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.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)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks