View Single Post
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 04-28-2007, 09:29 AM
junglejustice's Avatar
junglejustice junglejustice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Granolaville, Washington
Posts: 3,551
Grant, sounds to me like Larry has the setup - you should go with his complete package...

(It is worth mentioning that NONE of the 25 transaxle cars in Ron's fleet of Ring-burners run a drop-spindle modification - NOT EVEN HIS FULL-RACE 24 valve TOURING GTV6!!!)

Listen, 15-20 years ago - Shankle was it! That's what was available for these cars; that's what worked and it is still pretty good by today's standards however, technology has changed. Should we all still run carbs, just because that was what worked 40 years ago!?

That's like saying Alfa knows best what's good for your Alfa and you should run the setup the way the system designers well, designed it!

Five years ago RSR did not exist the way that it does today. You simply have better technology available to you today, than what many of us had for these cars 5-10-20 years ago; USE IT!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grant View Post
And does anyone know how the RS system make a car tail happy? Are the spring rates really stiff in the rear or something? Do I just need to increase my rear spring rates to something much higher?
Yes, "anyone" does know - it DOES NOT. Simply bolting on an RSR kit DOES NOT make the car tail-happy or not - just like simply bolting on a 30mm front anti-rill bar DOES NOT "make" the car under-steer...! It is in the final setup that the characteristics of the car's handling are defined in accordance with driver-preference (as well as in conjunction with the rest of the setup - READ: PACKAGE...)

I like a neutral car (don't we all!?), with a slight hint of over-steer when I push it. (On entry I want NO under-steer and I like the turn-in to be crisp (don't we all!?) The FULL RSR setup achieved that for me with some tuning/R&D/testing! (Keep in mind that this requires corner-balancing the car with 4 scales under the wheels on an alignment rack - adjusting each of the springs at the 4 corners FRONT AND REAR - with driver-weight simulated in the seat...)

Again; it is THE PACKAGE that works - not just arbitrary increases in spring-rates at one end of the car or the other...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grant View Post
O yeah, one other thing. I don't want oversteer because I "drift" or whatever. I have an entire different car to subject to that kind of abuse, I just want my Alfa to suit my driving style (tail happy when I want it to be).
Sounds like we like our cars tuned the same (surprise-surprise...)

Chuck, you have a spindle on your car right now - it is the upright axle that connects the upper control-arm to the lower control-arm and holds the axle-shaft that holds the hub/wheel-bearings/wheel. It is key to the front suspension - the front brake calipers bolt to it as well...

A popular modification that Larry Jr. sold to a few guys here is a lengthening of the height of that spindle (ergo - a "drop"-spindle), by mating two standard spindles. This is all theory and based on the popular belief that running larger rims and/or lowering the ride-height of any given car creates an undesirable effect of a lower control-arm that does not sit perfectly parallel to the road surface and by extension poor handling characteristics..

Well, Colin Chapman HIMSELF wrote that this is NOT necessarily true for ALL cars. It has also been proven in race-applications that if you can control the roll-center somewhat (and more importantly - the body-roll), it becomes less of an issue! Ron's setup is living breathing evidence (Grant, empirical evidence if you will), that it means NOTHING on THESE cars BECAUSE you have gained control of the body-roll to a large degree by addressing BOTH roll-bar stiffness AND springs-rates front AND rear!
__________________
Full-Race 3.7 Litre 24v Milano; Street/Track 3.0 Litre 24v Milano Verde; 6-speed 3.45 litre 24v Street 164 LS/Super; Future 24v Projects; '06 Scion XB - Runs!

Last edited by junglejustice; 04-28-2007 at 09:51 AM.
Reply With Quote