) So you can realistically play with front camber in the paddock by pulling shims (there are two thicknesses which equate to defined camber changes - listed on SELOC's techwiki, I think) without having to re-set toe.

Honestly though, you just want the car set up to drive predictably and get your driving to a point where you're inside a tenth each run, then you can look at setup changes.

[dirkpitt]

roadboy

hummm yes i see your point now .........

shug

okay well put

so, standard setup sounds like a good starting point and then a progressive change to the set up as your experience evolves...or, adjust the front , until you dial out the under steer ..

leigh

[Shug]

Get a known baseline setup, get consistent.

Whatever that baseline is, none of the suggestions here will throw you at a wall, so take your pick. The most common mistake I see is people fiddling about with the car when they can't do two runs within a second of each other, let alone a tenth, so the changes are only complicating the learning process and hindering, not helping. Used to spanner for a guy in Karts, who changed loads, every single run. He was quick, but not consistent enough to make sense of the adjustments. Oh, the 'discussions' we had about that...