| SoloSTI | 10-15-2006 10:37 PM |
Body Roll
�
�
Here is the scenario, I have an 04 STI with pink springs, racecomp adjustable camber plates, kartboy rear end links. I like the way my car handles right now I could induce oversteer or understeer when needed but I would like to minimize [B]body roll[/B], what would I need to do? The car is used for autocross.
The only guy that beats me is a 1995 Honda and that car turns so flat.
Thanks
The only guy that beats me is a 1995 Honda and that car turns so flat.
Thanks
| Driving_Miss_Daisy | 10-15-2006 10:40 PM |
Sway Bars will do the trick.
| IBAUCLAPlaya | 10-15-2006 11:53 PM |
800lb Spring coilovers ;)
| REVNU | 10-16-2006 12:12 AM |
[QUOTE=Driving_Miss_Daisy;15623832]Sway Bars will do the trick.[/QUOTE]
+1 for the swaybars. Worked wonders on my WRX. The car stays pretty flat in turns now and grips much better.
~ REVNU
+1 for the swaybars. Worked wonders on my WRX. The car stays pretty flat in turns now and grips much better.
~ REVNU
| carl s. | 10-16-2006 12:15 AM |
from my experience with other cars, sway bars, and more aggressive spring rates. coilovers where you can lower the car but keep the same amount of shock travel would be helpful too
| SoloSTI | 10-16-2006 01:35 AM |
replace both front and rear sway bars? if yes what settings and what bars do you use?
| M | 10-16-2006 04:37 PM |
why do you feel you need to get rid of your body roll? You realize that removing the body roll will change your handling. You will also run the risk of becoming severely underdamped in roll when you run very stiff anti-roll bars.
| kursplat | 10-17-2006 12:12 AM |
take 1200lbs out of the car. your not driving a honda, why are you trying to drive it like it's a honda ?
| SoloSTI | 10-17-2006 06:43 PM |
[QUOTE]take 1200lbs out of the car. your not driving a honda, why are you trying to drive it like it's a honda ?[/QUOTE]
I want to beat the Honda, as I am improving my driving skills I woukld like to improve my car as well. I am installing a quick ratio steering rack soon. The hOnda I am talking about has been un beaten in 3 years. I am always a second behind or even less sometimes.
I want to beat the Honda, as I am improving my driving skills I woukld like to improve my car as well. I am installing a quick ratio steering rack soon. The hOnda I am talking about has been un beaten in 3 years. I am always a second behind or even less sometimes.
| ChrisW | 10-17-2006 07:38 PM |
[quote=IBAUCLAPlaya;15624683]800lb Spring coilovers ;)[/quote]
+1
stiffer swaybars are for whimps.:p
+1
stiffer swaybars are for whimps.:p
| Boxologist | 10-17-2006 09:07 PM |
go buy his honda then.
| kursplat | 10-17-2006 09:43 PM |
ask him to drive your car a couple of practice laps. it might not be as much the car as you think
| IBAUCLAPlaya | 10-17-2006 10:01 PM |
Any idea if the guy is nationally competitive? But kursplat's idea is a good one. See how much better of a driver he is.
| solo-x | 10-17-2006 11:08 PM |
t3h h0nd4 c4n'7 b3 b34t!!! :P
seriously though, body roll can be reduced a number of ways. stiffer sway bars, stiffer springs, higher roll center height relative to cg height (6gun balljoint extenders), going slower, and so on. if you change anything to reduce chassis roll you'll change how the car handles. done correctly, you can reduce body roll AND make the car faster. failing that, buy a honda! :D
seriously though, body roll can be reduced a number of ways. stiffer sway bars, stiffer springs, higher roll center height relative to cg height (6gun balljoint extenders), going slower, and so on. if you change anything to reduce chassis roll you'll change how the car handles. done correctly, you can reduce body roll AND make the car faster. failing that, buy a honda! :D
| solo-x | 10-17-2006 11:09 PM |
[QUOTE=IBAUCLAPlaya;15651863]Any idea if the guy is nationally competitive? But kursplat's idea is a good one. See how much better of a driver he is.[/QUOTE]
which nation? the OP is from Guam.
which nation? the OP is from Guam.
| Patrick L | 10-17-2006 11:17 PM |
[QUOTE=IBAUCLAPlaya;15624683]800lb Spring coilovers ;)[/QUOTE]
no, I run 750's in fron and still have too much.
