Yea chin spoiler survived no problem, couple of scrapes, but it was always going to be a bit of a consumable.
We are running 205/55 R16 Dunlop DZO3G softs and have a 215/50 R16 mediums for the rear for longer stages
Awsome tyres
Printable View
Yea chin spoiler survived no problem, couple of scrapes, but it was always going to be a bit of a consumable.
We are running 205/55 R16 Dunlop DZO3G softs and have a 215/50 R16 mediums for the rear for longer stages
Awsome tyres
Bit of an upgrade video on the individual throttle bodies, hopefully more videos to follow
https://youtu.be/NOcr2Ca2pQE
Thanks Colin, another interesting video. have you changed your safety beer?
Another excellent video - I love the quality of your techy stuff - very inspiring !
It has inspired me enough to stay with the standard plenum and and maf setup etc.
Beautiful engineering though
Brilliant work as ever - thanks for producing these videos!
You are dead right about the PITA it is to balance 6 ITBs. Mine caused me no end of issues but got there eventually. I'm lucky that I have a DBW throttle and use that to control idle, so no need for all the vacuum lines on mine. Seems to work well though.
And I also noticed your new safety beer of choice appears to be VB.
Dunno about the Alfa ITB setup, but the ecu on my Manta V6 engine (with plenum) just uses ignition for idle control, so no vacuum lines and no idle valve.
Makes it a little lumpy with some rise-and-fall in the revs, but seems to work well enough in that case.
The Emerald ECU I had on a Lotus (4 cyl k series rover eng) did the same. Lovely angry lumpy idle, helped by the aggressive cams.
No worries guys, glad your enjoying the vids, i've got another one done, just got to edit it down. Yep, different safety beer indeed!, Always been partial to the old VB, I am from Victoria!
yea 6 ITB, OMG what a pain, i can set up a pair of twin Webers with my eyes closed on a hangover, but 2 banks of 3 throttles nearly sent me off the deep end.....
Re the use of ignition modulation to control the idle, yep definitely an option, I mucked around with it for a while but it's a bit limiting on how much range you can get and I found the V6 wanted a pretty high idle when it first started, my aim was to be able to start the car without touching the throttle and with the ignition alone i just couldn't get this to happen, particular when it was dead cold
cheers guys
New Video!
I broke the Shifter Housing I used (original alfa part) at a track day @ Phillip Island, so I made a new one
out of Aluminimum...
https://youtu.be/k5GeCBSusE8
Brilliant - a lovely bit of neat engineering !
That's neat, looks and sounds much more purposeful than the old plastic moulding.
The spring for self-centering seems a great idea too.
Mine has a different linkage (rods, not cable) and there isn't much throw from left to right between 1-2/3-4/5-6 planes, so that spring must help a lot.
Fascinating to watch - great ingenuity!!
Glad you enjoyed the vid,
Yea i think that additional spring will make a big difference, it was actually pretty finicky to setup, the little stopper block, that limits the spring rotation, has to be just the right width to get the spring start doing something straight away.
So have been having a closer look at the Suspension Geometry and decided to make a few Changes to try and Settle this thing down a bit!
https://youtu.be/FUUFEYLwkVU
Yet another very interesting video thanks Colin. It will be really interesting to see what difference your mods have made. Has this changed the ride height at either end? I know I should be able to work it out but sadly dont have a beer to hand.
Thanks mate, na both those changes won't directly effect ride height.
Fascinating video Colin - it'll be interesting to see what effect these changes have - and if your theories prove correct !
Good video, Porsche 911's similar weight distribution typically have rear RC 12-15" above ground.
Interesting video.
For the rear wishbones, do you have alternative inner mounts?
One thing to watch when setting up the rear suspension is to ensure you still have enough clearance for plunge on the driveshaft/CV joints. Playing with camber of wishbone angle can affect that. Though given your other attention to detail, I doubt you would have issues with that.
The short wheelbase certainly contributes to fore-and-aft weight transfer, and the strut-type rear means camber change happens in roll, so nothing is ever ideal. The high C-of-G with the V6 doesn't help either, can certainly feel that weight sitting just behind your shoulders
Quote:
Originally Posted by sean999r
Really, That sounds very high?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rutthenut
Yea Rear Wishbone Inner Mounts are a nolathane Bush from a Holden Commodore Pan Hard Rod, Its just a good sized bush, easy to get, used them for a long time on the Alfa
All good on the plunge of the driveshaft, but good point
Yea the Short Wheelbase definitely makes the vehicle far more sensitive to this sort of stuff, and as you say there are a lot of compromises with Strut Type suspension, Roll Centre Migration is a big issue, particularly with such short bottom arms
Sorry, I meant to ask if you had alternative mounting points on the chassis.Quote:
Originally Posted by ByrneEngineering
My car, which I think is a later one, has two points for the inner wishbone, and for the long rear track control arm.
So rather than extend the hub carrier downwards, can choose higher or lower inner mounting point for the wishbone to change the angle.
Also, mine has spherical joints on the chassis end, with some hard poly-style bushes on the outer, fwiw.
Did have to replace some recently as there was some slight play and it allowed a bit of rear-wheel steer, with angles changing under throttle and brakes, which is not ideal :)
Yea my chassis mounting points are in the same spot, I have made the rear mount removable, it was an attempt to get more camber adjustment, but limited by drive shaft length. My first idea was to move that point up, as you suggest, but quickly run into the drive shaft CV
Thanks for all your great videos. This one is especially excellent. They are very helpful in getting the Hawk running.
If only we could fabricate longer driveshafts, we could use longer lower arms to reduce the detrimental geometry change itself.
If we can make it into a Group 4 fender, we can extend it by about 60mm on each side.
Does Hawk have any extended lower arms for Group 4 fenders as a retrofit part? Maybe I just don't know.
I'm sure you could make a lower arm with a beer in your hand. ��
Wishing you all the best for the future!
Cheers mate, glad the vids are useful to you.
Yea longer arms would be great, I've made new bottom arms and got them as long as I could, longer than the original Hawk, The limiting factor for me was the Wheel offset, brake calliper and disc i'm running, rather than the driveshafts as I've got some custom ones
Moving the hub carrier out into a wider wheelarch wouldn't be a great solution, especially when considering this is a strut-type suspension setup. Smaller changes possible with some rework, but hard to quantify the returns.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy
Hawk have made some chassis with the lower rails closer together around the engine bay in the past, but only as a special for a Ferrari-engined kit. That allowed for longer wishbones (and driveshafts), with inner pivot point closer to the CV joint of the driveshaft which reduces plunge as shaft and wishbone nearer to being parallel to each other.
That's definitely not a retrofit part and would be a lot of work, with less scope under and around the Alfa sump to get a lot of benefit.
In most cases, drivers would never be able to tell the difference. With 'less than ideal' suspension geometry, the Stratos replica has better handling than many (most) drivers are capable of using. And even with changes to improve the theoretical behaviour of the suspension angles, the character of the car itself will - and should - remain as something that can change direction quickly and rapidly. It was designed for rallying, which required low polar moments of inertia and great responsiveness. It's not supposed to be an understeer-heavy fwd-style chassis designed to save drivers from themselves...
That's not to say making changes won't be worthwhile and all kudos to Colin for working this stuff out and applying great engineering to modify things in his desire to improve the car to his liking and for his needs.
(After all, it may be a twitchy car, but getting that more predictable and controllable at the limit has to be a good target)