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.
one side lower than the other
- Thread starter Craig
- Start date
the passenger side i tend to set 5-10mm lower (on the adjusters) to counter act the weight of the driver
with 80-100kg on the drivers side it'll sit level
corner weighting is surprising when you measure/adjust it
Also remember the engine is approx 100kg and the box is only 35kg, so there is more weight on the drivers side
with 80-100kg on the drivers side it'll sit level
corner weighting is surprising when you measure/adjust it
Also remember the engine is approx 100kg and the box is only 35kg, so there is more weight on the drivers side
Which is why there was never a RHD Cup Racer ;-) On the X85's I can get the fronts within a few KG's of each other - on a RHD 197 I can't get anywhere near that LOL
Craig, when you set your ride heights you really need to do it with either the driver or an equivalent mass in the drivers seat.
Cheers
M
Do Fred and yourself use corner weighting just to try and equalise the Front Left and Front Right loading? What do you do with the rears? As these are not centerline mounted single seaters with a reasonable left/right balance, what's your statergy with corner weighting?
the rears are "normally" within 5kg of each other on the scales with the rear at an identical height
it can get a bit too OTT on setting up cars, (ie depends how many right handers the track has, how many left handers etc etc)
but generally for a track car with the driver sat in, i aim to have the front axle within 10-15kg side to side
rears as said are generaly spot on
it can get a bit too OTT on setting up cars, (ie depends how many right handers the track has, how many left handers etc etc)
but generally for a track car with the driver sat in, i aim to have the front axle within 10-15kg side to side
rears as said are generaly spot on
Thanks, while your on whats your view on equalising the diagonals and going for a close as possible 50% distribution across the diagonals at the expense of equalised just the fronts for braking balance?
Sorry spelling error. Should read ".......of equalising distribution on just the fronts for braking balance?"
ie why dont you balance the diagonals and go for for 50% cross weighting for better handling balance and thus sorting the left/right turning and handling. Do you favour equal fronts just for braking in a staight line?
thats the general idea with most stuff (sorry i was trying to keep things simple as to not to overcomplicate things for people)
but if you're on about race stuff, then you have a lot of experimenting (aka testing!) to do!
the majority of circuits are clockwise so therefore you can set the car to be quicker through the right handers but at the risk of them being dogs through left handers, every track will have a different setting
we should really chuck everything else into the mix also (toe, camber, castor etc), bear in mind a stock road car won't be bang on 50%
but if you're on about race stuff, then you have a lot of experimenting (aka testing!) to do!
the majority of circuits are clockwise so therefore you can set the car to be quicker through the right handers but at the risk of them being dogs through left handers, every track will have a different setting
we should really chuck everything else into the mix also (toe, camber, castor etc), bear in mind a stock road car won't be bang on 50%
Last edited:
Appreciate your time and replies Fred.
Ignoring the setting up for a specific circuit or direction. Isn't the objective with a good cross weighted track car ie 50% balanced across the diagonals, that it then has similar handling in both left corners and in right corners ie balanced and predictable for track work in either a left or right turn. Surely if you just corner weight to equalise the fronts (left/right only) the car is only balanced under braking and not well balanced in turns?
It must be just as easy to cross weight the diagonals, so why chose balanced fronts only?
i'll chuck something else in aswell, just for fun
this whole nose down thing, and "its slammed into the weeds" milarky
bring the car into me however you want it to "look" just don't whinge at me when its not exactly the same height when it comes out again, corner weighting (that you ask for) involves height adjustments, normally only minor, i generally set the statics then mess about with all 4 to get the diags sorted, height adjustments have to happen!
this whole nose down thing, and "its slammed into the weeds" milarky
bring the car into me however you want it to "look" just don't whinge at me when its not exactly the same height when it comes out again, corner weighting (that you ask for) involves height adjustments, normally only minor, i generally set the statics then mess about with all 4 to get the diags sorted, height adjustments have to happen!
yeah sorry the way i said it sounds a bit daft
you set the statics, then by adjusting say the front left and rear right (or front right rear left) you adjust the diags, but its usually only by small amounts that are needed
i made it sound like the front just need to be equal
sorry my mistake!
what's your background anyway, you know your stuff!
My background? engineering and a passion for the 4 wheeled stuff.
Sorry to press a bit on the corner weighting stuff, but I know you have the Clio experience and just wondered if you have developed a well tried and tested set up that was any different from the 'norm'.
i have, but you won't be getting that out of me! LOL 
(its mainly camber and toe where i "mess" about with, nothing with the corner weighting is anything special)
na in all seriousness alot of it stems down to preference, if a car comes to me for setup i will ask what they like, setup it up as best i can, let them take it away, do some track work etc etc if its no good then they can come back and i'll try something else £FOC
if i set all cars (clios i'm on about here) to the same setup, then i can gaurantee there will be people who don't like it, some of my lot hate how my car feels, i love it, and likewise their cars
(its mainly camber and toe where i "mess" about with, nothing with the corner weighting is anything special)na in all seriousness alot of it stems down to preference, if a car comes to me for setup i will ask what they like, setup it up as best i can, let them take it away, do some track work etc etc if its no good then they can come back and i'll try something else £FOC
if i set all cars (clios i'm on about here) to the same setup, then i can gaurantee there will be people who don't like it, some of my lot hate how my car feels, i love it, and likewise their cars
i have, but you won't be getting that out of me! LOL
na in all seriousness alot of it stems down to preference, if a car comes to me for setup i will ask what they like, setup it up as best i can, let them take it away, do some track work etc etc if its no good then they can come back and i'll try something else £FOC
if i set all cars (clios i'm on about here) to the same setup, then i can gaurantee there will be people who don't like it, some of my lot hate how my car feels, i love it, and likewise their cars
No worries. Not trying to get your favoured range of geo's, which will vary anyway depending on so many factors including driver and handling preferences.
Surprised you didnt mention rake as a nice cheap and easy variable to 'mess' with, particularly if you are adjusting platforms.
The real issue here is that I can't think of a circuit off the top of my head which has an equal amount of left hand corners to right hand corners. Hence you can find a reduction in lap time by optimising for the 'common' corners and compromising for the 'rare' corners.
Optimsing the diagonol weights is a valid operation and can have benefits in a road car where you'll have ABS to deal with any unequal initial grip during braking due to differing axle weights but want the car to 'feel' the same regardless of direction of severity of turn. It also has a use in race cars where if you're racing door to door you may want equal response for recovery or 'finding a way around'. Generaly though you tend to tweek towards the common corners.
I tend to optimise the corner weights for the weight distribution I want (which in turn alters the rake/point) with equal front/rear axle weights and then build on this base setup with feedback from the driver/s. You'll never stick a setup on a car and accept that thats it. You need to work very closely with the guys driving the car to find a setup that compliments their style and nature, some may like it loose on initial turn in, in which case you'd run with less rear weight bias to allow a controlable amount of 'slide' into the corner. Some may like the car absolutely planted i.e. in a 24hr endurance car, in which case you would setup to be as quick as possible whilst being as benign as possible in terms of resistance to slide during rapid weight transfer events.
This is all before you get into what effect a functional aero package has on the car where your static point my be different to your dynamic point due to differing amounts of front/rear downforce and therefore different effective corner weights at speed.
The best starting point for developing a setup IME is always to start with the car as close to equal axle weights as possible with the weight distribution you require with driver, all fluids and half a tank of fuel on board. From this point you can develop a circuit specific setup which may or may not be optimised for corner direction or optimised diagonaly for equal response.
Cheers
M
Good stuff. So are you moving physical mass about to equalise the front and rear axle loads as you suggested for your corner weighting starting point. I can’t see how you would have a perfect 50/50 Front/Rear weight distribution to start with and you can’t shift the overall Front/Rear balance ratios just on platform heights.
Do your drivers prefer a more balanced set-up or favour a circuit direction orientated set-up? Maybe even once they are running dynamically they cant even tell the difference with a few Kg difference anyway if the circuit conditions vary.
Pep
ClioSport Club Member
M2,XJS,S1000RR
Without doubt one of the most interesting threads on here.
Wondering if someone could answer a few simple questions for me since theres a lot of knowledge looking in!
Got H&R's on my car and I'm wanting to set it up for fast road/occasional track use. However I don't know what a happy medium would be with regards to the setup. I've got some lightweight 15's for track use, but turinis for day to day use, how much difference would it make if it was set up with either? I was thinking none as the weight at each corner would be equal regardless of the 15's or 16's?
Previously had the car set-up with -ve 2.5 on the front, can't remember the castor/toe-in settings off the top of my head, but it was very good on a nice dry road, motorways etc not the best but most of my driving is recreational anyways so that doesnt bother me.
Also I like the low look, but willing to sacrifice this a bit for a good set-up.
I'm also interested in how to have the car setup with the interior etc....for track I plan to strip the rear seats, plastics and seatbelts. However day to day I will have it all in....is it worth leaving it all in on track too so it is set up right for both? Or will the difference be massive?
Sorry if that doesnt make much sense, but overall i want it as good a compromise as possible.
Wondering if someone could answer a few simple questions for me since theres a lot of knowledge looking in!
Got H&R's on my car and I'm wanting to set it up for fast road/occasional track use. However I don't know what a happy medium would be with regards to the setup. I've got some lightweight 15's for track use, but turinis for day to day use, how much difference would it make if it was set up with either? I was thinking none as the weight at each corner would be equal regardless of the 15's or 16's?
Previously had the car set-up with -ve 2.5 on the front, can't remember the castor/toe-in settings off the top of my head, but it was very good on a nice dry road, motorways etc not the best but most of my driving is recreational anyways so that doesnt bother me.
Also I like the low look, but willing to sacrifice this a bit for a good set-up.
I'm also interested in how to have the car setup with the interior etc....for track I plan to strip the rear seats, plastics and seatbelts. However day to day I will have it all in....is it worth leaving it all in on track too so it is set up right for both? Or will the difference be massive?
Sorry if that doesnt make much sense, but overall i want it as good a compromise as possible.
Think you misread, you will never achieve 50/50 F/R weight distribution on a FWD car (well not unless the engine is in the back anyway). What I aim for as a starting point are equal front/rear axle weights not equal front/rear weights. Axle weights being equal side to side weights on that axis. You certainly can influence the front/rear weight distribution via spring platforms though, by several tens of kilos if you want to take it to the extreme on a front engined RWD drift car for example.
It depends on the driver and the circuit. For 24hr endurance use I will always push them towards a more balanced/less twitchy setup which whilst ultimately slower in terms of laptimes will tend to avoid the odd trip to the gravel at 4AM. For sprint use all bets are off and its a case of chasing hundreths whilst working closely with the driver to find a setup he/she can work with the best - ultimately one setup may be quicker but if your driver can't make the most of it you may find more time with an alternative setup, be this more balanced or more dynamicaly unstable to aid turn in for example.
I'm very keen on working as closely with the driver as possible to extract the best - its not uncommon to see some setup guys blaiming the driver for poor performance. I tend to think if you can't work with your guys and tailor the car to extract the best (i.e. fastest laptime) they can extract from the car then its a poor show. This does go hand in hand with accurate data work/engineering however as in many cases its possible to demonstrate with the data where a setup change will allow a driver to push on more whereas without the data your driver may fail to recognise the area where time can be saved.
On top of all this if you're doing anything other than short sprint races you then need to factor in tyre wear, fuel burn rate (maintaining more speed through a corner and/or reducing throttle transients saves fuel) and a few other things to find the ideal setup.
Cheers
M
So many issues here!
Changing wheel weights and therefore changing unsprung mass/unsprung rotation mass has effects on suspension response speed and the required rebound/bump rates. Do you have any sort of adjustability for bump/rebound? Okay the corner weights will still be correct with either but the actual weight hanging off each corner of the suspension will change.
You can go as low as you want but it depends massively on how much travel you require for the suspension to 'work' the entire point of suspension is to maintain the tyre contact patch as the loads on each corner change. A bump in the road will change the load on the corner that encounters it and if you run a very low ride height you're effective travel and therefore time to disipate the energy put into the suspension from this bump is reduced - worst case it will lift the car which reduces load on that corner and as a result the level of grip the tyre is producing, likewise if you have a poor rebound setup the wheel will not return rapidly enough as it crests the bump and again the grip on that corner is effected.
The reason we run race cars very, very low is to reduce the centre of gravity and reduce the open height between the underside of the car and the track. Track cars dont tend to encounter many bumps or pot holes hence we don't need the travel in the suspension required to absorb the energy put into the corner of a car when it encounters bumps etc. so we trade this to minimise body roll and weight transfer. On the road they would be undriveable as all you'd find is bumpsteer, wheel spin and brake lockup. On a road car compliance is key to allow the the tyre contact patch to remain in contact with the road surface with as much load on it as possible whilst minimising/eliminating any of this energy going into the sprung mass of the car and 'lifting' that corner.
If you change where and what weight is in the car then any setup will be incorrect. Personaly I would set a ride height, bump/rebound rate and spring platform height for track use, with the interior out. Make a note of this (including spring platform heights/thread counts) and run a completely seperate setup for road use. A true track setup will be horrible on the road unless its a very smooth road.
Cheers
M
Pepsi - i haven't read lordships reply yet, so this is off my head here
first of all, looking at what people generally go for on here, the general view is more camber = better, ie people are basically plucking camber settings out of thin air for fun (so it seems anyway)! Ok great some people have tried "x" amaount of camber and report back "its proper bo" etc etc, i for one go for minimal camber on a road/track car, my "1.2" for example runs 0.5 degrees and it could still (contrary to popular belief, keep up with the faster stuff round track) but that's what suits me. Its very hard to tell you what to go for due to the 2 main reasons
1) i don't know how you drive, you could be billy with all the gear and no idea, or you could be "if in doubt, flat out" Colin, or sideways Charlie, or even like 2live "fooking ave it"
2) i have no idea how you want the car to "feel"
to give you an example of what i'm banging on about here, Yoz's motor with him behind the wheel was on average 3-5sec per lap quicker than i was round spa. Is it because i'm not as good a driver? (he will have you believe that that is the problem the t**t!) In my i opinion its because the car isn't quite how i like it and hence i don't have 100% confidence to push it.
basically what i'm banging on about here is basically don't do what some people do and have your car setup to "x" because someone on cliosport said its "proper bo"
imagine if you will your car is a custom made suit, it must be made (aka setup) to fit you
if you're like Cole Trickle and know nothing about cars, then no bother, we can help advise you on something to try (ie well try a bit more toe in, or a bit less camber etc etc)
hope that gives you some idea
first of all, looking at what people generally go for on here, the general view is more camber = better, ie people are basically plucking camber settings out of thin air for fun (so it seems anyway)! Ok great some people have tried "x" amaount of camber and report back "its proper bo" etc etc, i for one go for minimal camber on a road/track car, my "1.2" for example runs 0.5 degrees and it could still (contrary to popular belief, keep up with the faster stuff round track) but that's what suits me. Its very hard to tell you what to go for due to the 2 main reasons
1) i don't know how you drive, you could be billy with all the gear and no idea, or you could be "if in doubt, flat out" Colin, or sideways Charlie, or even like 2live "fooking ave it"
2) i have no idea how you want the car to "feel"
to give you an example of what i'm banging on about here, Yoz's motor with him behind the wheel was on average 3-5sec per lap quicker than i was round spa. Is it because i'm not as good a driver? (he will have you believe that that is the problem the t**t!) In my i opinion its because the car isn't quite how i like it and hence i don't have 100% confidence to push it.
basically what i'm banging on about here is basically don't do what some people do and have your car setup to "x" because someone on cliosport said its "proper bo"
imagine if you will your car is a custom made suit, it must be made (aka setup) to fit you
if you're like Cole Trickle and know nothing about cars, then no bother, we can help advise you on something to try (ie well try a bit more toe in, or a bit less camber etc etc)
hope that gives you some idea
Rake, well slightly Americanised and used by the biker boys for other things, but in this context the differential between front and rear ride heights or chassis inclination from the horizontal. What do you chaps like to call it?
Some good feedback on the corner weighting. I would imagine trying to equalise the front and rear axle weight distributions is just too difficult as a starting point due to the physics across the diagonals and the skewed roll dynamics. I still wonder why you use that as a starting point. You might get the fronts about right but the rears will drift out unless you are very lucky with the raw vehicle weight distribution from left to right, or if you are setting up a mid-mounted single seater with good offset centreline weight distributuion.
I always assumed most like to start with the first cut on ride heights and rake and then fine tune the corners afterwards with minimal platform adjustments rather than trying to set axle loads.
Anyway, you never normally end up with equal left and right axle weight distribution in an offset driver FWD motor in either a balanced or circuit direction orientated set-up.
Point - old term!
You can if its LHD with a conventional engine package or RHD and a Honda assuming the car has been built/packaged well. Biggest issue is usualy the rears.
Worth noting that when adjusting the spring platform on one corner the biggest change will be in the diagonal opposite corner, hence working around the car in a figure of eight probably several if not tens of times to balance it correctly. Whilst doing this you will also be aiming for the F/R weight distribution you are after and this is what determins the point on the car (or rake).
Cheers
M
What about toe setting in 172? How do you prefer it?
I now drive with zero toe and 0.5 deg negative camber, and it feels better than before where i had 2 deg negative camber. But i never tried experimenting with toe setup. I can't try many setups as i don't have a garage, so i read and talk to some people before and go to a garage and tell them how i want to setup my car.
I now drive with zero toe and 0.5 deg negative camber, and it feels better than before where i had 2 deg negative camber. But i never tried experimenting with toe setup. I can't try many setups as i don't have a garage, so i read and talk to some people before and go to a garage and tell them how i want to setup my car.
Not many hatchback or saloon racers have that natural balance though. You can move mass and ballast to try to achieve it, often to the detriment in other areas. Like I said earlier you may get the fronts L/R balanced, if that is what you want, but as you said, you won’t achieve the rears.
Yes, I’m happy with all the mass ratio constants front to rear, left to right and the effect on the diagonals. You can’t beat the physics and the adjustments all revolve around the interplay with diagonal mass distributions.
You cannot really change or aim for a F/R weight distribution by corner weighting though can you? I’m a bit confused by that. You only alter the L/R distributions on the front or rear axles and not the total amounts on each axle.
My issue is you seem to try and set axel weights initially then accept rake, where I always thought you set the rake and ride heights then fine tune corner weights as required whilst trying to maintain the basic set-up.
E39 M5 & Corsa track
Interesting little point to throw in:
when i fitted my coilovers and set the ride heights so it sat equal on both sides i then chucked the car on the scales just out of interest:
FR:338kg
FL:346kg
RR:194kg
RL:156kg
total weight is 1034 with the diag being 47.8%
the rears quite out of balance, that was a clio cup with air con and half a tank of fuel....
any one got corner weight results to hand for a road going fast road set up track clio just out of interest, ill dig my weight set up out for how it sits when its was all set up properly....
when i fitted my coilovers and set the ride heights so it sat equal on both sides i then chucked the car on the scales just out of interest:
FR:338kg
FL:346kg
RR:194kg
RL:156kg
total weight is 1034 with the diag being 47.8%
the rears quite out of balance, that was a clio cup with air con and half a tank of fuel....
any one got corner weight results to hand for a road going fast road set up track clio just out of interest, ill dig my weight set up out for how it sits when its was all set up properly....
If you raise total rear ride height and/or reduce total front ride height (or vice versa) you will effect the total amount of mass on each axle. My scales even have a button on them to aid with weight distribution setup.... and one to calculate COG. The trick is maintaining the ideal % of F/R weight distribution whilst also achieving as ideal as possible corner weights.
Corner weight scales can offer a lot more than just corner weights ;-)
Cheers
M
E39 M5 & Corsa track
same with most things tho, they are a fantastic tool that quite often isn't used to the full potential by most customers.
Of course corner weight scales have some nice buttons, displays and offer a bit of in built maths, but they don’t cheat the laws of physics and they are only as good as the person using them.
Interesting concept - Raising and lowering total front or rear ride heights just to adjust weight distribution. You would have some interesting looking vehicles on the road.
Once the ride heights are about right, the F/R weight distribution maintains itself as you adjust the corners. An unfortunate scientific fact of life. Worth a bit of research maybe.
Once you have the basics set you can only really alter the diagonal weight distribution and the cross weighted percentages.
The trick is to set the ride heights then adjust the corner weights. The weight distribution F/R maintains itself.
I fail to see why its a difficult concept to grasp - as its been one of the main fine tuning tools in motorsport since the 1920's. As you've spent the last page and a half banging on about 'rake' what do you think the effect the difference in front/rear ride heigh by adding 'rake' makes?
F/R weight distribution does not maintain itself as you adjust the corners.
Look at Brosters example above:
FR:338kg
FL:346kg
RR:194kg
RL:156kg
Thats a F/R weight distribution of approx 66.15%/33.85%
If I then had a shuffle around and the result was
FR:343kg
FL:344kg
RR:196kg
RL:151kg
Thats then a front/rear distribution of 66.44%/33.56% and thats with an actual change of just 3KG's
Cheers
M
F/R weight distribution does not maintain itself as you adjust the corners.
Look at Brosters example above:
FR:338kg
FL:346kg
RR:194kg
RL:156kg
Thats a F/R weight distribution of approx 66.15%/33.85%
If I then had a shuffle around and the result was
FR:343kg
FL:344kg
RR:196kg
RL:151kg
Thats then a front/rear distribution of 66.44%/33.56% and thats with an actual change of just 3KG's
Cheers
M
E39 M5 & Corsa track
this maybe points to why cars sit lower at the front that the rear to aid the handling setup?