Swaybars
no, I run 750's in fron and still have too much.
Swaybars
| Storm | 10-18-2006 10:50 AM |
A change from crappy handling would be a good thing, no?
[quote=M;15633284]why do you feel you need to get rid of your body roll? You realize that removing the body roll will change your handling. You will also run the risk of becoming severely underdamped in roll when you run very stiff anti-roll bars.[/quote]
Your theory of underdamping while in roll has been trumped by real world succuss in running stiffer bars. That said....there would come a point where the bars will be too big for the dampers to handle and would call for upgrade there as well.
Jay Storm
[quote=M;15633284]why do you feel you need to get rid of your body roll? You realize that removing the body roll will change your handling. You will also run the risk of becoming severely underdamped in roll when you run very stiff anti-roll bars.[/quote]
Your theory of underdamping while in roll has been trumped by real world succuss in running stiffer bars. That said....there would come a point where the bars will be too big for the dampers to handle and would call for upgrade there as well.
Jay Storm
| M | 10-18-2006 10:58 AM |
If you're running too stiff of swaybars then you're underdamped in roll. This causes a lag time and oscilation along steady state handling. The reason for "real world" sucess is because the bars are an improvement in roll stiffness for the vehicle. However, if the bars are matched with proper damping a greater gain will be realized.
Your cause and effect logic completely negates all principles and is the major reason why there are so many ****ty engineers.
Your cause and effect logic completely negates all principles and is the major reason why there are so many ****ty engineers.
| SoloSTI | 10-18-2006 06:53 PM |
[QUOTE]ask him to drive your car a couple of practice laps. it might not be as much the car as you think[/QUOTE]
He did and was about as close to my time and his times in his car were still faster. He has Tein Coilovers and adjustable damping, after market sway bars.
I would never trade my Subaru for a Honda, I work for a Honda dealership.:D
He did and was about as close to my time and his times in his car were still faster. He has Tein Coilovers and adjustable damping, after market sway bars.
I would never trade my Subaru for a Honda, I work for a Honda dealership.:D
| goto_racing | 10-18-2006 07:04 PM |
[QUOTE=M;15657200]If you're running too stiff of swaybars then you're underdamped in roll. This causes a lag time and oscilation along steady state handling. The reason for "real world" sucess is because the bars are an improvement in roll stiffness for the vehicle. However, if the bars are matched with proper damping a greater gain will be realized.
Your cause and effect logic completely negates all principles and is the major reason why there are so many ****ty engineers.[/QUOTE]
Either is a net gain in performance, which still makes getting stiffer sway bars a good idea. Your primary concern when tuning should be the contact patch of the tire. Even an appropriately damped setup cannot overcome the loss of not having a good contact patch, since ultimately the gains you hoped to realize through proper damping need to translate through those tires.
So getting stiff sway bars is a completely valid way to improve cornering in the "real world" (as we are calling it :) ). Adjusting your dampers is another fine idea to achieve even more performance, but should not invalidate the former.
Chris Lock
Your cause and effect logic completely negates all principles and is the major reason why there are so many ****ty engineers.[/QUOTE]
Either is a net gain in performance, which still makes getting stiffer sway bars a good idea. Your primary concern when tuning should be the contact patch of the tire. Even an appropriately damped setup cannot overcome the loss of not having a good contact patch, since ultimately the gains you hoped to realize through proper damping need to translate through those tires.
So getting stiff sway bars is a completely valid way to improve cornering in the "real world" (as we are calling it :) ). Adjusting your dampers is another fine idea to achieve even more performance, but should not invalidate the former.
Chris Lock
| kursplat | 10-18-2006 10:37 PM |
[QUOTE=SoloSTI;15664366]He did and was about as close to my time and his times in his car were still faster. He has Tein Coilovers and adjustable damping, after market sway bars.
[/QUOTE]well, if he jumped in your car and right off was running as fast as you, then there is probably more speed left in your car. also you might want to work on what tires and pressures your running.
good luck
[/QUOTE]well, if he jumped in your car and right off was running as fast as you, then there is probably more speed left in your car. also you might want to work on what tires and pressures your running.
good luck
| SoloSTI | 10-19-2006 12:08 AM |
I run 235/40/17 Yokohama Advan A032S at 39psi front and 33 psi rear
I also run Kumho S700 225/45/17 slicks also at 39 psi front and 33 psi rear.
I also run Kumho S700 225/45/17 slicks also at 39 psi front and 33 psi rear.
| solo-x | 10-19-2006 08:01 AM |
a proper damper setup has the chassis overdamped at low piston speeds. adding more bar just makes the car less overdamped in roll. or does it? you've got one side working against the bump valving of the shock, the other against the rebound valving.
anyway, to get the chassis to the point where it is underdamped in roll you'd need an impossibly big sway bar. roll damping is one of those theories that nobody worries about because it has no bearing in the practical world. seperating roll and ride stiffness has it's benefits, if you're running 3000lbs of downforce.
anyway, to get the chassis to the point where it is underdamped in roll you'd need an impossibly big sway bar. roll damping is one of those theories that nobody worries about because it has no bearing in the practical world. seperating roll and ride stiffness has it's benefits, if you're running 3000lbs of downforce.
| elirentz | 10-19-2006 10:36 AM |
Get a whiteline 27mm front bar with the 24 mm in the rear. I currently run pinks, pde plates, and a hotchkis competition front bar with a whiteline 27mm rear bar. They sways were the next best thing to more camber imo. I wish I had gotten the bars I suggested because my car is very prone to oversteer even with the rear on soft. The stiffer bars def. helped alot with body roll and turn in.
| M | 10-20-2006 12:01 AM |
[QUOTE=solo-x;15669721]a proper damper setup has the chassis overdamped at low piston speeds. adding more bar just makes the car less overdamped in roll. or does it? you've got one side working against the bump valving of the shock, the other against the rebound valving.
anyway, to get the chassis to the point where it is underdamped in roll you'd need an impossibly big sway bar. roll damping is one of those theories that nobody worries about because it has no bearing in the practical world. seperating roll and ride stiffness has it's benefits, if you're running 3000lbs of downforce.[/QUOTE]
I completely disagree with your overdamped at low speeds philosophy. That's far too broad of a statement. A proper setup for what? every car ever? every course? come on here.
Look at all the decoupled suspension systems in WRC that i believe are now banned. Are those cars making 3k lbs of downforce??? I think not. Decoupling ride and roll stiffness is huge because tires have load sensitivity. You want infinite roll stiffness if possible, but what sacrifice are you willing to make? For auto-x your bar setup should be largely determined on how rough of a course you are running.
Seperate ride and roll stiffness is largely needed for pitch sensitivity. Champ cars aren't very pitch sensitive hense nobody runs the third spring yet they still are making 5k of downforce at 200 mph.
anyway, to get the chassis to the point where it is underdamped in roll you'd need an impossibly big sway bar. roll damping is one of those theories that nobody worries about because it has no bearing in the practical world. seperating roll and ride stiffness has it's benefits, if you're running 3000lbs of downforce.[/QUOTE]
I completely disagree with your overdamped at low speeds philosophy. That's far too broad of a statement. A proper setup for what? every car ever? every course? come on here.
Look at all the decoupled suspension systems in WRC that i believe are now banned. Are those cars making 3k lbs of downforce??? I think not. Decoupling ride and roll stiffness is huge because tires have load sensitivity. You want infinite roll stiffness if possible, but what sacrifice are you willing to make? For auto-x your bar setup should be largely determined on how rough of a course you are running.
