track use ride height

20th August 2013, 17:55

What would people say is the best front rear ride height for track use?

I prefer an almost sideways entry through corners lol

Also is there a guide on here for raising rear height? Mine is stupidly low and want it raised asap.

20th August 2013, 18:05

for oversteer you want a much stiffer rear suspension set up in relation to the front. Get some fat torsion bars fitted.

20th August 2013, 18:09

No lower than 30mm from standard , and 25mm difference front to rear with the rear higher than the front , measurement to be made at jacking points! I found that this set up will keep the suspension at working height and slight tendancy to oversteer.

20th August 2013, 19:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by KamRacing

for oversteer you want a much stiffer rear suspension set up in relation to the front. Get some fat torsion bars fitted.

Can I just sat controllable oversteer though. I've gone at stupid angles in my twingo and never lost it once. Lost it many times in the saxos and 106's I've had lol

20th August 2013, 19:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexFocusST

No lower than 30mm from standard.

30mm ya say?????

20th August 2013, 19:33

Is 50mm all round ok?

20th August 2013, 19:43

-40mm form std --that is measured on a new car ,
2-3 fingers in front wheel arch is about as low ==rear needs to in smae relationship to front Iwould 15-20mm higher at rear at jacking points ,then fine tune with tyre pressures ,all this assumes the rest of the suspension buhs etc are good

I prefer an almost sideways entry through corners lol

that is a very slow way to corner

20th August 2013, 20:13

But is very good fun! I don't mean through a corner just at entry to apex

20th August 2013, 20:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by hard_corejoeboy

I prefer an almost sideways entry through corners lol

Just made me cringe.

If you want sideways & 'fun' get a RWD car and some drifting lessons.

20th August 2013, 21:07

Can't say having the back stepping out is a slow way to get round a corner tbh....

20th August 2013, 21:33

Everyone drives differently tbh I wouldnt drive a 106 like the twingo or big crash would happen

20th August 2013, 21:58

No one gives a fuck about that twingo

20th August 2013, 22:02

I'd rather throw about a Saxo than aTwingo

seriously, -30mm would be about right on the standard bars.

Unless you're mental and slam the car with very expensive aftermarket torsion bars.

20th August 2013, 22:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by slammed106

30mm ya say?????

Damn!!! That is impressive! Are you using 307 hubs and abjustable wish bones?

30mm as stated with near standard suspesion set up , can't see B8s working properly at -60mm...

I have actually revalved my group Ns to work at 35 mm lower , or so i was told by the suspesion guy i sent them to!!! Yet to be tested thought !

20th August 2013, 22:19

Yeah its the Satchell kit....

thats not actual ride height just took a snap while doing the bumpsteer setup...

20th August 2013, 22:40

^ just to let you know i hate you right now!!!

Seriously thought that is some piece of kit!!! Let us know when you test it!!!!

21st August 2013, 08:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwiggyMK

Can't say having the back stepping out is a slow way to get round a corner tbh....

the operative word is "stepping out"
if set up correctly and on the limit it should be a subtle drift so it feels like you are drifting across the apex with the power on and it should start to happen before you get to the corner on entry
stepping out is just next to facing the wrong way or a big "tank slapper" annd ending up in the armco
any rear end movement should be controllable by throttle application so the front tucks in on slight lift off or understeers ,slightly with more throttle

21st August 2013, 08:56

Maybe im confusing you then as I think this is what I mean't although my 'drifts' are less subtle at Bedford as there's a lot of room of it goes wrong.
The point is you can't do that in just any old car consistently and in full control lap after lap. From previous experience of 106/saxo's with that style of driving I can imagine a spin.

That said I've never had a cage or any weight in the back so that might help.

22nd August 2013, 20:18

[B][The point is you can't do that in just any old car consistently and in full control lap after lap/B]

course you can its called driving,just the limit is in a different place,its alot easier to do it in a std car as fully sorted car will be very unforgiving ,hence why the yanks talk about a fast car being "loose"
the more dialled in you get it the more responsive it will get ,but also it will bite you easier
thats why you can,t get in a F1 car and drive it

22nd August 2013, 21:32

I see your point. Either way I think raising the car is going to be a job a lot easier said than done with no mechanical experience

Just getting this car to a track is going to be a mission and a long long process.

22nd August 2013, 21:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by hard_corejoeboy

I see your point. Either way I think raising the car is going to be a job a lot easier said than done with no mechanical experience

Just getting this car to a track is going to be a mission and a long long process.

Ill bet you that the rear beam is shagged on it when you come to raise it.

