Goldie

[Thor]

Now that my health is back to a reasonable level, today I have started work on Goldie, the test car for the BC struts & springs.
I have lifted the head in preparation for fitting onto its 1335 EN4, an EB1 [1169] head with casting mark 'S' fitted with an EN4 camshaft, distributor, exhaust and ancillaries.
This combination in Mike's car gave us a standing quarter of 15.97 @ 88.3 mph, so I look forward to seeing if I can beat that time.
Has anyone else beaten it?
The reason why I like drag racing as an engine test-bed is because it cannot be bull-sshitted, unlike dynos or circuits, it is pure engine performance and a great leveller.
The next stage will to be check out my chassis theories, these go where others do not consider, and will be discussed as I do them, if anyone is interested.
All of this is done within the premise of not spending money, as I have none, now being a pensioner.
Once I have optimized the geometry for general road use, I will check it out for sprinting/hill-climbing.
So, fun is to be had.
Hoping my body keeps up with my ambitions.
Glad to be back,
Pete
ps , those who wish to play with suspension, I've found this site useful

https://www.racingaspirations.com

Many thanks to Don for his advice over the years.
All the best
Pete

Then, Phoenix is to be resurrected for the 8th time. Talk about Grandfather's Ax!

There are many shots of this car around in various posts, and on the old garage area, however, just to placate
the requests, here goes

image.png (237.45 KiB) Viewed 1642 times

[Thor]

And one more showing its uniquely colored graphics, specially commissioned for me by slim [tvi racing].
It is planned to get my 6'' alloys back off my son which will match the color scheme just so, imho.
A shot of Phoenix on my alloys, just returning after its 15.97 sec run.

[Thor]

I don't know about everyone else reading this thread, but I got bored writing it.
I have worked/played with the Civic since 1973 and have usually had one in the garage since, continually thinking /developing with one parameter always in mind - money.
The car is finished, on the road and better than my expectations.
I am using it daily and find the suspension just right.
Now, as some of you may be aware, the BC Racing development was done by a team of us over here in the UK and I have refrained from commenting on the various settings and adjustments until now.
As the development engineer, I had several, sometimes conflicting, parameters with which to cope and evaluate, and when help was requested, the apathy was phenomenal.
As a consequence, the whole project was delayed whilst overall decisions could be made, and the parts bought.
I bought the very first set and had them fitted to Goldie.
These were built to my specification which drives superbly, but I know why.
They were designed to replace the standard suspension a standard car, the only amendment to spec was that the car was to be tested on radial tires of the same rolling size and width as the original cross-plies.
I stipulated to BC that various spring rates were required and was assured that these were available, but also ordered some stiffer than I felt prudent. They reneged on the 2kg option, saying we would not need them, I disagreed at the time, feeling that boulevardier cruisers, used to floaty suspension would whinge [you have, sorry, I tried on your behalf].
Incidentally the spring specs are standard race-industry and any Formula Ford or other single-seater spring will fit and they can be bought quite cheaply [certainly over here]
Lower profile / wider tires bought for fashion [they are not needed, trust me] have less sidewall compliancy and thus are more harsh in reaction, which is why people wish to have a softer spring. Their choice.
The tyre sidewall in the 70s was a primary part of the suspension's absorbance of road shocks, not so since the computer revolution.
We are dealing with a 1960's technology car desined for cross-ply tires, radials were not a popular fitment on production cars. Ford were still fitting cross-ply tires on the Ford Escort 2 over here in 1978, also the base model Cortina.
By all means, modify how you wish, but remember the starting point.
We all wish the ultimate and fit fatter/ lower tires on bigger rims [I have done it on my car , 6'' alloys with 185/60 or 185/70 tires], but can tell you this, the best combination is what I am currently running, which is 5'' Accord I rims with 165/70 tires.
Why?
They are suited to the weight of the car. Your super-dooper ex Golf [etc] tires are designed to fight a near 2-tonne car, ours weigh 650kg [or thereabouts],which is a third . Originally, wider wheels were fitted to increase the track to improve cornering, manufacturers have since pushed the wheels out for this reason [and fashion].

Basic grip does not come from the width of the rubber [nylon, etc] but from the ground pressure through the tyre's footprint, this can be too low, allowing slip because the footprint is larger than is necessary, reducing the actual weight /area unit. [e.g. lb/sq.in].
Also, as a function of this friction factor is heat, wide tires do not warm up as quickly as a narrower one.
Back to the topic car, Goldie.
Out of the box, on the strip with a 20+ mph direct head-on headwind, fully trimmed and with a road exhaust, she ran a 17.1. Why so pleased? its 60foot was 2.4, one of our best ever with Mike's car which had variously tried
175/70x13 road tires, 22.00/7.0 x 13 slicks, 20.00/6.00x13 slicks, 185/70 and 185/60 on 6'' rims, but standard ride height .
Why is this last so important?
Because as the car launches, the camber goes even more positive than when stationary, causing the car to put its power through the outer edge of the tyre, hence the snatch or snake felt on a tuned engine with big wheels.
Now, as said earlier, footprint............
By lowering the car it is possible to stay in a negative camber situation, where the contact point covers the full width of the tyre, not just the outer edge, thus reducing wheelspin, improving straight-line stability, etc.
There is more, but I suspect that the vast majority of suspension kits have been bought as an easy way to get the car lower, in which case the stiffer 3kg rear springs save ripping out the floor pan and lash-point.
Want it low?
How low?
We actually sat Goldie on its floor-pan on the garage ramps, you can't get much lower! Oh, the tyre was jammed on the top of the inner arch.
Another point.
The top mount plate.
I believe that they are supplied with tee-bolts to suit the various top mount p.c.d's [mine were not, but they were prototypes]. That idea was mine, but typically no credit from the manufacturer [typical].
My car is set at around 6'' under the sills, the steering is delectably light, weighting up considerably, but not over the top as the lock is wound on.
It is rock-steady, goes where I point it and does not show any signs of under-steer, being absolutely neutral, the best car that I have driven in many years.
I am running 5kg front, 3kg rear, its ride-compliancy being better than standard.
It is not designed for cruising or looking pretty, happy for you if that is your thing.
One of the finest handling cars [not ultimate grip, a different matter]is still the series 3 Lotus Elan, an associate's gets under my feet cross-country, that is good enough for me.
This year, I am to have both knees changed, so my debut on track or hill is going to be delayed, sadly.
But it will happen. I will report back, warts and all.
Most importantly, enjoy what you have, we won't have it forever.