

Which Arb?
#181
Posted 18 March 2013 - 03:17 PM

#182
Posted 18 March 2013 - 03:22 PM
Scuffers.... Please keep posting. Since Slindborg and Atom X quite their titanic willy waving battles there has not been enough polemic on here to keep things lively. I have no idea what anyone on these threads are talking about, but I enjoy my lunchtime sandwich (and possibly even a Greggs steak bake - mmmm) all the more when I have one the technical debates that you seem to attract to read.
I may well come to support Mike at Snetterton and give you a big man-hug.
Now that I gotta see. Broke Back Mountain revisited.
#183
Posted 18 March 2013 - 03:26 PM

#184
Posted 18 March 2013 - 03:31 PM
Scuffers.... Please keep posting. Since Slindborg and Atom X quite their titanic willy waving battles there has not been enough polemic on here to keep things lively. I have no idea what anyone on these threads are talking about, but I enjoy my lunchtime sandwich (and possibly even a Greggs steak bake - mmmm) all the more when I have one the technical debates that you seem to attract to read.
I may well come to support Mike at Snetterton and give you a big man-hug.
Now that I gotta see. Broke Back Mountain revisited.
You are confusing "big man-hug" with "good hard-bumming" I think.

Sorry for interrupting, chaps. Please continue.

#185
Posted 18 March 2013 - 03:37 PM
#186
Posted 18 March 2013 - 03:47 PM
. I'm hoping he'll decide to post some of that (wouldn't blame him if he didn't though) and better yet give me some assurance that the fuel tank isn't going to fall out of the bottom of the car as the rear ARB mounts destroy the bulkhead the bushes are mounted to. Though it still seems to be there after a couple of years.
I sense your tongue is firmly in you cheek, but that bulkhead section is also used to attach the front engine torque mount, and we don't hear of it being damaged by any big torque engines, so not sure any angular forces created by a ARB would represent a big thread to its integrity.. No idea on the brackets however, but CF don't seem to be in the business of randomly attaching 'strong looking' bits of alloy in the hope they'll be suitable

Edited by Rosssco, 18 March 2013 - 03:49 PM.
#187
Posted 18 March 2013 - 03:48 PM
#188
Posted 18 March 2013 - 03:53 PM
I sense your tongue is firmly in you cheek, but that bulkhead section is also used to attach the front engine torque mount, and we don't hear of it being damaged by any big torque engines, so not sure any angular forces created by a ARB would represent a big thread to its integrity.. No idea on the brackets however, but CF don't seem to be in the business of randomly attaching 'strong looking' bits of alloy in the hope they'll be suitable
Oh god, now you've made me think about the uprated engine mounts that I've got there as well. God knows how much additional load they're transferring into it.


#189
Posted 18 March 2013 - 04:05 PM
But Simon, the point is that 99% of these owners on here are road cars that may do three or four track days a year.
Their data is simply "We have the CF set up and it feels better and I feel faster on track due to the increased confidence I have". OK Steve has PB Box and V Box data but as you are not allowed timing on a track day, it is all about how it feels.
SteveA and JG have the CF set up and they get a better ride and more confidence than standard and that cannot be argued.
that's a cop out, how do we/you know that with a decent conventional setup they would not feel even more confident?
let's face it, most peoples cars start as ill-handing wrecks, it;s not like they came out the factory with all the wheels pointing in the right directions to start with, add several years of wear and tear, combined with most so called specialists being unable to manage even a basic wheel-alignment, it's not surprising that almost anything can make the cars handle better.
what I am trying to get at here is it;s not about spending money on shiney bits, you have to get the basics right first.
Adding a rear ARB for a road car is even more pointless, it's never going to see the kinds of lateral loads you will on a track so what would be the point? Road car manners are more about dampers/geometry/etc than ARB's.
so, your logger does not have the ability to tell you what speed you were doing into/out of a corner?And just to make things even harder, the only Snett 300 data I have is in an entirely different format (Racelogic) and doesn't produce an output vaguely similar to Scuffers' data above (AIM? DL1?). So even if I were stupid enough to post it up, as if it were definitive proof of anything, it would only prove my car is slower than Jamie's as a total package (no aero, no sticky tyres, yada, yada, yada, no surprise) and that my balls are smaller than Scuffers' when it comes to corners (again, no great surprise) and slower as a result. It wouldn't prove anything else.
SimonR has proper DL1 multiple sensor logging from a base (possibly standard NTR equipped?) car, then through it's development to the final product. Carried out in the same place by the same pro driver (so hopefully he was vaguely consistent). I'm hoping he'll decide to post some of that (wouldn't blame him if he didn't though) and better yet give me some assurance that the fuel tank isn't going to fall out of the bottom of the car as the rear ARB mounts destroy the bulkhead the bushes are mounted to. Though it still seems to be there after a couple of years.
must be an odd one, all the ones I have used seem to manage it OK? (even pikey DL1's)
don't care if it does not look like the Aim one I posted, just the raw numbers will be fine - ie, miminum speed before corner entry, etc.
#190
Posted 18 March 2013 - 04:07 PM
why do I feel like your just making excuses now?
You call them excuses, I call them facts. If you pony up the 50K difference between my car and Jamies and I'm certain CF can produce a competetive package that will give data that will be acceptable to you.
Anyway, last time you asked for data on a discussion we had, I proved the point with data and you then took the approach that my data wasn't good enough for you.
#191
Posted 18 March 2013 - 04:09 PM
#192
Posted 18 March 2013 - 04:12 PM
#193
Posted 18 March 2013 - 04:13 PM
#194
Posted 18 March 2013 - 04:15 PM
kind of missing the point yet again, Jamies cars engine/gearbox does not make it go round corners faster.
why do I feel like your just making excuses now?
You call them excuses, I call them facts. If you pony up the 50K difference between my car and Jamies and I'm certain CF can produce a competetive package that will give data that will be acceptable to you.
Anyway, last time you asked for data on a discussion we had, I proved the point with data and you then took the approach that my data wasn't good enough for you.
you seem to have missed the point that what I am suggesting is a CHEAPER option than the CF setup, so, not only will it out-perform it, it's CHEAPER.
is that such a hard concept to understand?
#195
Posted 18 March 2013 - 04:22 PM

#196
Posted 18 March 2013 - 04:23 PM
#197
Posted 18 March 2013 - 04:23 PM
kind of missing the point yet again, Jamies cars engine/gearbox does not make it go round corners faster.
But the Aero package, better tyres, better COG, lower weight do.
you seem to have missed the point that what I am suggesting is a CHEAPER option than the CF setup, so, not only will it out-perform it, it's CHEAPER.
I appreciate what you are trying to say, but you seem to insist that the way to prove this is to compare an apple to an orange.
Lets find someone with a similar setup to mine with the EP bar instead of the CF setup and let the same unbiased racing driver do some laps in each, then we will have some real data that will be of some use.
#198
Posted 18 March 2013 - 04:24 PM
"that's a cop out, how do we/you know that with a decent conventional setup they would not feel even more confident?"- I'm not saying that Simon, I said that the CF set up gave them more confidence in what it replaced. How about we send SteveA out in mine and see what he thinks?
#199
Posted 18 March 2013 - 04:27 PM
#200
Posted 18 March 2013 - 04:32 PM
up to you, it's your car!" Jamies cars engine/gearbox does not make it go round corners faster."-That is true indeed.
"that's a cop out, how do we/you know that with a decent conventional setup they would not feel even more confident?"- I'm not saying that Simon, I said that the CF set up gave them more confidence in what it replaced. How about we send SteveA out in mine and see what he thinks?
should also point out that an ARB in isolation is not a solution to anything, first port of call is springs/dampers, the ARB needs to be matched to them, not instead of them.
Look, this may come over as a somewhat bold claim, but I bet I can take just about any VX and with some basic work, make it not only go faster, but a whole lot easier to drive, the idea that the perfect car setup for a racing driver is un-drivable for a mear mortal (in the context of road based cars) is mostly phewi, a well setup car is the easiest one to get the times out of.
I know you have only done a few laps in yours mike, but at any point did you feel it was going to come and bite you?
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users