ClioSport.net

Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.

Newbie flame-ball thread - Lowering = poo



Little Newms

ClioSport Club Member
  182, D2 Td5 & 840CI


PMSL @ DAN!!!!! I do alot of bumpy country road driving in the summer, and hit some very mean speed bumps that im worried about even with my 40mm...... But if all goes well some H&Rs may be called for.....

And dont be cheeky u little sh*t!
 


Quote: Originally posted by ian 172 on 27 December 2004

lowering is not always a good idea.For track use ,yes it helps as your flat out and can generate more G through a corner but on the road your car (lowered) can become skitish on un-even surfaces.My old fiesta used to be lowered on standard shocks and this seamed to be ok.......On a car like the 182 they have put so much effort into getting it right that you could end up wrecking the set up.....On an older car this can be a compliment in the long run to help bring the car up to date with a set of shocks and springs.
Personally i like to see a subtle looking car with tasteful lowering...When the wheels start to go into the arches and all that its just silly IMHO and in no way can it be an advantage to the car.You have to do 15 point turns because everything catches the inside liner and you put 1 chubby mate in the back and it rips your arches to sh*t on any slight bump
Whilst I see what your saying since the limit on the roads where handling matter is 60mph you dont need to be lower. Howver we buy sporty Clio etc in the first place so we are willing to make a sacrifice after all a dci authenic Clio is fine for everyone and better for the environment so why wate money on a 182 or a Dynamic well its down to choice realy we want a sport looking car and willing to pay the extra (insurance/fuel/buying costs etc). Lowering just further pushes what we will pay and are willing to put up with in order to be unique or make a better car for what we want.

Massively lowered cars you see on here just with springs are often admitted by the owners as just being for looks they just want to show off (nothing wrong with that).

Anyone who is massively lowered with full kits ie damper/coilovers will have a better (althought that is subjective and can only be judged in the owners eyes) ride/ potent car and often fixes the car so it doest rub etc.

If you see cars lowered and bounching round or rubbing they either are to cheap/lazy to fix it or dont care about it and more interested in the looks which is fine, not everyone is the same.

There is no perfect setup for all. Renault didnt perfect the 182 they made compromises, a full Cup racer setup would make for a better handling car but most 182 owners would accept the handling/ ride which come with it. Renault made the 182 a good all rounder for most owners. They cannot make the perfect ride for everyone.

People want to personalise there cars hence the reason we have a choice of colours/manurfactures for very smilar cars. Lowering is just another avenue for someone to personalise there car.

Ps Im lowered 60mm, the wheels are in the arches (or very close) and Im going to lower it even further it doesnt rub and turning in the road isnt affected and even if it was I never have to turn round anyway where I live. Its different the ride and Im willing to accept the compromise. Each to there own realy.
 
  Clio 182


IMO lowered cars look a million times better. Maybe its my age (20) as my dad doesnt like my car being so low
 
  Pink & Blue 182, JDM DC2


Can i further add, my car is lowered using GAZ adjustable coilovers and not lowering springs.

Thank you please.
 


Quote: Originally posted by Roy Munson on 27 December 2004


Quote: Originally posted by CupCake on 27 December 2004

Roy,

My Cup 172:

(Before)

http://www.simonjessop.co.uk/public/albums/car2/DSC01522.thumb.jpg

(After)

http://www.simonjessop.co.uk/public/albums/car1/DSC01612.thumb.jpg

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I rest my case.


Thats a good example mate. It doesnt look too low, and you still have realistic arch clearance. A very nice job
:)



am i the only one that disagrees with this one?

no offence meant mate but as youve gone with the rally styly mudflaps aswell i think its better higher...

if you lower a car with coilovers, most people do it to improve than handling and it does so i think thats the only way id lower a car.

for lowering a car with just springs, the ride will be a lot worse, it will feel sportier at first but it wont be as reliable and there are a lot more negatives,


the suspension geometry is wrong - doesnt move up and down from the correct angles - poorer ride
the damper rates are wrong - damping at wrong rates - poorer ride
the springs are to stiff - doesnt allow suspension travel - poorer ride
the cars lower, it will catch on the arches - risk of serious damage to wheels tyres and arches
all in all id say it just isnt worth it for lowering a car on springs, coilovers are they only way to go! i could understand it for seriously modded show cars for just spring but then if it was seriously low i wouldnt want to drive it anywhere

all in my own humble opinion of course :D



runs and hides.......
 


Quote: Originally posted by hoe261 on 27 December 2004

i totally agree with Roy Munson, but then im knocking 30. Been there done it and wouldnt dream of doing again. Ive got the 182 cup and the car is spot on as it is (IMO of course). Everyone different tho otherwise wed all be driving round in the same motors!! modding is up to the individual, just not me!! The only mod ive got is a cliosport sticker on the back - proper chav now haha!
I concur, and im 19. :D
 
  LY 200


Mate when i got my valver (with only 17s) i was impressed with it sittin how it was!!!

All my mates were cryin out for it to be lowered 60mm but i wasnt sure....However when i got it done it looked soo much better and improvedthe handling lots too!!!

As you said tho they all look like teyve been lowered by teenagers...Well i did mine when i was 19 so its ok (20 today)!!!;)

Quick pic....

http://erc.qmuc.ac.uk/cliosport/gallery/full/1102093284__clio008.jpg
 
  Pink & Blue 182, JDM DC2


Docter fox - mine is lowered with coilovers and trust me it was to improve the handling and ride. I see what you mean about the mudflaps.. well see if theyre still on the car when they return from the body shop next week!
 


Doctor Fox

I lowered my cup -30mm on eibach pro springs only, though in reality due to stiffer springs the drop was more like -15mm. I also had the geometry reset to suit the new drop, albeit very slight drop. This has improved the cups handling no end and it gives me the confidence to push on whereas I would have been backing off with the old springs, it corners flatter and faster and I really cannot recommend this enough espeically to those anti modding peeps (me included ;-) as it still looks std but you can feel the improvements!
 
  H22A7 Accord Type R


My views on this are pretty simple..........if i had a proper setup R-sport motor like a 182 with cup pack etc, i would leave it! My 1.2 was -60mm on just springs when i got it and although it looked good, it was awful to drive, and threatened to throw you into the nearest ditch on the best of back roads...so i raised it by 20mm and put a full Apex kit on it...........best thing i ever bought! The dampers are so important when lowering a car.

Rob.
 


After speaking to a professional, he told me that my car was probably to low for road use (40mm on a mk1!)

HOwever my opinion is 40mm looks the dogs on my car - its not too much and not too little.

I also understand when ppl talk about the 172/182. It IS designed and built to be sporty and everything is set up at that ride height!

BUT

The majority of people on ClioSport are Entusiasts and if any suspension work is done all geometry is altered! In other words its done properly! lol!!

Carl
 
  Mondeo STTDCI


Id lower for track but I dont do it enough to justify it. Happy with it as it is really, and the fact that I scraped the front splitter on a ramp yesterday has made me have this opinion :(
 
  Clio 182 Trophy 047/500


Quote: Originally posted by Roy Munson on 27 December 2004


Ignoring ride and handling (I realise the lower CG improves stability), the cars just look lowered - IMHO they dont look better at all, they just look modified by teenagers. Sorry if anyone takes offence at this, the vast majority of lowered Clios here do look fantastic, but I cant help thinking theyd look better standard.

That said, this is a Clio enthusiast site, so its obviously expected that lots of us are gonna mod our machines. Its just that personally, I think lowering an already sporty looking 172/182 just slightly chavves it up and cheapens it a bit. Maybe Im just getting old!

___________________________________________________



To be honest mate I think you are missing the point, the reason why many of us lower our cars is not because of the so called CHAV looks, but for the handling both on the road, but more so on the track.

This is why many owners of 172/182 will spend alot of money and go for top quality kit. I for one own a lowered Mk2 ph2 1.4 Clio and found that once i lowered my car it drove and handled better on the road.

My intensions are to buy a brand new 182 in the new year and the first thing i will be doing to it is to purchase a set of coil overs. You wouldnt say to a clio cup racer owner that his car looked CHAV would u so why say it to those who regualrly take there cars onto the track.
 


