Notices
S197 Handling Section For everything suspension related, inlcuding brakes, tires, and wheels.

SCCA ProSolo & Nationals summary

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 10-20-2008, 12:03 PM
  #11  
Sam Strano
Former Sponsor
Thread Starter
 
Sam Strano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default

Steve---

I thank you for your compliments.

That said, I have to tell you that I think you make two big mistakes. And in fact I know that I told you on the phone some of what you were thinking was going to be trouble. I guess that feel on deaf ears.

There is NO WAY I'd run a GT or Bullitt with a bigger than stock front bar on it. And there is NO WAY I'd run shocks that I couldn't tune.

The Bilstein's are good shocks, but they aren't adjustable which means you have no control over how quickly each end of the car reacts and generates roll. And fwiw, the shocks don't change a how much the car rolls, only how fast it's generated. Of the very few things you can do in stock to tune a car, you left one of the biggest (adjustable damping) behind.

The bar: Why take a car that is transitionally stable and steady state pushy and add more front wheel rate? Yes, it rolls less. Roll is only bad if the suspension geometry sucks, and you can stiffen the car w/o a negative factor. I don't run a bigger bar on my GT (which I told you by phone) because frankly it's not the right way to going, and yes... I tried.

I'm sorry you bought the parts you did. I'm more sorry you didn't come back to me after the time I spent with you on the phone--for free. I sell Bilstein, and I sell adjustable front bars too. I don't agree that was the way to go, and maybe that's why you bought elsewhere. I still don't agree that was the way to go, feel like I wasted my time on the phone, and in the end will be more wary about passing out information as readily as I do.

Here's the bottom line. The Bullit was a great car for that East Course. I'm on record as saying a GT would tear up transitional courses. A Bullitt is just that much better given the power advantage. However, the setup you opted for hurt badly on any sort of more typical autox course, like the West Course--and that's why I don't run my GT but run the Shelby Nationally. In fact I think Kent probably drove pretty well on Day 2 as well, with that car and that setup, had no chance. MHO.
Sam Strano is offline  
Old 10-22-2008, 08:45 AM
  #12  
TexasBullitt
 
TexasBullitt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The Greatest State-Texas
Posts: 3
Thumbs up

Sam: I've learned just how tough the competition is in F/S. Regarding the front bar, I did listen to you, and I took careful measurements with a micrometer. The "stock bar" on the Bullitt was exactly the same diameter as the FRPP front bar on my friend's Shelby. It was right at 34mm, if I recall. The blue FRPP bar had the additional luxury of 3 hole adjustability, which the stock bar on the Bullitt did not have.
The BMR bar was only 0.75 mm to 1 mm larger in diameter, and had 3 adjustment holes for the end links. Not a huge difference in diameter. In fact, it took a micrometer to tell the difference. If I had it to do over again, I might just take the stock bar off and drill out another hole for the end link attachment, since there is room. In fact, since I still have the old bar, I'll probably do just that. I did listen, and while I certainly value and respect your advice regarding the shocks, I also considered that I did not have the luxury of testing or even installing any or all of the various spring designs, rates and combinations, which I felt was a tested basis for your set up and kind recommendation. If I had that luxury, I might have decided differently. Instead, I was in a "run what you brung" situation with regards to the Bullitt stock springs, spring rates, and spring heights. With that in mind, my goal was to eliminate or substantially reduce body roll, which the Bilsteins did nicely. The "other brand" shock, let's call it brand "K", lost my business a long time ago over a failure issue on 1 rear shock on my 240Z they did not see fit to handle properly at the time. I vowed then I would use any brand but their's in the future. My Z's all ended up on KYBs, which served well.

I just wanted to point out that I appreciated and respected your advice, and I did listen, however, in the short time on the phone, there wasn't time for me to explain that I felt the adjustable shocks/struts were more appropriate for the FRPP style variable rate springs or their aftermarket equivalents, which I was not planning on running because of the stock rules. Since I was setting up the car to run on constant rate springs,which is what I am more familiar with, and personally feel is more appropriate for a race car, I chose the Bilsteins because they are heavy duty. I am not regretting my decision, and will instead concentrate on tweaking the balance of the car around them.

While I certainly appreciate and respect your authority and advice as the expert on SGTs and GTs, the Bullitt is not a GT, and I don't plan on making it into a GT.

I do give kudos to you, Jason, Kent Kroll, and all the F/S drivers for your excellent driving skill. I will readily admit that I found 2 flaws in the way the Bullitt was set up that caused me some concern. Both were entirely my fault because I didn't allow enough time to deal with them. While this might have been more apparent on the West course, neither one of those flaws had anything to do with the BMR bar or the choice of Bilsteins and their lack of adjustability.

Now, to the 2 flaws ( big mistakes ) which were entirely my fault:

1. The 295's did not fit properly. At 4:15 pm the day before we ran, I was on the phone at the hotel trying to locate 0.25" wheel spacers, so the front tires wouldn't rub on the struts during a hard turn. Fortunately, Allan at Motorsports Legends in Topeka said yes, and provided us with 2 x 0.25" wheel spacers. Thanks, Allan.
The flaw here is that the front track was now 0.5" wider than the rear. Exactly the opposite of what I would have wanted. Of course I had relied on advice that the 295's fit. IMHO, this was always suspect. 275's, yes, 295's still suspect without different wheel back spacing, or excessive gobs of negative camber. Not to mentioned they were crammed onto 8.5" wheels.

2. When we dismounted the 295's after the event, both Kent and I noticed there was at least 0.5" of inside rubber on the 295s that was not even scrubbed. This led me to examine the camber settings when I returned home. Sure enough, it was significantly less than what I had asked to be set, and was not done properly. I'll chalk this up to their haste to get the car back to me so I could get out of town before the hurricane hit, plus my failure to have it double checked by the guys down at MSR. The weather just didn't cooperate on this end.

While Kent drove extremely well, I'll show him the picture I took on his last run on the West course, which proves you've still got to turn the wheel at the right time to make the car turn.

I never had any issues with the way the car "handled".

My main issue was that I wasn't looking far enough ahead, which is something you do so well, Sam, and is the reason you are our multi- National Champion!
TexasBullitt is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Granatelli Sales
S550 2015-2023 Mustang
22
01-20-2020 12:34 AM
Explosive
Street/Strip
17
10-02-2015 07:45 AM
nmra1965
Other Professional Racing
0
09-26-2015 10:46 AM
MusicCity615
General Tech
7
09-12-2015 07:05 AM
RWHEELS
S197 Handling Section
4
09-05-2015 03:42 PM



Quick Reply: SCCA ProSolo & Nationals summary



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:33 AM.