[Torbjorn968]

Let us assume that the car is at a standstill. Left and right weight distribution is 50/50 (for a moment ignoring the fact that the driver is off center).



We then add a way of lifting one pushing one of the wheels down. This does not change weight distributions and therefore - appart from a certain camber effect - not contact patch area.



We now hypothetically assume that there is a side force during cornering leading to a 60/40 distribution. The side force compresses the outer suspension. We then add the sway bar which pushed the outerwheel down reducing the compression. It changes heel angle but how does it change weight distribution?



Note that I am talking lateral distribution. That the sway bars can change the distribution longitudally (affecting the front or the rear more) is in my mind another matter.



//TL

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

"We then add a way of lifting one pushing one of the wheels down"



i'm confused - what does that sentence mean?



we could chat theory all day long, and that's fun, but the bottom line is that you are going to have to take measurements - you cannot guess at a setup based on anything else



but, to continue:



a sway bar resists the body's tendency to create a difference in wheel position relative to it - it acts equally on both sides simultaneously - it is merely a torsional spring, optimally fixed at the roll center



as a car rolls to the outside, the inside tire's bottom profile extends upward - this REDUCES that tire's contact patch area - reducing the roll, and thereby reducing the weight shift, INCREASES net contact patch area, on the assumption that you don't have so much negative camber that the outside tire does not flatten out



without lower bracing, the outside sheet metal where the suspension is bolted twists outward - the inside sheet metal with the lesser load flexes less - this allows the geometry to change - maintaining a constant distance between the castor blocks limits this - it is the same as a strut tower brace, only far more effective on this car



here is a crude diagram of net camber/tire patch results:

   



in figure 1 we see tires with a lot of negative camber - in figure 2 we roll the car to the left to the point where the left tire is flat, and we see the result of the same amount of camber change and how it lifts the inside tire to barely touching - we see this on a lot of cars at the track



in figre 3, we see less negative camber assigned - in figure 4, as the car rolls to where the tire is flat, we see much more of the inside tire contacting the ground



this is pretty much a no brainer - where this falls down is when you exceed the point in figure 4, and you roll over to the outside edge of the left tire



the key to preventing this from happening is to reduce the physical effects being applied to the car - we do this by adding larger sway bars, and heavier springs to work against the centrifugal forces being applied - we also do this by strategically bracing the car, so as to limit the other areas that collapse and allow the transfer to be exacerbated in the first place



in this particular car, a common flaw in setup is to over spring the rear of the car - this causes too much load shifted to the front, and overloads the front outside tire more quickly, causing people to think they need more negative camber on that tire to compensate for it - if you leave the rear a bit softer in spring, but maintain the anti roll stiffness, you pull some of the transfer from the front, and relieve some of the load on that tire, allowing you to reduce negative camber



roll center also plays in heavily here - this is NOT the center of gravity, but rather the geometrical center around which the suspension rotates - this can easily get messy if the car is lowered too far, because it allows more variance in geometry, which is the enemy of a flat cornering car



take measurements - then try it - you'll be surprised



by the way, that's the way the cup cars were set up too - softer in the rear - stiffer sway bars

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Torbjorn968]

[quote name='flash' post='62353' date='Oct 28 2008, 09:24 PM']"We then add a way of lifting one pushing one of the wheels down"



i'm confused - what does that sentence mean?



>>In this and other posts I have understood that one of your aims is to transfer weight back to the innerwheel, I have never understood how this would be possible. The sentence above is an attempt to illustrate what I do not understand. In my mind weight transfer is due to the side forces and nothing which we can do anyting about.



>>Below you reason in a way which is possible for me to understand.



without lower bracing, the outside sheet metal where the suspension is bolted twists outward - the inside sheet metal with the lesser load flexes less - this allows the geometry to change - maintaining a constant distance between the castor blocks limits this - it is the same as a strut tower brace, only far more effective on this car



>>Keeping the distance beween between the castor blocks constant



here is a crude diagram of net camber/tire patch results:





in figre 3, we see less negative camber assigned - in figure 4, as the car rolls to where the tire is flat, we see much more of the inside tire contacting the ground



>> I am with you up to here <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/smile.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />



in this particular car, a common flaw in setup is to over spring the rear of the car - this causes too much load shifted to the front



>>.... need to sleep on this one till tomorrow - trying to see how this happens - I would instead thinkt that the stiffer end takes more load by resisting heel? Where do I go wrong in that reasoning. <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/unsure.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />



, and overloads the front outside tire more quickly, causing people to think they need more negative camber on that tire to compensate for it - if you leave the rear a bit softer in spring, but maintain the anti roll stiffness



>>... how does anti roll stiffness caused by a sway bar (a torsional spring as you mention above) in this respect (load transfer) differ from anti roll stiffness caused by a spring?[/quote]



So Flash, this time we actually got somewhere, I understand how you see the function of the undercar bracing at the front. More to work on for you I guess <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/rolleyes.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> ... and no under car bracing available at the rear?



Best



T

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

the above diagrams were not so much brace related as why a lot of negative camber can be a bad thing - flex only makes it worse



nothing in the rear yet - but since both sides are tied to the torque tube, once you get rid of the rubber bushings, it limits most of any change due to flex, and is only limited by the characteristics of the geometry of the banana arm



got it already up front though - resolved that problem - i think there are about 30 cars running around with them now

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Rich Sandor]

TL (& FlasH) I think you guys are taking it too far. I could have done 2 laps, and set optimum tire pressures and camber in less time than it took for me to read the last 4 posts.



The same procedure applies whether you are running staggered or uniform tire sizes:



1: Find the tire spec recommend camber from manufacturer.

2: Set baseline alignment & tire pressure

3: Do some laps

4: Come in hot, measure temps & wear

5: Adjust as needed.

6: Test & repeat as needed.



There are some very specific guides that will tell you what to adjust what kind of result you will get. Here is a chart similar to what I use on my cars:



http://www.iwsti.com/forums/gd-suspension-...ment-chart.html



/end thread.



<img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/smile.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

lol - agreed - the problem is that it seems that he is setting up a race car that has some more basic issues - to figure out those issues, and resolve them, requires more than just tire temp measurements, though those will certainly help point out the symptoms, though not likely the cause



the 968, like most cars, can be made to corner a LOT faster if you address those first - most people do not want to rework the chassis and suspension designs though, so you end up doing little more than "turd polishing", and only get a portion of what could be had



those charts are cool, but they presume that you have already addressed the design flaws, or don't want to, and just want to get it as "good as you can" without real work - not optimal for a race car, but adequate for a street car driven occasionally on the track



i'll have the car up in the air again in a few days, and be able to finally measure and draw out the suspension, so that i can determine the roll center and what ride height does to that - i made the mistake of doing what others were doing, against my better judgement and experience, and have found out they were all wrong - it was definitely too low at 625mm, scrubbing off speed, although "feeling" more planted - it was very deceiving - i found that out already - it is still too low now at 630mm - i am probably going to end up about 635 - but first i just need to calculate how low it can be, without going below ground, and then tune accordingly - i have a feeling though that i am going to need to make a new front cross member to truly correct the problems created by lowering



the other problem is corner to corner transfer - one of the things i am working on right now is a tool with a set of accelerometers for each corner of the car, so that i can follow the car as it goes through corners, and see what forces and speeds result in what corner loads - i've been playing with spring rates, and have gone up and down a lot, searching for the right balance - these measurements will help a lot

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Torbjorn968]

[quote name='flash' post='62400' date='Oct 29 2008, 09:32 PM']lol - agreed - the problem is that it seems that he is setting up a race car that has some more basic issues - to figure out those issues, and resolve them, requires more than just tire temp measurements, though those will certainly help point out the symptoms, though not likely the cause[/quote]



Hello guys!



This thread has gone far from the original topic but if my little "battle" with Flash is to continue then maybee best to contain the damage? Working har do achieve the lunitic status I guess <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/rolleyes.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> . You can probably tell that my car is parked in a small garage where it is difficult to actually work on it...



So for tonight I have given flash comment on the link between trying to much camber at the front and being too stiff at the rear. Flash has the following hypothesis:



"A car which is too stiff at the rear will transferr loads to the front which people often try to compensate with too much camber" (correct?).



Increasing camber at the front is only done in the hope of achieving better cornering grip since there are negative side effects (excessive wear, grip breaking etc). Trying to increase forward grip would be done if the car was understeering too much. A car which is stiff at the rear will lift its rearward inner wheel more than the forward innerwheel: soft suspension forward helps keeping the forward innerwheel planted.



A car which is soft at the rear will instead have better grip at the rear which will lead to understeer.



To me increasing camber forward would be something done to compensate for the last case rather than the case with stiff springs at the rear.



So again I am thinking 180 degrees to flash. Where do I go wrong?



And Flash: the crystal ball says there is an underchassis brace in my future <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/smile.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />



T

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

definitely not a battle- i want to be clear about that up front - i am obviously having a hard time explaining this



i think the main problem is trying to speak in theory and absolutes, while referring to "what somebody else has done", and not having a basis in comparative measurement and data



as to the basics, all things being equal, better grip at the rear does not lead to understeer - it only reduces oversteer - grip improvement anywhere does not lead to any negative grip characteristics anywhere - just because you get better somewhere does not mean that you get worse somewhere else



poor grip at the front leads to understeer - poor grip at the rear leads to oversteer - correcting those will make you able to go faster - the key to this is maximum net tire contact patch area - the key to that is to try to maintain even weight distribution at all times on all four tires - of course you will never get all the way there, but the closer you get, the better the car will corner



again, measure the car - measure the tire temps - look at the wear patterns - measure the loads in turns at each corner both on throttle and off (if you don't have accelerometers, you can do this with cameras and calculate from your corner balance and spring rates) - time your entry and exit speeds - chart this all as you make changes



i think you have been led down a very wrong path, and i am certain that the car will go faster with a different setup - i only wish i were there, because i would do it for you and let you drive it and see



i've made the same mistakes for the same reasons - it wasn't until i found somebody 30 years ago, who really knew their stuff, and took me under their wing, that i actually understood how it works, and what it really took to make a car go fast in the corners - it is all about balance and synergy of components



something else to remember: a car that is really fast in the corners "feels" slow, so don't trust your butt-o-meter

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Torbjorn968]

[quote name='flash' post='62409' date='Oct 30 2008, 01:31 AM']definitely not a battle- i want to be clear about that up front - i am obviously having a hard time explaining this



as to the basics, all things being equal, better grip at the rear does not lead to understeer - it only reduces oversteer - grip improvement anywhere does not lead to any negative grip characteristics anywhere - just because you get better somewhere does not mean that you get worse somewhere else



poor grip at the front leads to understeer - poor grip at the rear leads to oversteer - correcting those will make you able to go faster - the key to this is maximum net tire contact patch area - the key to that is to try to maintain even weight distribution at all times on all four tires - of course you will never get all the way there, but the closer you get, the better the car will corner[/quote]



It is now 35 F outside so meassuring will be done in April again after the polar bears left the streets <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/smile.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> . Right now I am learning fundamentals and I think I need to understand how Flash things regarding fundamentals to understand what he says since his posts goes contrary to what I have learned and think "I know".



Assume a car which corner at a steady state speed in a long corner that gets tighter and tighter. At some point some of the wheels will break traction if we have entered fast enough. If the car is neutral this will happen at all fours at the same time at the same G force. Take this hypotetical car and increase grip at the rear and you will have the front sliding first = understeer? If we reduce oversteer as done on the latest generation 911s by increasing rear tyre size this can in my book be done instead by switching to smaller fronts. To me what happens at the rear affects what will happen at the front.



//TL

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

that assumptions are flawed



while this happens in all turns, it especially happens in a decreasing radius turn - in a standard 2WD rear drive car, as the corner gets tighter, if you maintain the same speed, the forces and loads increase on the front end more than the rear, as the rear is pushing in a straight line, but the front is turning inward - this is exactly where the problem lies - the front and rear do not track together - the slip angles are different, as are the radii of the turns - the front wheels turn - the rears don't



adding grip on one end is not the same as reducing grip on another - you can add rear tire to reduce oversteer, but it is not the same as reducing front tire to create understeer



forces due to speed are independent of tire size - the speed at which a tire slips is due to geometry, size and pressure, all of which are determined by the amount of load being applied - again, this goes to NET CONTACT PATCH AREA - if you have oversteer, reducing the front tire only reduces the speeds you can maintain, because you have reduced the net contact patch area - the oversteer problem is still there, but you will now understeer before you get there



where it gets confusing is that it is common to see multiple symptoms in a bad handling car, and a change on one end increasing or masking a problem at the other end - you can actually have a car that both understeers AND oversteers - you really have to think of them as operating independently when it comes to slip though



however, where it gets messy and complicated is that you have to think in terms of the corners of the car being connected when it comes to weight transfer



as i said, i have made this exact same mistake before - the car was a mess, and i was masking problems by trying to address one in one way, only to make another one show up worse, and yet another not show up until precisely the wrong moment - the car was oversteering, so i did stuff up front - all i did was create understeer - the problem was i was sprung too stiffly and as a result, the oversteer problem was still there, but did not rear its ugly head until the perfect moment, which then stuffed me into a wall flatly at both ends - the entire car slipped - not just one end - it was if somebody had hip-checked me into a wall



then i stopped doing what i was doing and listened to somebody who had been doing it better than everybody else for longer than i had been alive, and had been telling me i was doing it all wrong for quite some time - the next time out, i was 5 seconds faster per lap - it was a night and day difference - no other changes to the car - just setup - i went from chasing the pack to being in the pack in one shot

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Torbjorn968]

Good morning Flash.



My tire size example was given as an example where net contact patch changes the balance of the car which means we agree on the concept of net contact patch. I also agree that a car which in some situation feels neutral can feel oversteery at some places and understeery in other situations.



I probably chose a bad example with the corner with a continously reduced radious which would creat something like a constant turn in situation which again would be a situation making a "neutral" car understeer.



Perhaps a skidpad would be a better example. A skidpad where speed is slowly built as not to induce power oversteer. Perhaps we could then define the neutral car as the car with the same slip angle forward and rear. I would define understeer as a situation where the slip is greater forward and you need to turn the wheel more to compensate for this and oversteer as a situation where slip is greater at the rear which woujld mean turnging the wheel the other direction to catch the rear. Agree?



We then have this neutral car in a continous four wheel drift. I wish to establish this "image" as a way of testing the assumption that changes at the front can only affect understeer. If we, on this neutral car, increase tyre sixe forward or in other ways (an under chassis brace for example) increas net contact patch area and thus increase grip there is no understeer to take away. Would this mean that the increased forward grip would not affect balance? Or would it mean that slip forward is reduced and thus slip forward is less than at the rear? Which for me is synonomous with oversteer.



This may seem to dicuss basic basics but there are reasoning from Flash which I cannot understand unless I understand how he views the fundamental level.



Having said this a neutral car is not necessarily a well balanced car. Most of us will want some understeer since this it is easier to drive fast that way, but that is another discussion.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

good morning to you



i think a lot of the issue here is either a language thing, or an oversimplification of the "basics" - there seems to be a tendency to speak in absolutes, or "one size fits all" solutions, and with a car, there is no such thing



reducing under steer from such a change does not increase over steer, if all other components of the equation are constant - you would have to be going faster to have the over steer come into play



realize that any condition of over steer, under steer, or neutrality is dependent on many factors, not the least of which is speed - the car will behave differently at one speed than it does at another - there is no magical "all situations setup" - it might under steer at high speed, but over steer at low speed - it might be neutral at one speed, but fly off the track at another - what it does in a high speed turn will be entirely different than what it does at a chicane



geometry control and net contact patch area are the keys to trying to get close - first control the amounts and types of flex in the chassis, dependent on the car's design, and how the suspension design is incorporated into that - what you do for a strut car is not the same as what you do for a wishbone car, leaf spring car, etc - also what you do for a unibody car is not the same as a ladder framed car, or a space tube car



springs and sway bars are matched - they are both springs, and acting differently at different times, due to the loads applied to them - finding the natural harmonic frequencies of these is the key to them working well together



then limit the geometrical changes, and control the movement of the suspension - this again is tied to how much and where things are flexing, and how much load is being transferred and when - in the case of a heavy uni-body car with oddly mismatched suspensions, like the 968, unless you are going to completely redesign things, a certain amount of transfer chassis flex is good, but suspension mounting flex is bad



shocks get critical here, and smooth valving of both rebound and compression is critical - if you can afford it, a shock with a third mid valving control is even better, but that is usually limited to professional teams that have a chassis shaker to test on



this is also why the cup cars had progressive springs - it allowed the chassis to be more compliant without sacrificing high speed load handling

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Torbjorn968]

[quote name='flash' date='Oct 30 2008, 04:37 PM' post='62445']

good morning to you



i think a lot of the issue here is either a language thing, or an oversimplification of the "basics" - there seems to be a tendency to speak in absolutes, or "one size fits all" solutions, and with a car, there is no such thing



>> I am trying to simplify to understand what you are trying to tell me. Rather than being a language thing (if you by this mean a Swede trying to understand things in English, I spend most of my working days communcating in English) it is a way of reasoning thing. I have a hard time evaluating what you are telling me (you are at the "rocket science level" and I need to learn to creep prior to walking). One thing you say is that changes at the rear can never give understeer, to me this is "an absolute" which is difficult to grasp and therefore I tried in the previus post to make a simplified example. Here comes another one:



Let us for example assume that we, like Erik, has tuned a car balance wise with equall tire sizes so it on a certain track handles satisfactorily. If all settings on the car is left the same changing to smaller tires at the front or larger tires (i.e contact patch area) at the rear will result in a car which (at max cornering speeds for the given total contact patch area) understeers more often than the starting point.



To take this argument to the extreeme we could imagine running old style 135s all around, then put super grippy 295s at the rear. I think most of us would say that this car, when pushed to its limit, would spend a lot of time understeering in corners.



An example of a good way of simplifying things was your graphics of wheel angles as you see the function of the underchassis brace. That communicates.



Best



TL

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

to the first "issue" i have a difficult time reading some of what you type - sometimes there is little to no punctuation, and tenses are often confusing - i am trying to read in what you intend, but sometimes get lost - i assume you have the same problem with some of the things i type - that is something i think that is leading to some of this - it's not necessarily on one side or the other, but goes both ways



as for "rocket science level" versus "basics", obviously i am not doing a good job of explaining the basics - if i were you, i would consult some books on the subject, rather than trying to get me to figure out a way to do that - you are trying to set up a car at race levels, without the benefit of having an understanding of how to set up a car at a lower level - if you aren't willing to accept what i am saying at face value, and you are certainly entitled to do that, and given how far i have gone to the point to try to explain it, i don't know what else to tell you - i've exhausted all the effort and time i can on this - i think we are going in circles, and i really need to move on



i don't know how to explain, in any simpler terms, that what you do on one end does not automatically induce anything on the other end, if all other conditions remain the same - only if you change one of the other factors (speed, weight transfer, etc) does something change significantly on the opposing end



it seems to me that you are looking somehow to find validation for your setup, and i think it is completely wrong from the onset - i don't want to go into specific detail of the how and why, but that certainly puts us at odds in concept - i understand the unwillingness to try something that seems incomprehensible, but at this point i am beyond frustrated with the process - you seem unwilling to do the reading and learning, from sources other than here, to understand what i am saying, and i don't know what else to do - if you are not understanding the concepts behind what i am saying, and you won't spend the time and resource to learn them, i am afraid i am out of ideas



as an example of the language confusion, that diagram to which you refer was NOT to show the chassis brace function, or in any way related to that - you read that into it all on your own - that is an entirely different subject, and would involve an entirely different diagram - it was only to show the increase in contact patch area related to camber angles, and how they interact



good luck, but i'm going to step away now - i'll try to put together a list of good books for you

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Torbjorn968]

I am interrested in the books, that would be a great help! Get the Swede walking! Plenty of time for that with the snow soon coming in.



Regarding sticking to setups: starting to change things to someting completely different than what everyone around you is doing is not something I want to do until I understand what I am doing.



I actually found an interresting article on the subject in the British Track and Race Cars explaining the concept of roll center by a British Rally Car chassis engineer. I found it interresting that with standard geometries the roll center lowers more than you lower the car and that the roll there fore increases - more heel angle - in the lower car. The question then is why do we lower cars? Need to figure that one out.



I also found it interresting altering the rear roll center can be used to alter balance: If you lower the car and increase roll then you get a larger weight transferr at the front which equals to understeer. Or the reverse, raising the car reducing roll at the rear leeding to oversteer.



In reference to one of your example of cars stiffly sprung at the rear leading to increasing weight transferr at the front I would feel that this would be the reverse: stiff springs reducing rear heel angles thus creating oversteer?



Will read the books!

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

i do understand the situation, and will endeavor to facilitate your process as best i can - the goal is to make you faster, not to make you lose interest



it sounds like you've started to find some things that will start to illustrate the things i've been trying to say, and hopefully in a better way than i have been able to do - i am going to stay back for a while though, and not get into trying to explain things again, but it sounds like you're starting to ask the right questions



i will spend some time over the next couple of days and sift through things to try to find the best stuff for you to read

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Torbjorn968]

[quote name='flash' post='62649' date='Nov 4 2008, 08:36 PM']i do understand the situation, and will endeavor to facilitate your process as best i can - the goal is to make you faster, not to make you lose interest



it sounds like you've started to find some things that will start to illustrate the things i've been trying to say, and hopefully in a better way than i have been able to do - i am going to stay back for a while though, and not get into trying to explain things again, but it sounds like you're starting to ask the right questions



i will spend some time over the next couple of days and sift through things to try to find the best stuff for you to read[/quote]





Thanks a tonne!



You said that your illustration above was not of a lower chassis brace effect. But the text below the graphics implies that it is, quote:



"in figure 1 we see tires with a lot of negative camber - in figure 2 we roll the car to the left to the point where the left tire is flat, and we see the result of the same amount of camber change and how it lifts the inside tire to barely touching - we see this on a lot of cars at the track



in figre 3, we see less negative camber assigned - in figure 4, as the car rolls to where the tire is flat, we see much more of the inside tire contacting the ground



this is pretty much a no brainer - where this falls down is when you exceed the point in figure 4, and you roll over to the outside edge of the left tire



the key to preventing this from happening is to reduce the physical effects being applied to the car - we do this by adding larger sway bars, and heavier springs to work against the centrifugal forces being applied - we also do this by strategically bracing the car, so as to limit the other areas that collapse and allow the transfer to be exacerbated in the first place"



End quote.



This is why I thought you where illustrating the effect of the lower chassis brace. Perhaps you are saying that the brace is one way to achieve this?



Best



T

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

i see now where you could read that in



i was trying to illustrate, in the crudest of fashions, how net contact patch can be lost by starting with large camber angles - i was not trying to illustrate what any particular change in setup does to that - in each diagram i rotated the tires the same amount in the same direction - it is easy from those diagrams to see how you end up with less net contact patch area when you start with large camber angles



anyway, before i get into more discussion, i need to dig up that list for you, but am slammed today

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Torbjorn968]

What is the optimal geometry of the A arms? Would the best of worlds be a low car with the geometry changed so we have the A arms horisontal. With the reservation of my "car english" I was discussing the possibility of changing the geometry of the uprights with an engineer. It appears that you could both achieve this and prevent bump steer.



It is not quite as far fetched as it may sound as I am a part of a small company making chassis details for 944/968 and the engineer in question through his father has access to all machinery needed.



//T

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

the short answer is "yes" - that's what we've had to do in a number of other cars - the inboard mounting points of the control arms rack were moved upward - the steering rack mounting points were also moved

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.