Serpent S411 Eryx 3.0
11-03-2014, 04:13 PM
#258
Car was amazing all weekend long at the Halloween Classic in stock.
Set TQ in round 1, then reset it in round 2.
In round 3, Kyle Klingsforth and myself were swapping the lead back and forth for a new TQ. A couple minutes in while I am in the lead a lapped car takes me out. I was fuming, but it was just a couple of seconds so I thought I could recover. I drive like an angry idiot for a couple of laps, and then I try to get around Mike Hanulec too quickly and unintentionally take him out. I pull off the track after that.... no reason to continue causing havoc over toy cars. He was understandably very upset with me but we made amends. Kyle continues his clean run, however, and resets TQ by about 3 seconds over my time. Despite Hanulec getting dumped by me, he improves his time to 3rd on the grid, nearly bumping me out of 2nd.
Round 4 was Sunday morning, so I expected the grip to be a bit less as the track had sat overnight. For practice I made a small change and went out on new tires. The car felt even BETTER than it had the previous rounds. The track didn't feel greasy like I was expecting, so I was hoping that round 4 would allow the fastest times of the weekend for my car. Also, starting behind Kyle for this qualifier would give me a car to chase and hopefully improve my early lap times, as I can be a slow starter on occasion.
I do have a small tap that lets Hanulec by, and we basically make a 2-man freight train for 5 minutes. Kyle stays fairly clean from what I can tell, but the track had slowed down way more than I thought.... despite clean runs, no qualifying positions changed.
Started 2nd on the main grid. I was a tad worried about turning in to Kyle on the first turn, because my car was rotating in very strongly. Sure enough, coming into the infield I hug the wall tight and have to do a quick brake check and get tossed around. No one's fault at all..... that's what happens when 10 cars squeeze into 3 square feet of carpet! I get dropped to 10th from the start, drive like a bat out of hell and make it up to 4th at some point.... shortly after that, a car smacks my rear right tire going into the chicane, and it blows my rear diff out..... so with 30 seconds to go and a coffee-grinder noise emanating from my car, I'm forced to DNF.
Props to Awesomatix USA for terrorizing another national stock A-main.
I'm absolutely happy with how well the car did. It had the best pace for a good part of the entire weekend, and I received a lot of compliments on how smooth the car looked on the track.
I made a few changes from what I ran at the Southern Nationals. The front gear diff felt awesome. The groove was a bit narrow, but traction was great. The car was never tippy or edgy at any time. I personally think this setup rotates smoother and is a bit easier to drive than my previous one.
I had 4-hole pistons in the shocks from running at my local track (lots of track dots), but the shock package felt great at The Gate so I just left it. Since the layout was a bit more flowing I simply went up 50cst in the oil to smooth the car out.
The 1.4 front swaybar and shocks in the 2-hole felt a bit smoother overall then the 1.2 front swaybar and shocks in the 3-hole.
I also ran mod, but I was playing with setup all weekend. The car felt and looked fast, but I couldn't find a setup that I could drive consistently.... so it was more of a test session for me.
Thanks
Set TQ in round 1, then reset it in round 2.
In round 3, Kyle Klingsforth and myself were swapping the lead back and forth for a new TQ. A couple minutes in while I am in the lead a lapped car takes me out. I was fuming, but it was just a couple of seconds so I thought I could recover. I drive like an angry idiot for a couple of laps, and then I try to get around Mike Hanulec too quickly and unintentionally take him out. I pull off the track after that.... no reason to continue causing havoc over toy cars. He was understandably very upset with me but we made amends. Kyle continues his clean run, however, and resets TQ by about 3 seconds over my time. Despite Hanulec getting dumped by me, he improves his time to 3rd on the grid, nearly bumping me out of 2nd.
Round 4 was Sunday morning, so I expected the grip to be a bit less as the track had sat overnight. For practice I made a small change and went out on new tires. The car felt even BETTER than it had the previous rounds. The track didn't feel greasy like I was expecting, so I was hoping that round 4 would allow the fastest times of the weekend for my car. Also, starting behind Kyle for this qualifier would give me a car to chase and hopefully improve my early lap times, as I can be a slow starter on occasion.
I do have a small tap that lets Hanulec by, and we basically make a 2-man freight train for 5 minutes. Kyle stays fairly clean from what I can tell, but the track had slowed down way more than I thought.... despite clean runs, no qualifying positions changed.
Started 2nd on the main grid. I was a tad worried about turning in to Kyle on the first turn, because my car was rotating in very strongly. Sure enough, coming into the infield I hug the wall tight and have to do a quick brake check and get tossed around. No one's fault at all..... that's what happens when 10 cars squeeze into 3 square feet of carpet! I get dropped to 10th from the start, drive like a bat out of hell and make it up to 4th at some point.... shortly after that, a car smacks my rear right tire going into the chicane, and it blows my rear diff out..... so with 30 seconds to go and a coffee-grinder noise emanating from my car, I'm forced to DNF.
Props to Awesomatix USA for terrorizing another national stock A-main.
I'm absolutely happy with how well the car did. It had the best pace for a good part of the entire weekend, and I received a lot of compliments on how smooth the car looked on the track.
I made a few changes from what I ran at the Southern Nationals. The front gear diff felt awesome. The groove was a bit narrow, but traction was great. The car was never tippy or edgy at any time. I personally think this setup rotates smoother and is a bit easier to drive than my previous one.
I had 4-hole pistons in the shocks from running at my local track (lots of track dots), but the shock package felt great at The Gate so I just left it. Since the layout was a bit more flowing I simply went up 50cst in the oil to smooth the car out.
The 1.4 front swaybar and shocks in the 2-hole felt a bit smoother overall then the 1.2 front swaybar and shocks in the 3-hole.
I also ran mod, but I was playing with setup all weekend. The car felt and looked fast, but I couldn't find a setup that I could drive consistently.... so it was more of a test session for me.
Thanks
11-04-2014, 07:12 PM
#260
Right on Cody.
Just got back from the second round of the WCICS series where I ran in three classes. TC STK. CTA( same as USVTA but 21.5 motor and 1450 weight break). Last was WGT (10.5)
I installed the new RRS system out of the box, car war very smooth to drive, very fast but due to a lack of testing, I didnt stray from the basic set-up. .I started 6th on the grid in the A-main and Gary started in 9th. after a dicey first min. I had another car make a dive bomb attempt in a pass and took me out breaking my car..Gary clawed his way from 10 to 6th on the grid. both cars were very good. Too bad i broke..
As for the CTA class. Car was fast buy had very poor handling due to human error. After I fixed the issue for the last chance quilifer. I had place the 2.0 Eryx in second spot on the grid for the A main. After the tone. the leader went in too hot into corner one and flipped. I took the lead and never looked back, I kept a strong pace though out the main to keep a good gap between me and second, I know my lap times could have been much faster but Safe the sorry I figured..
AS for the WGT (I know its not the WGT thread) Started third on the grid for the amain. After the second place driver made a early mistake. I passed and held second for the rest of the Amain. As I am new to the WGT. I was very pleased with the car. I think i could have changed a one or two things to make the car better but due to still learning the car. I played it safe. but very happy none the less
Nick K
Just got back from the second round of the WCICS series where I ran in three classes. TC STK. CTA( same as USVTA but 21.5 motor and 1450 weight break). Last was WGT (10.5)
I installed the new RRS system out of the box, car war very smooth to drive, very fast but due to a lack of testing, I didnt stray from the basic set-up. .I started 6th on the grid in the A-main and Gary started in 9th. after a dicey first min. I had another car make a dive bomb attempt in a pass and took me out breaking my car..Gary clawed his way from 10 to 6th on the grid. both cars were very good. Too bad i broke..
As for the CTA class. Car was fast buy had very poor handling due to human error. After I fixed the issue for the last chance quilifer. I had place the 2.0 Eryx in second spot on the grid for the A main. After the tone. the leader went in too hot into corner one and flipped. I took the lead and never looked back, I kept a strong pace though out the main to keep a good gap between me and second, I know my lap times could have been much faster but Safe the sorry I figured..
AS for the WGT (I know its not the WGT thread) Started third on the grid for the amain. After the second place driver made a early mistake. I passed and held second for the rest of the Amain. As I am new to the WGT. I was very pleased with the car. I think i could have changed a one or two things to make the car better but due to still learning the car. I played it safe. but very happy none the less
Nick K
Last edited by Phoenix82; 11-05-2014 at 08:43 AM. Reason: update
11-05-2014, 12:42 AM
#261
Any more thoughts on the RRS guys? My thoughts are a bit jumbled up but you'll get the idea. Sorry for the essay. It's still very much a work in progress.
I've had mixed results personally. I have not bought the full kit just the arms and the rear RRS block. I'm running stock 4 degree hubs with DCJ drive shafts. I wonder how detrimental not having 2 degree hubs is? I've been testing it over the last 6 weeks. I've run 2 club meets with it and 1 in between with the std set up. My best runs with both cars has yielded similar times. With the std car the fast lap is 13.0 and an average of 13.5. RRS car is hot lap of 13.2 but average lap of 13.4. My 2 major concerns are rear track width and roll centres. I feel new c hubs, a shorter arm and a shorter drive shaft are needed to make this a kit item. You can set it up to be like the conventional car and change it up to be a wild corner eating machine. But you end up with a very wide rear end and are forced to run low roll centres with a lack of adjustment on the c hub side.
My experience so far,
For the 1st meet I rushed the set up and didn't read the manual so I had it set up with 4 degree hubs leaning backwards(rev), knuckles right way round and middle hole on the RRS block, 1mm shim. This felt good and I liked the way the car drives through the corner. I had the local aweso driver(previous 411 user) test it and he really liked it. Said out of all the tourer he has driven recently it's the most like the aweso. I really should have left the car as is and run the next club meet.
As I can't back to back with a 2nd car I changed it back for the next club meet and with very similar track conditions this meet I went 0.2 faster with the stock rear hub set up. The RRS is much easier to drive through the twisty stuff and my current layout is very twisty. I wanted to get the rear on the std car to feel like the RRS and it Took a lot of set up work to get the rear planted like the RRS feels but the rear end doesn't get as a consistent bite through the corner. It's like it floats in, grabs then pushes out. Where as RRS feels like you can drive through the corner all the way as the car grabs the rear as soon as you start turning.
After reading the manual and realising my initial installation error I switched back to RRS but with c hubs facing forwards using pretty much the same settings and didn't like it. It was 0.3 slower
I'm more confused now that I've discussed it with a couple of the local gurus as there are 4 different combinations possible with c hub and knuckle position to test. I felt it handles better with the c hubs facing backwards. I'm thinking of just switching over the steering knuckles now to get more angle in the link and bring it to somewhere near the previous set ups angle. What I'm waiting for is shorter camber links so I can run the short link and get more toe gain. I would like to see and pic of how some of your linkages look for reference as there must be some very different heights and angles of the linkages. I want to try a set up with more negative toe change as I'm finding I have to run minimum -3 deg static toe which is to me against the point of this system.
I also think they need to develop a specific c hub for the rear that has a lower mounting point for the camber link as running a high roll centre is just not possible with the current arrangement. it. I'm having to run a much lower roll centre in the front to match the roll I have in the rear. Wheel base has been an issue too with the front being the same width as the rear. I ended up changing the rear block set up with a 0 and a 2 and played with the shims and mounted the arms with 5mm of shims behind to shorten the wheel base and to give a 187mm wide rear end. Front is pushing 188 so I'm tempted to widen the front end more as the stock rear end is 185. I also want to lengthen the front wheel base to get back what I've lost In the rear.
How much of this is a compromise I'm not sure but the clock doesn't lie and I think the potential is there considering how easy it feels to drive fast.
Am I over thinking this too much? Thoughts Beuller?
I've had mixed results personally. I have not bought the full kit just the arms and the rear RRS block. I'm running stock 4 degree hubs with DCJ drive shafts. I wonder how detrimental not having 2 degree hubs is? I've been testing it over the last 6 weeks. I've run 2 club meets with it and 1 in between with the std set up. My best runs with both cars has yielded similar times. With the std car the fast lap is 13.0 and an average of 13.5. RRS car is hot lap of 13.2 but average lap of 13.4. My 2 major concerns are rear track width and roll centres. I feel new c hubs, a shorter arm and a shorter drive shaft are needed to make this a kit item. You can set it up to be like the conventional car and change it up to be a wild corner eating machine. But you end up with a very wide rear end and are forced to run low roll centres with a lack of adjustment on the c hub side.
My experience so far,
For the 1st meet I rushed the set up and didn't read the manual so I had it set up with 4 degree hubs leaning backwards(rev), knuckles right way round and middle hole on the RRS block, 1mm shim. This felt good and I liked the way the car drives through the corner. I had the local aweso driver(previous 411 user) test it and he really liked it. Said out of all the tourer he has driven recently it's the most like the aweso. I really should have left the car as is and run the next club meet.
As I can't back to back with a 2nd car I changed it back for the next club meet and with very similar track conditions this meet I went 0.2 faster with the stock rear hub set up. The RRS is much easier to drive through the twisty stuff and my current layout is very twisty. I wanted to get the rear on the std car to feel like the RRS and it Took a lot of set up work to get the rear planted like the RRS feels but the rear end doesn't get as a consistent bite through the corner. It's like it floats in, grabs then pushes out. Where as RRS feels like you can drive through the corner all the way as the car grabs the rear as soon as you start turning.
After reading the manual and realising my initial installation error I switched back to RRS but with c hubs facing forwards using pretty much the same settings and didn't like it. It was 0.3 slower
I'm more confused now that I've discussed it with a couple of the local gurus as there are 4 different combinations possible with c hub and knuckle position to test. I felt it handles better with the c hubs facing backwards. I'm thinking of just switching over the steering knuckles now to get more angle in the link and bring it to somewhere near the previous set ups angle. What I'm waiting for is shorter camber links so I can run the short link and get more toe gain. I would like to see and pic of how some of your linkages look for reference as there must be some very different heights and angles of the linkages. I want to try a set up with more negative toe change as I'm finding I have to run minimum -3 deg static toe which is to me against the point of this system.
I also think they need to develop a specific c hub for the rear that has a lower mounting point for the camber link as running a high roll centre is just not possible with the current arrangement. it. I'm having to run a much lower roll centre in the front to match the roll I have in the rear. Wheel base has been an issue too with the front being the same width as the rear. I ended up changing the rear block set up with a 0 and a 2 and played with the shims and mounted the arms with 5mm of shims behind to shorten the wheel base and to give a 187mm wide rear end. Front is pushing 188 so I'm tempted to widen the front end more as the stock rear end is 185. I also want to lengthen the front wheel base to get back what I've lost In the rear.
How much of this is a compromise I'm not sure but the clock doesn't lie and I think the potential is there considering how easy it feels to drive fast.
Am I over thinking this too much? Thoughts Beuller?
11-05-2014, 06:25 AM
#262
Any more thoughts on the RRS guys? My thoughts are a bit jumbled up but you'll get the idea. Sorry for the essay. It's still very much a work in progress.
I've had mixed results personally. I have not bought the full kit just the arms and the rear RRS block. I'm running stock 4 degree hubs with DCJ drive shafts. I wonder how detrimental not having 2 degree hubs is? I've been testing it over the last 6 weeks. I've run 2 club meets with it and 1 in between with the std set up. My best runs with both cars has yielded similar times. With the std car the fast lap is 13.0 and an average of 13.5. RRS car is hot lap of 13.2 but average lap of 13.4. My 2 major concerns are rear track width and roll centres. I feel new c hubs, a shorter arm and a shorter drive shaft are needed to make this a kit item. You can set it up to be like the conventional car and change it up to be a wild corner eating machine. But you end up with a very wide rear end and are forced to run low roll centres with a lack of adjustment on the c hub side.
My experience so far,
For the 1st meet I rushed the set up and didn't read the manual so I had it set up with 4 degree hubs leaning backwards(rev), knuckles right way round and middle hole on the RRS block, 1mm shim. This felt good and I liked the way the car drives through the corner. I had the local aweso driver(previous 411 user) test it and he really liked it. Said out of all the tourer he has driven recently it's the most like the aweso. I really should have left the car as is and run the next club meet.
As I can't back to back with a 2nd car I changed it back for the next club meet and with very similar track conditions this meet I went 0.2 faster with the stock rear hub set up. The RRS is much easier to drive through the twisty stuff and my current layout is very twisty. I wanted to get the rear on the std car to feel like the RRS and it Took a lot of set up work to get the rear planted like the RRS feels but the rear end doesn't get as a consistent bite through the corner. It's like it floats in, grabs then pushes out. Where as RRS feels like you can drive through the corner all the way as the car grabs the rear as soon as you start turning.
After reading the manual and realising my initial installation error I switched back to RRS but with c hubs facing forwards using pretty much the same settings and didn't like it. It was 0.3 slower
I'm more confused now that I've discussed it with a couple of the local gurus as there are 4 different combinations possible with c hub and knuckle position to test. I felt it handles better with the c hubs facing backwards. I'm thinking of just switching over the steering knuckles now to get more angle in the link and bring it to somewhere near the previous set ups angle. What I'm waiting for is shorter camber links so I can run the short link and get more toe gain. I would like to see and pic of how some of your linkages look for reference as there must be some very different heights and angles of the linkages. I want to try a set up with more negative toe change as I'm finding I have to run minimum -3 deg static toe which is to me against the point of this system.
I also think they need to develop a specific c hub for the rear that has a lower mounting point for the camber link as running a high roll centre is just not possible with the current arrangement. it. I'm having to run a much lower roll centre in the front to match the roll I have in the rear. Wheel base has been an issue too with the front being the same width as the rear. I ended up changing the rear block set up with a 0 and a 2 and played with the shims and mounted the arms with 5mm of shims behind to shorten the wheel base and to give a 187mm wide rear end. Front is pushing 188 so I'm tempted to widen the front end more as the stock rear end is 185. I also want to lengthen the front wheel base to get back what I've lost In the rear.
How much of this is a compromise I'm not sure but the clock doesn't lie and I think the potential is there considering how easy it feels to drive fast.
Am I over thinking this too much? Thoughts Beuller?
I've had mixed results personally. I have not bought the full kit just the arms and the rear RRS block. I'm running stock 4 degree hubs with DCJ drive shafts. I wonder how detrimental not having 2 degree hubs is? I've been testing it over the last 6 weeks. I've run 2 club meets with it and 1 in between with the std set up. My best runs with both cars has yielded similar times. With the std car the fast lap is 13.0 and an average of 13.5. RRS car is hot lap of 13.2 but average lap of 13.4. My 2 major concerns are rear track width and roll centres. I feel new c hubs, a shorter arm and a shorter drive shaft are needed to make this a kit item. You can set it up to be like the conventional car and change it up to be a wild corner eating machine. But you end up with a very wide rear end and are forced to run low roll centres with a lack of adjustment on the c hub side.
My experience so far,
For the 1st meet I rushed the set up and didn't read the manual so I had it set up with 4 degree hubs leaning backwards(rev), knuckles right way round and middle hole on the RRS block, 1mm shim. This felt good and I liked the way the car drives through the corner. I had the local aweso driver(previous 411 user) test it and he really liked it. Said out of all the tourer he has driven recently it's the most like the aweso. I really should have left the car as is and run the next club meet.
As I can't back to back with a 2nd car I changed it back for the next club meet and with very similar track conditions this meet I went 0.2 faster with the stock rear hub set up. The RRS is much easier to drive through the twisty stuff and my current layout is very twisty. I wanted to get the rear on the std car to feel like the RRS and it Took a lot of set up work to get the rear planted like the RRS feels but the rear end doesn't get as a consistent bite through the corner. It's like it floats in, grabs then pushes out. Where as RRS feels like you can drive through the corner all the way as the car grabs the rear as soon as you start turning.
After reading the manual and realising my initial installation error I switched back to RRS but with c hubs facing forwards using pretty much the same settings and didn't like it. It was 0.3 slower
I'm more confused now that I've discussed it with a couple of the local gurus as there are 4 different combinations possible with c hub and knuckle position to test. I felt it handles better with the c hubs facing backwards. I'm thinking of just switching over the steering knuckles now to get more angle in the link and bring it to somewhere near the previous set ups angle. What I'm waiting for is shorter camber links so I can run the short link and get more toe gain. I would like to see and pic of how some of your linkages look for reference as there must be some very different heights and angles of the linkages. I want to try a set up with more negative toe change as I'm finding I have to run minimum -3 deg static toe which is to me against the point of this system.
I also think they need to develop a specific c hub for the rear that has a lower mounting point for the camber link as running a high roll centre is just not possible with the current arrangement. it. I'm having to run a much lower roll centre in the front to match the roll I have in the rear. Wheel base has been an issue too with the front being the same width as the rear. I ended up changing the rear block set up with a 0 and a 2 and played with the shims and mounted the arms with 5mm of shims behind to shorten the wheel base and to give a 187mm wide rear end. Front is pushing 188 so I'm tempted to widen the front end more as the stock rear end is 185. I also want to lengthen the front wheel base to get back what I've lost In the rear.
How much of this is a compromise I'm not sure but the clock doesn't lie and I think the potential is there considering how easy it feels to drive fast.
Am I over thinking this too much? Thoughts Beuller?
11-05-2014, 11:36 PM
#264
Are you using the inner or outer hole on the steering spindle? I mounted up according to your setup sheet but I donīt get more than 1 degree change when the rear end is fully compressed.
11-07-2014, 08:54 AM
#265
I feel new c hubs, a shorter arm and a shorter drive shaft are needed to make this a kit item. You can set it up to be like the conventional car and change it up to be a wild corner eating machine. But you end up with a very wide rear end and are forced to run low roll centres with a lack of adjustment on the c hub side.
If you go to the inner hole of the steering spindle, you should get a shorter rod length which should pull more, which should give more toe.......but I would check with the setup gauges to confirm.
Last edited by Johnny Wishbone; 11-07-2014 at 09:09 AM.
11-07-2014, 09:43 AM
#266
Tech Apprentice
Hi Gary
It is my friend Christian that is "hiding" behind the name holmenkollen. He is the one with skill
Bjorn
It is my friend Christian that is "hiding" behind the name holmenkollen. He is the one with skill
Bjorn
I am in total agreement with the above, and stated that a few pages back. The system will work as is, but I really think its a patchwork system and should be re-engineered to take all those inherent flaws out of the system. Its just not ours, as everyones system seems to re-use existing items.
Hi Bjorn, if you look at the charts, even on the outer hole of the steering spindle and the outer hole of the mount, when set at a static toe of 2* at 5.5mm ride height, the graph shows a increase to 2.6*, which isn't very much. I confirmed this with my setup station, and didn't see much of a increase either, (about .5mm to my eyes). Its not as much as I thought it would produce. I also found that other than the outer holes on the inside mount, the ball studs at normal length, are really hard to move inboard. The bearing mounts for the top deck really get in the way. I ended up using shorter ball studs, but anything inboard of the outer hole will still be a issue.
If you go to the inner hole of the steering spindle, you should get a shorter rod length which should pull more, which should give more toe.......but I would check with the setup gauges to confirm.
Hi Bjorn, if you look at the charts, even on the outer hole of the steering spindle and the outer hole of the mount, when set at a static toe of 2* at 5.5mm ride height, the graph shows a increase to 2.6*, which isn't very much. I confirmed this with my setup station, and didn't see much of a increase either, (about .5mm to my eyes). Its not as much as I thought it would produce. I also found that other than the outer holes on the inside mount, the ball studs at normal length, are really hard to move inboard. The bearing mounts for the top deck really get in the way. I ended up using shorter ball studs, but anything inboard of the outer hole will still be a issue.
If you go to the inner hole of the steering spindle, you should get a shorter rod length which should pull more, which should give more toe.......but I would check with the setup gauges to confirm.
11-07-2014, 09:48 AM
#267
11-07-2014, 10:30 AM
#268
Tech Apprentice
I am not any closer to an answer to the question if there is something strange with the diff housing I got with the 3.0 or if it is something wrong with my intellect I sent the question to Jirka working at the distributor in Germany but I have not heard back yet.
I am using a housing from a 2.0 car.
I sent the question to Jirka working at the distributor in Germany but I have not heard back yet.I am using a housing from a 2.0 car.
11-07-2014, 11:18 AM
#269
I am in total agreement with the above, and stated that a few pages back. The system will work as is, but I really think its a patchwork system and should be re-engineered to take all those inherent flaws out of the system. Its just not ours, as everyones system seems to re-use existing items.
Hi Bjorn, if you look at the charts, even on the outer hole of the steering spindle and the outer hole of the mount, when set at a static toe of 2* at 5.5mm ride height, the graph shows a increase to 2.6*, which isn't very much. I confirmed this with my setup station, and didn't see much of a increase either, (about .5mm to my eyes). Its not as much as I thought it would produce. I also found that other than the outer holes on the inside mount, the ball studs at normal length, are really hard to move inboard. The bearing mounts for the top deck really get in the way. I ended up using shorter ball studs, but anything inboard of the outer hole will still be a issue.
If you go to the inner hole of the steering spindle, you should get a shorter rod length which should pull more, which should give more toe.......but I would check with the setup gauges to confirm.
Hi Bjorn, if you look at the charts, even on the outer hole of the steering spindle and the outer hole of the mount, when set at a static toe of 2* at 5.5mm ride height, the graph shows a increase to 2.6*, which isn't very much. I confirmed this with my setup station, and didn't see much of a increase either, (about .5mm to my eyes). Its not as much as I thought it would produce. I also found that other than the outer holes on the inside mount, the ball studs at normal length, are really hard to move inboard. The bearing mounts for the top deck really get in the way. I ended up using shorter ball studs, but anything inboard of the outer hole will still be a issue.
If you go to the inner hole of the steering spindle, you should get a shorter rod length which should pull more, which should give more toe.......but I would check with the setup gauges to confirm.
11-07-2014, 12:26 PM
#270
I have an idea on how to get rid of three of the "issues", if it works I'll post some pics.