Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickt
Chas, you're pretty bright, and have done your fair share of suspension tweaks. Do you have an opinion on what should come first, corner weights or alignment?
|
First-Don't ever accuse me of being bright...
Without any professional input, in the '90's, I first set the ride height at 4.75 F, 4.875 R, with my weight + half tank.
Then local racer Willie Hassic set alignment (my weight in + half tank) as: 4 deg caster, 1/2 deg neg F camber, 3/4 deg neg R camber, 1/16" pos. toe F, 1/16" pos. toe R.
Then I scaled the car (with my weight+half tank) and got these figures but made no jacking changes:
LF 682 / RF 648, LR 755, RR 748. Distribution 47% / 53%.
I felt the differences were small enough for the occasional track and high speed runs I'd done. Wasn't looking for the ultimate lap. It's arrow-straight from 70 to 155mph, stops straight, and has turn-in that satisfies me. Again-I'm not the pros like Scott and Jerry.
From Scott's #10 post:
"If you're changing ride heights when adjusting corner weights then you're doing it wrong. Ride height is set 1st, then alignment, then scaling. Ride height is maintained through out and doesn't change when scaling."
How was that CROW you ate for dinner