Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

How is this set up for you?

Yep I'm happy with it, it feels controlled and predictable on the track and compliant enough on the street.

I ran the same coilover+swaybar setup with softer 6kg/5kg springs in street use only originally. It was great but once I took it to the track it was a bit rolly in the corners so decided to go stiffers springs - the BC's normally come with 8/6. Surprisingly there wasn't much difference in ride quality really .

One thing to note about the ARC swaybars is that AFAIK they are hollow whereas the OEMs are solid, so the difference in stiffness is not quite as radical as it might look based on the diameter.

Yoshii, we can't tell you what sizes to get.

The ARBs affect the balance of the car (under-over steer balance that is). How much you need at the front and rear depends on the inherent balance from your actual springs and dampers, coupled with your own preference. If oversteer frightens you then you would be well advised to keep the rear bar smaller than the front. But if perchance you have much stiffer front springs than your rear, then the same size ARBs at both ends might still be non-oversteery. Impossible to advise you precisely.

I have 24mm adjustables at both ends. Front set to hard, rear set to soft. That's pretty stiff, although it is possible to go a fair bit stiffer. The front stiffness aids turn in response, but does reduce grip in the wet! The rear stiffness tends to make my car quite willing to get the tail out. This is with 5+kg springs at the front and 3ish kg at the rear, with SK modified Bilstein B6s.

How are you getting such low spring rates? Most of the coilovers I find in Japan for the car has a minimal of 8 for the front and 6 for the rear.

As above the both sides situation

This is for track in r32 gtst

Ive always been in camp 2 - 8kg Front 6 rear with 27mm front sway and 24 mm rear sway - then moved to 7kg front and 4kg rear with same larger sways

now.... tomorrow is my first trial in Camp 1... 11kg front with 5kg rear and back to standard sways - cant say im not nervous about it but hey MCA do know what they are talking about so I'll listen... for now

How are you getting such low spring rates? Most of the coilovers I find in Japan for the car has a minimal of 8 for the front and 6 for the rear.

And on top of that....it is possible to buy pretty much any spring you want to suit a coilover. 200mm free length? No problem. 230? Yup. 260? Sure! 2kg/mm? Certainly, Sir. 14 kg/mm? Yes, would you like it painted yellow or blue?

  • Like 1

Im running the whiteline BNK010 kit on my r34 and the car is so much better than just having coilovers, no body roll and the car feel really direct and sharp. I'm pretty sure the kit is a 24mm front with 22mm rear.

Yep I'm happy with it, it feels controlled and predictable on the track and compliant enough on the street.

I ran the same coilover+swaybar setup with softer 6kg/5kg springs in street use only originally. It was great but once I took it to the track it was a bit rolly in the corners so decided to go stiffers springs - the BC's normally come with 8/6. Surprisingly there wasn't much difference in ride quality really .

One thing to note about the ARC swaybars is that AFAIK they are hollow whereas the OEMs are solid, so the difference in stiffness is not quite as radical as it might look based on the diameter.

OEM are hollow.

Hollow is a plus in that the bar will be lighter than an equivalently stiff solid bar. Bigger diameter, but lighter.

Stiffness is a function of the 4th power of diameter. So the bit of steel near the centre of the bar does relatively nothing for stiffness compared to the bit of steel out near the edge. So if you can make it hollow it will be lighter. If you make it solid at the same diameter as the hollow bar, it will be a little stiffer. Most aftermarket crowds don't make hollow bars because it is harder to get the raw stock and they are more difficult to form.

  • Like 1

Hollow is a plus in that the bar will be lighter than an equivalently stiff solid bar. Bigger diameter, but lighter.

Stiffness is a function of the 4th power of diameter. So the bit of steel near the centre of the bar does relatively nothing for stiffness compared to the bit of steel out near the edge. So if you can make it hollow it will be lighter. If you make it solid at the same diameter as the hollow bar, it will be a little stiffer. Most aftermarket crowds don't make hollow bars because it is harder to get the raw stock and they are more difficult to form.

Spot on. That's why I jumped on the ARCs, rare items.

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...