Centre Gravity + Cayman R
Discussion
I think its a bit naive thinking a small geo workshop can improve significantly on what Porsche decided was the best setup when it comes to all-round usability.
As somebody else said, you are always giving something up for an improvement in a particular area.
Personally I think the car is fine enjoyed as Porsche intended, after all if its good enough for Walter Rorhl, its good enough for me...
Im probably not going to start fiddling around with the setup and geo on mine, not because I don't think it can be improved - Im sure it can.
I just happen to think there is a good chance it will end up worse quite a few areas as well, being a road car its all about balance for me.
Snap oversteer and nervous highway behavior is just not something I want in a 4-season allrounder.
As somebody else said, you are always giving something up for an improvement in a particular area.
Personally I think the car is fine enjoyed as Porsche intended, after all if its good enough for Walter Rorhl, its good enough for me...
Im probably not going to start fiddling around with the setup and geo on mine, not because I don't think it can be improved - Im sure it can.
I just happen to think there is a good chance it will end up worse quite a few areas as well, being a road car its all about balance for me.
Snap oversteer and nervous highway behavior is just not something I want in a 4-season allrounder.
Edited by Vacationboy on Sunday 21st December 00:26
It's very easy to get some extra front negative camber on Boxsters. You just need to drill out the top mount slot a few mm. It takes all if 5 to 10 mins aside. I've had it done on both my Boxsters now.
Centre Gravity or similar is great if you are a little obsessive or OCD. They are also good if you're thinking the car drives good but can I get a bit more ... but aren't sure how to get there. They will also talk with you to get an understanding of what roads you drive, how hard you might drive, what you like about the current set up, what you might like it to feel like etc then give you a set up that suits your requirements. I've had components fitted there as well as geo for both my Boxsters and have been probably 3 times in 3 years.
Centre Gravity or similar is great if you are a little obsessive or OCD. They are also good if you're thinking the car drives good but can I get a bit more ... but aren't sure how to get there. They will also talk with you to get an understanding of what roads you drive, how hard you might drive, what you like about the current set up, what you might like it to feel like etc then give you a set up that suits your requirements. I've had components fitted there as well as geo for both my Boxsters and have been probably 3 times in 3 years.
To the OP,
Everything you do on the geo is complete waste of time if you haven't established a solid baseline position from which to work forwards from. And then decided what it is you need differently from this.
You can read all you like and take all the opinions in the world about how handling/performance/feel are improved by doing X to Y in the suspension dept but none of it matters if you haven't done the first step. The thing with setup is that its a bit like ice cream flavours. Everyone likes different things and at different times.
The situation with Porsche cars and ice cream flavours becomes a quagmire because: (i) Owners tend to forget they are talking about ice cream flavours, (ii) They tend to forget they used to like another flavour before the one they currently are in love with, and (iii) Though none will admit it,everyones ice cream flavour tastes ok. This is because the window of geo settings that work is actually quite small.
What you need to do is take the car somewhere and get the geo done to factory specs. Pick who you like for this. An OPC can do it fine, so can CG, so can plenty of Indys.
Once you have established that the car is accurate from this starting point, go out and drive the thing. Drive it as you normally would and in the places that you normally go and get a feel for how it drives. If you then feel that you would prefer it if it did something a little different, then at your next geo make a change to try and achieve it.
Everything you do on the geo is complete waste of time if you haven't established a solid baseline position from which to work forwards from. And then decided what it is you need differently from this.
You can read all you like and take all the opinions in the world about how handling/performance/feel are improved by doing X to Y in the suspension dept but none of it matters if you haven't done the first step. The thing with setup is that its a bit like ice cream flavours. Everyone likes different things and at different times.
The situation with Porsche cars and ice cream flavours becomes a quagmire because: (i) Owners tend to forget they are talking about ice cream flavours, (ii) They tend to forget they used to like another flavour before the one they currently are in love with, and (iii) Though none will admit it,everyones ice cream flavour tastes ok. This is because the window of geo settings that work is actually quite small.
What you need to do is take the car somewhere and get the geo done to factory specs. Pick who you like for this. An OPC can do it fine, so can CG, so can plenty of Indys.
Once you have established that the car is accurate from this starting point, go out and drive the thing. Drive it as you normally would and in the places that you normally go and get a feel for how it drives. If you then feel that you would prefer it if it did something a little different, then at your next geo make a change to try and achieve it.
mrdemon said:
Over kill yes as it's £300min charge for a basic geo.
It's not a basic geo but far far more and you are completely misrepresenting the great name and service that Chris has painstakingly built up.Apart from anything else, Chris will drive your car, baseline it, tease out any unwanted variables and then set it up exactly how you want it (rather than just implementing a geo from a list). After that, you get the road test to make sure you are getting exactly what you want.
All this before we even get to how learned, inspirational and delightful he is as a person. An afternoon or day in his company is one of the genuine treats of Porsche ownership.
Demon = trolling + a bit of dangerous google knowledge + ground axes etc.
jackal said:
It's not a basic geo but far far more and you are completely misrepresenting the great name and service that Chris has painstakingly built up.
Apart from anything else, Chris will drive your car, baseline it, tease out any unwanted variables and then set it up exactly how you want it (rather than just implementing a geo from a list). After that, you get the road test to make sure you are getting exactly what you want.
All this before we even get to how learned, inspirational and delightful he is as a person. An afternoon or day in his company is one of the genuine treats of Porsche ownership.
Demon = trolling + a bit of dangerous google knowledge + ground axes etc.
only one trolling here is you ! O and slippy ofcourse but that's a given.Apart from anything else, Chris will drive your car, baseline it, tease out any unwanted variables and then set it up exactly how you want it (rather than just implementing a geo from a list). After that, you get the road test to make sure you are getting exactly what you want.
All this before we even get to how learned, inspirational and delightful he is as a person. An afternoon or day in his company is one of the genuine treats of Porsche ownership.
Demon = trolling + a bit of dangerous google knowledge + ground axes etc.
Edited by mrdemon on Sunday 21st December 16:21
jackal said:
It's not a basic geo but far far more and you are completely misrepresenting the great name and service that Chris has painstakingly built up.
Apart from anything else, Chris will drive your car, baseline it, tease out any unwanted variables and then set it up exactly how you want it (rather than just implementing a geo from a list). After that, you get the road test to make sure you are getting exactly what you want.
All this before we even get to how learned, inspirational and delightful he is as a person. An afternoon or day in his company is one of the genuine treats of Porsche ownership.
Totally agree with this. I've used Chris to set-up several cars over the years (in some cases several times) and his service is as far removed from 'a geo' as you could possibly imagine. Apart from anything else, Chris will drive your car, baseline it, tease out any unwanted variables and then set it up exactly how you want it (rather than just implementing a geo from a list). After that, you get the road test to make sure you are getting exactly what you want.
All this before we even get to how learned, inspirational and delightful he is as a person. An afternoon or day in his company is one of the genuine treats of Porsche ownership.
My current 911 (a 2010 Carrera S) has just came back from Chris's - where it's been for well over a month! I'll be writing-up the story of why it went there, what was found, what was done (and some rather interesting conclusions) over the next couple of days. I'll just make the point, for now, that the car was borderline dangerous and had it not been for Chris's almost obsessive attention to detail, a couple of serious problems would never have been found or corrected. (There's not a chance in a million they'd have been found - or even understood - had I taken the car to the local OPC, or the nearest local tyre fitters with a Hunter aligner).
The causes of the car's misbehaviour were totally unexpected and shouldn't ever have been present in a 4 1/2 year old, 48,000 mile car. But that's for the full write-up......
Search the internet, many people have taken their car to Chris to sort where many people couldn't. There was one guy who spent years on his car trying different settings then took it to chris to get it setup before he sold it - it was so good he nearly kept it! Felt like a different car!
fioran0 said:
To the OP,
Everything you do on the geo is complete waste of time if you haven't established a solid baseline position from which to work forwards from. And then decided what it is you need differently from this.
You can read all you like and take all the opinions in the world about how handling/performance/feel are improved by doing X to Y in the suspension dept but none of it matters if you haven't done the first step. The thing with setup is that its a bit like ice cream flavours. Everyone likes different things and at different times.
The situation with Porsche cars and ice cream flavours becomes a quagmire because: (i) Owners tend to forget they are talking about ice cream flavours, (ii) They tend to forget they used to like another flavour before the one they currently are in love with, and (iii) Though none will admit it,everyones ice cream flavour tastes ok. This is because the window of geo settings that work is actually quite small.
What you need to do is take the car somewhere and get the geo done to factory specs. Pick who you like for this. An OPC can do it fine, so can CG, so can plenty of Indys.
Once you have established that the car is accurate from this starting point, go out and drive the thing. Drive it as you normally would and in the places that you normally go and get a feel for how it drives. If you then feel that you would prefer it if it did something a little different, then at your next geo make a change to try and achieve it.
I agree, for a comparative learner a soft set-up gives a lot of confidence and accelerates the build of "feeling" for what the car will do -- the comparative roll becomes a reference point for "seat of the pants".Everything you do on the geo is complete waste of time if you haven't established a solid baseline position from which to work forwards from. And then decided what it is you need differently from this.
You can read all you like and take all the opinions in the world about how handling/performance/feel are improved by doing X to Y in the suspension dept but none of it matters if you haven't done the first step. The thing with setup is that its a bit like ice cream flavours. Everyone likes different things and at different times.
The situation with Porsche cars and ice cream flavours becomes a quagmire because: (i) Owners tend to forget they are talking about ice cream flavours, (ii) They tend to forget they used to like another flavour before the one they currently are in love with, and (iii) Though none will admit it,everyones ice cream flavour tastes ok. This is because the window of geo settings that work is actually quite small.
What you need to do is take the car somewhere and get the geo done to factory specs. Pick who you like for this. An OPC can do it fine, so can CG, so can plenty of Indys.
Once you have established that the car is accurate from this starting point, go out and drive the thing. Drive it as you normally would and in the places that you normally go and get a feel for how it drives. If you then feel that you would prefer it if it did something a little different, then at your next geo make a change to try and achieve it.
Once you are more experienced, you have to make allowances for "unravelling the roll" in the transitions --- which is the reason why faster drivers tend to prefer harder set-ups.
But driving a 911 is all about managing the weight transfer (and managing the roll transitions) --- which is the reason why the feel of the early 911 is so wonderful
So I agree, you need also to understand yourself and what you want from a car.
For example, in the very cold winter two years ago when we had -16C in North Yorkshire and the snow didn't clear for two weeks, I had a fantastic time in a standard MX5 ....
And this is also the reason why track days ad driver tuition are the way forward .. for most.
Good luck, and have fun on the way ... !
Vacationboy said:
I think its a bit naive thinking a small geo workshop can improve significantly on what Porsche decided was the best setup when it comes to all-round usability.
Given my recent experiences I think its more naive to assume that your car gets delivered from Porsche set up correctly!!Going back to Sandy59's list of things Chris does..
1. Test drive of car in arrival set up, identify any suspect dampers etc.
2. Comprehensive inspection of tyres and all suspension components.
3. Comprehensive discussion and explanations of different set up options available to produce different handling characteristics.
4. Adjustments made as required - provided all components in good condition etc.
5. Test drive with new set up.
6. Further adjustments and test drives if required until customer happy.
Its numbers 3 and 6 that you're paying for and crucially in number 6.. until customer happy and not "Its within Porsche's tolerances Sir - Pay up and F$$K off" which is what you'll get from your OPC
Steve Rance said:
Generally, a wider front track is a very clumsy way of attempting to reduce understeer. With the GT3 it is only done to counter the pasm. If it were on passives, it wouldn't need a wider front end but thats another story. A more effective way to counter it would be to fit some after market top mounts which will unlock the car's potential far more than messing about with the track which can lead to other problems.
who said I gave my car a wider front track to reduce understeer ?I fitted adjustable front lower control arms increasing neg camber and a stiffer rear ARB to get less under steer, I added front track to aid turn in. (top mounts is the cheap way to increase camber and act reduces front track) I moved the bottom of the tyre out not the top in, this also gives me more front track to aid turn in, fitting top mounts leads to other problems.
you will note the 981 has a wider front track over the 987 car, the GT3 has a wider front track again and the 991 GT3RS will have a even wider front track when you get the figures over the 991 GT3!!!
mrdemon said:
who said I gave my car a wider front track to reduce understeer ?
I fitted adjustable front lower control arms increasing neg camber and a stiffer rear ARB to get less under steer, I added front track to aid turn in. (top mounts is the cheap way to increase camber and act reduces front track) I moved the bottom of the tyre out not the top in, this also gives me more front track to aid turn in, fitting top mounts leads to other problems.
you will note the 981 has a wider front track over the 987 car, the GT3 has a wider front track again and the 991 GT3RS will have a even wider front track when you get the figures over the 991 GT3!!!
why do you bother with any mods.. surely your money would be better spent on the latest snow foam & microfibre cloths.I fitted adjustable front lower control arms increasing neg camber and a stiffer rear ARB to get less under steer, I added front track to aid turn in. (top mounts is the cheap way to increase camber and act reduces front track) I moved the bottom of the tyre out not the top in, this also gives me more front track to aid turn in, fitting top mounts leads to other problems.
you will note the 981 has a wider front track over the 987 car, the GT3 has a wider front track again and the 991 GT3RS will have a even wider front track when you get the figures over the 991 GT3!!!
keep it lit said:
mrdemon said:
who said I gave my car a wider front track to reduce understeer ?
I fitted adjustable front lower control arms increasing neg camber and a stiffer rear ARB to get less under steer, I added front track to aid turn in. (top mounts is the cheap way to increase camber and act reduces front track) I moved the bottom of the tyre out not the top in, this also gives me more front track to aid turn in, fitting top mounts leads to other problems.
you will note the 981 has a wider front track over the 987 car, the GT3 has a wider front track again and the 991 GT3RS will have a even wider front track when you get the figures over the 991 GT3!!!
why do you bother with any mods.. surely your money would be better spent on the latest snow foam & microfibre cloths.I fitted adjustable front lower control arms increasing neg camber and a stiffer rear ARB to get less under steer, I added front track to aid turn in. (top mounts is the cheap way to increase camber and act reduces front track) I moved the bottom of the tyre out not the top in, this also gives me more front track to aid turn in, fitting top mounts leads to other problems.
you will note the 981 has a wider front track over the 987 car, the GT3 has a wider front track again and the 991 GT3RS will have a even wider front track when you get the figures over the 991 GT3!!!
mrdemon said:
who said I gave my car a wider front track to reduce understeer ?
I fitted adjustable front lower control arms increasing neg camber and a stiffer rear ARB to get less under steer, I added front track to aid turn in. (top mounts is the cheap way to increase camber and act reduces front track) I moved the bottom of the tyre out not the top in, this also gives me more front track to aid turn in, fitting top mounts leads to other problems.
you will note the 981 has a wider front track over the 987 car, the GT3 has a wider front track again and the 991 GT3RS will have a even wider front track when you get the figures over the 991 GT3!!!
Your really are wonderfully inconsistent! When I suggested that you should use a stiffer REAR arb to reduce understeer rather than the FRONT one you suggested you said and I quoteI fitted adjustable front lower control arms increasing neg camber and a stiffer rear ARB to get less under steer, I added front track to aid turn in. (top mounts is the cheap way to increase camber and act reduces front track) I moved the bottom of the tyre out not the top in, this also gives me more front track to aid turn in, fitting top mounts leads to other problems.
you will note the 981 has a wider front track over the 987 car, the GT3 has a wider front track again and the 991 GT3RS will have a even wider front track when you get the figures over the 991 GT3!!!
"I do hope you had people set up you caterham, because if you think the solution to curing a Cayman of mild under steer is to fit a stiffer rear ARB then it's not great.. when the front tyres are rolling off the world."
And for someone who goes on about geo your knowledge of geometry is woefull. If you move the top mount IN to increase negative camber you DO increase track, not reduce it. (The wheel pivots outwards about the track control arm)
Quoting increase in track of 981 or GT3 or anything else. If it's done at both ends it will generally be a GOOD thing because it reduces weight transfer and increases grip - but there is no reason to suppose (unless someone has figures to prove it) that Porsche have chose to use more negative camber.
But moving on and perhaps of general interest are these figures (for the 981 Boxster) I found elsewhere which throw some light on the ride/handling/understeer subject
Below is a chart comparing the ride height spring rate and arb stiffness of the 3 optional suspensions.
A PASM-equipped Boxster......and one with the new Sport Suspension
PASM --vs-- Sports Chassis
Front axle height -10mm -20mm
Rear axle height -10mm -20mm
Spring rate front +12% +20%
Spring rate rear +15% +25%
Anti-roll bar front +12% +22%
Anti-roll bar rear +10% +46%
Dampers PASM 'Sport Set-up' (passive)
Note: all values compared with standard, non-PASM suspension
The significant thing is that in both PASM and SS both the rear spring rate and rear arb stiffness is increased MORE than the front - so understeer should be less with either PASM or SS than standard. But SS should give less understeer than PASM because of the substantial increase in rear arb stiffness.
I've not found any evidence that Porsche change the camber settings (though of course lowering the car will make the suspension at both ends more negative.)
bcr5784 said:
Your really are wonderfully inconsistent! When I suggested that you should use a stiffer REAR arb to reduce understeer rather than the FRONT one you suggested you said and I quote
"I do hope you had people set up you caterham, because if you think the solution to curing a Cayman of mild under steer is to fit a stiffer rear ARB then it's not great.. when the front tyres are rolling off the world."
And for someone who goes on about geo your knowledge of geometry is woefull. If you move the top mount IN to increase negative camber you DO increase track, not reduce it. (The wheel pivots outwards about the track control arm)
Quoting increase in track of 981 or GT3 or anything else. If it's done at both ends it will generally be a GOOD thing because it reduces weight transfer and increases grip - but there is no reason to suppose (unless someone has figures to prove it) that Porsche have chose to use more negative camber.
But moving on and perhaps of general interest are these figures (for the 981 Boxster) I found elsewhere which throw some light on the ride/handling/understeer subject
Below is a chart comparing the ride height spring rate and arb stiffness of the 3 optional suspensions.
A PASM-equipped Boxster......and one with the new Sport Suspension
PASM --vs-- Sports Chassis
Front axle height -10mm -20mm
Rear axle height -10mm -20mm
Spring rate front +12% +20%
Spring rate rear +15% +25%
Anti-roll bar front +12% +22%
Anti-roll bar rear +10% +46%
Dampers PASM 'Sport Set-up' (passive)
Note: all values compared with standard, non-PASM suspension
The significant thing is that in both PASM and SS both the rear spring rate and rear arb stiffness is increased MORE than the front - so understeer should be less with either PASM or SS than standard. But SS should give less understeer than PASM because of the substantial increase in rear arb stiffness.
I've not found any evidence that Porsche change the camber settings (though of course lowering the car will make the suspension at both ends more negative.)
you are a bit daft, you wanted to fit a stiffer rear ARB 1st to reduce under steer on track to a car which had only -0.3 degree of front neg camber and was killing it's front tyres"I do hope you had people set up you caterham, because if you think the solution to curing a Cayman of mild under steer is to fit a stiffer rear ARB then it's not great.. when the front tyres are rolling off the world."
And for someone who goes on about geo your knowledge of geometry is woefull. If you move the top mount IN to increase negative camber you DO increase track, not reduce it. (The wheel pivots outwards about the track control arm)
Quoting increase in track of 981 or GT3 or anything else. If it's done at both ends it will generally be a GOOD thing because it reduces weight transfer and increases grip - but there is no reason to suppose (unless someone has figures to prove it) that Porsche have chose to use more negative camber.
But moving on and perhaps of general interest are these figures (for the 981 Boxster) I found elsewhere which throw some light on the ride/handling/understeer subject
Below is a chart comparing the ride height spring rate and arb stiffness of the 3 optional suspensions.
A PASM-equipped Boxster......and one with the new Sport Suspension
PASM --vs-- Sports Chassis
Front axle height -10mm -20mm
Rear axle height -10mm -20mm
Spring rate front +12% +20%
Spring rate rear +15% +25%
Anti-roll bar front +12% +22%
Anti-roll bar rear +10% +46%
Dampers PASM 'Sport Set-up' (passive)
Note: all values compared with standard, non-PASM suspension
The significant thing is that in both PASM and SS both the rear spring rate and rear arb stiffness is increased MORE than the front - so understeer should be less with either PASM or SS than standard. But SS should give less understeer than PASM because of the substantial increase in rear arb stiffness.
I've not found any evidence that Porsche change the camber settings (though of course lowering the car will make the suspension at both ends more negative.)
move along ....
Edited by mrdemon on Monday 22 December 14:34
keep it lit said:
I've seen a pic posted by you on here (maybe one of those gay reflection jobs?) of your mx5-ster thingy covered in foam ???
I did try a few times, what a pointless exercise snow foam is. you spray it on, leave it 10 minutes, take it off and your car looks the same as it did !never used it since , want to buy the rest off me ?
what a fun day being ill is, cannot work but time flies on here :-)
Edited by mrdemon on Monday 22 December 14:37
mrdemon said:
you are a bit daft, you wanted to fit a stiffer rear ARB 1st to reduce under steer on track to a car which had only -0.3 degree of front neg camber and was killing it's front tyres
move along ....
Clearly Porsche are similarly daft (on the 981) - that is the route they take. move along ....
Edited by mrdemon on Monday 22 December 14:34
Gassing Station | Boxster/Cayman | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff