jevvy964

All very true but if its not trying to be flat to start with then adding those kinda weights would make a non CB'd car even more of a pig to drive.

You dont know if it needs fine adjustments until you check it - you might need a load of left rear corner to get things even close to equal which is totally invisible to a standard ride height check. This will then bugger up every other setting you have made.

There are some cheaper ways to get somewhere near like the tripod method or one of the lever jobbys like this:



Have you read the scruggs guide - its about older 911's but from memory it gives some good background reading about 911 setup.

Heres a page - the rest are easy to find on a google images search:

robt964

>but if its not trying to be flat to start with then adding those kinda weights would make a non CB'd car even more of a pig to drive.

I don't think we can infer that. The amount of weight capable of being transfered as part of CB is a very small percentage of the variation in mass that can be placed in the car. Virtually all mass dropped into a road car is either one side or the other of the centre line. Even if a car was CB'd with ballast to represent the driver, the bias capable of being applied would be nowhere near sufficient to offset that mass. Unless you're best buddies with Jonny Vegas you can't tell me your car 'drives like a pig' when you carry a passenger? We can't say a CB'd road car will drive better than a non CB'd road car when the position and magnitudes of the mass placed on it are unknown. I'm by no means saying CB is pointless because that isn't the case. In a controlled environment such as a race car it's extremely benefical. I'm just attempting (probably poorly) to express that the variables involved with a road car far out way the range of adjustment capable with CB. Any gains will be marginal and only realised under the 'control' conditions.

boxsey911

At the risk of being a dissenting voice here I've had the geo fettled on my car a number of times but have never had it corner weighted. At the last check the ride heights were within a couple of mm across each axle and it drives just great with or without a passenger. Maybe I'm just lucky that it's naturally balanced on each corner?

alexjc4

Supporting that but from the other side, I have had my track car corner weighted and really couldn't tell the difference before and after, whereas camber, caster and toe changes all made a difference I could feel.

Jcx

Hey boxsey, what settings do you have pls? Height? Camber? Toe?

Tx

jevvy964

I think I'm fighting a losing battle here - instead I'll post a vid from last weeks snetterton 300 day with the IB mob.

First time on the new layout so first half of the vid is learning the track and finding some grip. Very wet but drying track, skip to about 19:45 where I try to keep up with a noble M12 for a bit

robt964

^ thats all well and good but proves nothing other than you know how to pedal a car well
If you also posted a 'before' video showing the same corners but the car exiting backwards it may add weight (no pun intended)

robt964

Absolutely agree. For fear of sounding like a stuck record, the weight bias being applied is relatively minimal. Could you tell the difference if you placed two sainsburys bags of shopping or a crate of beer on one side or the other in the frunk ?

Yes, these would be very helpful to know.

boxsey911

Hi Joe, I don't have any fancy printouts because unit 11 do it the old way with gauges, string and mirrors. The camber, caster and toe are within RS specs, so:

Front
Camber -1.0"
Caster 4" 25'
Toe 25'
Rear
Camber -1.0"
Toe 15'

Ride heights are 130 mm at the front and 225 mm at the rear which are just above RS heights.

Jevvy, the only thing that video proves is what a good driver you are.

robt964

Hi Steve, are those toe in or out settings? I assume the rear is toe in?

I recall you to are running KWV3s. Are there any other front suspension mods? The min I can get with mine is -1.4 at that similar ride height.

boxsey911

Rob, all are toe in. When I first got the car it for some reason had toe out at the front (car probably hadn't been set up after replacing dampers). It was very nervous with that set up - used to skip sideways over bumps on bad roads.

I have the original top mounts on the front with my KWs. However, when tearing down the old suspension they said the top mounts had not been fitted correctly (I'm not sure exactly what they meant by this - I recall them mentioning them being the wrong way round but I don't know whether this even possible?). This meant that the car had no where near enough caster with its original set up which would explain how floaty the front used to be. With the new KWs fitted (and the top mounts fitted as they should be) they could get the caster to where it needs to be. With all that done the transformation in the high speed stability and the weight of the steering was night and day. It became a different car.

robt964

Thanks Steve, yes its possible to fit the top mounts incorrectly. The hole in the body through which the turret protrudes is slightly elongated which means the top mount can be fitted in one of two positions. From this forum, I'm told the correct position for a regular NB C2/C4 is to fit them such that the turrets are in the 'inboard' position. (can't find a photo to illustrate this).

robt964

Here we go. Like this.

Do you have a photo showing your top mount?

boxsey911

No picture of them as they are now but have managed to find a very old pic (pre KW suspension) which shows that they were indeed once on the wrong way!



I can say for sure that mine now like they do in your pic.

Your pic also throws up something else....have you tried doing your set ups with the strut brace removed?

robt964

Thanks for confirming with the pic.
The strut bar rattles on its adjustment threads. There is no tension in it yet.