363 replies to this topic

[Spitfire Engineering]

Scuffers - Can I assume the lap times you are posting are from Jamies TA car? How much cash has been poured into it to make it do that? 50K-60K? On the original subject, how much of that is on the arb? 1%?

No, only one of from Jamie's car.

Assides, thats not really the point is it?

If you want to get technical, its about cornering speeds, ie just how much grip you can get with optimised suspension.

I would love to get into a proper discussion with real track data to back this all up, but you may have noticed, there is none being offered for this rear ARB setup.

I am not the one suggesting anybody goes out and buys the most expensive option out there, quite the opposite.

Seems to me the problem is the vendor of the expensive option is not prepared to put up the track data to defend it.

PS. I also have some concerns about what its bolted to...

Assides, thats not really the point is it?
And trying to compare lap times x 10 posts was the point then?

If you want to get technical, its about cornering speeds, ie just how much grip you can get with optimised suspension.
Yes we know, it was mentioned right back at the start of the thread on SimonR's original post, but thanks for reminding us.

I would love to get into a proper discussion with real track data to back this all up, but you may have noticed, there is none being offered for this rear ARB setup.
Using your posts on here as a reference, that would be quite pointless as already pointed you were incapable of calculating the rate for a rear ARB to the extent your final conclusion was to take it off. perhaps you could advise us of how you would interpret the data should it be supplied, exactly which would be interpolated and which used in isolation for the calculations? what formula would you use for which dynamics?
Or more likely would you just like the collected data handed to you on a plate?

I am not the one suggesting anybody goes out and buys the most expensive option out there, quite the opposite.
interestingly CF doesn't either, check the posts, and on SELOC (assuming your banned status for being abusive has been relinquished). or whatever it was you were banned for because I I have little doubt you will want to split hairs over that as well.

Seems to me the problem is the vendor of the expensive option is not prepared to put up the track data to defend it.
On the basis this was not designed for a race car what would it matter anyway? The primary relevant data is what the customers think of it.

PS. I also have some concerns about what its bolted to...
Now you need to be a little careful Simon, if you are suggesting in any shape or form there is a structural problem that could be close to libel.

[Spitfire Engineering]

Comparing my cornering speeds against Jamie's car is only going to prove two things;

1. The TA car is optimised as a race car and mine isn't. e.g. aero package, tyres etc (mine has no aero and tyres with a lower utqg rating, 80 vs 180?)
2. The driver has more experience/confidence/bigger balls than I do (i've only done Snett once and that was the old layout)

Now comparing my laps pre CF and post CF would be a more telling comparison but as Chris pointed out earlier most of that will be down to my confidence due to the feel of the new setup. I think this is the initial point of this thread - which arb will help an amateur tracker who does a few trackdays a year in his road car go faster.

.....
what a well setup car will do is make the most of it's tyres, ie, keep the biggest/most consistent contact patch.
yep, pretty sure I have read this on the thread before, oh yeah, just found it again, but thanks for reminding us, again.

what I am struggling with here is that you/others are pushing the use of a rear ARB without the real data to back any of this up.
There is data but why should you be supplied with it? If SimonR wishes to do so he may well do that.

I (and others) on the other hand who have been setting up these cars for years, as well as racing them, with literally years of data to look back on, have all found that adding a rear ARB with any significant rate to it makes the cars not only harder to drive, but certainly no faster (in fact slower as close to the limit's the behaviour is far less confidence inspiring than without one).

Clearly then, the data you collected meant nothing to you, i.e it was just data. Having seen your posts on other forums for years this comes to me as no surprise.
Until data is interpreted correctly it’s gash.
Again your own attempts to produce a functional rear ARB failed despite all the data you had at your disposal, what does that really say about your methods Simon?
To me it reads you used a trial and error approach until you got fed up and took it off.

By contrast I watched the entire process of the development of this product, it was data logged for weeks with a top spec data system fitted, just about every day on most surfaces with a professional test driver, this was analysed over a period of days, the components calculated, designed and manufactured in house.
All the associated damper work was calculated and undertaken in house (one of CF’s specialist areas).
What I though was really impressive was that on the first data collection after the system was fitted it was bang on first time. no adjustments needed to any component.
Chalk and cheese approaches really

Now, people can dress this up with all the technical mumbo-jumbo they like, but without the simple basics of track data to back up their product claims, it's all a bit hollow.
Not at all Simon, as mentioned giving you data that you would not know how to interpret would be both pointless and naive at the same time.
By attempting to use cornering speeds as the new datum to compare a race setup to a road setup (that’s x 11 times now) that goes right back to “lets compare lap times” or did you think we would not notice?

Quite apart from all of that, I would not want to be putting any vertical loads on the lower wishbone hangers, they are just not designed for this, and neither is the chassis rail they are bolted to either.

Not sure I wanted to answer this as it seems to me that is already enough hinting from yourself for it to be libellous.

However as the are several customers who may now be concerned I will post the following.

If you have any doubt as to the structural integrity of any of this setup please contact CF directly along with any comments you feel about the posts.

For your own peace of mind in the meantime.
Simon Scuffham has no idea what forces the rear ARB produces in the first place, so any inference of load path deformation is based on his best guess which he has already shown is poor.

The Lower wishbone hangers which are weak according to SC is the same mounting plate that takes the damper, i.e the entire weight of the car when static and multiplied when dynamically loaded. That is why it was used.

The inner mount is on the same bolt as the main wishbone, further, SC has no idea what the shear limit of the rear ARB mount is, nor what it is made from, hence he cannot possibly know when it will shear off. Nor does he have any idea what the construction limit of the bracket holding the mounts to the main chassis is either.

Having none of this knowledge to hand, he indicates that it may weak in itself? or worse may exceed some structural limitation of the vehicle it is fixed to.

Unbelievable

Edited by Spitfire Engineering, 18 March 2013 - 07:31 PM.

[chris_uk]

where is that popcorn gif!

Edited by chris_uk, 18 March 2013 - 07:34 PM.

[Goosenka]

[Scuffers]

ol You do make me laugh! So, I take it from you bluster that you dont have any structural assessment of This Setup then? (I wonder how good your product liability insurance is?)

[darronwall]

sweet jesus!!

[Mike (Cliffie)]

Please lock this thread now. Paul, buy a 1" on soft it will be barely noticeable on the road but on the track at mid setting it will reduce the front roll considerably.

[PaulCP]

Please lock this thread now.

Well overdue IMO

2 egos getting too big

[P11 COV]

Paul.. If your just tootling around on a couple trackdays for the enjoyment of it i just wouldnt bother doing anything.. Just enjoy it as is.

If there is a characteristic you dont like, explain what it is and they might be able to give advice.

I do quite a bit more than 2 trackdays a year and I dont tootal!!

I have spent quite a bit of dosh on getting increasing the cars power and making it that power reasonably well delivered (for a 300bhp turbo) but the suspension needs an overhall as it has had 5 years of pounding on track and has done 60,000 miles. I just thought whilst it was all being done it might be an idea to upgrade the ARB as it wouldn't cost much overall.

I want it to go round corners better. I want to feel more confident to take it round the corners faster. I wouldnt keep the car if I wasn't using it on track so from that point of view its important how it handles on track, probably more than on the road.

[Scuffers]

I have spent quite a bit of dosh on getting increasing the cars power and making it that power reasonably well delivered (for a 300bhp turbo) but the suspension needs an overhall as it has had 5 years of pounding on track and has done 60,000 miles. I just thought whilst it was all being done it might be an idea to upgrade the ARB as it wouldn't cost much overall.

I guess the next question is what has your car got on it now? (in suspension terms), what wheels/tyres do you run, etc.?

[Dave E]

Paul.. If your just tootling around on a couple trackdays.....

This made me laugh, Chris you obviously haven't come across Paul on track, he's anything but slow

Saying that I suggest Paul gets a ban for asking a deliberately provocative question

[chris_uk]

I didnt mean tootling as being slow..

[Mangham54]

I didnt mean tootling as being slow..

Pootling = slow

Tootling = making good progress

Or that is how I understood them growing up.

[chris_uk]

Same here chris.

[Dave E]

Tootling, to make leisurely progress.

[Spitfire Engineering]

ol

You do make me laugh!

So, I take it from you bluster that you dont have any structural assessment of This Setup then?

(I wonder how good your product liability insurance is?)

So not being able to understand is not enough, now you cannot read as well.
Now that's funny.

Yet again you are incorrect in every assumption.
And just to clear up another incorrect assumption, I am not connected to CF.


As it was asked before why dont you let us know what your qualifications are Simon?
I notice you failed to ask any of the questions put to you.

Is this because you are not qualified to answer them?

[siztenboots]

He's an expert in trolling

[Scuffers]

Is this because you are not qualified to answer them?

as I have said before, where's the value in another meaningless sh*t-fight?

may I remind you of the fuel pump one? or maybe you would like to take about toe links again?

Do you really think people on here want this kind of bullshit thread?

All that said, just so we are clear, you have never made and do not have anything to do with CF kit then?

[siztenboots]

In order to have a sh*t-fight, someone has to bring the sh*t and that always seems to be you.

[Silent Steve]

Ding-ding! Round 2. Best Trackday thread. Ever.