SSSCC

Sand & Sage Sports Car Club Forum
It is currently Sun Dec 21, 2014 4:08 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
Unread postPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:24 am 
Offline
Just Another Driver
Just Another Driver
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:11 pm
Posts: 7518
Location: Kennewick, WA
Any questions you have about getting your car to handle better can be posted here.

I'll start....

The big question I'm struggling with is this. Overall grip vs car balance. I've been autocrossing long enough that I know what changes to make to get a car balanced. But a car can be "balanced" with super stiff springs, soft springs, stiff sway bars or soft sway bars. I'm starting to think that a softer set up is good for our area because we only run on medium to low grip surfaces. But when you go to Nationals (high grip concrete) you can't assume the same set up will work. Will the grip change? Will the balance change?

So there's really two questions here:

1) How do I know if I'm getting the most possible grip out of the car? This including cornering grip, acceleration grip (something I'm struggling with) and braking grip. For example, I can change the balance of my car by changing front/rear sway bars, changing front/rear springs and changing the front/rear ride height (rake). How do you know which thing you should change?

2) How does the balance change when going from low grip to high grip surfaces? Does the car understeer more or oversteer more? (I think a car that's balanced on low grip asphalt will oversteer on high grip concrete....but I've never tested it to find out)

_________________
Mitch Lewis
'06 Mazda MX5 (STR) | http://www.focalpointmarketing.com
Thanks Tri-Cities Battery, Pasco
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Unread postPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:52 pm 
Offline
Regional Trophy Winner
Regional Trophy Winner
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:54 am
Posts: 415
I'll be mostly a reader of this thread since I haven't studied this subject much, nor do I have as much experience as the veterans of the club, but I will say this regarding your (2):

When my car had very slight oversteer on the high grip surface (inner part of TCR), it would have huge oversteer on the low grip surface (outer circle). Now, I'm not sure if there were other variables at play, but my novice mind would conclude from my own experiences that if my car was well balanced on the low grip surface, it would also be very well balanced on a high grip surface...? Another way of saying it is that the low grip surfaces seemed to amplify the imbalances in my car's setup vs. the high grip surfaces.

hard to say whether my observations are useful to gather anything from. it could have been a combination of so many things- the cambered outer circle, my own alignment settings F vs R, my driving style/inputs through various sections, etc.

_________________
Andy Stach
Desert Eagle Concepts - (Automotive Vinyl Wraps)
Lotus Elise // 2004 STi


Top
 Profile  
 
Unread postPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:41 pm 
Offline
National Tour Contender
National Tour Contender
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:36 am
Posts: 547
Location: Moses Lake
Quote:
1) How do I know if I'm getting the most possible grip out of the car? This including cornering grip, acceleration grip (something I'm struggling with) and braking grip. For example, I can change the balance of my car by changing front/rear sway bars, changing front/rear springs and changing the front/rear ride height (rake). How do you know which thing you should change?


Testing.

What is the wheel rate of your car, which I assume has stiffer springs and shocks? More important than the spring rate, since it accounts for any leverage and unsprung weight.

Back to what Ken said. You want to keep the suspension as soft as possible as long as the camber, toe and caster keep the tire in maximum contact.

Since weight transfer is a function of cg and track width, springs are going to slow down or speed up the rate of transfer, not change the total amount.

Of course, you already know all that.

_________________
Brian
Cadero- driving a Cadillac in reverse


Top
 Profile  
 
Unread postPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:07 pm 
Offline
Just Another Driver
Just Another Driver
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:11 pm
Posts: 7518
Location: Kennewick, WA
I've always been told that a softer suspension can generate more grip. That's why the F1 guys always run softer setups on the low grip tracks. But then when you're on a high grip track running a stiffer suspension makes the car easier to drive.

I have no idea what my wheel rate is. I guess I need to research that.

_________________
Mitch Lewis
'06 Mazda MX5 (STR) | http://www.focalpointmarketing.com
Thanks Tri-Cities Battery, Pasco
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Unread postPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:23 am 
Offline
Multi National Champion
Multi National Champion
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:59 pm
Posts: 1769
mitchman wrote:
I've always been told that a softer suspension can generate more grip. That's why the F1 guys always run softer setups on the low grip tracks. But then when you're on a high grip track running a stiffer suspension makes the car easier to drive.

I've heard the same thing from many different sources as well.
I used it as a guide when setting up the Z, it's not as stiff as it could be due to the low grip nature of TCR.

Right now I have it set up with 350lbs/in front and 325 lbs/in rear springs and huge sway bars on both ends. I have the sway bar end links fitted "loosely" to simulate an adjustable bar reducing the effect of both. I chose the spring rates based on the weight bias I measured after first getting the car put together (52/48 f/r). I run as much negative camber as I can get on the front (~3 degrees) and 2.5 degrees in the rear. I set the front caster to ~6 degrees positive which is alot for a Z, stock they have about 2. This helps a ton in tight corners as I gain more negative camber on the outside wheel as I turn in. Front toe is usually 0 but I have tried 1/8" total out and didn't like it, there were unknown issues in play at the time I've since fixed so I might try it again. Ride height is ~4" off the ground at the frame rail under the seats (not sure how this relates to any other car), any lower and I start to get huge negative camber in the rear and lose it on the front. Rake is ~1/2" higher in the rear. When I set this I was surprised at how much difference it made, very noticably loosened the rear of the car.

I experience under steer in high speed sweepers on high grip surfaces and a little over steer on low grip surfaces. Throttle control is a big factor in the Z, for a while I tried to reduce this by increasing rear grip but found the resulting under steer not to my liking. I believe the clutch type LSD I have is a contributing factor in the high speed under steer. When hard in the throttle the LSD locks and tries to make the car move straight ahead inducing the under steer. I can adjust it's break away torque but haven't messed with it yet, have to pull the rear apart so it's a big job.

I've been messing with the suspension setup on the Z for a while now and been surprised at how a small change can have a significant effect. Tire pressures for instance, I run 22lbs front and 20lbs rear, higher pressures and the car gets real nervous feeling, lower and turn in is vague and slow. As mentioned above adjusting rake by 1/4" made a noticable difference (I went from 1/4" higher in the rear to 1/2" higher). "Loosening" the swaybar end links helped with grip on the oval (softer suspension) but made the car wallow a bit (slow transitions at turn in) on the infield surface. The car is balanced fairly well now for TCR, at Deer Park I'll probably tighten the end links to help turn in and maybe drop the rear 1/8" to provide more rear grip.

Not sure this helped anyone as it's very specific to my car but you can get a little bit of an idea what I did and why.

_________________
ZCarGuy (Ken Wheeler)

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!


Top
 Profile  
 
Unread postPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:05 pm 
Offline
Just Another Driver
Just Another Driver
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:11 pm
Posts: 7518
Location: Kennewick, WA
1) So you're actually running sway bar end links that are loose? Like with the retaining nuts not fully tightened? I would think that they would make the car slightly unpredictable due to sway bar going from nonexistent to abruptly coming into play. But if it's working for you, then I say keep doing it. :)

2) Ken, I found the same thing you did about rake. Makes a BIG difference. That's a good example that pertains to my original post. My car is currently balance with the rear 1/4" higher than the front. But I'm not happy with how the car accelerates out of the corners. (not enough forward traction on the rear tires). So I'm wondering if for next season I should try running the rear 1/4" or even 1/2" LOWER than the front and then adjust the springs & sway bars to get the car balanced again.

3) Final thought Ken.... I'm not a big believer in huge sway bars and light springs. A good setup guru friend of mine likes to say "sway bars reduce grip". So he doesn't like using sway bars to control the chassis sway, he likes to use stiffer springs. I tried his logic and went from a huge front sway bar to a much smaller front sway bar and my car got much better and my times improved. Of course I think I'm driving better too so maybe that had more to do with it. Dunno..... lol!

_________________
Mitch Lewis
'06 Mazda MX5 (STR) | http://www.focalpointmarketing.com
Thanks Tri-Cities Battery, Pasco
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Unread postPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:42 pm 
Offline
Multi National Champion
Multi National Champion
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:59 pm
Posts: 1769
mitchman wrote:
1) So you're actually running sway bar end links that are loose? Like with the retaining nuts not fully tightened? I would think that they would make the car slightly unpredictable due to sway bar going from nonexistent to abruptly coming into play. But if it's working for you, then I say keep doing it. :)

Not completely loose just not synched all the way down like the install instructions recommend. There isn't a sharp transition from no bar to big bar, its more of a squish the urethane a little more then full bar effect.

mitchman wrote:
2) Ken, I found the same thing you did about rake. Makes a BIG difference. That's a good example that pertains to my original post. My car is currently balance with the rear 1/4" higher than the front. But I'm not happy with how the car accelerates out of the corners. (not enough forward traction on the rear tires). So I'm wondering if for next season I should try running the rear 1/4" or even 1/2" LOWER than the front and then adjust the springs & sway bars to get the car balanced again.

Running the nose higher will probably result in bad understeer due to weight transfer to the rear. Not sure how it would affect the suspension curves on the front but it just "seems" wrong to me. It would be interesting to try it just to find out how it worked.

mitchman wrote:
3) Final thought Ken.... I'm not a big believer in huge sway bars and light springs. A good setup guru friend of mine likes to say "sway bars reduce grip". So he doesn't like using sway bars to control the chassis sway, he likes to use stiffer springs. I tried his logic and went from a huge front sway bar to a much smaller front sway bar and my car got much better and my times improved. Of course I think I'm driving better too so maybe that had more to do with it. Dunno..... lol!

I've heard the same thing, there are lots of Z guys who don't run rear bars at all but do run front bars larger than the one I'm running now. I tried disconnecting the rear bar but it resulted in understeer which I don't like, I prefer a car thats a little loose in the rear.
If I go much stiffer than ~400lbs/in with the springs the chassis starts to act as the spring. I've installed frame stiffeners but they only do so much.

_________________
ZCarGuy (Ken Wheeler)

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!


Top
 Profile  
 
Unread postPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:17 pm 
Offline
Just Another Driver
Just Another Driver
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:11 pm
Posts: 7518
Location: Kennewick, WA
This is fun. I enjoy talking about suspension and handling.

2) When I suggest running the front lower than the rear, it would only be 1/2 or maybe 3/4" higher. In my opinion, that's insignificant when it comes to the camber curve.....right? The total suspension travel has to be something like 4 inches or more....right? I can't believe that 1/2 to 3/4" will move the suspension into a bad part of the camber curve. But maybe I'm wrong. (I'm open to learning)

3) You say that you disconnected the rear sway bar and it made your car understeer......that's my point. Just because it understeered, don't give up. Maybe the rear now has more grip with no rear sway bar. With a powerful RWD car, you need all the grip you can get. Why not try stiffer rear springs or softer front springs to compensate for removing the rear bar? Or maybe go to a smaller front bar? Or raise the back or lower the front? You may end up with a car that has the same handling balance, but with more grip exiting the corners. (makes the car easier to drive)

This is my point, lots of adjustments affect the balance of the car.....the trick is learning what else they do. I'm still learning for sure....

_________________
Mitch Lewis
'06 Mazda MX5 (STR) | http://www.focalpointmarketing.com
Thanks Tri-Cities Battery, Pasco
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Unread postPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:32 am 
Offline
National Tour Contender
National Tour Contender
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:36 am
Posts: 547
Location: Moses Lake
Quote:
Springs vs Bars
All of the elastic weight transfer must be taken up by the springs and bars - that's where it goes. The overall strength (in terms of roll resistance) of the total of the springs and bars determines the final roll angle of the sprung mass, and the relative strength front to rear determines balance. But the natural frequency of the suspension (which is calculated springs only) determines bump compliance, damping forces, and bump-related grip. If the springs get too stiff, then the wheel loses bump compliance and the car starts skating. So you choose springs to produce the natural frequency that gives you enough bump compliance, (normally not much higher than 2.5Hz for a non-aero car) and if those springs aren't enough to keep the roll angle under control, you have no choice but to go to bars.

If you are in this pickle (as will be most production-based cars: high CG, heavy sprung mass means lots of elastic weight transfer to absorb) you set the front springs for NF, the rear springs slightly stiffer (to keep the car flat as bumps move fore to aft; the rear must react a little faster). Bars you size so the total resistance gives you the roll angle you want but the relative resistance keeps the balance intact. For the typical nose-heavy production car, this means a stiff front bar and a soft rear bar. Done properly, you can dance on understeer/oversteer with small changes to the rear bar (and the rear bar is usually way easier to reach).

Ideally, you want no bars at all - while they don't create any extra weight transfer (the total amount of weight transfer is a function of track, CG height, and roll centre location) they can only add a larger proportion of roll resistance at that end of the car, which means increasing that end's share of the roll resistance, which in turn means "unsticking" that end of the car.

As a general rule, it is better to balance a car by figuring out ways to make the sliding end grip more rather than making the grippy end grip less. If the root cause is weight transfer, you may not have much choice - but the first instinct should not be to reach for the thicker bar.

A formula car can have bars the size of pencils totally as trim devices. For production car, getting the CG low and the sprung mass down can really pay grip dividends IF you remember to make the bars smaller as the car gets lighter.


http://farnorthracing.com/autocross_secrets24.html

This is a great site, and I've relied on his dynamics calculator in making changes to the Fiero. I am trying to rely on the springs to control suspension travel and the bar to tune the fore-aft balance. Right now my spring rate is twice what was considered optimal for the Fiero.



Another advantage(?) to stiffer springs is speeding up the weight transfer. My thinking was since TCR relies on slaloms (quick transitions) rather than sweepers (steady state turns), I want the weight transfer to happen quicker. This may be as much a preference thing, but it seems like it helps me adjust quicker. When the springs were softer it felt like I was needing to turn back for the next cone before the car was settled.

As to wheel rate, because the Fiero's front springs are so far inboard, I'm running 600 lb springs, but the wheel rate is about 200 lbs.

_________________
Brian
Cadero- driving a Cadillac in reverse


Top
 Profile  
 
Unread postPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 6:02 pm 
Offline
Just Another Driver
Just Another Driver
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:11 pm
Posts: 7518
Location: Kennewick, WA
bse53 wrote:
Quote:
Ideally, you want no bars at all - while they don't create any extra weight transfer (the total amount of weight transfer is a function of track, CG height, and roll centre location) they can only add a larger proportion of roll resistance at that end of the car, which means increasing that end's share of the roll resistance, which in turn means "unsticking" that end of the car.


Yeah, that is a great site. But I have to admit, I'm not much of an engineer.... When he started talking about how to determine wheel rate, and all the measurements you had to take, I lost interest. I'm not proud of that, but I know my limits. Maybe this winter I'll get more time to work on that kinda stuff. (yeah right...) :-)

_________________
Mitch Lewis
'06 Mazda MX5 (STR) | http://www.focalpointmarketing.com
Thanks Tri-Cities Battery, Pasco
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Unread postPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:19 pm 
Offline
Multi National Champion
Multi National Champion
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:59 pm
Posts: 1769
mitchman wrote:
2) When I suggest running the front lower than the rear, it would only be 1/2 or maybe 3/4" higher. In my opinion, that's insignificant when it comes to the camber curve.....right? The total suspension travel has to be something like 4 inches or more....right? I can't believe that 1/2 to 3/4" will move the suspension into a bad part of the camber curve. But maybe I'm wrong. (I'm open to learning)

I don't think you'll put the suspension into a "bad" part of the caster or camber curve with a small change like you suggest, it just "feels" wrong to me when I consider it. I think I need to sit down and work through the effects you might see in my head before I can explain my reaction. Heres a quick analysis: Raising the front raises the center of gravity of that end of the car which means it will tend to roll more. I think this would tend to reduce the grip because there is more weight transfer side to side that needs to be controlled. Adding stiffer springs or a bigger bar to control it just makes the problem worse. Weight would also be transfered off the front to the rear increasing the rear grip (the goal of the change) which increases the effect of the higher CG. I'm making some assumptions and haven't thought through the whole thing yet but thats my first reaction to the idea. It also seems to explain why small changes in rake have such a noticable effect on handling.

mitchman wrote:
3) You say that you disconnected the rear sway bar and it made your car understeer......that's my point. Just because it understeered, don't give up. Maybe the rear now has more grip with no rear sway bar. With a powerful RWD car, you need all the grip you can get. Why not try stiffer rear springs or softer front springs to compensate for removing the rear bar? Or maybe go to a smaller front bar? Or raise the back or lower the front? You may end up with a car that has the same handling balance, but with more grip exiting the corners. (makes the car easier to drive)

I didn't really give up on the idea, it was more that I didn't understand why the car acted the way it did after the change. I tried it several years ago and didn't have much experience tweaking the suspension. The effect was much more dramatic than I expected and way more than I was looking for so I went back to a setup I was familiar with and began making smaller changes. I would like to try it again and make other adjustments to see what I can get from a different combination.

mitchman wrote:
This is my point, lots of adjustments affect the balance of the car.....the trick is learning what else they do. I'm still learning for sure....

I'm still learning as well and very much enjoy the process. I find it more challenging than engine tuning. :)

_________________
ZCarGuy (Ken Wheeler)

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!


Top
 Profile  
 
Unread postPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 9:20 am 
Offline
National Tour Contender
National Tour Contender
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:36 am
Posts: 547
Location: Moses Lake
Changing ride height changed the suspension geometry-- specifically the roll center. A small change to the height (1/2") can make a bigger change to the roll center height (probably inches).

Raising the car of course raises the cg, but it also raises the roll center height at a greater rate than the cg rises. The effect is less body roll. Lowering the car also lowers the roll center height and lowering the car can actually cause more roll. The roll center height between the front and rear suspension produces the roll couple.

And small changes to the roll center height can make pretty big changes to how the car feels (at least that's what I've felt). It's conventional wisdom to lower a car to make it handle better, but in the case of the Fiero (and a strut suspension I believe) lowering the car in the rear made for some bad effects (quickly transitioning to oversteer).

I ended up raising the rear so the lower control arms are parallel to the ground. The inboard mounting point had already been raised approx. 1" so bringing them parallel lowers the car 1" from stock.

Calculating the roll center height can only be done after you've modeled the suspension. In my case and I suspect for either the Miata or the Z, someone on one of the car forums has probably already modeled the suspension.

I'm struggling to understand all this, and trying to apply it to the Fiero. What would be nice in the spring would be to have a couple of test and tune days.

_________________
Brian
Cadero- driving a Cadillac in reverse


Top
 Profile  
 
Unread postPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 9:49 am 
Offline
Just Another Driver
Just Another Driver
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:11 pm
Posts: 7518
Location: Kennewick, WA
bse53 wrote:
What would be nice in the spring would be to have a couple of test and tune days.


I agree

_________________
Mitch Lewis
'06 Mazda MX5 (STR) | http://www.focalpointmarketing.com
Thanks Tri-Cities Battery, Pasco
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Unread postPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 8:51 am 
Offline
National Tour Contender
National Tour Contender
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:36 am
Posts: 547
Location: Moses Lake
Here's a problem for some math wiz.

You want less weight transfer (less weight transfer=more grip). Either widen the track or lower CG. Let's assume you put on super wide rims or use a spacer to move the track out, let's say 6" (3" on each side).

You now have more grip. But you have to drive farther. Will the increased grip be faster with the wider line, than less grip with a tighter line?

_________________
Brian
Cadero- driving a Cadillac in reverse


Top
 Profile  
 
Unread postPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 8:59 am 
Offline
Just Another Driver
Just Another Driver
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:11 pm
Posts: 7518
Location: Kennewick, WA
Widening the track softens your suspension due to there being more leverage on the springs.

_________________
Mitch Lewis
'06 Mazda MX5 (STR) | http://www.focalpointmarketing.com
Thanks Tri-Cities Battery, Pasco
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Unread postPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 9:13 am 
Offline
National Tour Contender
National Tour Contender
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:36 am
Posts: 547
Location: Moses Lake
mitchman wrote:
Widening the track softens your suspension due to there being more leverage on the springs.



Good point.

_________________
Brian
Cadero- driving a Cadillac in reverse


Top
 Profile  
 
Unread postPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 9:39 am 
Offline
Regional Trophy Winner
Regional Trophy Winner
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:54 am
Posts: 415
bse53 wrote:
You now have more grip. But you have to drive farther. Will the increased grip be faster with the wider line, than less grip with a tighter line?


So, this same question came up, but in a slightly different way on the SM thread on NASIOC (subaru forum). The question there was whether switching from a narrower tire to a wider tire would be worth it, since even though you add grip you have to take a slightly wider line. Rather than a mathematical answer, one of the best answers that was relevant was just to look at track width of other competitor's cars in the class. In other words-- maybe the fiero already has a narrow enough track (stock) that when compared to the other chassis in your class, you're not making the course any longer (wider lines) with the wider modded track. Therefore, the mod would probably be worth it in that case

_________________
Andy Stach
Desert Eagle Concepts - (Automotive Vinyl Wraps)
Lotus Elise // 2004 STi


Top
 Profile  
 
Unread postPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 9:43 am 
Offline
Multi National Champion
Multi National Champion
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:59 pm
Posts: 1769
mitchman wrote:
Widening the track softens your suspension due to there being more leverage on the springs.

Thats the lever-arm in action. :) Also produces what is called the effective spring rate in combination with the natural spring that is the tire (air pressure, sidewall stiffness, etc..).

I just realized this is in play on the rear of the Z.
I run 1" thick spacers so the rims will clear the strut tube, widening the track by 2" total.
The struts on the Z are setup to produce a very small lever-arm. Now I understand why I have to run a heavier spring in the rear than most Z guys say I should. All of them that have commented (and know what they're talking about) say I should run lighter springs in the rear.
It's amazing how an inocent comment made by someone in a forum like this will trigger an AHA moment. :)
You're right Mitch, this is fun.

_________________
ZCarGuy (Ken Wheeler)

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!


Top
 Profile  
 
Unread postPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 7:40 pm 
Offline
Just Another Driver
Just Another Driver
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:11 pm
Posts: 7518
Location: Kennewick, WA
I love this thread!! (finally!)

In my opinion, a narrower car is more important than widening the car for some handling benifit. Remember, we're trying to weave the car through tightly spaced cones. I've heard of people running in the stock class having custom wheels made just so they can take advantage of the 1/4" allowed back spacing tolerance. After watching the enduro video's I'm starting to think that 1/4" might make a big difference! :)

_________________
Mitch Lewis
'06 Mazda MX5 (STR) | http://www.focalpointmarketing.com
Thanks Tri-Cities Battery, Pasco
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Unread postPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:41 pm 
Offline
Multi National Champion
Multi National Champion

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:47 am
Posts: 1520
Location: Richland, WA
So last winter i bought a bunch of books i never read, one of them was titled "tune to win". You can borrow it if you want. I'm reading some others one first

_________________
Ricky
'07 Mazda MX-5 MS-R Gray


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group