Seperate ride and roll stiffness is largely needed for pitch sensitivity. Champ cars aren't very pitch sensitive hense nobody runs the third spring yet they still are making 5k of downforce at 200 mph.
| TooSoonJr | 10-20-2006 08:15 PM |
[quote=solo-x;15669721]a proper damper setup has the chassis overdamped at low piston speeds. adding more bar just makes the car less overdamped in roll. or does it? you've got one side working against the bump valving of the shock, the other against the rebound valving.
anyway, to get the chassis to the point where it is underdamped in roll you'd need an impossibly big sway bar. roll damping is one of those theories that nobody worries about because it has no bearing in the practical world. seperating roll and ride stiffness has it's benefits, if you're running 3000lbs of downforce.[/quote]
Wow, you are a complete moron. You obviously have no experience in any sort of vehicle design or tuning. Almost all production vehicles will be underdamped in roll to start with. Don't think there's any merit to roll damping? How about your transient load transfer distribution, hot shot... ever heard of that? What about your settling time in a corner? Roll damping is huge. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean you should denounce its value.
anyway, to get the chassis to the point where it is underdamped in roll you'd need an impossibly big sway bar. roll damping is one of those theories that nobody worries about because it has no bearing in the practical world. seperating roll and ride stiffness has it's benefits, if you're running 3000lbs of downforce.[/quote]
Wow, you are a complete moron. You obviously have no experience in any sort of vehicle design or tuning. Almost all production vehicles will be underdamped in roll to start with. Don't think there's any merit to roll damping? How about your transient load transfer distribution, hot shot... ever heard of that? What about your settling time in a corner? Roll damping is huge. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean you should denounce its value.
| kursplat | 10-20-2006 09:59 PM |
[QUOTE=TooSoonJr;15691117]Wow, you are a complete moron. You obviously have no experience in any sort of vehicle design or tuning....yada yada yada[/QUOTE] :huh: dude, relax. it's not not like he tossed your mom under a riced out train or something
| The Blue Pilot | 10-20-2006 10:09 PM |
[QUOTE=kursplat;15691853]:huh: dude, relax. it's not not like he tossed your mom under a riced out train or something[/QUOTE]
HAHAHAHAAH
I swear, Nasioc has one of these comments everyday. :D
HAHAHAHAAH
I swear, Nasioc has one of these comments everyday. :D
| kursplat | 10-20-2006 10:50 PM |
[QUOTE=The Blue Pilot;15691925]HAHAHAHAAH
I swear, Nasioc has one of these comments everyday. :D[/QUOTE]unfortunately, that means you got one like the previous everyday too
I swear, Nasioc has one of these comments everyday. :D[/QUOTE]unfortunately, that means you got one like the previous everyday too
| solo-x | 10-20-2006 11:46 PM |
[QUOTE=TooSoonJr;15691117]Wow, you are a complete moron. You obviously have no experience in any sort of vehicle design or tuning. Almost all production vehicles will be underdamped in roll to start with. Don't think there's any merit to roll damping? How about your transient load transfer distribution, hot shot... ever heard of that? What about your settling time in a corner? Roll damping is huge. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean you should denounce its value.[/QUOTE]
yep, moron here. lets see, the OP is driving a tin top dancing elephant grocery getter masquerading as a race car. yeah, transient load transfer, warp stiffness, roll damping, the alignment of the planets and whether the driver is wearing boxers or briefs are the primary concerns. how stupid of me....
as a general rule, i don't take someone like you seriously. someone who claims to be as special as you claim yet finds the time to post insults on an internet message board? yeah, just doesn't add up. it's like someone claiming to be the president telling me i know nothing about foreign policy.
yep, moron here. lets see, the OP is driving a tin top dancing elephant grocery getter masquerading as a race car. yeah, transient load transfer, warp stiffness, roll damping, the alignment of the planets and whether the driver is wearing boxers or briefs are the primary concerns. how stupid of me....
as a general rule, i don't take someone like you seriously. someone who claims to be as special as you claim yet finds the time to post insults on an internet message board? yeah, just doesn't add up. it's like someone claiming to be the president telling me i know nothing about foreign policy.