Quote: Originally posted by Toypop on 27 December 2004


Quote: Originally posted by Andy32 on 27 December 2004


Quote: Originally posted by 182blue on 27 December 2004


does mine look lowered

http://erc.qmuc.ac.uk/cliosport/gallery/full/1101761006__DSCF0322.jpg
Nothing to do with the topic but this is a really cool colour




Yeah we should ask Renault to make the 182 in a new colour called "racing blue photo".
yeh the colour is miles out in the picture, its something more like this (sorry about pic, camera phone)

http://erc.qmuc.ac.uk/cliosport/gallery/full/1103405219__Image063.jpg
 
  Clio v6


I will be getting this new V6 lowered asap, as it rides like a boat on stilts.

Anyone know if I can get V6 MK1 suspension put on it?
 
R

rich[182]



think the non cup mk2 172 needs lowering IMO and springs uprating, too much gap between tyre and arch but more importantly their is too much body roll with the standard setup
 
  GTiR 394bhp


Quote: Originally posted by Roy Munson on 27 December 2004


Quote: Originally posted by hoe261 on 27 December 2004

i totally agree with Roy Munson, but then im knocking 30. Been there done it and wouldnt dream of doing again. Ive got the 182 cup and the car is spot on as it is (IMO of course). Everyone different tho otherwise wed all be driving round in the same motors!! modding is up to the individual, just not me!! The only mod ive got is a cliosport sticker on the back - proper chav now haha!


Hehehe Im 32 in 4 weeks, so perhaps it is an age thing. Also exepecting delivery of my 182Cup on the 20th and wouldnt dream of messing with the balance of the car. Each to their own though. Ive not seen any members cars on here that I think look bad.





I dont really like lowering just for stylings sake.Some people just change the springs and dont take into consideration that the dampers are matched to the OE ones.Lowering can actually make handling worse.As for chopping springs down:eek:,thats just silly.

Oh,Im 31 so maybe its an old man thing,or maybe its just common sense.
 


Guys,

You all forget thet the geometry is set up for all road types. MK1 172 rolled more than MK2. Thicker roll bars to start.

All cup variations are 3mm lower. Naff difference. Lower a road car to any extent will actually hamper the ability to drive the car round quickly on our roads. You all forget you can not have a road car and a track car.

The lowered car will rest on its bump stops quicker than most muppets can get it there. It will therefore been thrown from the road far quicker. Why do you think we have had so many crash and burns on our bumpy/twisty roads.

I beg anyone to tell me dropping a car per se makes it handle better. YES it will be flatter, NO it wont go round a corner faster as a result ( bar tracks; they have a flat surface). suspension movement allows for undulations. Has anyone considered the torsional rigididity of the body and subframes that they allow for, i.e. general tollerances.

I know there are some track guys on here, none of them would say a car set up for a track is better on a general B road.

Generally lowering is for posing. Forget Chavs. They are too stupid to even understand a decent car in the first place.

Im welcoming PMs or a separate thread.

Some will even remember me from a few years ago, when people were actually able to understand the concept of being able to drive better/ understand better.

I do love a debate. ( not a childish arguement)

Mark
 


Quote: Originally posted by blaze on 28 December 2004

You all forget thet the geometry is set up for all road types. MK1 172 rolled more than MK2. Thicker roll bars to start. Same roll bars infact the only difference was the setup ie camber etc, the MK1 weighted less than the Mk2 and a Mk1 might be lower than a mk2 due to ageing of the springs etc. Thye should be the same though.
All cup variations are 3mm lower. Naff difference. Lower a road car to any extent will actually hamper the ability to drive the car round quickly on our roads. The 182 Cup is 3mm lower the 172 was 5mm at the back and 7 at the front and that was 100% down to the camber and wheel offset the springs on the 172 Cup and 172 are the same. The Cup however does have tigther tolerances on its setup of +-5mm



The lowered car will rest on its bump stops quicker than most muppets can get it there. It will therefore been thrown from the road far quicker. Why do you think we have had so many crash and burns on our bumpy/twisty roads. Not everyone who crashed is lowered when I crashed (on stock setup) it had nothing to do with bump stops etc. Lowered owners crash just like stock height owners just that lowered cars are often pushed more by there drivers.