22nd August 2013, 21:46

Hopefully. Means one job instead of two

23rd August 2013, 21:00

I am suprised nobody has investigated fitting a ford or vw rear axle unit in a saxo and then use turrets +coil overs
the only reason i have never done it is all racing _rally regs say you must use std suspension mounitng points
but dumping the heavy rear axle for a simple beam with vertical coil overs would make it alot lighter and far more tunable suspension system
probably a c2 or c3 axle would fit --certainly easy enough to find and wheel s would be the same then

23rd August 2013, 21:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by axsaxoman

I am suprised nobody has investigated fitting a ford or vw rear axle unit in a saxo and then use turrets +coil overs
the only reason i have never done it is all racing _rally regs say you must use std suspension mounitng points
but dumping the heavy rear axle for a simple beam with vertical coil overs would make it alot lighter and far more tunable suspension system
probably a c2 or c3 axle would fit --certainly easy enough to find and wheel s would be the same then

ARC in wakefield did it And iirc a lad on here put a mk3 fiesta rear end in his.

Couldn't be botherd tbh too much work for very little weight loss also not to mention the cost compared to a olite or a nipple'd rear beam.

23rd August 2013, 22:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by axsaxoman

I am suprised nobody has investigated fitting a ford or vw rear axle unit in a saxo and then use turrets +coil overs
the only reason i have never done it is all racing _rally regs say you must use std suspension mounitng points
but dumping the heavy rear axle for a simple beam with vertical coil overs would make it alot lighter and far more tunable suspension system
probably a c2 or c3 axle would fit --certainly easy enough to find and wheel s would be the same then

Quite annoying as lowering the twingo is a case of changing springs all round. Easy stuff.

23rd August 2013, 22:39

I think there are some photos of turrets on standard saxo 106 rear axles.... Definately seen coilovers at the rear with no torsion bars!

24th August 2013, 10:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bedford126

ARC in wakefield did it And iirc a lad on here put a mk3 fiesta rear end in his.

Couldn't be botherd tbh too much work for very little weight loss also not to mention the cost compared to a olite or a nipple'd rear beam.

should be a big weight saving over the std unit ,if done right .
as for oillite axle conversions --you cannot be serious .
you always came over to me as a perfectionist and always wanted to use the best enngineering practices .

solid bushs are for digger buckets
and they don,t use oilite bushs as due to their porous nature --to hold oil they are not suitable for high shock loads --if you were to change to solid bushs ,then some sort of phosphor bronze would be the material --but that is very expensive

why do think citroen used neddle rollers in the first place --because it is the only real solution to take all the load and give very low friction in the swinging of the arms . If it worked it would be cheaper --so they would have done it
bmc tried it with the mini in 1959 by 1961 they changed to proper timken taper bearings --for the same reason --lot of friction and bad wear rate .
no matter how you do it a bush is only going to be taking load in 2 diametricaly opposed contact points and as the bearing surafce does not move it wears out of shape quickly especially when lubrication is not good .
a neddle roller spreads the load and the fact they turn spreads out the load over a larger bearing area ,so last longer as well as having far less friction when turning ,thus making suspension faster reacting .
the problem with saxo axles is mostly caused by people lowering them and not repacking or not making sure the seals are in correct location on rebuilding them .so water is let in ,which causes the problem in the first place .

grease nipples and std rollers --ok

24th August 2013, 10:08

Ive got pics somewhere of a few 106s thats had turrets fitted, I'll try finding them..

for what its worth I'd wait as I know for a fact theres a very trick setup coming shortly from the satchell workshops...

24th August 2013, 10:13

I'd ditch the whole beam idea and make some custom trailing arms mounted directly to the chassis. Its the only real way to save a lot of weight. Bit like the Autograss cars

24th August 2013, 10:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by slammed106

Ive got pics somewhere of a few 106s thats had turrets fitted, I'll try finding them..

for what its worth I'd wait as I know for a fact theres a very trick setup coming shortly from the satchell workshops...

Maybe I'll go group n's and b8's at the rear for the time being then.

Yes b8's at the rear
Oh and a lower brace

24th August 2013, 20:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by slammed106

Ive got pics somewhere of a few 106s thats had turrets fitted, I'll try finding them..

for what its worth I'd wait as I know for a fact theres a very trick setup coming shortly from the satchell workshops...

I have heard mixed reviews on the "legality" of the turrets, some scrutineers dont seem to mind, for others its a big no no! It will be interesting to see what different scrutineers make of colins design(s).

25th August 2013, 10:10

for homologated rallying +racing it will be big NO
the majority of regs will ,even when they say supsencion is Free limit it to using std pick up points

25th August 2013, 11:12

I can't wait to sort my suspension out for fast road and track.it handles really well just now with just lowering springs so I can only imagine how much better it will be with a much better set up.

25th August 2013, 11:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by KamRacing

I'd ditch the whole beam idea and make some custom trailing arms mounted directly to the chassis. Its the only real way to save a lot of weight. Bit like the Autograss cars

Jjw engineering in daventry have done this
If i was going to be doinh anything with my car like it id contact them tbh

25th August 2013, 12:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by axsaxoman

for homologated rallying +racing it will be big NO
the majority of regs will ,even when they say supsencion is Free limit it to using std pick up points

So you could fit a sub frame from another motor? as long as it bolts into the original mounting points?

25th August 2013, 14:35

yep , but |i don,t see you getting a turret type unit in saxo using std mounting points only and no other extra fixings

25th August 2013, 15:01

I have a spare axle that i am intending to massacre....

The plan is to machine longer main pins thus making it wider , use original trailing arms.
get a longer ARB made , and use coilovers instead of torsion bars.

The thing is why do only widening kits offer shims for the stub pin on the trailing arm, surely in puts more strain on the actual shims??

25th August 2013, 15:52

simple answer -- cost .
not a problem to get new arms cast in alloy or fabricated ,but there is no big market for them ,
might be easier to just get a new tube made and custom length torson bars if you want to do it that way ,
but it is still as heavy as std unit ,the wieght of the coil overs and turrets will be not much if any lighter than the torsion bars _ dampers.

25th August 2013, 16:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by axsaxoman

simple answer -- cost .
not a problem to get new arms cast in alloy or fabricated ,but there is no big market for them ,
might be easier to just get a new tube made and custom length torson bars if you want to do it that way ,
but it is still as heavy as std unit ,the wieght of the coil overs and turrets will be not much if any lighter than the torsion bars _ dampers.

If you start with an original axle :
1. get thicker torsion bars and arb , wide shim kit
2. Fabricate longer pins for original tube , get longer arb and fit rear coilovers on standard suspension mounting points hense easier to abjust stiffness and height

I guess the cost would be roughly the same either way

25th August 2013, 22:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by axsaxoman

should be a big weight saving over the std unit ,if done right .
as for oillite axle conversions --you cannot be serious .
you always came over to me as a perfectionist and always wanted to use the best enngineering practices .

solid bushs are for digger buckets
and they don,t use oilite bushs as due to their porous nature --to hold oil they are not suitable for high shock loads --if you were to change to solid bushs ,then some sort of phosphor bronze would be the material --but that is very expensive

why do think citroen used neddle rollers in the first place --because it is the only real solution to take all the load and give very low friction in the swinging of the arms . If it worked it would be cheaper --so they would have done it
bmc tried it with the mini in 1959 by 1961 they changed to proper timken taper bearings --for the same reason --lot of friction and bad wear rate .
no matter how you do it a bush is only going to be taking load in 2 diametricaly opposed contact points and as the bearing surafce does not move it wears out of shape quickly especially when lubrication is not good .
a neddle roller spreads the load and the fact they turn spreads out the load over a larger bearing area ,so last longer as well as having far less friction when turning ,thus making suspension faster reacting .
the problem with saxo axles is mostly caused by people lowering them and not repacking or not making sure the seals are in correct location on rebuilding them .so water is let in ,which causes the problem in the first place .

grease nipples and std rollers --ok

I didn't say the ohlite ones were any good I was referring to the price of them.

Mine is a standard rear axel fitted with grease nipples just at the side of each bearing and was packed full of bearing grease when I rebuilt it.

26th August 2013, 08:36

won,t be enough space and definately not enopugh trmovement if you fit coil overs on std shock mounts .
the whole point of coil overs is get them attached as close as poss to the stub pin and have a long travel on spring + damper
and the damper don,t work as well on their side anyway

26th August 2013, 09:42

Is -40mm recommended due to bump steer?

26th August 2013, 11:58

and driveshaft angle .
the dif on C of g any lower will not be measurable in handling ,neither will the extra drag from under the car at speeds a saxo will go around a track

29th October 2013, 23:09

anyone down *40mm* what is distance from floor to jacking points?

29th October 2013, 23:13

*not a track related car at all but since i'm down 40mm i thought i'd post. I have to drive onto a brick to jack it up still. think its because of the side skirts though.

30th October 2013, 06:49

Whats the recommended height front and rear for grp N's?

30th October 2013, 11:10

There is none officially. 30-50mm lower is within tolerances though

30th October 2013, 17:40

well im gonig to get front corner weighted and set down 15mm lower then rear, hopefully i can still get about 2" between arch and top of tyre on the front like i have heard mentioned before.

30th October 2013, 18:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy-Boy

well im gonig to get front corner weighted and set down 15mm lower then rear, hopefully i can still get about 2" between arch and top of tyre on the front like i have heard mentioned before.

That's a good rule of thumb to work on from a basic sense. Corner weighing really requires coilovers to get the maximum benefit from them on the day

30th October 2013, 19:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by KamRacing

There is none officially. 30-50mm lower is within tolerances though

Is -30mm and 20mm rear a good combo? Do you sell custom springs? Last time I checked it was just -40mm 155 faulkners.

31st October 2013, 21:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by chompy

That's a good rule of thumb to work on from a basic sense. Corner weighing really requires coilovers to get the maximum benefit from them on the day

got ast coilovers bud, setting the rear right so front gets adjusted to suit, hoping it will turn out right!

1st November 2013, 07:54

I try to get my driveshaft and steering arms as flat/straight as possible so it wasn't adding extra stress to them. Good ride height going of that.

1st November 2013, 11:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by hard_corejoeboy

Is -30mm and 20mm rear a good combo? Do you sell custom springs? Last time I checked it was just -40mm 155 faulkners.

For a one off custom spring set I get the same price as you. Unless I was fitting and setting up the car I would just recommend you order them directly yourself.

1st November 2013, 12:05

Where would I purchase those? Faulkner? Also if im going for grp n's what sort of poundage would you recommend? Most likely it will be standard torsion bar with perhaps some powerflex bushes.

1st November 2013, 14:33

Group ns are rated to circa 200-250 lb so youd want somewere around that region

Ive ran 225lb on standard bars it wasnt bad for balance tbh natually wanted to understeer but could play and slide the arse about

However at 200 lb the spribg wont compress as much as a normal one under weight so to get -40 you may end up with a spring too short for your damper and be stuck

As soon as you pass 180lb really i would go over to a coilover setup to allow the car to be set up properly

1st November 2013, 14:48

Its the time old question really. Do I save up longer and go for a really decent kit and the costs of settimg it up? Or just go for the kam racing track day kit. Im not racing and im not rich either

1st November 2013, 15:18

Save lots of money.... Ring Colin satchell

or get a good set of gaz gold or something, they are a good setup.

1st November 2013, 15:21

Get something that works and go use the car sooner joe

No point saving for 1k worth of stuff to not feel the full benefit

1st November 2013, 15:43

Yeah im starting to get bored of it just being sat there really. With any luck might have some buckets and harnesses this weekend. Best I just get the car working and on track asap really all well and good saving and saving for the best spec ever and never getting to use the bugger! Roll cage is going to be the buggest expense I think.

1st November 2013, 19:31

The trick is to realise what you will really use the car for and not what you plan to. So many people come to me for track suspension, but you then find out the car is used everyday, driven to the track and then driven on circuit a few times a year. I tell them to set the car for road use so they enjoy the car where it spends the majority of time. You will have fun on track without a dedicated track setup - especially if you are planning on running standard road tyres.

Kev

1st November 2013, 20:21

Well this is purely a £500 toy with the intention of only going on the road to test upgrades etc or the occasional summer evening blast. Comfort is of no concern to me really though it would be nice if I could make it to the ring with spine intact!

I plan to use a semi slick tyre but only because I have been told the difference between road and semis is immense. Also with a standard engine I will need every advantage.

2nd November 2013, 09:27

Suspension setup is personal preference, and so you should set the car up to your own liking.
Just because joe blogs likes his car setup so it's incredibly stiff and slammed as he likes to go sideways doesn't mean that John from British gas will like this.

Due to the car being front wheel drive, you always get some element of lift of oversteer due to weight transfer. This needs to be enough to put the car into the corner without significant understeer but not to much to give you severe oversteer

There are a few ways this can be achieved really, the cheapest option probably being using larger profile tyres on the rear than on the front. E.g. 45profile on front and 50profile on rear... This gives the rear tyres more "give" in the sidewalls than the front.
The more expensive option is stiffening the rear suspension, larger torsion bars, adjustable dampers etc...

Like I said earlier it's personal preference, set a car up to the way you like not what other people think is best...

2nd November 2013, 09:37

Agreed ^^^^

Its right up there with "im going running next week, what size shoe do I need"