|
|
SUPPORT ZPOST BY DOING YOUR TIRERACK SHOPPING FROM THIS BANNER, THANKS! |
Post Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
01-02-2013, 06:08 AM | #23 |
Second Lieutenant
6
Rep 222
Posts |
So are you suggesting that you don't have preferred "handling tastes"?
If you've ever spent any time adjusting various things on a car, such as damper settings, geometry and ARBs etc., you car can be made to handle in a host of different ways, some of which make the car easier to handle and others which make it worse. If you're sufficiently perceptive, skilled and experienced as a driver and mechanic, you can diagnose the handling configuration and hone the set up, so that you can make the car behave in a predictable manner with your driver inputs. If you understand the physics and vehicle dynamics of cars in motion, then it's a logical process of making the necessary adjustments to make the car behave predictably to your driver inputs. |
Appreciate
0
|
01-02-2013, 06:15 AM | #24 | |
Second Lieutenant
6
Rep 222
Posts |
Quote:
AC Schnitzer see: http://www.ac-schnitzer.de/ I'm sure you know of them. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-02-2013, 06:24 AM | #25 | |
Captain
58
Rep 912
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-02-2013, 06:36 AM | #26 | |
Captain
58
Rep 912
Posts |
Quote:
I don't like the term "rake", or "adjusting rake", i like "corner balancing". |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-02-2013, 06:43 AM | #27 | |
#buildnotbought
10843
Rep 4,892
Posts |
Quote:
Still, cars that are known to steer very directly tend to use very small caster angles. An elise for example has a caster angle smaller than 4 deg. Do you know the stock caster angle from a Z4? |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-02-2013, 06:47 AM | #28 |
Second Lieutenant
6
Rep 222
Posts |
I'm quite happy to hustle any car and drive it as it comes. I don't have any trouble driving the Z4MC hard in its OEM format, but I knew before I bought my Z4MC that I could make it handle so much better as well as improve the bloody awful uncomfortable ride, and make my driving experience more enjoyable by modifying the suspension and set up to give the car predictable neutral handling. I've already got a heavily modified Z3MC which I've had for 10 years, of which I transformed the handling, and I wanted to do the same to my relatively newly acquired Z4MC.
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-02-2013, 06:50 AM | #29 |
Second Lieutenant
6
Rep 222
Posts |
IIRC, the Z4MC has a caster angle of 5 degrees. In comparison, the Z3 MC has a caster angle of around 9 degrees. As always, there's many different ways of achieving a result, but by experimentation, it's sometimes possible to find tweaks which makes things even better.
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-02-2013, 07:08 AM | #30 | |
Second Lieutenant
6
Rep 222
Posts |
Quote:
Likewise, I'm not attacking you in answering your replies. I'm afraid that we have to use the conventional terminology between ourselves so that we can exchange information and discuss our opinions. The term "rake" simply expresses the angle that the plane of the underside of the car makes with the road. It is highly relevant to the aerodynamic configuration of vehicles. If by "corner balancing" a vehicle you end up lowering the rear end of the car so that the plane of the underside of the car makes a "negative rake angle" (i.e. you can see the underside of the car when looking from the front of the car) you will increase drag and consequently increase aerodynamic lift. This will both slow the car down and reduce grip. Therefore, why would anyone wanting to improve the performance of a car wish to prefer to think solely in terms of corner balancing whilst at the same time choosing to ignore the importance of rake? I'm not wishing to be argumentative, just trying to be objective and logical. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-02-2013, 09:35 AM | #31 | |
Captain
58
Rep 912
Posts |
Quote:
Can you please send me your alignment, front and rear height in mm taken from the bottom end of the wheels to the gap of the fender. To make it easier for both us please fill it in here so that i compare it to mine: Front: Height = Caster = Toe (total toe) = Camber = Rear: Height = Caster = Toe (total toe) = Camber = |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-02-2013, 11:01 AM | #32 | |
Second Lieutenant
6
Rep 222
Posts |
Quote:
Here's the information you want. Front: Height = 592mm (OEM = 607mm ± 10mm) Caster = OEM Toe (total toe) = 0 degs Camber = -1.6 degs (pins removed and OEM top mounts at maximum negative camber) Rear: Height = 605mm (OEM = 594mm ± 10mm) Toe (total toe) = 0 degs Camber = -1.15 degs Caster doesn't apply at the rear. Additionally, I've measured the height of the cill on a level floor immediately behind the front wheel (=138mm) and immediately in front of the rear wheel (= 158mm). Although the Z4MC doesn't have a flat floor or undertray, the bottom edge of the cill, being straight, gives an indication of a rake angle, and with my figures, this produces a positive rake angle of 0.66 degrees (OEM = +0.55 degrees). Whilst my rake angle has only been increased slightly, in degrees, the real effect of this change is that the gap between the bumper and the road has been reduced by about 25mm, which reduces the volume of air passing under the car, which according to the laws of Physics (Bernoulli), creates a zone of low pressure beneath the front of the car, which is also encouraged by the aerofoil shape in the OEM plastic undertray beneath the engine. In turn there is a zone of high pressure on top of the hood, with the net effect of reducing the tendency to lift. By ensuring that there is a positive rake angle beneath the car, this additionally helps to increase the speed of air passing under the front of the car, which contributes to the increase in low pressure beneath the front of the car. As I've said in an earlier post, the OEM springs at the front are made of 11mm wire, which permits excessive lift under acceleration, which opens the gap at the front of the car between the bumper and the road, probably by as much as 40mm or more, whereas with stiffer springs of aftermarket suspension, there is considerably less lift. Therefore, with an OEM set up, under acceleration there will be a dynamic reduction in rake angle, which might open the gap between the bumper and the road by a further 50mm, and by a total of some 75mm more than might occur with my car with an increased static rake angle and with stiffer aftermarket front springs which prevent lifting under acceleration. I can only see this as an advantage and not irrelevant as suggested by those claiming that attention to rake angle is unimportant. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-02-2013, 04:41 PM | #33 |
Captain
58
Rep 912
Posts |
sorry about the rear caster, it was copy paste thing.
Mine is a Roadster and alignment is as follows: Front: Height = 10 mm lower = 598mm Toe (total toe) = 1/16th Camber = -2.3 degs Rear: Height = 10 mm lower = 585mmm Toe (total toe) = 1/32nd Camber = -1.8 degs The car cuts corners like a samurai katana on speeds above 120+ mph. Understeer is reduced. It drives like it's guessing where you want to steer, it's very telepathical. |
Appreciate
0
|
01-02-2013, 09:25 PM | #34 |
Captain
743
Rep 647
Posts |
I appreciate the responses everyone! I think I am just going to tell the shop to corner balance the car as first priority and if it makes sense to add rake while corner balancing it then to go ahead and do so.
__________________
Le Mans Blue '09 BMW M3 Sedan - Current Polar Silver '04 Porsche GT3 - Gone Persian Blue '08 Lotus Exige S240 - Gone Space Gray/Imola '08 BMW M Coupe - Gone |
Appreciate
0
|
01-03-2013, 04:37 AM | #35 | |
Second Lieutenant
6
Rep 222
Posts |
Quote:
What are your cornerweights? What suspension do you have? Here's a parts diagram for the front bumper. Part 23 (part number 51 11 3 442 832) which is described as "front spoiler". I wonder why BMW put this part on the car if rake and reducing the space under the front bumper is unimportant? |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-04-2013, 01:36 AM | #36 |
Captain
58
Rep 912
Posts |
I have found that raising the height in the rear will make the car squat a little too much on hard acceleration and induce understeer on high speeds.
I have prefered to keep the car rake stock then I used camber shim kit instead of camber plates in order to keep the scrub angle negative and closer to 0. I lowered the car 9 mm front and 12 mm in the back: 1- To get closer to 50/50 (stock is 53/47) 2- I removed some weight in the rear more than the front 3- To gain the extra negative camber instead of using more shims and to keep an ideal scrub angle 4- Lower center of gravity. I put some toe in front and rear about 1.2mm front and 1mm rear. The cars handling is unbelievable, the grip is just too impressive, and i find myself struggling hard to break loose in second gear on a car that is pushing nearly 390hp with evolve. Understeer is really up there on the limits of the car. We don't have corner balancing in my country, only alignment, so I had to do the calculations by hand and based on OEM alignment figures as a reference i created the delta (delta = measurements of changes in variables). I don't know if someone has an alignment similar to mine that can shine in. |
Appreciate
0
|
01-04-2013, 09:03 AM | #37 |
Second Lieutenant
6
Rep 222
Posts |
Tikamak,
This might help. I've searched this forum and found some actual corner balancing figures. They are in Post #27 found here: http://www.zpost.com/forums/showthre...=516581&page=2 and here's the information of the Z4MC after it's been corner balanced. As the information shows, the car has been balanced at 50:50 with the weight of the driver in the car. Since the results are using Imperial measurements and we've been using metric, I've converted those ride heights into metric as follows. FL = 590.5mm (23 1/4") FR = 593.7mm (23 3/8") Front Average = 592.7mm RL = 587.3mm (23 1/8") RR =590.5mm (23 1/4") Rear Average = 588.9mm Tikamak's Ride Heights = Front = 598mm Rear = 585mm Therefore your car is 6.3mm higher at the front and 3.9mm lower at the rear than a car which has been corner-balanced. I realise that your car is a Roadster but is there really a 10.2mm difference in ride heights between a Z4MC and a Z4MR? |
Appreciate
0
|
01-04-2013, 03:47 PM | #38 |
Captain
58
Rep 912
Posts |
What can I say, I wish suspension shops over here understand the need for a corner balancing run before starting to blindly do an alignment.
I repeat that I did my calculations by hand and logic and I am satisfied with results. I might pay you and beedub a visit someday when I'm in Europe, to check your cars and have some beers. |
Appreciate
0
|
01-04-2013, 07:10 PM | #39 | |
Lieutenant General
2426
Rep 11,667
Posts |
Quote:
I recognize that data I have my own scales.
__________________
'21 M2C Hockenheim Silver
'18 718 Cayman S Lava Orange (sold) '13 E92 M3 Santorini Blue (sold) '07 Z4 M Coupe Alpine White (sold) |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-10-2013, 02:31 PM | #41 | |
enthusiast
48
Rep 1,695
Posts |
Quote:
Long Acre makes some good scales. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-10-2013, 03:54 PM | #42 |
Lieutenant Colonel
80
Rep 1,663
Posts |
Considering I couldn't find a place around here that would do a corner balance for less than $300, it's not terrible.
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-10-2013, 04:09 PM | #43 |
Lieutenant General
2426
Rep 11,667
Posts |
I bought a used set for $550
__________________
'21 M2C Hockenheim Silver
'18 718 Cayman S Lava Orange (sold) '13 E92 M3 Santorini Blue (sold) '07 Z4 M Coupe Alpine White (sold) |
Appreciate
0
|
03-28-2013, 05:00 PM | #44 | |
Private
19
Rep 97
Posts |
Quote:
With front spring rate of 400lb and 245/40/18 tire diameter, at high speed compression, it will rub the fender liner. I'd love to lower the front ride height but don't want to chew up the liner. Stiffer spring rate may help but not sure whether it will add more understeer during midcorner than what it is. The weight distribution with me on the car (no ballast or passenger, half tank) is: LF 853, RF 835 LR 862, RR 852 Total 3402 With your front 23 1/4" ride, what are front spring rate and front tire size you have ? Thanks Last edited by S2000; 03-28-2013 at 05:10 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|