I beg anyone to tell me dropping a car per se makes it handle better. YES it will be flatter, NO it wont go round a corner faster as a result ( bar tracks; they have a flat surface). suspension movement allows for undulations. Has anyone considered the torsional rigididity of the body and subframes that they allow for, i.e. general tollerances. Lowering properly ie damper as well as springs change will make a car more potentially able to go faster round bends due to physics of weight transfere etc.

I know there are some track guys on here, none of them would say a car set up for a track is better on a general B road. Its subjective IMO. My car is better on the track with the lower setup but the ride on very uneven surfaces is

Generally lowering is for posing. Forget Chavs. They are too stupid to even understand a decent car in the first place. Well I agree on the second point. As for the first point if you lower on just springs I personally agree with you but someone who goes for new damper as well is interesting in the handling of the car. Is there anything wrong in you view in posing in your car if you dont annoy others?
 


EDDE,

Perhaps you should read the published differences. I had not altered my ally bonneted mk1 against the steel later MK1. Differences MK1/2 included a thicker roll bar, larger bore of throtle body(gave a better all over torque curve) Fly by wire throttles. Yes more weight yet the advantage was better torque curve. I will NOT aggue one is faster as I have found none in reallity. I have also seen the torque curves.

My overall point was general ignorance of cars and how people think track= road. NO WAY NO WAY

The difference in camber was the CUP. Not MK1 vs MK2 172.

IMHO you are dead right in the lowering comment. Anyone can pose. Just dont expect it to be a better car. Chances are it will be compromised.

PS mate I dont do smileys. takes me too long to just type:oops:

Mark



I have no interest in comparing crashes, yet all I have to go on is the posts for dropping a car against cars that crash on a road. You are right, in that I should not be so pedantic
 


Quote: Originally posted by blaze on 28 December 2004





Perhaps you should read the published differences. The publised 182 Cup vS none Cup differences are 3mm however Im not sure if thats down to different spring height or different setup. The 172 Cup Vs 172 Mk2 stock setup figures are the official Renault ones that any garage should use if you have a camber etc check on the car not some published figure (which doesnt stand for much IMO) I had not altered my ally bonneted mk1 against the steel later MK1. Differences MK1/2 included a thicker roll bar, Hum Im not convinced accoring to Renault part catalogue both the MK1 and MK2 172 (cup excpeted) had the same parts for anti roll bars, dampers, springs etc the Mk1 has a different camber setup etc though although a Mk2 could be setup to Mk1 spec without needing any bits (wheels excepted). The Mk1 wheel have different offset etc and this might account for the feeling of difference.

There arnt that many people who will know the difference in sizes the Mk1 vs Mk2 engine had so Ill have to leave that question.

The difference in camber was the CUP. Not MK1 vs MK2 172. Yep sorry if I wasnt clear the Cup was different than MK2 setup.

IMHO you are dead right in the lowering comment. Anyone can pose. Just dont expect it to be a better car. Chances are it will be compromised. The stock setup is a compromise though. Im under no illusion that most aftermarket stuff is of a higher quality than Renault stuff the amoutn of snapped 172 springs Ive heard of is quite amazing.

PS mate I dont do smileys. takes me too long to just type:oops: They take to long for me to load anyway so I never see them

I have no interest in comparing crashes, yet all I have to go on is the posts for dropping a car against cars that crash on a road. You are right, in that I should not be so pedantic Bets idea this I didnt mean to say that I was braggn etc about my crash it was stupid and dangerous and Im forever thankful that no one was hurt. What i was trying to say was it wasnt down to the car suspension bump stops or anything like that.


I dont want to get into an argument with you and please dont take any of the above as trying to put you down Im just trying to ensure were all working for a fair information.
 

MarkCup

ClioSport Club Member


Interesting points from all (and not the hornets nest it could have been Roy)... my thoughts...

In my opinion it all comes down to how you define "Handling" (which in itself is very subjective)?

To some, a car thats sprung so stiffly it shakes your fillings out "handles". To others, a car staying flat round the local McDonalds mini-roundabout "handles". Others think a lower centre of gravity enhances "handling". As someone stated earlier in this thread, they think less weight transfer improves grip and therefore "handling" too.

So what is handling?

I think that handling can be summed up as "the ability of a car to enable and assist its driver to extract the best from it".

Sure, lowering might improve ultimate grip levels but at what cost? How does it then behave on the limit? Has it become "snappy"? If it is a little less tolerant of on the limit mishaps are you going to swap ends before you know it when pressing on? If so, being wary of on-limit behaviour means youre less likely to try and use that last 5% does it not? Does that really mean it handles better? Would you be any quicker?

As standard, the Cup 172 set-up strikes, for me, the perfect balance between everyday on-road usability, and balls-out, M3 embarassing, track action. IMO contrary to what others have suggested, weight transfer, aided by a healthy high ride-height at the front actually improves grip/handling. With correct weight transfer you can load up the front wheels prior to turn-in, theoretically giving more grip, a keener, sharper response, and also helping matters by bring the back round a little bit. The standard set-up, on Yokohama A539s anyway, doesnt really have a "limit", just a plateau on which you can play, and its that playability that I think helps you to get the very best from it.

How much faster would lowering alone make a car around a track (or on the roads for that matter) anyway? 1 second? Maybe 2 seconds? Possibly 3 seconds?

Go take a look at my before and after instruction videos from Goodwood recently. Being able to drive the track properly after tuition gave me more time than any handling mod alone could have done.

The driver is the biggest handicap a car can have...if you want to go "faster", improving your own ability is the cheapest way to do it.

I dont look at lowered Clios (Sport or otherwise) and think anything at all really, each to their own. But if you bought a RenaultSport Clio, intending to drive it how its meant to be driven, I think youre better off leaving it as is.

For the record, Im 34 ;)
 


My tuppence worth...

Firstly, I own a mk2 172 which I fitted -40mm springs to. I did this for appearance, first and foremost, and Im happy to admit that (IMO standard mk2 172s look too high).

I know that I wont have improved handling with my choice of spring (Apex -40mm) but would agree - as would lots of mk2 172 owners - that fitting certain springs to the mk2 172 definately improves the handling: Eibach pro springs is a good example. BUT, Im not a good enough driver and I dont drive fast enough that I can honestly say Id be able to notice the difference in cornering between a lowered and standard mk2 172.

Thats a bit of a crappy statement saying lowering = poo.
 
  Ziel Nurburgring


Lowering is fine in my opinion, unless its matched with a tarmac scraping body kit. Even freds clio, and thats the lowest your going to get, looks really good as it isnt over the top.

Its a body kit that can ruin the car, not lowering.
 


Quote: Originally posted by edde on 28 December 2004

Lowered owners crash just like stock height owners just that lowered cars are often pushed more by there drivers.



wouldnt agree with that, iv got a standard 1.2 and youv got to rag it to actually make it move, i push it pretty hard sometimes (esp for a learner driver :D) but all the lowered ones iv seen dont push the cars, they just "cruise" along posing (around here theyre normally with 12yo gfs) iv only ever seen one lowered clio pushing it hard, thats got a turbo and he can drive too, so you know he means business.... i have however seen quite a few standard ones going for it (inlcuding a young guy in a diesel with a different colour boot whos driving like an idiot everytime i see him (not just fast but dangerous)

IMO
to lower a car to make it handle better round corners (ie coilovers or matched springs dampers and geometry) then it makes the car look sportier

but if you lower a car to make it look more sportier......ok :confused: but it isnt!

sportier looks is a bonus from better handling (if it is lower - it doesnt always need to be) and i understand that some cars look better slightly lower sometimes but IMO a lot of people take it to far

but i definately agree spending money on learning to be a better driver is certainly a better way of being quicker than mods, especially lowering!
 


Ok, lets all stop pretending to be race engineers and flag down a black cab back to reality,

A few points worth considering:

1. Most people who lower their cars are not qualified to comment on its performance as a race car. You have to therefore treat their lowering improved handling statements with the contempt they deserve.

2. Very few people on this forum has ever competed in or been involved in a competitive motor sport environment (track days dont count as really they are just road driving without speed limits). If you havnt, how do you know what you are talking about?

3. Setting up a sports car for a track is a laborious and time consuming task. It takes a team of people (often engineers) working closely with the driver to assess the tyres, suspension, traction, and balance of the car. Increasingly computers are used. Its a very delicate process and takes years of experience to get right. How many race teams turn up at a race track, lower their car by 30 mm and slap on some 17s and actually improve their time?:p

4. Generally the lower and stiffer your car, the smoother the surface must be for it to perform as is wished. Lower and stiffen your car too much and it will loose grip and traction on a bumpy track. Lower is not always better. But how do we know how low, as none of us are qualified race engineers?

5. Lowering a car that is not used on a track is stupid, given the bumpy state of British roads.

6. In alot of cases a more regular change of tyre, more stringent tyre pressure checks and fitting the correct tyres, would improve handling more than fitting coilovers and then driving round in the winter with 1 mm of tread left on an oll but bald tyre.

7. Those that improve their cars handling with lowering either do it professionally, know what they are doing or get lucky. Most just stumble through and mess up a great car.

8. Oh and lowered Williams look mailto:w@nk">w@nk









IMO, of course;)
 


Quote: Originally posted by docter fox on 29 December 2004


Quote: Originally posted by edde on 28 December 2004

Lowered owners crash just like stock height owners just that lowered cars are often pushed more by there drivers.
wouldnt agree with that, iv got a standard 1.2 and youv got to rag it to actually make it move, i push it pretty hard sometimes (esp for a learner driver :D) but all the lowered ones iv seen dont push the cars, they just "cruise" along posing (around here theyre normally with 12yo gfs) iv only ever seen one lowered clio pushing it hard, thats got a turbo and he can drive too, so you know he means business.... i have however seen quite a few standard ones going for it (inlcuding a young guy in a diesel with a different colour boot whos driving like an idiot everytime i see him (not just fast but dangerous)
Ok Ill reword that. Younger drivers (by proportion) are more likely to have lowered cars and crash more (hence why we pay more insurance) as we drive with less risk/less skill/less experiance and at high speed than older drivers/ stock ride height car drivers as we want to enjoy (subjective as it is) our cars more than other drivers. This obviously carries high possible risk.

Hope that makes some sence.

PS my cars boot is the same colour as the rest of it so its not me you see driving round.
 


Quote: Originally posted by Willy Williams on 29 December 2004


Ok, lets all stop pretending to be race engineers and flag down a black cab back to reality,

A few points worth considering:

1. Most people who lower their cars are not qualified to comment on its performance as a race car. You have to therefore treat their lowering improved handling statements with the contempt they deserve.

2. Very few people on this forum has ever competed in or been involved in a competitive motor sport environment (track days dont count as really they are just road driving without speed limits). If you havnt, how do you know what you are talking about?

3. Setting up a sports car for a track is a laborious and time consuming task. It takes a team of people (often engineers) working closely with the driver to assess the tyres, suspension, traction, and balance of the car. Increasingly computers are used. Its a very delicate process and takes years of experience to get right. How many race teams turn up at a race track, lower their car by 30 mm and slap on some 17s and actually improve their time?:p

4. Generally the lower and stiffer your car, the smoother the surface must be for it to perform as is wished. Lower and stiffen your car too much and it will loose grip and traction on a bumpy track. Lower is not always better. But how do we know how low, as none of us are qualified race engineers?

5. Lowering a car that is not used on a track is stupid, given the bumpy state of British roads.

6. In alot of cases a more regular change of tyre, more stringent tyre pressure checks and fitting the correct tyres, would improve handling more than fitting coilovers and then driving round in the winter with 1 mm of tread left on an oll but bald tyre.

7. Those that improve their cars handling with lowering either do it professionally, know what they are doing or get lucky. Most just stumble through and mess up a great car.

8. Oh and lowered Williams look mailto:w@nk">w@nk









IMO, of course;)
Well after spending lots of there hard earned, the handling is not going to be worse is it.;)

Anyone ever heard of the placebo effect.
 


Quote: Originally posted by Willy Williams on 29 December 2004

1. Most people who lower their cars are not qualified to comment on its performance as a race car. You have to therefore treat their lowering improved handling statements with the contempt they deserve. To be fair people should say its increased potential but thats by the by. If we prefere/enjoy the new ride/potential then does it matter. If its lower it is very likly to be more potent on the road regardless. Anyway the new springs/ shocks etc are bought from companies who have checked the see that the handling is better/ more in tune for a sporty ride so they are the ones who are testing and making the product for us.

2. Very few people on this forum has ever competed in or been involved in a competitive motor sport environment (track days dont count as really they are just road driving without speed limits). If you havnt, how do you know what you are talking about? We dont, but are you highly experiance enought to have tried all aftermarket setups on everyone cars with the owners views in mind to say that the cars arnt better?

3. Setting up a sports car for a track is a laborious and time consuming task. It takes a team of people (often engineers) working closely with the driver to assess the tyres, suspension, traction, and balance of the car. Increasingly computers are used. Its a very delicate process and takes years of experience to get right. How many race teams turn up at a race track, lower their car by 30 mm and slap on some 17s and actually improve their time?:p It would be an interresting test get a stock car take it round with a race driver then take it round 30m lower with 17s (no the optimim size wheel/tyre realy) and see if it goes faster. Personally Id love to have my car setup by the race teams and theyd do a better job then any normal coilovers would but I dont have the £ to have a race team set it up, so I take he cheaper of the shelf coilover setup which has been done by a manurfatcurer.

4. Generally the lower and stiffer your car, the smoother the surface must be for it to perform as is wished. Lower and stiffen your car too much and it will loose grip and traction on a bumpy track. Lower is not always better. But how do we know how low, as none of us are qualified race engineers? Are you qualified to say lower (in whatever for) isnt bettter? The Cup race enginners/Renault decided that the Cup racer setup (~80mm lower than stock I think) is the optimium for what they wanted.

5. Lowering a car that is not used on a track is stupid, given the bumpy state of British roads. That down to the owners choice isnt it? Lower3d owners are willing to put up with some items in return for a lower car (for whatever reason).

6. In alot of cases a more regular change of tyre, more stringent tyre pressure checks and fitting the correct tyres, would improve handling more than fitting coilovers and then driving round in the winter with 1 mm of tread left on an oll but bald tyre. Yes Id agree but since I (and most owners here would as well I imagine) change my /their tyres before they reach the wear markiings does it matter? Changing our tyres before they got 1/2 worn would be more expensive than coilovers though, so why not get coilovers etc and drive with respect to tyre wear/the law anyway?

7. Those that improve their cars handling with lowering either do it professionally, know what they are doing or get lucky. Most just stumble through and mess up a great car. What do you mean professionally? Demon Tweeks set my car up and the coilover company (Id imagine/hope) spent a fair amount of money ensuring the car was more sporty/ more potent. Are these two companies amature in your mind I dont care if you do or dont agree with me but I think Apex /FK / H and R/ Blistein might disagree with you

8. Oh and lowered Williams look mailto:w@nk">w@nk The williams was almost perfect IMO for the sporty driver doesnt mean it was perfect though.

IMO, of course;) Same here
 


lol at the boot thing, i dont think the guys on here? (diesel, different coloured boot and a "redline" sticker on the back bumper)

well said willy williams

would be intereting (and possibly v funny) to see how peoples cars compared round a track from standard to when lowered

ps id say i knew a bit about suspension but not enough to think about trying to adjust my coilovers for fear of making them worse :oops:
 

Little Newms

ClioSport Club Member
  182, D2 Td5 & 840CI


Quote: Originally posted by Ally on 29 December 2004


My tuppence worth...

Firstly, I own a mk2 172 which I fitted -40mm springs to. I did this for appearance, first and foremost, and Im happy to admit that (IMO standard mk2 172s look too high).

I know that I wont have improved handling with my choice of spring (Apex -40mm) but would agree - as would lots of mk2 172 owners - that fitting certain springs to the mk2 172 definately improves the handling: Eibach pro springs is a good example. BUT, Im not a good enough driver and I dont drive fast enough that I can honestly say Id be able to notice the difference in cornering between a lowered and standard mk2 172.

Thats a bit of a crappy statement saying lowering = poo.
In exactly the same boat! Took thwe words out of my mouth, im still learning my car and dont want to make a mistake like most have, im very lucky with the car i have got at my age and i dont want to throw that all away by stacking it! Hence for now i have gone for looks and not performance.......

:D
 


Quote: Originally posted by edde on 29 December 2004


Quote: Originally posted by Willy Williams on 29 December 2004

1. Most people who lower their cars are not qualified to comment on its performance as a race car. You have to therefore treat their lowering improved handling statements with the contempt they deserve. To be fair people should say its increased potential but thats by the by. If we prefere/enjoy the new ride/potential then does it matter. If its lower it is very likly to be more potent on the road regardless. Anyway the new springs/ shocks etc are bought from companies who have checked the see that the handling is better/ more in tune for a sporty ride so they are the ones who are testing and making the product for us.


2. Very few people on this forum has ever competed in or been involved in a competitive motor sport environment (track days dont count as really they are just road driving without speed limits). If you havnt, how do you know what you are talking about? We dont, but are you highly experiance enought to have tried all aftermarket setups on everyone cars with the owners views in mind to say that the cars arnt better?

3. Setting up a sports car for a track is a laborious and time consuming task. It takes a team of people (often engineers) working closely with the driver to assess the tyres, suspension, traction, and balance of the car. Increasingly computers are used. Its a very delicate process and takes years of experience to get right. How many race teams turn up at a race track, lower their car by 30 mm and slap on some 17s and actually improve their time?:p It would be an interresting test get a stock car take it round with a race driver then take it round 30m lower with 17s (no the optimim size wheel/tyre realy) and see if it goes faster. Personally Id love to have my car setup by the race teams and theyd do a better job then any normal coilovers would but I dont have the £ to have a race team set it up, so I take he cheaper of the shelf coilover setup which has been done by a manurfatcurer.

4. Generally the lower and stiffer your car, the smoother the surface must be for it to perform as is wished. Lower and stiffen your car too much and it will loose grip and traction on a bumpy track. Lower is not always better. But how do we know how low, as none of us are qualified race engineers? Are you qualified to say lower (in whatever for) isnt bettter? The Cup race enginners/Renault decided that the Cup racer setup (~80mm lower than stock I think) is the optimium for what they wanted.

5. Lowering a car that is not used on a track is stupid, given the bumpy state of British roads. That down to the owners choice isnt it? Lower3d owners are willing to put up with some items in return for a lower car (for whatever reason).

6. In alot of cases a more regular change of tyre, more stringent tyre pressure checks and fitting the correct tyres, would improve handling more than fitting coilovers and then driving round in the winter with 1 mm of tread left on an oll but bald tyre. Yes Id agree but since I (and most owners here would as well I imagine) change my /their tyres before they reach the wear markiings does it matter? Changing our tyres before they got 1/2 worn would be more expensive than coilovers though, so why not get coilovers etc and drive with respect to tyre wear/the law anyway?

7. Those that improve their cars handling with lowering either do it professionally, know what they are doing or get lucky. Most just stumble through and mess up a great car. What do you mean professionally? Demon Tweeks set my car up and the coilover company (Id imagine/hope) spent a fair amount of money ensuring the car was more sporty/ more potent. Are these two companies amature in your mind I dont care if you do or dont agree with me but I think Apex /FK / H and R/ Blistein might disagree with you

8. Oh and lowered Williams look mailto:w@nk">w@nk The williams was almost perfect IMO for the sporty driver doesnt mean it was perfect though.

IMO, of course;) Same here








Youre obviously talking sh*t edde, how could the likes of bilstien and H&R (who lets face it arent known for producing fantastic products nor the OE fitment dampers to the likes of BMW and Porsches sport models) possibly improve on the stock kit, are far be it for us as non qualified, non race engineers, without a degree in physics to comment on what may be a very tangible improvement in a cars handling. Manufacturers will spend many months and countless thousands turning a cars suspension into the best possible set up and not have to take into considerations like the state if local roads, or ability of the owner to realise cars running more negative camber may need to check the inside edge of the tyre for more wear. They also dont have to consider that some owners may have bought the car for its spec or price and may not feel firmer or lower suspension is a liveable thing for improved performance. We as enthusiasts known nothing and couldnt possibly be in a position to comment as to whether a change we have made to a car day in day out has actually improved it over standard.

YEAH f**kING RIGHT !!!!
 


Top