Quote:
Originally Posted by Norm Peterson
Understood.
But how would starting from what they did for the 'Ring - whether "exactly" or only approximately - be any worse than starting from the 100% factory preferred settings/pressures/etc. that are almost certainly conservative/understeerish? Or if you're a more cautious sort of person, starting from somewhere between 'stock' and 'Ring' instead of having to start off guessing where that might be? Either way, any sane or halfway intelligent driver/DIY chassis tuner is going to experiment a bit further if he finds it doesn't suit him personally.
Personally, I think having two datasets representing a wide range of driving to work with has got to be better than only the conservative one that was blessed for general release to drivers of unknown and quite possibly little talent - for his street duty.
This is less about copying the precise numbers and settings than using the insights that they might provide. Suppose - and this is just an example with numbers for illustration purposes only - a 'Ring camber setting happened to be -2.65°. I'd be more than willing to round that off to -2.5(ish), set something like -2.5° or maybe only -2.2°, and call it close enough for a first cut. Better than starting with -1° or whatever factory preferred might be, and not having any basis for how far you might want to or have to go.
Norm
|
Do you have a 6G Camaro? The track based models come with a high performance supplement with exact alignment specs for a baseline for track use.