You're welcome.
I just went ahead and attached the raw suspension dimensions too, just in case anyone wants them.
I just went ahead and attached the raw suspension dimensions too, just in case anyone wants them.
Thanks!Best thread I've come across on this site so far. But then again, I'm biased towards technical gems like this. This should be required reading for anybody who tracks/races an RSX.
Thanks for sharing!
Edit: Do you have any calculated info for motion ratios? I've found some values elsewhere on CRSX, but it would be interesting to see if your modelling produced similar results. Maybe some of the mods you analyzed affect the motion ratios; that would be handy to know.
And again: When you refer to the "nominal location" of the suspension, is that the OEM ride height or something lower? I'm just wondering what ride height actually corresponds to the zero compression reference on the plots.
I was waiting until you noticed thatwait wait wait...
Why does shimming the rear upper link raise roll center?
Did I draw this wrong? Seems like roll center gets lowered.
![]()
Also, how does the use of camber plates improve camber gain under compression? Just less compliance?
Lol the results of camber plates + RCA + raised steering rack bracket is alarming. Although I'm going to keep my current setup. Explains why I like the feeling of lots of toe out and the lack of traction is I run 0 toe as opposed to toe out.
When people say that it gains positive camber, they are likely meaning that it gains positive camber relative to the ground (body roll included). MacPherson Strut suspensions definitely do have some negative camber gain. They will continue to gain negative camber until the angle between the strut and the control arm becomes obtuse (aka greater than 90 degrees). That will never happen on our cars no matter how much you lower it.I definitely agree it's horrible, but I always understood that that was what happened, and a primary reason for maximizing static neg camber in our cars. If I'm wrong then great![]()
Yeah, not sure when that would be an issue. I bet it would be pretty huge angle though.Regarding the bump-in that occurs on the front suspension.... Ive been thinking about this for the past few hours.
At what point does the angle of the tie rod cause binding within the balljoint and limit/restrict movement during steering operation??
It is somewhere around 6.3 degrees. At stock ride height with BC RSD's, it was 6.3 degrees. As far as I know, buddy club and oem struts have the tie rod attach in the same location, but I don't know for sure. Either way, 6.3 gets you in the ballpark.Also, does anyone have a good approximation of the stock tie rod angle? Or a picture of tie rods(from inside the engine bay) at the stock ride height?
Yeah, that sounds like your angle should be right about stock or a little more then. I would tend to think that you certainly don't want more toe-in than stock. I have no clue how much of a difference it will really make to lap times though...Do you think stock tie rod angle is optimal? Or more angle?
If I lower my car 1.75 inches but the steering rack bracket raises the inner rods by 1.25 inches, doesn't that mean my tie rods should be about stock angle or maybe a little greater?
Yes.So because my angles are a little bit greater than factory, it should have a little less toe-in under compression than factory right?
Buddyclub RSD has lower tie rod end mounting points then factory to compensate for the lowered ride height. 6.3 degrees with RSD at stock height would not be the same as stock struts at stock height (essentially the 6.3 angle reading you got is less then what it is stock).
Shit.
I'm not sure because I only modeled the one situation. If I had to guess though, I would say that if you moved the strut only in caster and not in camber/kingpin, it would not affect toe much. However, if you were to increase camber/kingpin and not caster, it would have more of an effect. This is because the greater angle (kingpin) the strut is at, the more the attachment point for the outer tie rod moves inward with suspension compression, thus creating more toe in.While on the topic of toe. When you did the toe plot against compression for the front, do you know if plates that added just positive caster (staight forward and back, not angled or horizontle) had an effect on the toe under compression? Or was it only when you messed with camber it had an effect.
Ha, not quite. "bump steer" as it is called, simply refers to the fact that the wheel changes toe angle under suspension compression. For example, under braking, the front dives/compresses causing the wheels to toe in (rather excessively too).bump steer: happens going over bumps, pot holes? tracks and autox's are generally not that bumpy.