Who's using Cup Racer / R3 bits?

[Yiannis197]

Brilliant..

re Geo values, depends on the application but I would keep the rear toe a bit in and not parallel on a road car. But that is just me

 

[TB Rich]

I was thinking something like:

• Front
  • Camber: -2°00’
  • Toe: -0°20’
• Rear
  • Camber: -1°50’
  • Toe-in: 0°0’

But could play it safer:

• Front
  • Camber: -1°50’
  • Toe: -0°15’
• Rear
  • Camber: -1°50’
  • Toe-in: 0°10’

What you running? I mean mine is road yes - but in a fairly loose sense of the word!

 

[jacool]

@jacool Nice one! Huge thanks for the post and the images :thumbup: (Probably the 2nd best post on the forum mate - after my Jackson Popcorn one of course lol!!)

Couple more questions though

• So the Cup Racer subframe is solid not rubber bushed, any other difference physically or will it still work with the original steering rack, ARB and wishbones?
• If I use the lowered track rod ends - would I also need the Cup Racer uprights?
• When I say 'upright' I mean this bit in yellow:

Now I think from everything I have learnt so far I don't want the EE brackets; I'm told you can still run around -3deg camber on normal EE brackets, and as I probably won't be going beyond -2deg they don't help there. Also I won't be going as low as a Cup Racer, so my need to fix the wishbone angle also won't be quite the same.

• So I think EE brackets, longer shafts, shims to reduce lock are all unnecessary for my -2deg and say -40mm height.

I am for sure interested in the solid bushed subframe, subframe link supports, steering rack height shims, track rod ends, and the lower support (but probably use Ultra Racing one).

• Those bits and some Ohlins/Bilstein coilovers and shim the rear to -1.5deg camber and parallel toe.... should work and be a nice setup?

Cheers,

as for the subframe, yes it has solid bushes:
Cup

OEM

It also differs slightly at the front. Road cars have lower radiator support extended all the way back to mate the subframe. Cup cars don't

other than that it will work just fine with OEM ARB, wishbones and steering rack. You can also have the bushes in Your subframe welded like Simoxmino had in his subframe (custom job).
EDIT!!!! one more thing -> cup subframe doesn't have the bracket for lower engine mount (dog bone or whatever You call it) as cup cars have lower mount fitted to SADEV gearbox not the engine. I had mine taken from old subframe and welded to the cup one.

- as for track rod ends - I was told by two different/independent mechanics that the nut can't be screwed all the way in and I should enlarge a hole in the yellow part you've highlighted but It seems weird for me that Renault have changed that part on purpose so I guess sth was messed up at the installation (I suppose additional bracket that holds ABS sensor in place from road car was installed and causes the problem but like I said have to see it first to confirm)


I'm not sure if, with Your target ride height, You'll need EE bracket or not. You'll have to go under the car and check if Your outside wishbone sits horizontal with the wheels turned. If not than You'll probably fine, You probably won't need bump steer kit as well cause tie rods should move parallel to the wishbone and they do from the factory. If You change geometry of one thing (wishbone), You should change the other as well. If not, leave it as it was I think.


On the side note, EE bracket apart from negative static and dynamic camber gives You wider stance at the front. I've read that handling of the car and front grip is immense after installing them. Totally transforms the car, so may be worth doing anyway.

 

[TB Rich]

hmmmm, much to decide then. Subframe is probably best to weld the original then like Simo did, because with no torque link mounting and different rad support setup it will likely be more hassle than it's worth using a Cup one.

Exactly the purpose of this thread though - to thrash out all the knock on effects of what else you need from changing bits.
Starting to think that it all needs doing or not at all though. As I thought there are quite a lot of interdependencies and I don't think anything really stands out as being super easy and no drawbacks.

I suppose just do suspension, bushes, top mounts and geo really - I don't think even worth dropping the sub frame specifically to put the shims in is worth it on it's own - not when I'm paying for the job to be done that is.

Appreciate all the help though mate, best info I've come across by far.

 

[TB Rich]

Also I recall that my R3 manifold is very close to a number of parts (certainly close to the ARB), there's a chance maybe the Cup Racer subframe will end up relocating something to the point it makes contact.... so perhaps I'd need the R3 Maxi subframe which is different again!

Yet more unknowns and I can't believe Renault make 4 subframes all just slightly different (Road, Cup Racer, R3 Access, R3 Maxi)

 

[jacool]

I suppose just do suspension, bushes, top mounts and geo really - I don't think even worth dropping the sub frame specifically to put the shims in is worth it on it's own - not when I'm paying for the job to be done that is.

Appreciate all the help though mate, best info I've come across by far.

My car was briliant after AST 5100, top mounts, poly bushes everywhere and geometry (also using shims at the rear) from that point should have bought cup racer instead of going deeper into mods. As for rack shims - definetely not worth doing alone considering the amount of job involved.

and no problem mate, that's what the forum is for.

 

[TB Rich]

should have bought cup racer instead of going deeper into mods.

Haha yes I can relate to that! :lol2: Re: my engine I should have bought a 230 or 250 Maxi!! Ah well like you say it'll still be very effective on quality suspension and geo even without Cup Racer bits.

Actually regarding the geo/bushes. Now I will definitely be running solid adjustable top mounts so that means I can set the camber spot on and hopefully get a bit more extra caster too...
So, I would therefore think for the front wishbone bushes I should use the normal Powerflex black series and not the eccentric one for more camber - it's more accurate and easier to adjust on the top mounts.
Moving to the rear eccentric wishbone bush, whilst I don't want it for caster it does apparently have some anti dive and anti squat built into it. So it might be a good idea to just use the eccentric rear one?

However I am thinking I could use the rear eccentric rubber part which is the anti squat/dive, and use a normal centred steel insert in it from the none adjustable bush - looks like it would fit and give me the best of all worlds I think

Use the rubber from this:


but with the insert from this:




and the fixed fronts for completeness too:



All this talk of dive and squat has got me thinking about traction, I might start with only -1.5deg camber on the front as the car has a fair bit more shove over standard and isn't shy of a wheel spin or 2 as it is!!

Cheers

 

[jacool]

I just used normal, non-adjustable bushes. I have little confidence in moving parts in that respect that can ruin my geometry if something goes wrong so wanted it as simple as it could be without going very expensive with uniballs, which I'll probably install at some point anyway. Different story is I didn't even realize that eccentric bushes have some anti squat/dive functionality.

 

[TB Rich]

I just used normal, non-adjustable bushes. I have little confidence in moving parts in that respect that can ruin my geometry if something goes wrong so wanted it as simple as it could be without going very expensive with uniballs, which I'll probably install at some point anyway. Different story is I didn't even realize that eccentric bushes have some anti squat/dive functionality.

Yes exactly - I do not like the idea of geo changes via a moving bush under stress.
But I think with the concentric insert inside the taller anti squat/drive bushing then we can gain the static height advantages of that bush and also keep it with static non-moveable caster

I think I'll try it and report back - hopefully I won't need to buy both bushes and can find a supplier able to mix the kits for me from Powerflex.

You using black series or road/purple? I was going to go black - I don't really care about NHV as I've got the full set of Vibra engine mounts etc anyway.

 

[jacool]

black series all around, with rear beam bushes. Great responsiveness and feel of what's going on with the car and as for NVH I noticed it coming from engine/gearbox mounts (but I couldn't care less) rather than suspension so great mod after all. Only downside, from a road car point of view, is that there's no lifetime warranty on it, but they're cheap so not really an issue.

 

[Russell]

has anyone got a contact to buy cup racer parts now that renault wimbledon have shut up shop?

 

[TB Rich]

R Sport motorsport are still going for Cup Racer and R3 bits - got my R3 injectors through them, think the guy is John.
"r_sport_uk@hotmail.com or call 07990 520 010"

Also you can get stuff through Monster Sport.

 

[Russell]

spot on cheers mate.

 

[TB Rich]

[MENTION=4111]jacool[/MENTION] Hi, I don't suppose you have pictures up close of the Cup Racer EE brackets?

The details I have for the Cup Racer say the front track width is 1528mm and I have also read 1538mm too (I think the difference in the numbers depends on in the 5mm spacers are being used).
And the details for the standard car say 1520mm.

So this means the EE brackets are accounting for only 4mm a side wider..? I was therefore wondering why the shafts needed to be 38mm longer?

Cheers

 

[jacool]

@jacool Hi, I don't suppose you have pictures up close of the Cup Racer EE brackets?

The details I have for the Cup Racer say the front track width is 1528mm and I have also read 1538mm too (I think the difference in the numbers depends on in the 5mm spacers are being used).
And the details for the standard car say 1520mm.

So this means the EE brackets are accounting for only 4mm a side wider..? I was therefore wondering why the shafts needed to be 38mm longer?

Cheers

OEM bracket

Cup Racer bracket

Look at the wishbone's mounting point - there's more than 4mm offset for sure. 38mm per side were measured on full lock to take into account difference in dynamic camber (like on the photos).
As for front track width difference, I've seen those figures myself and frankly don't believe them - stock car has 7,5'' wheels vs. Cup 8'' that's more than 12mm overall wider track plus 10mm from spacers, not to mention EE brackets alone.

 

[TB Rich]

I think Renault will use a centre line to centre line measurement, so the wheel width won't make a difference to track. But yep that was my point, the EE brackets must be more than 4mm!!!

Wishbone mounts won't change in offset though, as they have to operate in a fixed arc because the length of the wishbone remains the same. However the the hub ball joint will be pushed out further to increase both the track and static camber. I am hoping to see an image of the EE bracket from a few angles to work out is the track really is more or not? Google has nothing though.

Basically I am thinking it would be a good idea to build a modified EE bracket for road based cars to correct the roll centre but retain OEM shafts etc - I've got a couple of ideas. A 6061 or 7075 billet EE bracket is one idea, another is to weld and extension to the lower section. It is just so bloody annoying that the wishbone ball joint is horizontal and not vertical

 

[jacool]

I think Renault will use a centre line to centre line measurement, so the wheel width won't make a difference to track. But yep that was my point, the EE brackets must be more than 4mm!!!

I thought track was measured from center of one wheel to center of the second wheel, in which case wheel width would be a factor, if it's measured between hubs than You're right.

Wishbone mounts won't change in offset though, as they have to operate in a fixed arc because the length of the wishbone remains the same.

Not sure what You mean

I am hoping to see an image of the EE bracket from a few angles to work out is the track really is more or not? Google has nothing though.

Basically I am thinking it would be a good idea to build a modified EE bracket for road based cars to correct the roll centre but retain OEM shafts etc - I've got a couple of ideas. A 6061 or 7075 billet EE bracket is one idea, another is to weld and extension to the lower section. It is just so bloody annoying that the wishbone ball joint is horizontal and not vertical

That's all I've got:

 

[TB Rich]

I thought track was measured from center of one wheel to center of the second wheel, in which case wheel width would be a factor, if it's measured between hubs than You're right.

Yes but wheel width makes no difference to the track if the offset is the same though. The Cup Racer wheels iirc are still et68 so you get 0.25" either side of the centre line.

Not sure what You mean

I mean that the wishbone is the same length and on a fixed point on the chassis - so it can only move in an arc and therefore not increase track width.
Like this, the lower wishbone balljoint hole on the Cup Racer EE bracket is lower, but also closer - otherwise you'd need a longer wishbone.


The track width increase instead must come from the lower balljoint position being further out (and keeping the top on the upright the same of course gives the static camber increase).
The Cup Racer being the imaginary 'red' width, and it is the difference (yellow) I would like to know!!

That's all I've got:

Cheers :thumbup1:

 

[jacool]

Yes but wheel width makes no difference to the track if the offset is the same though. The Cup Racer wheels iirc are still et68 so you get 0.25" either side of the centre line.


I mean that the wishbone is the same length and on a fixed point on the chassis - so it can only move in an arc and therefore not increase track width.
Like this, the lower wishbone balljoint hole on the Cup Racer EE bracket is lower, but also closer - otherwise you'd need a longer wishbone.


The track width increase instead must come from the lower balljoint position being further out (and keeping the top on the upright the same of course gives the static camber increase).
The Cup Racer being the imaginary 'red' width, and it is the difference (yellow) I would like to know!!





Cheers :thumbup1:

as for wheel width, You're right, I misunderstood the concept of wheel offset.
As for track width increase, for simplicity MacPherson strut has two mounting points, upper is set by top mount position, lower is set by wishbone to EE bracket mounting point. Taking into account that the wishbone length is fixed, if You move lower mounting point closer to the subframe then the strut have to be pushed further out and at a higher angle (hence the camber increase). It may be the case that the new lower mounting point lies exactly on the line defined by the OEM setup wishbone arc radius not affecting the track width, but what if it lies even closer to the subframe? You may be right, but you also may be wrong.
I have stock brackets somewhere in my garage and last weekend I had my car initially mapped on the road (still loads of things to solve, like no power steering), should have it tweaked on the dyno in a week or so and when I finally take it home and find some time to go underneath, I could take some measurements to find out where the track increase comes from.

 

[TB Rich]

as for wheel width, You're right, I misunderstood the concept of wheel offset.
As for track width increase, for simplicity MacPherson strut has two mounting points, upper is set by top mount position, lower is set by wishbone to EE bracket mounting point. Taking into account that the wishbone length is fixed, if You move lower mounting point closer to the subframe then the strut have to be pushed further out and at a higher angle (hence the camber increase). It may be the case that the new lower mounting point lies exactly on the line defined by the OEM setup wishbone arc radius not affecting the track width, but what if it lies even closer to the subframe? You may be right, but you also may be wrong.
I have stock brackets somewhere in my garage and last weekend I had my car initially mapped on the road (still loads of things to solve, like no power steering), should have it tweaked on the dyno in a week or so and when I finally take it home and find some time to go underneath, I could take some measurements to find out where the track increase comes from.

Ah but this isn't a basic MacP setup, it has a steering knuckle so the kingpin inclination axis doesn't run through the top mount and wishbone bottom balljoint.

This is Ford 'revo' but exactly the same concept as Renault (and also Vauxhall HiPer):


You can still of course use top mounts on the main strut to gain camber, but the lower balljoint can ONLY increase camber if you lengthen it. Without lengthening it then it operates always on the same radius/arc. There is no 'maybe operating on the same' line.... if the subframe wishbone mount is in the same position, then with a wishbone of a fixed length it simply can not operate off the raidus line. Think of the wishbone subframe mount as fixed to the centre of a circle, and the EE balljoint will always stay a fixed amount away from the centre point no matter how it is rotated

I'm told you can't get more than about -3deg on the top mounts alone, and hence why the Cup Racer must have a longer secondary bearing position (EE bracket) to push the hub out and achieve around -4.5deg, and also this movement at this position will give a track width increase .

If you can try and measure the 'red' and 'green' distances on the previous image so we can work out the 'yellow' - that would be awesome :thumbup: