MK1 owners - the not so definative guide geometry settings!

Posts about anything do to with modifying your car such as fitting aftermarket parts, bodykit, or tuning the engine for more performance.

Moderators: IMOC Moderators, IMOC Committee Members

PsychomIKE
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:01 pm

MK1 owners - the not so definative guide geometry settings!

Post by PsychomIKE »

Hi guys - got a pretty much standard G reg mk1 MR2 (14" teardrops etc) but i've recently had fitted the Koni sports suspension set - 25% uprated springs and dampers. Having done the work with my father getting the items installed i figured i'm not going to really appreciate the handling improvement until i get a proper 4 wheel alignment done. I've looked around at various sites for any possible recommended settings but before i go ahead and do it i thought i'd guage some of your opinions :)

I've seen some people mention that they added more negative camber and also played with the caster settings somewhat, though i'm not sure castor is adjustable with the stock parts? Anyway, any mods you guys have tried out, i'd love to hear on your thoughts on how well they worked :)

As a note - i remember once reading about a guy who claimed to suffer less understeer when he removed his front strut brace! Now, i suppose in theory if the chassis was to twist slightly they wheels could perhaps achieve slightly more grip, but i would have thought the unpredictable nature of this sort of behaviour would outwigh any benefits!

Cheers

Mike
BenF
Premium Member
Posts: 10764
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 4:04 pm
Location: Ipswich
Contact:

Re: MK1 owners - the not so definative guide geometry settin

Post by BenF »

PsychomIKE wrote:Hi guys - got a pretty much standard G reg mk1 MR2 (14" teardrops etc) but i've recently had fitted the Koni sports suspension set - 25% uprated springs and dampers. Having done the work with my father getting the items installed i figured i'm not going to really appreciate the handling improvement until i get a proper 4 wheel alignment done. I've looked around at various sites for any possible recommended settings but before i go ahead and do it i thought i'd guage some of your opinions :)

I've seen some people mention that they added more negative camber and also played with the caster settings somewhat, though i'm not sure castor is adjustable with the stock parts? Anyway, any mods you guys have tried out, i'd love to hear on your thoughts on how well they worked :)


Mike, very good question. Lauren's got a number of MK1 setups that she's used, but I think with near standard suspension - is yours lowered at all?

Next question - how are you looking to use the car?
  • Road mostly (but compromised fast road / track use)
  • Road with good proportion fast road / light track (compromised road setttings)
  • Track setup only - will make it hard work on the road


Personally I've gone for a Road / Light track alignment for my Mk1 which is a trackday toy - but needs to be fairly driveable to/from circuits and everyday if needed.
PsychomIKE
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:01 pm

Re: MK1 owners - the not so definative guide geometry settings!

Post by PsychomIKE »

Hi Ben :)

I should have stated I use the car for my everyday drive but I do enjoy enthusiastic use of the loud peddal :D So i guess i'd be looking at a fast road setup with the occasional track day when funds allow. Could you detail the changes you have made and how they affected the handling? Also, im not sure it would be an issue, but can any changes seriously affect maintenance costs ? i.e. cause rapid wearing of tyres/poor MPG

Cheers

Mike
jrleech
Posts: 1600
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 10:11 am
Location: Lancashire, UK
Contact:

Re: MK1 owners - the not so definative guide geometry settings!

Post by jrleech »

Hi,

I'm using the TRD Street settings, which are:

# Camber Front: -1 degree
# Camber Rear : -1 "
# Caster : +6 "
# Toe in Front: 1/16 in.
# Toe in rear : 1/8 in.

Quite a bit better than stock settings, DON'T go to Toyota as they'll charge you a small fortune to do it (took them 6 hours to do mine).

Info came from here:
http://shell.deru.com/~sgn1/AW11/Trdaw11.htm

Cheers,
Jon
PsychomIKE
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:01 pm

Re: MK1 owners - the not so definative guide geometry settings!

Post by PsychomIKE »

Jon, that link does certainly provide an interesting read.

I notice the only difference between the two settings are the increase of camber for the track setup. I can't really imagine many side effects of using the higher amount if you're cornering hard enough, perhaps more tyre wear and longer braking distances due to the tyre footing on the tarmac (though with McCrapson suspension who knows?), any ideas?

And as far as i understand both of these settings include creating more castor than"stock" settings which i believe in turn creates heavier steering. Being that the mk1 isn't servo assisted is it enough of a difference to be a pain to steer at slow speeds?

Just some general feedback on how you think it has changed the car would be fantastic :) I'm even considering trading off some grip just to get rid of the damned understeer! but we shall see....

Cheers

Mike
jrleech
Posts: 1600
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 10:11 am
Location: Lancashire, UK
Contact:

Re: MK1 owners - the not so definative guide geometry settings!

Post by jrleech »

The more negative camber you run, the more the car will follow the road surface, so at -2 degrees I'd expect the car to try and snake round the road following grooves quite a lot. It's not too bad at -1 degree, unless you're in a lorry track on the motorway.

The castor change does make the steering a bit heavier and with 195's it's not too heavy, though it probably depends on the strength of the driver. I'd say optimise the car and go to the gym ;)

I ran Leda coilovers a bit ago with the TRD street settings, and there was no understeer at all, the car just turned in. I since changed to Koni's as the Leda's were too hard for road use, and it's not quite as good now. I've still got the camber and castor the same, but the toe probably needs some tweeking as I think that's what's casuing the difference at the moment.

It's hard to say how the settings have changed the car, as I went from old stock suspension to new suspension, bushes, joints and alignment in one go.. All I can say is it feels like a go kart at the moment :)

If you're lowering the car, to optimise the handling you also need to insert roll centre adjusters between the ball joint and hubs to reset the lower arm angles. There are also rear tie bars designed for lowered cars that have an offset on them to reduce bump steer, and you can get pillow ball front tie rods that reduce flex when initially turning the wheel, increasing response. They do tend to be rather costly though...

Cheers,
Jon
PW@Woodsport
Posts: 7642
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 6:40 pm
Location: durham
Contact:

Re: MK1 owners - the not so definative guide geometry settings!

Post by PW@Woodsport »

I'm even considering trading off some grip just to get rid of the damned understeer


put a bigger engine into it,believe me that gets rid of ALL understeer,of course all you need to worry about then is the massive oversteer. :roll:
Image
PsychomIKE
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:01 pm

Re: MK1 owners - the not so definative guide geometry settings!

Post by PsychomIKE »

Why the roll eyes ? Believe me putting a SC'ed unit into it is something i've looked at quite a bit, espcially your articles! :) The main trouble is....*drumroll* Money! And it's not just that, I have the resources to actually do the engine swap myself but wouldn't have the 1st idea on the wiring side, or the fabrication of pipework... and i really don't fancy cutting a big hole in my engine cover for the intercooler! (i wonder if Toms Scoop can be modified to do this instead?)

But seriously... an AE101 conversion would be a dream for me but in the mean time i want my stock motor to handle a bit more pointy than it currently does :)

Mike
PW@Woodsport
Posts: 7642
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 6:40 pm
Location: durham
Contact:

Re: MK1 owners - the not so definative guide geometry settings!

Post by PW@Woodsport »

Why the roll eyes ?


cos massive oversteer is a problem too but the lesser of two evils im sure you will agree,its very hard to correct understeer when it happens but oversteer just means grabbing handfuls of opposite lock and makes for more rewarding handling anyway.

Have you thought about altering the ARB diameters instead? or increasing front tyre footprint? or decreasing rear for that matter?

Lauren has geo set up info im sure she will be willing to share,huge power gains is my specialty,getting them to handle better is her forte.Im sure she will be along shortly to give you a more comprehensive reply.
Image
User avatar
Lauren
IMOC Committee
Posts: 38632
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:37 pm
Location: Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: MK1 owners - the not so definative guide geometry settings!

Post by Lauren »

Here's my findings from some on track experiments. I do my own geo setups as i don't honestly believe that an alignment place will do to a great degree of accuracy:

Have just got back from a very good weekend at Anglesey, had two days on track with today being a bit special as it was private so only had to share with 8 other cars.

Obviously this gave me the ideal opportunity to experiment a bit with setups and to try and build a picture of how the car handles on the limit.

I started off with what was a bit of an experimental setup I had been using.

Basically set front Toe to 0.2mm toe-out (stock is 1mm toe-in) with the rear being 3.9mm toe-in (stock is 5mm toe-in).

It should be remembered that stock is within 1mm of the setting so my setup wasn't miles different.

Camber was maxed out and is approximately 1.5deg neg on front and a little more on the rear. Due to 'McCrapson' struts the camber isn't very well controlled and will tend to move toward positive camber as the strut compresses.

To some degree this is also evident with toe and particularly so on the rear when the track rod passes the horizontal less toe-in will be the result.

so as you can see the geommetry will affectively change both in toe and camber as the suspension compresses when cornering, so really the static settings are not necessarily where the suspension will be under load, but all you can do is try a static setting out and change it according to how the car feels.

I was concentrating on the toe settings as this seems to make the biggest differences.

Just to give some background the car is an SC running 195/50/15s (Yoko Advan Neova LTS). It has poly bushes and Koni shocks with Fensport 20% uprated 30mm lower springs. Tyre pressures are: 24front and 30 rear (cold).

Anyway onto the track stuff. A lot of you know Anglesey from the fairly recent IMOC day.

I tend to use School Corner as a test for the handling as its very fast and quite long so you can feel the car load up, balance the throttle and get a really good feel for whats going on particularly so as theres a bit of change in elevation which tends to highlight the handling characteristics.

First few laps out and the car really felt like it was almost 'skipping' at the front so it just wouldn't turn-in cleanly and was really understeering quite badly. The front would bite mid-corner but really you had to trust that it would because a slight lift in the middle of School corner always leads to some immediate lift-off oversteer purely as a result of weight transfer. Obviously you can correct this (as long as you are quick) but its not what you want to be doing really!

After a few more laps and an obvious increase in front tyre temperature it was better but still frustrating to feel that the car wasn't biting at the front end. In the slower corners of the circuit the understeer wasn't too much of a problem as to some extent it was possible to drive around it.

However, though MK1s do tend to understeer (its really a result of the chassis design as far as I can work out) minimising it is desirable for track work.

So day 2 and I was determined to have another crack at the geommetry. I opted to try out pretty much the TRD settings, so set front toe to 1.6mm toe-in and at the moment have left the rear as it is at 3.9mm (TRD is 3.2mm)toe-in.

So off I went and for the first couple of laps there was slight decrease in the understeer turning into School. Though what became apparent that after 5 laps or so the front end did bite a lot better on turn-in and this really helped me carry more speed through the first third of School corner. I would guess this is a result of the front tyres getting more heat into them due to the effect of having more toe-in.

Lap after lap it was just getting better and better and it was becoming really nice through the mid speed corners as it was simply a matter of steering on the throttle and getting the steering wheel completely straight way before the apex and just drifting the car through the apex with my right foot right to the exit and onto the straight. This is what track driving is about and I have to say after a long absence of driving the car this year I reckon I fell in love with it all over again! It really is a lot of fun on track and this year i've been lucky enough to drive a lot of different cars (Caterham Superlights, RX8s, Elises, Single seaters etc) but though these other cars impress in a lot of ways and are fun, I still think the MK1 is such a hoot on track and was easily enough to keep me entertained all day and is such a good challenge to drive quickly.

It has taken me a long time to get the car how I want it, but after a three years I think i've got there in terms of how it performs both down the straights and more importanly round the corners.
User avatar
Lauren
IMOC Committee
Posts: 38632
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:37 pm
Location: Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: MK1 owners - the not so definative guide geometry settin

Post by Lauren »

PsychomIKE wrote:Hi guys - got a pretty much standard G reg mk1 MR2 (14" teardrops etc) but i've recently had fitted the Koni sports suspension set - 25% uprated springs and dampers. Having done the work with my father getting the items installed i figured i'm not going to really appreciate the handling improvement until i get a proper 4 wheel alignment done. I've looked around at various sites for any possible recommended settings but before i go ahead and do it i thought i'd guage some of your opinions :)

I've seen some people mention that they added more negative camber and also played with the caster settings somewhat, though i'm not sure castor is adjustable with the stock parts? Anyway, any mods you guys have tried out, i'd love to hear on your thoughts on how well they worked :)

As a note - i remember once reading about a guy who claimed to suffer less understeer when he removed his front strut brace! Now, i suppose in theory if the chassis was to twist slightly they wheels could perhaps achieve slightly more grip, but i would have thought the unpredictable nature of this sort of behaviour would outwigh any benefits!

Cheers

Mike


Use TRD settings (i'll give them to you in metric as its much easier to work with):

Ft toe-in = 1.6mm
Rr toe-in= 3.2mm

The camber you may as well max out negative wise (there isn't loads of adjustment there really). Here's a tip though, either have yourself sitting in the car or something that is your bodyweight in the drivers seat as this will obviously affect how the geo sits when you measure it static.

Worth adding here is that camber control is little better than useless with McCrapson struts so if you play around with the camber it will make little difference in how the car corners.

Set the front castor to 6 degrees, this will increase negative camber with steering input more which ought to help turn-in.

At the end of the day, changing the toe settings seems to make the biggest difference IMO.

I'd keep the front strut brace if i was you as anything that aids chassis rigidity is generally a good thing. I always use a front strut brace in a coupe shell.
User avatar
Lauren
IMOC Committee
Posts: 38632
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:37 pm
Location: Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: MK1 owners - the not so definative guide geometry settings!

Post by Lauren »

PsychomIKE wrote:Hi Ben :)

I should have stated I use the car for my everyday drive but I do enjoy enthusiastic use of the loud peddal :D So i guess i'd be looking at a fast road setup with the occasional track day when funds allow. Could you detail the changes you have made and how they affected the handling? Also, im not sure it would be an issue, but can any changes seriously affect maintenance costs ? i.e. cause rapid wearing of tyres/poor MPG

Cheers

Mike


None of the changes i've listed will affect tyre wear to any significant amount as really none of those changes are really that drastic. Likewise it will not affect maintenance or longetivity of parts.
vashy
Posts: 481
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Bristol

Re: MK1 owners - the not so definative guide geometry settin

Post by vashy »

LOL Lauren, you do like to make an entrance! Only three posts in a row (;

Good article! In day 2, Do you think the front tyres gripped better because of the toe in (as opposed to toe out on day 1), or because they were getting hotter (not pointing so straight, scrubbing more, 0.2mm vs 1.6mm)?

I have 0deg 10mins front toe out - it's a pity I don't know that in mm, so I can't compare.

PsychomIKE wrote:As a note - i remember once reading about a guy who claimed to suffer less understeer when he removed his front strut brace! Now, i suppose in theory if the chassis was to twist slightly they wheels could perhaps achieve slightly more grip, but i would have thought the unpredictable nature of this sort of behaviour would outwigh any benefits!


I can believe that. Remember making an end (i.e. front or rear) stiffer (stiffer springs, anti-roll bars) will generally give you *less* grip at that end. hmmm I wonder if anyone will disagree with that... I would definately leave the front strut brace on though - I remember mine feeling nicer (tighter, quicker response I think) when I put it on.


PsychomIKE wrote:And as far as i understand both of these settings include creating more castor than"stock" settings which i believe in turn creates heavier steering. Being that the mk1 isn't servo assisted is it enough of a difference to be a pain to steer at slow speeds?


Castor is the 'trolley wheel' style offset to the steering axis, which causes the front wheels to want to go straight (for stability when travelling at speed), and give resistance (read: feedback) when you try to turn them. The steering axis will be more offset with more castor but it shouldn't affect low speed manouvering too much. It is easily adjustable! Camber is hard to adjust...

John
mk1 with slightly modified suspension... (:
User avatar
Lauren
IMOC Committee
Posts: 38632
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:37 pm
Location: Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: MK1 owners - the not so definative guide geometry settings!

Post by Lauren »

hello John,

I think for sure that increasing the front toe-in serves to heat the tyres up more and generate more grip that way. This was definately apparent because the grip increased after the first few laps.

I tried 0.2mm of toe out on the front initially as i wanted to see if going to a very slight toe-out on the front would improve turn-in. also it is exactly how the elise is setup (elise has similar weight distribution to Mk1).
PsychomIKE
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:01 pm

Re: MK1 owners - the not so definative guide geometry settings!

Post by PsychomIKE »

Lauren, or anyone else for that matter!, have you ever tried experimenting with the 16mm rear ARB from twosrus ? Seems like it would cure a lot of the mk1's less desirable traits...

Cheers

Mike
User avatar
Lauren
IMOC Committee
Posts: 38632
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:37 pm
Location: Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: MK1 owners - the not so definative guide geometry settings!

Post by Lauren »

PsychomIKE wrote:Lauren, or anyone else for that matter!, have you ever tried experimenting with the 16mm rear ARB from twosrus ? Seems like it would cure a lot of the mk1's less desirable traits...

Cheers

Mike


I haven't tried it no. I'm not saying it won't work but i am in two minds as i find that by altering the toe i can dial out some of the understeer.

My viewpoint is generally that by thickening the rear arb you create more oversteer to counter the understeer, rather than dealing with the understeer itself in the first place.

I will though hold judgement till i've tried one.
PsychomIKE
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:01 pm

Re: MK1 owners - the not so definative guide geometry settings!

Post by PsychomIKE »

Hi again :)

I've got the opportunity to get the car up on a ramp for a few hours tomorrow, gonna have a good clean out on the arches and try and figure out why i seem to have a slow brake fluid leak! Laurens suggested maxing out the camber and im quite confident of that, just turning the little "lugs" connected to the strut near the hub? but i dont know about attempting a toe/castor adjustment..

Is the geometry of the mk1 known well enough to say "x amount of turns from the end of the trailing arm gives y amount of toe" etc or would this be no where near accurate enough? Maybe i should quit being a cheapskate and just pay someone to do it all ? ;)

Cheers

Mike
User avatar
Lauren
IMOC Committee
Posts: 38632
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:37 pm
Location: Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: MK1 owners - the not so definative guide geometry settings!

Post by Lauren »

PsychomIKE wrote:Hi again :)

I've got the opportunity to get the car up on a ramp for a few hours tomorrow, gonna have a good clean out on the arches and try and figure out why i seem to have a slow brake fluid leak! Laurens suggested maxing out the camber and im quite confident of that, just turning the little "lugs" connected to the strut near the hub? but i dont know about attempting a toe/castor adjustment..

Is the geometry of the mk1 known well enough to say "x amount of turns from the end of the trailing arm gives y amount of toe" etc or would this be no where near accurate enough? Maybe i should quit being a cheapskate and just pay someone to do it all ? ;)

Cheers

Mike


Maxing the camber is relatively straightforward. Take the two bolts off the strut, pull the strut/hub apart from each other and look at the lugs of the camber adjustment nut. All will become clear. Think its the 12 o'clock position that provides the most neg camber.

An interesting idea ( i figured this out a while back when i was playing with my camber) is that if you swop the camber adjustment lugs left to right you can actually get more neg camber because the max negative camber in the 6 o'clock position is at the top end of the strut rather than the bottom, so bingo an extra 0.5 degree or so!

For the toe, no i'm afraid winding a given number of times would be the blind leading the blind, ie you'd have no idea what toe setting you will end up with.

You can string it and do some accurate measuring though in my experience i have always found that using string (basically having string ilnes running parallel to the outside of the car and measuring as accurately as possible the difference between the rear edge of the rim and the front) is never as accurate as using a laser tracking device.

Its actually not that complicated to do a geo setup but its having the right tools to do the job. a laser tracker is around 200ish i think.

Maybe it would be better if you got someone to do it for you, though again i find this problematic as i have paid for a full geo once and the guy said it was miles out (i had just swopped the suspension over so i knew it was out). Anyways according to the settings it was within OEM. The car was a pointy oversteery monster that didn't want to track in a straight line. I actually quite like the reactivity but not many others that drove it did! I then went and re-did the geo myself. Totally different car. You could drift it on demand it was lovely.

The problem with getting a geo setup is that toyota OEM settings are plus/minus 1mm which is a reasonable amount tbh. So you are unlikely to find a 4-wheel alignment place that will take the effort to get it spot on. when i do my own alignments i make sure it is spot on and you can feel the difference.

Another thing to remember is to put something that is your own bodyweight in the car as you will be surprised at how much settings change with you sat in it (even with my relatively low weight!). No race car is geo'd up without the driver in the seat or at least appropriate ballast to replicate the drivers weight.

HTH!
PsychomIKE
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:01 pm

Re: MK1 owners - the not so definative guide geometry settings!

Post by PsychomIKE »

Hmm ok Lauren, but can you comment on the castor adjustment at all ? Most people who change it seem to state they increase it to 6 degrees... as though this maybe some sort of adjustment max (no more thread to wind!) is this the case? Just had a quick look for Laser track rental but no luck, know of anywhere this might be possible?

And one final thing (i think;)) Have you ever tried using roll center adjusters? I've got the same springs as you had (30 mm drop iirc) though im not sure these are needed until you start getting into the 2" area...

Sorry for all the questions, just interested in hearing about it all :)

Cheers

Mike
User avatar
Lauren
IMOC Committee
Posts: 38632
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:37 pm
Location: Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: MK1 owners - the not so definative guide geometry settings!

Post by Lauren »

PsychomIKE wrote:Hmm ok Lauren, but can you comment on the castor adjustment at all ? Most people who change it seem to state they increase it to 6 degrees... as though this maybe some sort of adjustment max (no more thread to wind!) is this the case? Just had a quick look for Laser track rental but no luck, know of anywhere this might be possible?

And one final thing (i think;)) Have you ever tried using roll center adjusters? I've got the same springs as you had (30 mm drop iirc) though im not sure these are needed until you start getting into the 2" area...

Sorry for all the questions, just interested in hearing about it all :)

Cheers

Mike


With the castor you may be able to get more but you have to be realistic about how much pressure you want to put the lower arm mount under i guess. 6deg is really about the most you'd want. steering gets heavier to turn at speed.

Don't think its worth putting roll centre adjusters on, particularly for a drop of 30mm. I understand the logic behind it but you can still have a very well balanced car without them.

Coming back to the setup TRD settings are the best to go for IMO. I tried a few different setups followed by some track time (i did the geo adjustments with the car half in the back of bookatrack's artic!). I even tried an elise setup with very slight 0.2mm toe-out but this wasn't as good as the 1.6mm toe-in as in the TRD set up.

I'm sorry i don't know where you can hire a laser tracker. I borrow bookatrack's set when i do geo setup, though i normally borrow their garage.

Changing the toe makes the biggest difference IMO.

If you want to know more read this, its a post i wrote last year when i did some testing:

I thought i'd pass on some stuff I found out from playing with the geo on track.

Have just got back from a very good weekend at Anglesey, had two days on track with today being a bit special as it was private so only had to share with 8 other cars.

Obviously this gave me the ideal opportunity to experiment a bit with setups and to try and build a picture of how the car handles on the limit.

I started off with what was a bit of an experimental setup I had been using.

Basically set front Toe to 0.2mm toe-out (stock is 1mm toe-in) with the rear being 3.9mm toe-in (stock is 5mm toe-in).

It should be remembered that stock is within 1mm of the setting so my setup wasn't miles different.

Camber was maxed out and is approximately 1.5deg neg on front and a little more on the rear. Due to 'McCrapson' struts the camber isn't very well controlled and will tend to move toward positive camber as the strut compresses.

To some degree this is also evident with toe and particularly so on the rear when the track rod passes the horizontal less toe-in will be the result.

so as you can see the geommetry will affectively change both in toe and camber as the suspension compresses when cornering, so really the static settings are not necessarily where the suspension will be under load, but all you can do is try a static setting out and change it according to how the car feels.

I was concentrating on the toe settings as this seems to make the biggest differences.

Just to give some background the car is an SC running 195/50/15s (Yoko Advan Neova LTS). It has poly bushes and Koni shocks with Fensport 20% uprated 30mm lower springs. Tyre pressures are: 24front and 30 rear (cold).

Anyway onto the track stuff. A lot of you know Anglesey from the fairly recent IMOC day.

I tend to use School Corner as a test for the handling as its very fast and quite long so you can feel the car load up, balance the throttle and get a really good feel for whats going on particularly so as theres a bit of change in elevation which tends to highlight the handling characteristics.

First few laps out and the car really felt like it was almost 'skipping' at the front so it just wouldn't turn-in cleanly and was really understeering quite badly. The front would bite mid-corner but really you had to trust that it would because a slight lift in the middle of School corner always leads to some immediate lift-off oversteer purely as a result of weight transfer. Obviously you can correct this (as long as you are quick) but its not what you want to be doing really!

After a few more laps and an obvious increase in front tyre temperature it was better but still frustrating to feel that the car wasn't biting at the front end. In the slower corners of the circuit the understeer wasn't too much of a problem as to some extent it was possible to drive around it.

However, though MK1s do tend to understeer (its really a result of the chassis design as far as I can work out) minimising it is desirable for track work.

So day 2 and I was determined to have another crack at the geommetry. I opted to try out pretty much the TRD settings, so set front toe to 1.6mm toe-in and at the moment have left the rear as it is at 3.9mm (TRD is 3.2mm)toe-in.

So off I went and for the first couple of laps there was slight decrease in the understeer turning into School. Though what became apparent that after 5 laps or so the front end did bite a lot better on turn-in and this really helped me carry more speed through the first third of School corner. I would guess this is a result of the front tyres getting more heat into them due to the effect of having more toe-in.

Lap after lap it was just getting better and better and it was becoming really nice through the mid speed corners as it was simply a matter of steering on the throttle and getting the steering wheel completely straight way before the apex and just drifting the car through the apex with my right foot right to the exit and onto the straight. This is what track driving is about and I have to say after a long absence of driving the car this year I reckon I fell in love with it all over again! It really is a lot of fun on track and this year i've been lucky enough to drive a lot of different cars (Caterham Superlights, RX8s, Elises, Single seaters etc) but though these other cars impress in a lot of ways and are fun, I still think the MK1 is such a hoot on track and was easily enough to keep me entertained all day and is such a good challenge to drive quickly.

It has taken me a long time to get the car how I want it, but after a three years I think i've got there in terms of how it performs both down the straights and more importanly round the corners.
Post Reply

Return to “Modifications”