172 Cup camber shims / wide track?

[Barky85]

Hi there....Im new on here...Got a 172 Cup the other week...very impresssed with it...Its My daily driver but its gona get some track abuse to!....Iv alerady changed the springs to ebatch and a whiteline rear arb which has helped loads.....Much looser on there rear end, but the car still has a tendency to push into a corner slightly...Anyone tryed camber shims or wide track? And if anyone has tryed wide track...what parts have you used? Iv upped the rear tyre pressures to 55psi as well which has helped alot! Dont no if anyone elts has tryed that and found it has helped as well? Anyway....Chears for reading any advice will be usefull

[mikekean]

Its a FWD car what do you expect lol, Its going to understeer when you push it hard. As for 55psi in the rear tyres? no one with any knowledge or car setup would run that high. I wouldnt run more than 30psi, i normally run 28psi.

[Barky85]

I understand that as its a FWD it will have a tendancy to understeer, Im just trying to reduce the rear grip of the car as this is causeing the car to push on more than i would like into a corner..... Iv been racing for 10 years now, Last year a won the MSVR Golf GTI 16v championship ( James Bark ) ( useing 55 Psi in the rear tyres which in a mk2 golf makes over 1 sec a lap difference on most circuits) What im aiming for is similar handeling to that, This video will hopefull explane a little what i mean ( not me another lad i raced with)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV1cc...6&feature=plcp ...even when driven into a corner hard the back is trying to twich...Wide track and more camber would i assume give the front more grip so im just wondering if anyone has tryed it and did it work? Thanks again

[p@blo]

Out of curiosity how are you intending on widening front track?

[Chip-mk1]

182 front end is wider than the 172 one, so that is one possible option for getting your car wider track.
The other obvious option is the wrong offset wheels, although this will have some downsides such as increasing bump steer.

I personally wouldnt run 55 psi as a way to less rear grip to alter the balance, I would try and do something like much stiffer rear springs that will not only lessen rear grip but also marginally increase front end grip as well by requiring less bodyroll control from the front suspension but if it works for you with those pressures then obviously we cant tell you it wont work without trying it just cause we think its a bad idea.

toeing the rear end out slightly would be another way to make it a little looser, but obviously if you go too far it can be positively dangerous.

What is your tracking set to currently front and rear?

[p@blo]

Whats the track width difference on the 182? Assume you mean compared to ph2 as the ph1 track is narrower than ph2, but by a fairly small amount-looked to be sub 10mm.

In what way would widening track width through either spacing or wheel offset affect the scrub radius chip?

OP-which phase and model of wishbones are you running out of interest? Also isnt this in totally the wrong forum section?

[Nick172Cup]

Whats the track width difference on the 182? Assume you mean compared to ph2 as the ph1 track is narrower than ph2, but by a fairly small amount-looked to be sub 10mm.

In what way would widening track width through either spacing or wheel offset affect the scrub radius chip?

OP-which phase and model of wishbones are you running out of interest? Also isnt this in totally the wrong forum section?

Not worth the outlay, hubs and driveshafts at the very least.

Personally i'd go with some eibach camber bolts for the front so you can add some negative camber, then on the rear try a stiffer spring than the front. Though the downside to this is an even stiffer spring will kill the rear shocks quicker. Neutraling the rear toe is possibly an option as they run a lot of toe in on the back of these clios. That would definately make it a bit looser at the rear from what i've seen.

[Chip-mk1]

Whats the track width difference on the 182? Assume you mean compared to ph2 as the ph1 track is narrower than ph2, but by a fairly small amount-looked to be sub 10mm.

I was under the impression that phase 1 and phase 2 were the same if you put the same wheels on them TBH, wasnt aware there was any difference in width of the bottom arms or of configuration of the uprights etc, where is the difference then?

In what way would widening track width through either spacing or wheel offset affect the scrub radius chip?

Scrub radius is related to the king pin axis and the centreline of the contact patch of the wheel, so by moving the wheel out you are altering the scrub radius, which will have an effect on things like stability under breaking.

[Lelouch]

toeing the rear end out slightly would be another way to make it a little looser, but obviously if you go too far it can be positively dangerous.

Right! my car is toed out a bit and got a lighter rear end (stripped rear seats and some other interior parts) and when i push her hard i can feel the rear end so much lighter and reactive that before. You got to pay attention, in corner braking on a slope can result in a 180° if you can't feel the rear end going sideways fast enough to countersteer. It's very fun bun needs a driver who's knowing what he's doing.

[p@blo]

I was under the impression that phase 1 and phase 2 were the same if you put the same wheels on them TBH, wasnt aware there was any difference in width of the bottom arms or of configuration of the uprights etc, where is the difference then?

Noticed when i went to move the 172 ph2 shell-fitted the rack from the ph1 and it toed it out noticeably. Unfortunately I don't have the ph1 to reference anymore, but the hubs seemed the same as the pair from the 172 cup so assume it's the pivot pin mount holes on the wishbone being positioned slightly further inboard? Bolt hole sizing was different on the pivot pin mount but imagine theyr'e a set length (were smaller dia on ph1). Ph1 shafts were marginally shorter than the ph2 to account for the difference aswell obviously. There's also a difference in the positioning of the bolt holes in 172 wishbones too-some will give marginally more static caster from the difference in bolt hole positionings if you compare them

Scrub radius is related to the king pin axis and the centreline of the contact patch of the wheel, so by moving the wheel out you are altering the scrub radius, which will have an effect on things like stability under breaking.

So contributes to more push without repositioning the pivot point further outboard?

[Chip-mk1]

Thats interesting with regards to what you are saying about the wishbones, I will take a look on our phase 1 and phase 2 to see how the bottom balljoint sits on one relative to the other, if what you are saying is correct though then given that the hubs are (as far as me or you realise) the same it would imply that phase 2 cars should run quite a significant amount more camber (5mm a side fruther out on the bottom ball joint location is a fairly significant difference) and im not convinced that is the case.

[p@blo]

Wouldnt rule out difference on the strut pick up location on the hub too i guess yea. Difficult to gauge by eye. Wish i still had it to have a better look

Did wonder if it couldve been down to none oem ball joints with the rack set to match, but as you said stock damper pickup would presumably give screwy camber.

I need to swap the w/b off the other shell over. Once ive got them off i'll send you a couple of shots of the difference at the mo. Ones on at the minute angle the uniball carriers back. Doesnt look right.

[Chip-mk1]

uld be good to get more info about all the different slight variations available.

[Barky85]

Thanks for the help! The eibach camber bolts seem like a good idea to start with! Gona give demon tweeks a ring tomorrow

[Nick172Cup]

Thanks for the help! The eibach camber bolts seem like a good idea to start with! Gona give demon tweeks a ring tomorrow

Ive got some for sale matey if your interested? £15 posted. Pm me if your interested.

Cheers
Nick