The Ultimate Aggressive Wheel Thread...
You are low too mid sharing what suspension setup you have and what suspension? Also Love the look man 
Aug 14, 2010, 07:58 AM
#4773
^ I'll oblige...
18x9.5 Rotas with a -20 offset on 275/35 tires. Suspension is Tanabe GF210s on stock shocks.
Wheel is off my buddy's Evo X... was in the middle of pulling my blown FPRed and decided it would be a brilliant idea to do a test fit. Doesn't rub with people in the backseat but would most likely rub actually driving around hitting bumps and ****.
18x9.5 Rotas with a -20 offset on 275/35 tires. Suspension is Tanabe GF210s on stock shocks.
Wheel is off my buddy's Evo X... was in the middle of pulling my blown FPRed and decided it would be a brilliant idea to do a test fit. Doesn't rub with people in the backseat but would most likely rub actually driving around hitting bumps and ****.
Last edited by bboypuertoroc; Aug 14, 2010 at 08:00 AM.
hahah.
Aug 14, 2010, 12:12 PM
#4776
Evolved Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Mountain View, California
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=bchappy;8579294]
I'm not going to get into a huge debate with you here, but your assumptions are far from the truth. We tested a few setups before ending up with this one. First off the wheel rates of the evo show that the spring rates should be stiffer in the rear. That said rake is also affected by offset and my offset is pretty low so to compensate caster was adjusted to fix both this and scrub radius. The rear isn't snappy at all and turn-in is incredible.
I don't want to start with a roll center below ground and if anything the stiffer spring rates affect roll moment which is also based off of the weights at each corner. Thus everyone on here wants a lower vehicle because they see "race cars" do it, well those cars also weigh hundreds of pounds less and thus run a completely different setup.
I have a feeling that you are completely speculating based off of the things you've seen on EvoM's race cars; and to the other I can easily tuck the rears in the rear fenders. I didn't do this to "just fit tire." so please take your assumptions back to your bench racing basement.
Moar pics. No, the car isn't hellaflush and its not raised to fit the wheels either. It's corner balanced and if I changed the ride height it would handle worse. I went more for hellafunctional than flush, criticism is welcome though. Spring rates: Front 14kg/mm Rear 16kg/mm. -2.00 camber in the front -1.50 in the rear.
I am sorry to be a naysayer but who corner balanced your car!?
I really dont think they knew what they where doing.... Actually it looks like someone who thought they knew what they where doing. It seems what they tried to do was try to get as much weight on the rear by keeping the rear up like that to get a better F/R weight distribution going on. This doesnt work and will most likely just make the cars rear snappy and unpredictable.
Overall the rear could come down probably an full inch or more and the front a half an inch. The car as it sits is running way to much rake.
With those high spring rates you can actually run the car slightly lower as well because they will minimize body roll and thus minimize roll center movement and negative camber gain that arises with a lowered car.
edit: actually the fronts are about perfect after a second look the rear needs alot of work to take the rake out of the chassis.
I am sorry to be a naysayer but who corner balanced your car!?
I really dont think they knew what they where doing.... Actually it looks like someone who thought they knew what they where doing. It seems what they tried to do was try to get as much weight on the rear by keeping the rear up like that to get a better F/R weight distribution going on. This doesnt work and will most likely just make the cars rear snappy and unpredictable.
Overall the rear could come down probably an full inch or more and the front a half an inch. The car as it sits is running way to much rake.
With those high spring rates you can actually run the car slightly lower as well because they will minimize body roll and thus minimize roll center movement and negative camber gain that arises with a lowered car.
edit: actually the fronts are about perfect after a second look the rear needs alot of work to take the rake out of the chassis.
I'm not going to get into a huge debate with you here, but your assumptions are far from the truth. We tested a few setups before ending up with this one. First off the wheel rates of the evo show that the spring rates should be stiffer in the rear. That said rake is also affected by offset and my offset is pretty low so to compensate caster was adjusted to fix both this and scrub radius. The rear isn't snappy at all and turn-in is incredible.
I don't want to start with a roll center below ground and if anything the stiffer spring rates affect roll moment which is also based off of the weights at each corner. Thus everyone on here wants a lower vehicle because they see "race cars" do it, well those cars also weigh hundreds of pounds less and thus run a completely different setup.
I have a feeling that you are completely speculating based off of the things you've seen on EvoM's race cars; and to the other I can easily tuck the rears in the rear fenders. I didn't do this to "just fit tire." so please take your assumptions back to your bench racing basement.
Aug 14, 2010, 10:43 PM
#4785
Evolved Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: VEGAS
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Boostfiend;8582787]
I'm not going to get into a huge debate with you here, but your assumptions are far from the truth. We tested a few setups before ending up with this one. First off the wheel rates of the evo show that the spring rates should be stiffer in the rear. That said rake is also affected by offset and my offset is pretty low so to compensate caster was adjusted to fix both this and scrub radius. The rear isn't snappy at all and turn-in is incredible.
I don't want to start with a roll center below ground and if anything the stiffer spring rates affect roll moment which is also based off of the weights at each corner. Thus everyone on here wants a lower vehicle because they see "race cars" do it, well those cars also weigh hundreds of pounds less and thus run a completely different setup.
I have a feeling that you are completely speculating based off of the things you've seen on EvoM's race cars; and to the other I can easily tuck the rears in the rear fenders. I didn't do this to "just fit tire." so please take your assumptions back to your bench racing basement.
Nor am I going to debate with you as well. My car is not hellaflush low as well, I did enough settings and research on my own. This includes taking readings with tire pyrometers, measuring ride height changes at speed, testing different wheel spacers to achieve the scrub, roll center, and turn-in-steering feel that I wanted. Not to mention the norms such as alignments, spring rates, and dampening adjustment.
I am not going to fight with someone who is on a setup that is proven not to work. You do not have near enough front camber for semi competition or for that matter just a tracking day.
What tracks have you been on? What is your experience?
I was merely trying to help you out. I have results on my set-up(s) and that is known.
Take what you want from it. BTW you still didnt tell me who set it up.
With what you said above it really doesnt sound like what you are talking about except the already well known fact about the motion ratio of the rear suspension needing a higher spring rate to compensate. I have not read anywhere about a lower offset wheel requiring more chassis rake. Which way did you go with caster BTW?
I'm not going to get into a huge debate with you here, but your assumptions are far from the truth. We tested a few setups before ending up with this one. First off the wheel rates of the evo show that the spring rates should be stiffer in the rear. That said rake is also affected by offset and my offset is pretty low so to compensate caster was adjusted to fix both this and scrub radius. The rear isn't snappy at all and turn-in is incredible.
I don't want to start with a roll center below ground and if anything the stiffer spring rates affect roll moment which is also based off of the weights at each corner. Thus everyone on here wants a lower vehicle because they see "race cars" do it, well those cars also weigh hundreds of pounds less and thus run a completely different setup.
I have a feeling that you are completely speculating based off of the things you've seen on EvoM's race cars; and to the other I can easily tuck the rears in the rear fenders. I didn't do this to "just fit tire." so please take your assumptions back to your bench racing basement.
I am not going to fight with someone who is on a setup that is proven not to work. You do not have near enough front camber for semi competition or for that matter just a tracking day.
What tracks have you been on? What is your experience?
I was merely trying to help you out. I have results on my set-up(s) and that is known.
Take what you want from it. BTW you still didnt tell me who set it up.
With what you said above it really doesnt sound like what you are talking about except the already well known fact about the motion ratio of the rear suspension needing a higher spring rate to compensate. I have not read anywhere about a lower offset wheel requiring more chassis rake. Which way did you go with caster BTW?
Last edited by bchappy; Aug 14, 2010 at 10:49 PM.