Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey guys,

If you could only get 1 of the two mods mentioned above at one time - would would you get first?

Car is used for track days once a month as an idea.

basically reducing understeer and get some more negative camber - which would you get first up - as in if you could only get 1 due to funds etc.

ideas and comments please

:mellow:

Cheers guys!

static camber?

dynamic camber?

Im a n00b at suspension still....so yes, still learning the lingo!

how do both differ from each other?

the effect of caster is that it adds "dynamic camber" - the more you turn the wheel the more camber you get. but when you straighten the wheel, camber gets less. this is good because the tyres lean into the corner when they need to (under load) and not when you're driving straight.

For a street driven car, castor is definitely much better. Too much camber will wear your tyres too much. If you had an R32 though, I would go camber kit first because you gain castor as you increase camber due to the angle of the upper arm.

Get castor adjustment and get as much as you can without scrubbing your front bar.

Static camber: The amount of camber when there is no movement. No moving of the wheel up and down from bumps, no turning of the steering wheel.

Dynamic camber: The change in camber as the suspension goes through its travel and the effects of castor as you turn the wheel

Edited by salad

Hmm, having done the two mods in turn I would strongly recommend you do the camber adjustment BEFORE the caster adjustment. The amount of -ve camber the caster adds is suprisingly small when you have a quarter of turn of lock on. Certainly much less than the one degree or so a camber kit will offer. Skylines need -ve camber at the front to generate cornering grip, otherwise you just end up with an understeering pig.

Also, if you haven't already you need to get the cars roll under control - which means sway bars & dampers.

Any even half serious track day will consume tyres at a far greater rate than even a large amount of road travel. Once a month is a lot of track time as far as tyres are concerned. You wil probably chunk the tread blocks - hence I would suggest getting yourself a proper track tyre even if it is only a Falken or Federal or similar.

thanks for the reply guys, I think at this stage I'll go the front adjustable caster and f & r sway bars.

:laugh:

I've been reading this thread with great interest, as my car understeers a bit too.

Any idea on a good adjustable camber kit? I'm not sure where to start.

cheers,

padey

I've been reading this thread with great interest, as my car understeers a bit too.

Any idea on a good adjustable camber kit? I'm not sure where to start.

cheers,

padey

You won't stop an R32 R understeering until you either dial in some more -ve camber and/or get the front end roll under control. Check the group buy section for Whiteline bits. I would recommend using something like this kit rather than the Noltec style upper arms or the other Midori style upper links. don;t worry about caster either as this does very little to help things.

Also do a search for the part number to see a useful discussion on the same.

is that just in regards to the 32 gtr's?

No. In fact it is a truism for almost all cars heading out onto a circuit.

To be properly balanced you don't want much steering lock through the corner. Any more than about a quarter on a GT-R & it is an ugly thing. With this relatively small amount of lock you really need ALOT of caster to make a difference. R32 GT-R's only have 3 degrees. Going to 4 or 5 makes the steering heavier & more self centring (Which is why drift nuggets love caster) but really doesn't do much for your grip.

It is one of those things that if fine as far as it goes, but is secondary to other, more important parameters, ie camber.

Edited by djr81

well, personally I loved the difference the caster made. but yes the camber is important too, and overall makes a much bigger difference to mid corner grip. but I did like the feel at turn in with more caster (and yes I did both seperately).

before doing camber and caster I'd say look at sway bars, shocks and springs, and then you may as well do camber and caster too as they can be done cheaply if you use the offset bushes.

personally I have the midori arms and don't have any problem with them, but I'm about to try out the noltec ones so I'll let you know what they are like.

But as was said....extra camber is a disaster for street tyre wear, they can often have too much already once you lower them a bit.

Do the sway bars and caster kit first I reckon

But as was said....extra camber is a disaster for street tyre wear, they can often have too much already once you lower them a bit.

Do the sway bars and caster kit first I reckon

The thing that caught my eye was that he was talking about track days once a month. That sort of regime will punish the tyres much harder on the track than on the road. Hence the suggestion of doing the camber first.

Edit: gees, I wish I could spell.

Edited by djr81

you should get firefox. It spell checks for you :huh:

Seeing as we are now talking about sway bars, I'd have to agree that of everything i've done it has made the biggest diffence to the cornering of my car (with the possible exception of running semi slicks)

you should get firefox. It spell checks for you :P

Seeing as we are now talking about sway bars, I'd have to agree that of everything i've done it has made the biggest diffence to the cornering of my car (with the possible exception of running semi slicks)

Work computer. But I probably should have paid attention at school too. :huh:

For me the biggest difference was new dampers. Just a different world. Sway bars weren't that huge for me.

Dampers do a lot, but they're probably not the most cost effective method of improving handling as good dampers aren't cheap. Swaybars however, are quite cheap and I also found that they did quite a bit in improving handling.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • The values for HID colour are also defined ~ see https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2006L02732/latest/text  ~ goto section 3.9 onwards ....
    • So, if the headlights' cutoff behaviour (angles, heights, etc) are not as per 6.2.6.1.1 without automatic levelling, then you have to have to have automatic** levelling. Also, if the headlight does not have the required markings, then neither automatic nor manual adjusters are going to be acceptable. That's because the base headlight itself does not meet the minimum requirement (which is the marking). ** with the option of manual levelling, if the headlight otherwise meets the same requirements as for the automatic case AND can be set to the "base" alignment at the headlight itself. So that's an additional requirement for the manual case. So, provided that the marking is on the headlight and there is a local manual adjustment back to "base" on the headlight, then yes, you could argue that they are code compliant. But if you are missing any single one of these things, then they are not. And unlike certain other standards that I work with, there does not seem to be scope to prepare a "fitness for purpose" report. Well, I guess there actually is. You might engage an automotive engineer to write a report stating that the lights meet the performance requirements of the standard even if they are missing, for example, the markings.  
    • Vertical orientation   6.2.6.1.1. The initial downward inclination of the cut off of the dipped-beam to be set in the unladen vehicle state with one person in the driver's seat shall be specified within an accuracy of 0.1 per cent by the manufacturer and indicated in a clearly legible and indelible manner on each vehicle close to either headlamp or the manufacturer's plate by the symbol shown in Annex 7.   The value of this indicated downward inclination shall be defined in accordance with paragraph 6.2.6.1.2.   6.2.6.1.2. Depending on the mounting height in metres (h) of the lower edge of the apparent surface in the direction of the reference axis of the dipped beam headlamp, measured on the unladen vehicles, the vertical inclination of the cut off of the dipped- beam shall, under all the static conditions of Annex 5, remain between the following limits and the initial aiming shall have the following values:   h < 0.8   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   0.8 < h < 1.0   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   Or, at the discretion of the manufacturer,   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The application for the vehicle type approval shall, in this case, contain information as to which of the two alternatives is to be used.   h > 1.0   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The above limits and the initial aiming values are summarized in the diagram below.   For category N3G (off-road) vehicles where the headlamps exceed a height of 1,200 mm, the limits for the vertical inclination of the cut-off shall be between: -1.5 per cent and -3.5 per cent.   The initial aim shall be set between: -2 per cent and -2.5 per cent.
×
×
  • Create New...