| M | 10-20-2006 11:49 PM |
unfortunately for you, you were wrong though. I don't feel you're helping your case by being sarcastic with buzz words. I think you'd be suprised by some of the people that take time to post here occasionally. Granted this guy doesn't really stay composed...
| solo-x | 10-21-2006 12:10 AM |
[QUOTE=M;15692678]unfortunately for you, you were wrong though. I don't feel you're helping your case by being sarcastic with buzz words. I think you'd be suprised by some of the people that take time to post here occasionally. Granted this guy doesn't really stay composed...[/QUOTE]
where was i proven wrong? you disagreed, you didn't prove anything.
anyhow, i don't think you've presented a very strong argument to support your inferance that a bigger bar is going to lead to an underdamped chassis in roll. even if it does, which you present no proof of other then the theory (how many of Carol Smith's theories are no longer accepted?), it is certainly nothing that has manifested itself as a problem. further, it is not something that should sway someone away from installing larger anti roll bars. your first post in this thread was really pointless.
where was i proven wrong? you disagreed, you didn't prove anything.
anyhow, i don't think you've presented a very strong argument to support your inferance that a bigger bar is going to lead to an underdamped chassis in roll. even if it does, which you present no proof of other then the theory (how many of Carol Smith's theories are no longer accepted?), it is certainly nothing that has manifested itself as a problem. further, it is not something that should sway someone away from installing larger anti roll bars. your first post in this thread was really pointless.
| M | 10-21-2006 12:22 AM |
You were completely wrong when you said the "proper" setup has the car overdamped at low piston speeds. That was so overgeneralized and moronic its not even funny. How am I to prove that to you? Publish my data?
Furthermore Carol Smith was a fantastic tuner, not really an engineer. He was one of these cause and effect types who is now regarded with Demi-god status because of the books he wrote. Carol did a lot for motorsports and engineering but he would have been the first to admit when he was wrong.
My first post was intended to make it clear that the car's ballance and handling would change drastically due to his anti roll bar changes. To make him/her aware that there would be downsides to a change. Too many people thing anti-roll bars are the ultimate handling solution...
Furthermore Carol Smith was a fantastic tuner, not really an engineer. He was one of these cause and effect types who is now regarded with Demi-god status because of the books he wrote. Carol did a lot for motorsports and engineering but he would have been the first to admit when he was wrong.
My first post was intended to make it clear that the car's ballance and handling would change drastically due to his anti roll bar changes. To make him/her aware that there would be downsides to a change. Too many people thing anti-roll bars are the ultimate handling solution...
| Draken | 10-21-2006 01:07 AM |
M:
I'm curious, but what is your background?
Chris H.
ps: my tire didn't blow up after 1 lap at 48psi.
I'm curious, but what is your background?
Chris H.
ps: my tire didn't blow up after 1 lap at 48psi.
| darksc00by | 10-21-2006 02:09 AM |
[QUOTE=TooSoonJr;15691117]Wow, you are a complete moron. You obviously have no experience in any sort of vehicle design .... blah blah... i am a newb[/QUOTE]
your member number says you are a complete moron. :D
your member number says you are a complete moron. :D
| DrBiggly | 10-21-2006 11:03 AM |
[QUOTE=TooSoonJr;15691117]Wow, you are a complete moron. [/quote]
It seems you have forgotten to read the rules of NASIOC forums. I strongly suggest you start here: [url]http://www.nasioc.com/Default.cfm?Action=Rules[/url]
Pay close attention to #10:
[quote]Personal attacks directed towards other members and other websites are strictly prohibited on the NASIOC forums.[/quote]
[quote=TooSoonJr;15691117]...Roll damping is huge. [/QUOTE]
Indeed it is, but not for autox. Your knowledge is obviously more in-depth than other folks here here. Quite full of theory and application, but completely pedantic. :)
-Biggly
It seems you have forgotten to read the rules of NASIOC forums. I strongly suggest you start here: [url]http://www.nasioc.com/Default.cfm?Action=Rules[/url]
Pay close attention to #10:
[quote]Personal attacks directed towards other members and other websites are strictly prohibited on the NASIOC forums.[/quote]
[quote=TooSoonJr;15691117]...Roll damping is huge. [/QUOTE]
Indeed it is, but not for autox. Your knowledge is obviously more in-depth than other folks here here. Quite full of theory and application, but completely pedantic. :)
-Biggly
| DrBiggly | 10-21-2006 11:04 AM |
[QUOTE=Draken;15693234]M:
I'm curious, but what is your background?
[/QUOTE]
Ditto that.
P.S. Chris, you're a wuss. Hoppe ran 78psi. :p
-Biggly watched the hilarity that was that run
I'm curious, but what is your background?
[/QUOTE]
Ditto that.
P.S. Chris, you're a wuss. Hoppe ran 78psi. :p
-Biggly watched the hilarity that was that run
| M | 10-21-2006 08:09 PM |
Frankly, neither of you have any business knowing what I do for a living...
but check your PM's.
but check your PM's.
| SoloSTI | 12-01-2008 11:47 PM |
After replacing my pink springs with racecomp yellows and setting my RSB to the softest setting and replacing my brake pads with Ferodo 2500 pads the car is wonderful and the results of our last autocross shows the progress. Now it it time to improve the nut behind the wheel.
BTW my last investment into this cars handling is a qrack. I can't wait to get it installed.
[B]76 Monsoon Race Series
Race Results: November 23, 2008 (Race 4 of 5)[/B]
[B]Stock Class[/B]
691 S Anthony Conner '07 Hyundai Tiburon 54.148
555 S Shane Smith '07 Hyundai Tiburon 56.332
002 S Fred Baldwin III '06 Scion tC 56.614
553 S Von Burrell '04 Toyota Corolla 56.897
29 S Brent Lawson �08 Ford Fusion 57.902
719 S Jay Jastillana �08 Honda Fit 59.201
789 S Abet Begonia '97 Honda Civic 61.844
[B]Street Touring Class[/B]
3 ST Raymond Paulino '07 Nissan 350Z 53.745
243 ST Cherielyn C.M. '08 Subaru Impreza WRX 54.159
24 ST Tommy Blas �07 Subaru Impreza WRX STi 57.338
[B]Street Modified Class[/B]
8 SM Jay Sevila �04 Subaru WRX STi 51.557
383 SM Chris Giancaspro �07 Honda S2000 51.636
43 SM Dan DeFinis '86 Toyota Corolla 52.313
420 SM Matt Fernandez '04 Mini Cooper S 53.699
007 SM Manny Quenga '91 Mazda RX-7 54.228
49 SM Valon Schunter �86 Mazda RX-7 57.755
[B]Overall Times[/B]
8 SM Jay Sevila �04 Subaru WRX STi 51.557
383 SM Chris Giancaspro �07 Honda S2000 51.636
43 SM Dan DeFinis '86 Toyota Corolla 52.313
420 SM Matt Fernandez '04 Mini Cooper S 53.699
3 ST Raymond Paulino '07 Nissan 350Z 53.745
691 S Anthony Conner '07 Hyundai Tiburon 54.148
243 ST Cherielyn C.M. '08 Subaru Impreza WRX 54.159
007 SM Manny Quenga '91 Mazda RX-7 54.228
555 S Shane Smith '07 Hyundai Tiburon 56.332
002 S Fred Baldwin III '06 Scion tC 56.614
553 S Von Burrell '04 Toyota Corolla 56.897
24 ST Tommy Blas �07 Subaru Impreza WRX STi 57.338
49 SM Valon Schunter �86 Mazda RX-7 57.755
29 S Brent Lawson �08 Ford Fusion 57.902
719 S Jay Jastillana �08 Honda Fit 59.201
789 S Abet Begonia '97 Honda Civic 61.844
:banana:
BTW my last investment into this cars handling is a qrack. I can't wait to get it installed.
[B]76 Monsoon Race Series
Race Results: November 23, 2008 (Race 4 of 5)[/B]
[B]Stock Class[/B]
691 S Anthony Conner '07 Hyundai Tiburon 54.148
555 S Shane Smith '07 Hyundai Tiburon 56.332
002 S Fred Baldwin III '06 Scion tC 56.614
553 S Von Burrell '04 Toyota Corolla 56.897
29 S Brent Lawson �08 Ford Fusion 57.902
719 S Jay Jastillana �08 Honda Fit 59.201
789 S Abet Begonia '97 Honda Civic 61.844
[B]Street Touring Class[/B]
3 ST Raymond Paulino '07 Nissan 350Z 53.745
243 ST Cherielyn C.M. '08 Subaru Impreza WRX 54.159
24 ST Tommy Blas �07 Subaru Impreza WRX STi 57.338
[B]Street Modified Class[/B]
8 SM Jay Sevila �04 Subaru WRX STi 51.557
383 SM Chris Giancaspro �07 Honda S2000 51.636
43 SM Dan DeFinis '86 Toyota Corolla 52.313
420 SM Matt Fernandez '04 Mini Cooper S 53.699
007 SM Manny Quenga '91 Mazda RX-7 54.228
49 SM Valon Schunter �86 Mazda RX-7 57.755
[B]Overall Times[/B]
8 SM Jay Sevila �04 Subaru WRX STi 51.557
383 SM Chris Giancaspro �07 Honda S2000 51.636
43 SM Dan DeFinis '86 Toyota Corolla 52.313
420 SM Matt Fernandez '04 Mini Cooper S 53.699
3 ST Raymond Paulino '07 Nissan 350Z 53.745
691 S Anthony Conner '07 Hyundai Tiburon 54.148
243 ST Cherielyn C.M. '08 Subaru Impreza WRX 54.159
007 SM Manny Quenga '91 Mazda RX-7 54.228
555 S Shane Smith '07 Hyundai Tiburon 56.332
002 S Fred Baldwin III '06 Scion tC 56.614
553 S Von Burrell '04 Toyota Corolla 56.897
24 ST Tommy Blas �07 Subaru Impreza WRX STi 57.338
49 SM Valon Schunter �86 Mazda RX-7 57.755
29 S Brent Lawson �08 Ford Fusion 57.902
719 S Jay Jastillana �08 Honda Fit 59.201
789 S Abet Begonia '97 Honda Civic 61.844
:banana:
| Draken | 12-02-2008 12:13 AM |
Awesome bump!
I don't recall ever getting a PM from "M", filling me in on how awesome he is.
And better yet, I think we all know how much of a moron solo-x really is :lol:
Chris H.
I don't recall ever getting a PM from "M", filling me in on how awesome he is.
And better yet, I think we all know how much of a moron solo-x really is :lol:
Chris H.
| Butt Dyno | 12-02-2008 01:23 AM |
BTW, if you still want to reduce body roll, RE92's are a good start.
| solo-x | 12-02-2008 01:09 PM |
[QUOTE=Draken;24667096]Awesome bump!
I don't recall ever getting a PM from "M", filling me in on how awesome he is.
And better yet, I think we all know how much of a moron solo-x really is :lol:
Chris H.[/QUOTE]
I think someone who races a car with 1940's suspension technology, 45hp and 5" wide tires should be careful whom he calls a moron. :p:D:lol:
Nate - raced a car with 1940 suspension technology, but made things more interesting by adding 60hp and 10" wide tires. Still unsure whether that made me more of a moron, or less of one....
I don't recall ever getting a PM from "M", filling me in on how awesome he is.
And better yet, I think we all know how much of a moron solo-x really is :lol:
Chris H.[/QUOTE]
I think someone who races a car with 1940's suspension technology, 45hp and 5" wide tires should be careful whom he calls a moron. :p:D:lol:
Nate - raced a car with 1940 suspension technology, but made things more interesting by adding 60hp and 10" wide tires. Still unsure whether that made me more of a moron, or less of one....
| Draken | 12-02-2008 01:11 PM |
4" wide wheels, thank you very much!
| SoloSTI | 12-02-2008 09:00 PM |
My goodness!
| crystalhelix | 12-03-2008 11:06 PM |
buy my strano bar on the cheap...
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét