Sounds like you need more negative camber upfront and some additional downforce by way of a front splitter and canards perhaps.
I haven't found any front splitter or canards that will fit the Scuderia. What I have done is: Fitted the car with MOTON 3-way motorsport damper with about 100-130% stiffer springs. Found the spring combo I want for balance. Found good pressure for Michelin PSC2 and Pirelli Trofeo R. Played with rake, camber, caster etc. But I have not been able optimize lap times yet. I still notice that the more grip I have in front the faster I am. Putting Trofeo at the rear and slightly stickier Trofeo R in front really helps in turn-in/front grip and cuts lap times... To day the car is set up with 3.3 degree camber in front and 2.6 degree at the rear.
Yes in some corners I do. But that only cures the initial turn-in. The main problem is in steady state and coming out of the corner where the massive grip from the rear pushes the car out.
Wow, that is huge camber for dot/track tires, I will have corner balance & alignment specs in a few days and will post them so you have something to compare. My shop sets up lots of Challenge cars, 430 & 360's. We have never run over 3 deg and that is on P zero slicks. I do know that my guys call my driving "aggressive", always turn the nannies off, spun once, and generally wear the slicks out very evenly. So you may have a bit too much camber in there. I went with Penske's rather then Moton only because I've been so happy w them on my 360 CH car. I did also have the Scuds' fenders rolled for additional clearance, since my Scud needed minor body repair any way. The Forgline GA1R open lug wheels are being made specifically for the Scud and list"forgeline offsets" so I won't know until they arrive, but will post those for u as well. I did add an F430 Ch rear roll bar - not the full cage just yet so am anxious to find out my weight. I was running the 360 CH car @ 2638# wet with 18gallons of fuel. These 360/430 are just amazing as you get them into the 2500-2800# range. Please keep going w this awesome project.
Btw - I changed to a CF 430 CH front bumper/splitter & the tail as well. Did an amazing job over 110mph stabilized the car. Highly recommend it on any fast track. @VIR front straight @kink it made the car flat - OEM bumpers, I was sliding the rear- not a good feeling.
Wow you went balls deep on the camber hehe. I'm at 2.7, on Michelin Cup2's 19x245s, novitec coils myself and I don't feel too much understeer. How much toe are you running? How do you typically exit a medium-fast corner? e.g. brake hard, point the nose in early then full throttle? This also might be an anomaly, and maybe it only applies to me, but when I ran less rake, I actually felt less understeer.
Yes I am on 245 at the front and 285 at the rear. Definitely an improvement, much less under-steer. And the Trofeo R fit nicely on the original rim.
I have been running as much as 3.7 front and 3.2 at the rear when I used the original soft suspension. Now with the much stiffer spring (1024 lbs/1370 lbs) I have backed down a bit. I will check with pyrometer at the next track day to se if I need to back down more, but it seems to work just fine. My driving style is probably best described as smooth. I try to brake hard but progressive, find balance and balance acceleration with the throttle out of the corner. I will try and put in less rake and see what happens, you are not the first to say this. Definitely worth a try
Being able to look at the inside of the rocker panels and the bumpers tells you a lot about the manufacturing methods and quality control of their supplier's fiberglass part production. They appear to be mostly hand made, with, shall we say, casual quality standards. Having two theoretically identical rocker panels allowed me to compare weights and manufacturing details. Left Rocker, w/screen, Fiberglass = 3.715 kg (8.19 lbs) Right Rocker, w/screen, Fiberglass = 4.025 kg (8.88 lbs) Fiberglass Rocker production variance = 4% The difference in the weights of the two parts (4%) is significant, indicating very little quality control. The pictures corroborate the theme. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
The manufacturing quality of the moulded rockers themselves is actually pretty good. What let's them down is the messy application of epoxy to secure the various fittings. That aspect is by hand, as you point out. The epoxy adds a not inconsiderable amount of weight to each rocker. I've looked at four pairs of these now including the lightweight versions, and they are all like it.
4% weight variance is actually very good, I would expect 10-20% on low production molded parts from China. How about that fancy fastening/sound deadening method. The funny part is it's effective both holding and not rattling. Wish I knew what the black stuff was, semi-hardening, very tough, great grip too.
Bob- Just curious why you used titanium for the brake hats when aluminum would have been lighter? Did you want additional stiffness or was there some other reason? They certainly look beautiful. My Mov'Its have aluminum hats.
Four reasons to use titanium for the brake hats: 1 - high strength/weight ratio. It is lighter than aluminum when you design the hat for equal strength. The Ti hats are less than 1 pound each, because they are less than 2mm thick in some places. You won't find Al hats anything like these anywhere. The quality of design and manufacturing that went into these is unparalleled. So far, I have only one source in the US that would even attempt to manufacture them. 2 - high corrosion resistance; superior to steel and aluminum. 3 - high thermal stability; 3x the stability of Al, allows for the elimination of all the heavy, expensive fasteners you see on the two-piece ceramic rotors with Al hats. 4 - low thermal conductivity; Ti greatly reduces heat transfer from the rotors to the wheel hubs and bearings, over Aluminum, which is about the third best conductor of heat known to man! Image Unavailable, Please Login
I picked up a Ferrari box from Boardwalk Ferrari in Dallas that was literally the size of a Coffin but weighed less than 20 pounds. After opening it, I spent another 20 minutes penetrating multiple layers of packing paper, bubble wrap, and expandable/moldable foam to finally reach the contents: a matched pair of carbon fiber rocker panels. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Before installing the OEM carbon fiber rocker panels, I put them on the scale to compare them to their fiberglass counterparts: Left Rocker, w/screen, Fiberglass = 3.715 kg (8.19 lbs) Right Rocker, w/screen, Fiberglass = 4.025 kg (8.88 lbs) Fiberglass Rocker production variance = 4% Left Rocker, w/screen, Carbon Fiber = 2.040 kg (4.50 lbs) Right Rocker, w/screen, Carbon Fiber = 2.075 kg (4.57 lbs) Carbon Fiber Rocker production variance = 0.7% Comparing the rocker panels side-by-side, you can see the better quality of workmanship put into the CF rockers. It also shows in the consistency of the weights. Carbon Fiber Rocker weight ratio = 53% Using CF parts reduced weight by 47% for a total weight savings of 3.625 kg or 8 lb. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
They are beautiful, I couldn't bring myself to spend the money and decided to 430 CH rockers instead. Do you have a target weight for the car?
No, not really. As time progresses, new manufacturing technologies, processes, and materials constantly emerge, so there are always new opportunities to reduce weight. Eventually, any target I set would be achieved and surpassed. As we discussed in this thread in 2013 and 2014, new battery chemistry and technology is coming to market that will enable cost-effective weight savings that was not previously possible. So, a target weight and cost set for the battery assembly back in 2013 will be exceeded in the 2017-2018 time frame.
Just got my Scud back from corner balance and alignment. 2799# (5gls fuel - MISSING- seats, front bumper, and side skirts, rear underbelly) Includes- Challenge rollbar main hoop only. Hoping to be on track @ 2875#
The first thing I noticed was the superior build quality of the carbon fiber rocker panels, relative to the fiberglass rockers. The inside surfaces are much smoother, and the installation of mounting hardware and application of adhesives are done with more attention to detail. As I mentioned, R&R of the rockers is really involved, with nearly 20 fasteners for each rocker, requiring the removal of the front and rear wheel well liners, the door sills, door jambs, and even the major panels in the engine bay. The three fasteners along the top of the rocker that bolt to the rear fender panel are particularly enjoyable and involve grotesque contortions to reach. The fit of the CF rockers was almost perfect. The first rocker needed just a minor notch in it because it just a little too long to fit in the door sill. A Dremel cutoff wheel was all that was needed. The second rocker was even easier; no trimming at all. It fit perfectly the first time. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
