The noise starts after second push down, so it might be related to the rebound. I would try to soften things up and try the same test again. That way you would know if it is related to shock damping or something else altogether...

 

The noise does not change from full soft to full stiff on rebound. It does however become more frequent with stiff compression. I really don't think it's the shock as the shocks works great. My theory is that going stiff on compression simply means the shocks moves less, which makes whatever is loose move more. Ill know more once the top hat parts come in and I can take it apart.

 

curious to follow back up on this - what per se was the reasoning for allowing open ECU, essentially for tuning/increasing boost, but not allowing mechanical hardware via a manual boost controller? viewpoint in the minority b/c people with older cars didn't bother to write letters? or people actively voted for open ECU & yet wanted no mechanical hardware? these $80 manual boost controllers (intake, exhaust, tune, mbc) were one of the first thing evos & other older turbo cars did to increase power - extremely common, cheap, and safe - and immediately kicked you into ASP.

if the reasoning was the former, with people not writing many letters, I think it is still worth consideration based on what is logical and fair here... what is the difference if a focus rs can hit 5 extra psi just via an ECU vs a manual boost controller? I guess I'm not seeing what the reasoning is for one and not the other?

dunno if you caught the above either re: how much power RSs will make with the boost allowance.

another wrench - the last edition Focus RSs will come form the factory with a front quaife LSD. 1000 in the USA. we're looking at a potential STU monster, and now just from a specific subset of cars that are going to have LSD in the front, where the other RSs are not going to be allowed a front LSD upgrade. is the SEB going to exclude this car to be fair to the other RSs? LSD upgrade is another item I've been pushing for years. I've heard things like cost, etc. I think when people argue that they forget all 2WD cars from STH to STU are allowed 1 LSD. I've heard arguments that AWD cars can have 3 LSDs - so what?? maybe when tires were Z1 digi-tyres that made a difference, not today's tires where RWD cars can pretty much pull out of corners as fast as AWD cars, without the disadvantages of weight and complexity.

not to mention the scuffle about the LSD language. sure I was being a little tongue-in-cheek pedantic about it. but right, yea. I'm being called pedantic by a bunch of pedants who pore over rules for Solo for hundreds of pages and they don't feel like addressing the outdated wording of LSDs. ok.

 

FWIW I'm writing two letters here.

one re: the 2018 FoRS. whether it will be banned from STU or allowed to STU or add the 1 diff allowance to ST* for AWD cars finally. ****ing dinosaur of a rule from when extreme summer tires barely had more traction than today's all season tires. this would allow them to not have to exclude the '18 RS for having a quaife front LSD, while allowing the '16-17s to make up for it by adding a quaife to their front.

2nd letter is for further explanation for open ECU vs open boost. their reason for allowing open ECU instead of open boost seems to be because they didn't want boost in the first place, but they have to allow ECU boost control because it's not enforceable. what?

if you guys care not to be blown away by the RS/any other car that can have significant gains from open ECU only, I would highly suggest writing a letter to the STAC. I imagine they haven't gotten many letters, and that's because the bulk of us just aren't writing them. PM me for a sample of what I have written. Even if you're not involved but care for your evo brethren, please write a letter to switch to open boost so we can run our MBCs/EBCSs!

 

Have you driven an AWD car both with and without the quaife? I honestly would probably just take the open front diff over the quaife after both my Talon and Evo had torsen based off-throttle understeer.

 

That was your problem - being off the throttle!!

 

Nearly every course has elements that require off throttle turning, and they don't turn on throttle either. Only sustaining throttle where no decal or accel. Which is very limiting, especially for line corrections.

 

It looks like you are trying to get out of this one??

 

The FoRSs have enough trick setup that that will not be a problem. The same could be said of a 1.5 way clutch type in the rear. There can be some off-throttle turn-in bind but that is mitigated in a number of ways. Tuning the ACD actually completely takes that away.

If you've seen some FoRS videos at autox, you'd see actually they would benefit from a little more front stability/ "understeer". They have no center diff and the rear wheels will do what they do to power through corners.

pretty amazing how they drive actually:


regardless of that, are you arguing that the FoRSs would not benefit from a front LSD vs open? even with 400lbft of torque & suspension in STU coming?

 

I know as fact, a front torsen sucks compared to a front 1 way or open off throttle. Which also has a big impact front tucking in and rear rotating when you need to alter line. I'm not guessing based on reading junk online, I've done it both ways on more than one car.

That said, a torsen is not going to make a FORS with it some sort of overdog. Maybe on par with an STI? And the 350z and corvette are probably the better class car anyways :P

 

whaa? we'll see, we're not in the "open ecu" era yet. we will be soon. they are surprisingly good cars. they will be a force to reckoned with, but perhaps not 350z/vette level as you said.

one thing is for sure, Ford isn't going to let their baby turn into an understeering slob because fans clamored for an LSD up front:

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2...ferential.html

nice of a company to listen to its support base though

 

I think its great. With the Evo gone its nice to see Ford swoop in and keep the class alive.

 

I'm still a little un-loving of the Focus. It does feel really cobbled together with random parts, but I do have hope the aftermarket steps in and does cool things with it beyond bolt-ons like the Evo crowd has. And I'm referring to stuff like diff tuning, real geometry changes, etc.

 

Trying to work a compromise between unenforceable ecu tunes while at the same time respecting the feedback that the membership does not want to see large power increases in ST if possible. manual boost controllers, boost pills, wastegate changes are all easily enforceable.

 

Honestly I wish SCCA would do this more often too. Make the right rules for the class not for a particular car.