I hadn't read that article for awhile (eventhough) I have it on my web-site.
320 - 290 are nice numbers, BUT it only leaves 20mm rear wheel travel to you're on the bumpstops, so they'd have to be modified. The other issue is at 290 mm, you would have too much neg camber and positive toe unless you had a modified rear crossmember (and they have gone to the trouble of suggesting that shouldn't be done). Cheers, Cam CM510 www.cm510.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Andrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 12:34 AM Subject: Re: quick spring question - TERRY > http://www.whiteline.com.au/articles/RH_Dat1600a.htm > > They suggest 320 front and 290 back. Mind you they also mention that this > is supposed to be sitting dead flat. > If they're too be belived and a 30mm difference is dead flat, a 60mm > difference would be the back lower. Dunno, sure it can be made to handle > alright both ways. > > Dave > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > On 1/28/03, 12:00:08 AM, "Cam McKinnon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > regarding Re: quick spring question - TERRY: > > > > Hi Andrew, > > > Just for the record, mine is 300 front 270 rear. > > > Trev is 100% correct with increase in both negative camber (most guys are > > aware of this) and also bags of toe out when lowering the rear which > makes > > for way too much over steer on the track. > > > Re the front, I run the short 1600 strut with some of Errols strut > spacers > > and haven't had a problem with bump steer at 300mm. IMHO at 300, a 1600 > is > > sitting nice and doesn't look too dumped. > > > Re the rear, at 270mm you WILL be sitting on the rear bump stops as I > found > > out recently. IMHO 270 at the rear does looked too dumped and unless I > was > > regularly racing the thing I'd probably have it an inch or so higher > (rear > > 290mm). I've chopped the stops so I now have about 30mm travel. > > > Re front to rear difference, I don't know if 60mm front to rear > difference > > is critical, but a wise old man of the track once told me that the rear > > should sit lower that the front. > > > Cheers, > > > Cam > > CM510 > > www.cm510.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "GREENBURY, Andrew Robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 11:03 AM > > Subject: RE: quick spring question - TERRY > > > > > Hi Trev, > > > > > > Thanks for that. Ive measured my current ride height (wheel centre to > > > guard): front 350mm and rear 325mm. > > > > > > I found in the archives that the factory heights were 410mm front, 350mm > > > rear ie 60mm difference. > > > > > > My question is, when lowering a 1600, do you aim to maintain a 60mm > > > difference front to rear? And what heights are an optimum balance between > > > looks and performance? > > > > > > Thanks all, > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > On 26 Jan 2003, trev wrote: > > > > > > > Andrew, > > > > > > > > I don't have measurements handy (give me a bell if you need the specks I > > > > have them written down at home). They feel much better than stock and > > > > would be good for a road car. I would use the stock bump stops too. This > > > > made a huge difference to handling Winton last year after I put then > > > > back in. Much less throttle on understeer at corner exit. I want to use > > > > something firmer now but at the same ride height. > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > Trev > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2003-01-23 at 12:03, E Smith wrote: > > > > > Sorry I dont have the spring specs available Andrew. > > > > > Trevor pooley uses them in his race car and they proved to be a good > > rate as > > > > > well as dropping the height some 40 - 50 mm I believe. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Feral Errol > > > > > <http://www.datrats.com.au/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrew > > > > > Greenbury > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 11:29 AM > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Subject: RE: quick spring question - TERRY > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Errol, > > > > > > > > > > You wouldnt happen to know the rear 240K springs free length, coil > > > > > thickness, by how much they drop a 1600 rear etc off the top of > > > > > your head? > > > > > > > > > > Im trying to determine if they are the springs in my 1600 already. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks again > > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > > > Andrew, > > > > > > yes it is the 240K springs. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Feral Errol > > > > > > <http://www.datrats.com.au/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrew > > > > > > Greenbury > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 2:32 PM > > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Subject: quick spring question - TERRY > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, but Terry in particular :) > > > > > > > > > > > > Been searching the archives and cant find the answer - is it 240K > > > > > > rear springs that you say are the easy quick option for a rear ride > > > > > > height drop in a 1600?? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --membersozdat------------------------------------------------------- OZDAT Mailing List Please Note:- Send (un)subscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send submissions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] No unauthorised redistribution of this email http://www.ozdat.com/ozdatonline/index.htm http://www.ozdat.com/ozdatonline/listindex.html http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------
