Robispec TIME ATTACK Build

[robispec]

Testing at the cars current whp indicates that the lightest wheel tire combination is quicker...independant of tire width. This is MY OPINION (backed up with real world wins). It looks like the slight decrease in cornering/lateral g is made up for with the increase in forward and rearward accelleration...Remember my cars Center of gravity, Roll centers front and rear and roll couple is RADICALLY DIFFERENT than stock. The car is 3" lower, but this is the tip of the iceberg...lol

[EAGLE5]

Yah, your setup probably makes use of every little bit of cornering in those tires. Still, a magazine did a test, cant remember which magazine, that showed better track times with stock 17s and upgraded tires than with wider 18s for the same reason you said. Sounds like, without dramatic power upgrades, stock sized is the way to go. Maybe with light power mods, 17x8 is good. 18x9 are for the FI guys if they're running out of grip on 17s coming out of corners. They should probably run staggered anyway.

[robispec]

Got a chance to drive a stockish car with coilovers brake pads and mild lowering on fresher rs3's today...Man am I spoilt with the way my car handles...I know, pat my self on the back, but had two guys test it out driving it and They can chime in if they want. the car does EVERYTHING way better than stock. More turn in, more linear response in all aspects of every corner and braking zones...I was on ROCK heat cycled RS3's (5K miles and 21 trach days with avrg dat 8 sessions....) still got to within 1 second of FTD while being a taxi driver! Sure glad I had a fun day planded Great Job Jeff on the FTD!

[03Z33]

Your car sure doesn't feel like any of the others, it's improved in every way. Any time a passenger would get out, first reaction would be "that's an FR-S?!?" LOL!! Your improvements are paying off big time!! Can't wait to see you out on a fresh set of tires putting down some ridiculous times

[SubieNate]

@robispec

Couple of questions.

First off, how close to your car's performance do you think we can achieve with more mild lowering (say, 1.5" max) to keep things more street friendly? All other mods would still be on the table (Control arms etc), just not lowering quite as drastically.

Second, did you end up running the diffuser with the borla exhaust? And how happy are you with the exhaust in general? I honestly kind of like having the canister way up front like that. Makes adding a nice diffuser very easy.

Thanks!
Nathan

[Huehuecoyotl]

I think I am gonna make an appt and head out to make a trip to see you, you got scales?
I'm going back and forth on my front ride height....I seem to keep missing 'that zone', either the back gets loose on off camber turns or the front feels too light.

[robispec]

Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl

I think I am gonna make an appt and head out to make a trip to see you, you got scales?
I'm going back and forth on my front ride height....I seem to keep missing 'that zone', either the back gets loose on off camber turns or the front feels too light.

Yes we are a full chassis and fabrication shop.
Give me a call 760-912-4337

[robispec]

Originally Posted by SubieNate

@robispec

Couple of questions.

First off, how close to your car's performance do you think we can achieve with more mild lowering (say, 1.5" max) to keep things more street friendly? All other mods would still be on the table (Control arms etc), just not lowering quite as drastically.

Second, did you end up running the diffuser with the borla exhaust? And how happy are you with the exhaust in general? I honestly kind of like having the canister way up front like that. Makes adding a nice diffuser very easy.

Thanks!
Nathan

I daily drive my car lol ;-).
That being said I'm probably on the lunatic fringe .
Lowest part on the car right now is the Borla resonator I think at 2 inches you could have almost everything I have CGis still CG but we're talking a track not on the street around the mountain roads
The directness of the inputs comes from the front lower control arm set up and in the extra bump travel available with the special top mounts

[SubieNate]

I didn't realize you guys were in Hesperia. I lived in Apple Valley for two summers while interning for General Atomics. I should have stopped by, could have used a real alignment when I did suspension on my old car.

[eckoflyte]

i understand there are two ways you can lower the car without sacrificing bump travel. That is running higher top mounts in your case, or lowering the car using the height adjustable bracket on the coilover (not applicable to KW, but Ohlins for example)

from a geometry pov, would there be a difference between those two methods?

[Huehuecoyotl]

Originally Posted by robispec

Yes we are a full chassis and fabrication shop.
Give me a call 760-912-4337

Well, I think I'm pretty close to whats right, but you would know better, thanks.

Appears the nose wants to be way higher than the tail to turn correctly, but I can see how adjustable lca geometry may be the ticket from here... will call you tomorrow. I dont think bump travel is my issue with the GC hats. I'm maybe 27mm down up front from the stock ride height, but the hat sits like 20mm higher than the oe,so I only lost like 7mm of actual travel. I have more caster now with psrs. I need to address my rear, which is at 2.0 each side. Front seem happy around 2.5, tho a little much for street, so I left its 2.0 at all four corners. Clearly I need help to define both my street and my track setups, and find something that lets me drive to the track. I'm ok making changes when I get there if that is how it needs to be.. I've played with zero toe, toe out up front, a lil toe in,in the back, still there is room for improvement.

Luckily, I got a stock one in the drive way to compare to, so I get in one, get out drive the other and make sure I am actually exceed the stock thresholds, and i think I am. I havent measured the back but its lower than the front. I've played with toe, camber and have some conclusive direction at this point with my heights but its always nice to turn this over to a pro-shop for that final touch.

[robispec]

Originally Posted by eckoflyte

i understand there are two ways you can lower the car without sacrificing bump travel. That is running higher top mounts in your case, or lowering the car using the height adjustable bracket on the coilover (not applicable to KW, but Ohlins for example)

from a geometry pov, would there be a difference between those two methods?

The angle of the strut,inboard vs outboard ends of the front lower control arm. are all effected..
Moving the clevis point higher allows the axle/spindle height to be higher but this will still negitively effect the ball joint and tierod angles.

[SnapOv3st3r]

videos?

[robispec]

yes but I dont know how to get them posted....I'm a chassis guy not your AV service tech...lol