Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

After recently doing a driver training in my car, I have discovered the aweful stock handling flaw in most whales called understeer. This was also emphasised by the instructor who's words stick clearly in my mind "TURN YOU UNDERSTEERING PIG!".

Well, I want to correct this situation. Saying that, it's a street car, I don't use it for the track but I may do an MC Motorsport type competition from time to time.

My question: What is the best way/what are my options, to fix this understeer? I'm not keen on changing tyres so i'm talking more suspension mods. Car is currently stock suspension wise.

Any help you could provide would be appreciated.

:D

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/62711-correct-understeer-r33-gtst/
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the replies. For the driver training, i already had the fronts 2psi higher than the rears but I hate my current rubber so that will definitely be the first change.

Would I be worthwhile simply purchasing something like the Whiteline "Handling" Kit or should I just go to a local suspension shop and get them to supply and fit the bars and camber kit?

The only thing I would add to what the guys have already said is add some positive caster, get some adjustable radius rod bushes (Whiteline have them). I would not suggest much negative camber for a mostly road car as it wears the tyres, around 0.5 to 1 degree negative is OK.:P

  • 4 weeks later...

Pretty sure the only (well major) problem is your rubber, what are you using? I was using Falken’s and they cornered like crap, now I use Michelin SP Pilots and they stick very well. If anything I have over-steer with them :D

It has been my experience that having the same tyres front and rear maintains the handling balance. So upgrading all four tyres will not improve the understeer, you may raise the limit, but eventually it will still display the same predispoition to understeer that it currently has. Much better to fix the problem (ie; adjust the balance) with suspension geometry correction.:)

Thanks for all the feedback, really appreciate it. I definitely have a problem with my rubber as i hate my tyres and obviously that will help but like SK said, suspension geometry is my major area of weakness. I think i'll be looking more into those Whiteline "works" packages..

Cheers!

you are far better fixing up the underlying handling problem before you improve tyre grip. Improving typre grip first will only hide the problem. Fixing the handling while still using the poor tyres is easier as the change should be more apparent and also should be obvious at lower (ie safer) speeds

brendan

also where is it understeering? corner entry? mid corner?

if its corner entry perhaps checking the toe in on the front would help as well, bit of toe out will improve the turn in at corner entry!

Then it could wander a bit on the straight stuff.

Anyway, arent most cars designed with understeer to allow for the 'lowest common denominator' people???

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

    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...