|
|
Post by superdan on May 29, 2016 7:32:02 GMT
Wondering what people's thought on ride height specifically (and only) for track use. From memory ours is 595mm from ground to top of wheel arches front and rear.
At Blyton last week a couple of cars (both of which drove to the track) looked lower and quick, was thinking of dropping 10mm ahead of next track day.
Cars on Meister R's, not sure on spring rates but assume it's whatever comes with them as standard.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattk on May 30, 2016 15:01:07 GMT
Mines lowered so the bottom wishbone is parallel to the floor.
Iirc that's 310/320mm f/r from the centre of the wheel to the arch.
|
|
|
|
Post by niklas on May 31, 2016 15:11:15 GMT
949 alignment specs have some ride height specified, proved to work well.
I too run parallel wishbones. Looks high compared to most, goes faster than most.
|
|
|
|
Post by superdan on Jun 2, 2016 7:59:06 GMT
Mines lowered so the bottom wishbone is parallel to the floor. Iirc that's 310/320mm f/r from the centre of the wheel to the arch. So last night we knocked 5 turns off the Meisters, looked back at the slammed look and realised we'd gone too far. Compromised until it looked about 'right' and you'll never guess, within a couple of mm we were 310mm front, 320mm rear with parallel wishbones. Blyton next week will be the test of any improvement, have put in a stiffer front ARB too as the front felt like it rolled more than the rear. Thanks for the help. Dan |
|
Rasc
Chats A Bit
Nutz troll apparently
Posts: 130 
|
Post by Rasc on Jun 2, 2016 8:52:03 GMT
You do realise that altering your ride height will throw out any alignment settings you had and therefore things could be worse?
|
|
|
|
Post by superdan on Jun 2, 2016 9:10:15 GMT
Yes cheers, but it's not had an alignment setup yet, chicken and egg. The wishbones are rotating roughly around parallel so geometry change will be small, ride heights only changed by about 10 - 15mm from where it was.
|
|
le sigh