Group Buy Variable Manual Rack - Feel a little F1 tech in your hands

[liftnot]

We have discussed this at length with MVO and generated various versions of ratios/graphs to reach the final proposed profile. We weighted heavily on their advise and don't think its wise to turn this thread into deeper analysis as it will go on forever as who is more right and not able to move forward & get'er done. While it is true on paper math to drill holes(w/ no drawing to locate the holes makes us very nervous) in the knuckle to have more favorable arm length but the precision work needs to carry out is beyond reach of most(except Ti-dave) not to mention it might weaken the integrity of the stress level it was originally design for even though its strong forged alum the upright/knuckle takes a ton of repeated beating while in motion....who is responsible if tiny stress crack finds its way to total destruction going thru a turn flat out and that is not being responsible even if the new hole is not in the load path IMO no matter what the cost is. It can be a quick, much lower cost fix but with no drawings and FEA, do at your own risk.

An offset bushing on the existing hole is about as brave as we would go even that a FEA would be nice to have.

PM question answered below:
1) If enough people support this effort, would there be a special GB price for us?

The short answer is yes. Its like crowdfunding, its only fair for the early adopters for helping fund this project get a special price. We have the list for Phase 1 and we hope they will continue. Majority contributed $25 to help us complete Phase 1, thank you. The difference of this crowdfunding is we do have the best source willing to help us to make this part and they will deliver unlike some vendors in the past doing the disappearing act. If we have enough interests, this project will carry on and the final product will be "more affordable" for the early adopters.

The goal for P2F is not making money but rather bring a needed upgrade to those who see it and willing to help financially thus making it as affordable as we can. We do like to recuperate the R&D money in Phase 1 and we hope that will happen.

The $25 for Phase 1 donation is really small and that phase is complete. we are not asking any money for Phase 2 yet but to get more traction so Phase 2 can happen. We are not hiding anything but being as transparent as we can since this is a "group" effort not just P2F. The only drawback of this project is the stack up(tolerances) of all the components involved because we are measuring an existing/used oem steering rack instead of looking at an engineering drawing with proper dimensioning and designed tolerances. This prompted us to go with a complete new rack instead to eliminate all the possible problem areas. This will also make the part more expensive because a new housing needs to be designed but it is the only way to do it right.

 

[stuntman]

I think I should clarify and say that I do not recommend drilling holes in the cast knuckle. It was a bit of a brash statement to drive the point of the concept of steering response not solely being attributed to the rack ratio since you need to consider the geometry of the knuckle.

A far better and safer thing to do would be to make a billet knuckle with a shorter steering arm to quicken the steering response without touching the rack ratio. But if you do that, you might as well fix some of the NSX's roll center geometry problems when lowering the car and improve it to get some camber-gain out of it.


I had P2F's proposed VR rack curve analyzed to correspond with the below steering angles witnessed at Buttonwillow Race way, to see what the realistic reduction of steering angle would be on track.

OEM Rack steering input -> P2F Rack steering input

45* -> 44*
90* -> 88* -virtually no steering reduction or weight increase
135* -> 127*
180* -> 163* -17* less steering angle needed but ~33% more steering effort required.
225* -> 197*

The most you are going to turn the wheel on a typical racetrack is 180*. With the P2F VR rack, that is reduced by 17* and will require 33% more steering effort. As you turn the wheel further, the steering reduction is increased at the expense of increasing steering effort. On right switch-backs or autocross, the steering reduction will be a nice improvement, but keep in mind it will be at the expense of more resistance to turn the wheel, which may not be a good thing for some people.

I must admit that I too felt like the NSX's steering was subjectively slower than many other cars. I decided to look at the in-car videos of various cars around Buttonwillow raceway and compare their steering inputs to a few different NSXs of varying degrees of build. I took a screenshot of each car in two different corners at the point of their maximum steering angle.

The cars I looked at were:

-NSX - Mild build: My personal car: 235/40-17, 275/35-18 NT05 street tires, KW V3 coilovers, and NSX-R rear wing
-NSX - Extreme build: FXMD's record holding Time Attack car: 305/35-18 345/35-18 racing slicks, KW 3-way motorsport dampers, MASSIVE aero
-NSX - Moderate build: BellWilliam's car: 235/40-17, 275/35-18 NT01 R-comps, coilovers, big splitter and wing
-2015 Mustang GT - Mild Build

-S2000 - Mild Build: Stock Aero: 255/40-17 Dunlop ZII StarSpec, HKS Hipermax IV SP coilovers
-S2000 - Extreme Build: Evasive's record-setting Time Attack car: 275 street tires? and massive aero
-Lotus Elise - Moderate Build: Manly's record-setting Time Attack car with massive aero
-Lotus Exige - Mild Build: Relatively stock with Hankook Ventus Z214 tires



Turn 2 "Buttonhook" is one of the slowest (<50mph) corners that you'll find on any racetrack. It requires a lot of steering input at low speeds and while trailbraking can reduce understeer, the corner as an up-hill right at the apex that causes almost any car to understeer at the apex. This is a great corner to determine how much steering lock is needed in a technical and quirky haripin.

-All of the NSX's required ~180-degrees of steering input at the apex of this hairpin.
-The 2015 Mustang GT also required ~180-degrees of steering input.

-Both S2000s required ~160-degrees of steering input, slightly less than the NSX -by 20 degrees
-Manly's yellow Elise required the same ~180-degrees of steering input as the NSXs.
-The Exige required ~150-degrees of steering input, about 30 degrees less than the NSX. Keep in mind he was turning 2:03s, which was much slower than the rest of the cars in this group other than the Mustang doing 2:06s.

Turn 4 "Grapevine" is a pretty standard corner with very little camber/banking. I chose this corner because it does not require much braking or lifting of the throttle, so the balance and steering inputs aren't affected as much by differences in driving styles and trail-braking, and singles out the setup and balance of the car and the steering inputs needed.

-My NSX required ~95-degrees of steering input
-The FXMD NSX required ~100-degrees of steering input
-William's NSX required ~80-degrees of steering input - quite a bit less than the other NSXs.
-The 2015 Mustang GT also required ~80-degrees of steering input.

-The stock S2000 required ~75-degrees of steering input and was quite loose and oversteering through this corner
-The Evasive S2000 required ~80-degrees of steering input
-Manly's yellow Elise required ~85-degrees of steering input
-The Exige required ~55-degrees of steering input, about 40 degrees less than the NSX. Keep in mind he was turning 2:03s, which was much slower than the rest of the cars in this group other than the Mustang doing 2:06s.

I will let everyone draw their own conclusions on the difference of required steering input between the NSX and a cars like the S2000 and Elise/Exige which are considered to have very quick and responsive steering. The Elise/Exige are the only cars without power steering (like the NSX) but they also have much smaller wheels and tires, and the car is about 1,000lbs less than an NSX.

Keep in mind that the driver's inputs and setup/balance of the car does affect how much steering input that is needed. Which is why I took samples of moderate to extreme car builds, as well as varying levels of driver ability. Overall, I think the required inputs between all of these cars are very similar.


0.02

 

[Ponyboy]

As an additional reference point, I spoke to a local track hero (a guy that drives a new(ish) mustang that that's actually very talented) and he mentioned that he gets a lot of this race parts from the World Challenge ranks. He also mentioned that he runs a variable rack and that it's tough to drive at low speeds but is "Heaven on earth" at speed. Our NSXs don't have all that weight up front so I'm thinking that the MVO rack won't have to deal with that. The part that I liked best was when he said that he "can't imagine going back to a OE steering rack."

 

[stuntman]

How's it tough to drive at low speeds? I'd imagine it has power steering...?

MVO/P2Fs proposed rack shouldn't differ in effort from stock up to 90* of steering angle. I think it would be great on power steering equipped cars, heck, I would start the variable part of the rack even sooner -assuming the EPS can take the added torque/resistance. However I'm not sure about the ~33% increase in steering effort at 180* of steering angle for non power assisted cars, especially when catching oversteer slides which already requires a lot of strength from the driver. I would love to try it though.

 

[Jinks]

Leave it to [MENTION=16531]stuntman[/MENTION] to come and drop bombs... For any new owners here, when he talks, listen....

 

[stuntman]

After thinking about this for a few more days, is it possible for MVO to change the VR ratio to start closer to zero, but have a less aggressive and closer to stock ratio?

I like how the steering input at 180* will be reduced to 163*, and I think this should be maintained. However, I feel the steering effort increase may be less desirable at steering angles above that (which is not good for catching slides), and there really won't be a noticeable or big enough difference (steering reduction wise) at 90* of steering input, since the proposed rack only drops that down to 88*.

Right now the steering reduction from the MVO/P2F ratio will be:

15* -> 15*
30* -> 30*
45* -> 44*
90* -> 88* -virtually no steering reduction or weight increase
135* -> 127*
180* -> 163* -17* less steering angle needed but ~33% more steering effort required.
225* -> 197*


My idea (USING ARBITRARY NUMBERS -to get the point across):

15* -> 14* - start it earlier, which will actually feel like a difference, without adding much steering effort
30* -> 28*
45* -> 41*
90* -> 84* -Most corners require <90* of steering input, this will be a bigger change than the MVO proposed rack, to feel a benefit, still with minimal steering effort increase
135* -> 127* -This should be closer to the proposed rack
180* -> 163* -17* less steering angle needed but ~33% more steering effort required - SAME as the proposed rack.
225* -> 200* -and above: LESS than the proposed rack to reduce steering effort needed. This will also reduces the benefit of a quicker rack but you rarely use this much steering when driving. *While the steering effort will still be more than stock, it will be less than the MVO proposed rack, which is important when catching oversteer slides.


...just an idea.

 

[liftnot]

MVO gave us a few graphs to consider and after our discussion, we concluded the proposed curve is the best fit for our application. Personally I prefer the slope starts earlier but others may not want that. Its tough to find a happy median and we know this version VR rack will be an improvement over the fixed 20:1. We have not gone off course too many time or remembered the ~33% increase equates to a huge effort to wrestle the car back on track. A baseline number is needed and we think that number is probably low. Case like this is difficult to quantify. Any changes to the oem design, we'll embrace the positives and adapt the negatives like the Mustang dude. In this case, we think there is more positives than negatives. After we read the short RE article, we thought won't it be great someday we can have a VR rack for the NSX? Well, some day.

We have requested MVO to provide a quote for qty of 100, 200, 300 so we know the price range but have yet heard from them(maybe they are at PRI in Indy). We think its an indication to them that we are not as serious as we think or for some other unknown reasons for the low interests.

Thank God for NSX-SA knock bushing to help to make the oem rack last longer. As for now, from thread #251-281 , we have only 10 people interested in Phase 2 so all this is moot. Perhaps some day all resources are exhausted for a new or rebuild rack, we'll revisit this again.

Finally, I want to personally thank those who contributed financially and trusted us enough to begin this project and helped us to completed Phase 1 plus all the feedback and the folks who signed up for Phase 2 showing their vote of confidence in P2F. Should someday the oem rack wears out, we can still continue to Phase 2. In the mean time, if MVO responds, we will post more info here.

 

[TURBO2GO]

Wow so this project is dead?

 

[liftnot]

Wow so this project is dead?

Well Dave, what choice do we have? any advise?

A quicker rack got a lot of attention back in '07 from 710 but that was before the new VR technology even existed. After the '08 short RE article, we wished someday we can experience this on our NSX instead of the 20:1 oem and took a while to make the important connection at MVO. 60+ Primers signed up so we thought we "might" have enough momentum to get'er done.

Thx to Greenberet of the long RE article for more precise description of the VR tech., but only 10 people signed up for Phase 2 and we got accused of making stuff only for our own interests even though the complete plan was very transparent from the beginning.

We are not sure where we'd gone wrong as we would liked to help the RHD folks as well but with all the feedback and expert comments resulted in very little sign up with this project with the best Tier-1 vendor in the business. The alternative is not good as this part is discontinued and we have no interests to make any replacement parts for the oem rack as it will not be an upgrade @20:1. The most common answer is lack of money as it won't be a cheap par.t To us, price and value are not the same thing for this iconic car but that sentiment is not shared by many.

Anyways, Merry X'mas. We are going to have a price drawing of $25 ea. for 8 folks who supported us through our 2nd year in business and we'll announce that after X'mas including the 60+ in Phase 1 who contributed $ to the Phase 1 effort.

 

[Jinks]

Here is an idea. Make a carb legal turbo kit for the nsx and be done. You would sell them like hot cakes. Why carb legal if you do not live in California? It is only a matter of time before stand alone ecu's are banned. Not too soon since Trump but it still circles back to that eventually. Then you can take on more ambitious projects such as improved steering racks.:biggrin:

 

[Ponyboy]

We are not sure where we'd gone wrong as we would liked to help the RHD folks as well but with all the feedback and "expert" comments resulted in very little sign up with this project with the best Tier-1 vendor in the business.

I hope he doesn't cast negative perceptions on the EMI project though I see he's added his recommendation to make it like every other offered suspension.

Sucks. This was to evolve into a necessary and improved part.

 

[Stephen@NCAutoUSA]

I didn't even realize you could sign up for phase 2 yet.

 

[stuntman]

I hope he doesn't cast negative perceptions on the EMI project though I see he's added his recommendation to make it like every other offered suspension.

Sucks. This was to evolve into a necessary and improved part.

Not really. I guess you misunderstood the post.

 

[liftnot]

Here is an idea. Make a carb legal turbo kit for the nsx and be done. You would sell them like hot cakes.

Its not a bad idea if it was 1991. The turbo set up we like is the Prospeed, too bad he had fabricator issues. CARB anything in CA, by the time its passed, we will be in room temp not able to enjoy the fruits of our labor. Besides, we want duel electronic waste gates and the programming is quite challenging and the 90* layout is not friendly for packaging. The only FI we are interested in is the Rotrex. Compact, newer tech, w/ Mezzo intercooler and a MOTEC. It will be a killer packing but the alum block will need to be sleeved and that is an after thought that we are not comfortable esp. with high boost. We believe the best part owning the NSX is the chassis and what it can do for handling. Thus, our product are for folks who understands what we do as its more focus towards maximize the chassis and make the car more efficient thru lighter weight and paying attention to detail. More hp is good for straight-line.

I hope he doesn't cast negative perceptions on the EMI project though I see he's added his recommendation to make it like every other offered suspension.

Sucks. This was to evolve into a necessary and improved part.

^100X. A real upgrade, not a mod. We were ready to man-up like your Mustang buddy. We are glad a few see it that way. The was our overall intention but something got skewed along the way that we are doing this only for our own good. Let's hope the oem rack will never wear out cuz Mother Honda knows best. Or....someone will come up with a redneck solution that keep everybody happy with a low price. We heard Rock Auto can rebuild it for $400. Well, that would be fine for other sporty cars but not our NSX.

On EMI, we were also being cast as taking advantage of EMI's good nature, w/o knowing the detail agreement made.but thats ok, everybody is different. PrimeRacing.com of Andrie Hartonto is another good source for those who appreciates and like to feel what a quality valved shocks can do.
BTW, for the doubters, we are not making any penny from either vendor above.

 

[stuntman]

I think you need to go back and reread posts #228 & 229.

To quote you:

This rack will be made for quicker response and performance so if your car is heavy, it may not be for you as our car is at no-worry 2500lb.

My next question:

Are you building and optimizing this rack for your super-light 2,500lb car? How many people who paid to help fund this development have cars that light and are happy with quotes like this:

Your reply:

Yes on the 2.5k lbs and No on the other.



You then back pedaled a bit and edited your response, which contradicted your initial "this is designed for a light weight car, so if yours is heavy (stock weight) it may not be for you".


I think that selfish attitude or poor understanding of exactly what you're doing on your part was probably the reason for a loss of interest.

You keep posting as if I'm trying to undermine this project, when in reality I'm a potential customer and am trying to understand and analyze the product you are trying to create. I own an NSX, am fortunate to do this kind of development for a living with some of the best people in the industry, and I want the steering response improved without increasing the steering effort to an unnecessary and unmanageable degree, just to meet an arbitrary target of a certain steering ratio.

You criticize the stock NSX's steering often to try to sell people on a product and I don't buy the majority of your reasoning. Do you really think the engineers at Honda were idiots? They did a great job with the steering. VR is a new technology and implementing it correctly takes a careful understanding without blowing tons of money on prototypes that don't work.

There was also a big mistake on the VR curve being backwards, but you didn't catch that either.

How many people at MVO own or have driven an NSX? Why did you choose to start the VR curve at 30_degrees? I arbitrarily mentioned that number as an example without going into analyzing the curve further. After you proposed the curve, I analyzed it for the benefit of all of the readers and proposed a modification that would result in a bigger felt difference at lower steering angles without being too heavy when catching slides. At that point you seem to have given up.

On the damper front you're all over the place. You have these long dissertations of why the NSX sucks and why you're the solution to make it better but it's confusing what you're trying to sell. You talk up EMI, but when asked in what manner you're working with him, you can't even answer that. Now you're pushing Andre. What happened o EMI? Maybe it's just me but I really have a hard time following you and what damper product/solution you're offering. You seem to be trying to sell something you don't really understand and fumble when asked to clarify.

Don't blame others for the results of your posts. I want the NSXs steering to be improved but it's not as easy as blindly going with a company who doesn't fully analyze the car, and I'm recognizing that. Same with dampers when you throw one company under the bus for their spring choice without understanding the wheel rates and how that determines the balance.

 

[liftnot]

MVO sent us multiple curves for discussion and we posted the wrong one at 1st & Greenberet caught that so we corrected it and moved on. Blame on shortage of staff. Real data is very expensive....even if we had ALL the data, typically the argument will go on and on of who is more right yet little gets done which is already the case here if we kept going.

So far, 60+ people spent total of $1400 and P2F spent $1100 and we are not able to move this project forward so have no choice but drop the ball. We all know what you have accomplished on the race track and glad a bright future you have but we are sorry we are very old school. Way back in the 90's, we only take feedback from our drivers. Maybe things changed. The SME is MVO. We take their advise and trust their math and their s/w tools. We believe & trust they also have the experience even they have never driven the NSX but certainly have worked with the JGTC folks and beyond.

The VR tech simply did not exist for Honda to consider back in the late '80s. If we did not think Honda knew what they were doing, we would've never bought this car in the 1st place. Not many will agree but our attitude is always try to improve this car based on simple math & physics and newer, proven technology and Prime folks are a pretty sharp bunch well capable of smelling smoke on their own.

Our goal is to make Meaning 1st not making money. Its up to you to believe this biz model as some told us to just buy a new car, why bother with all the mods. We are sure many don't agree what we do and that is ok.

Those who don't trust us or don't see what we do, we don't take it personally. We just let it go and move on. Everyone is different. You do have your point and we are sure people have benefited from your posts as the short RE article made us "WE WANT this!"& started searching for the right contact.it was not a simple task to find a willing, capable vendor to entertain a tiny car club like ours. MVO doesn't dick around.
many people have contributed $$ which is an indication of trust from our POV and we are now looking forward to the year of the rooster and a few new project for 2017.

we did not know we have this kinda power to throw a known shock company under the bus using forum post?? We are on good standing with Andrie and EMI. You were not involved in the private agreement we made. You have to read between the lines. Please explain to us what is wrong having another shock option for people? You have different approach than Andrie and Erick and so be it. People who are in-the-know, know who they are but perhaps not the newer owners. Why is this even argue-able? FYI, We will be making $0 from either company less taking advantage of them. They are big boys. We are not your typical shady rice character but that is our opinion obviously not yours. Penske$$$$ are not gonna fly off the shelf. This is a low blow. We now regret giving you free parts(frt bladed ARB) and a great discount on the frt pre-preg bumper beam in the past in exchange for a forum feedback on Prime and yet receive these kinds of comments. Thus, you do have the power to throw us under the bus IMO.

 

[socalx]

You are taking this WAY to personally. Forget your ego and you will be better businesspeople. You are getting wonderful free advice. Take it

 

[nsxvtecvtec]

Thus, the new rack won't happen.

 

[socalx]

I don't think anyone on this thread has said they don't want it to happen. However we need a partner that will make it and we need to make sure we use the available knowledge to make it as optimal as possoblw

 

[stuntman]

I never bad-mouthed you and have praised the quality of your products many times.

However you spread a lot of misconceptions about suspension and I explained how the balance of a car can be the same when the spring rate splits are different (has to do with motion ratios) when you were incorrectly criticizing KWs spring rate choice.

On the steering rack front, I have provided analysis from engineers that develop F1 cars and sports car prototypes to the community to give them a more relevant understanding of the proposed rack change by the difference in degrees of the steering and the effort increase, which is more relatable than looking at an abstract graph. I then proposed an adjustment off of this analysis that I provided.

I'm trying to help the community, I want this as well, and am giving my feedback as a NSX owner, a fortunate person with access to very smart engineers, and who develops road and race cars for a living, so all of this is right up my alley.

My comments are to provide constructive analysis and direction, to make a product that has as much benefit and as little negatives as possible. Quit thinking I'm trying to undermine you and throw you under the bus!

 

[Ponyboy]

You are taking this WAY to personally. Forget your ego and you will be better businesspeople. You are getting wonderful free advice. Take it

I think tim is taking it the way most businesspeople would. Someone without a vested interest in the product that tim wants to develop offers unsolicited mandates for what he wants while attempting to shut down any other thoughts in, not one, but two product ideas.

Quit thinking I'm trying to undermine you and throw you under the bus!

Then perhaps refrain from pontificating "advice" and offer your own products.

 

[stuntman]

I think tim is taking it the way most businesspeople would. Someone without a vested interest in the product that tim wants to develop offers unsolicited mandates for what he wants while attempting to shut down any other thoughts in, not one, but two product ideas.

Then perhaps refrain from pontificating "advice" and offer your own products.

Not really. You're taking his defensive position for no reason.

Why would I start from scratch when people invested into this program? It would make sense to collaborate since I have resouces that I'm contributing to the effort and I'm not looking for anything in return other than a final result that is a benefit for the majority of owners, including myself. P2F stated he's not looking to be making a lot of money off this either so there's 2 people with a common goal. It makes the most sense to me for us to work together rather than spending more money independently.

I just don't believe in selling products by spreading misconceptions. I think we all agree the steering rack can be improved, but not understanding the application fully and just requesting an arbitrary lower steering ratio because it seems like it'll be better is not the right way to develop a product. You'd be surprised how many things work on paper but not in real life testing. Messing with the steering ratio is pretty difficult when you don't have power steering, and it's obvious the need for a sub stock ratio is the main driving force, and MVO is meeting that request without fully understanding the rest of the car. At no point am I aware of did they measure the steering knuckle geometry or calculated the steering effort and how a given ratio will affect that. I have had all of that measured and am bringing that info to the table for the betterment of the community and those investing in this effort.

 

[liftnot]

Billy, even F1 engineers don't tell MVO what to do. MVO listens to the feedback of the drivers and figure out how to make it better if its valid. We won't have that luxury here thus we went with the best in the business and their TOP guy has been very helpful and he understands what the NSX is about being an iconic(they won't bother with other "sporty cars") and all the design drawbacks of reverse engineering and understand we want him to hit a homerun 1st at bat but we are willing to settle for a triple. Of course this part is just for our 2500lb car...it will work for 2600-3000+lbs....I don't think that is selfish at all but that is just our opinion.

Since you have the sources and seemingly knows a lot about steering than us, propose a curve and find a vendor who can make a VR rack for us. We ran out of budget already. It will save us a lot of money.

To say increase effort of 33% @*** w/o a base number is meaningless. AFAWK, the base number is small, if not, we'll just man-up and deal with it. You have lots of videos but its not data, TMI and confusing for showing "increased" effort w/o a strain gauge. To us, this is a none issue or if it is, then this part is not for you. This kinda "opinion/discussion" can go on and on and we want to stay more binary. You don't trust us, you don't trust our source, then just move on. It will not be a "perfect" part as many people only trust mother Honda and that is ok.

An internet forum is not the place to show math and physics and you should not assume MVO did not do their homework. It goes way beyond what you have posted so far of lengths and angles. Their math for the VR is Phd level(Bishop did not win the award based on algebra or trig.) and we are shaky once it passes 1st order differential equation. We trust their math and analysis which did not come cheap. I am sure Quaife,Woodward, Coleman..etc. can make a quick rack but we want to best and non of these companies have yet invested in the huge tooling cost to cut the special gears.

The time we spent with EMI and Andrie, we spoke the same language and are comfortable with their approach of setting up shocks. Even Penske told us to go with EMI. Should someday they become a KW dealer.......we are staying with them. We were taught at Nissan it is always good to improve the PMI, CG, unsprung, ROInertia, etc. and when all things are equal, lighter weight will always win. This approach is not just good for track only, it works for all conditions all the time. It works for you, not the other way around. We don't post our comment on your 18/19 thread. We are all free to do and spend what we want to spend. If you want to police threads you don't like, its your choice. People can read and decide for themselves.

This project is kinda like Crowdfunding but way better cuz we already found the best vendor under the sun who did not show us the door when we knocked and WE believe this is a very much needed part as an upgrade not a mod especially when the oem wear out with no viable options. All Prime needs to do is sign up and pay $25 ea. to show a little skin in the game of support (which you have not done since you police this thread from day one but only offer plenty of "professional" advice as our methods are not inline with yours) and hopefully we can reach an economy of scale so is more affordable to ALL of this small community. How is that selfish and deceiving? Plz explain cuz we don't want to make the same mistake again. We may not be competent in technical IQ to understand Bishop VR technology(we don't really want to as its not sexy to talk steering) but we have EQ & got invited to MVO for a visit for such a small project. We need them more than they need us. That would be a worthwhile trip to Indy learn a thing or two in person.

We will not pepper this thread with data, charts, graphs, math,etc. Either you see it or you don't. Its very binary. People who demand this kinda info usually don't have any intention to buy but just want to argue. If you don't trust MVO and us, then just move on. There is nothing to buy here....others have saz this too not just you.
Its better to ask questions than offer unsolicited advise...but u know...whatever. What has been saz, can not be un-saz.

For others, at this point, we just need to sign up. Should some day we reach the magic number, we will contact MVO for Phase 2(@$2500) and eventually to make a proto to shake it down. P2F is not in the position to make up the difference again this time around as we have other project we want to develop. Otherwise, this project is dead. MVO doesn't sell rice or bling, they are not in the mood to play around.

 

[Stephen@NCAutoUSA]

I still want to see this project happen. This is a part that nobody else can really make and will eventually go and we'll be out of luck.

I don't remember the fine details of funding but phase 2 we are short and needed at least $2500. Phase 3 we need $3000?

With the amount of people I find it hard to believe we can't come up with those funds.

 

[stuntman]

It's sad that you are so blind to see and understand my intentions. You're mentally all over the place and it does not seem like your knowledge of suspension has progressed much past when you asked me for help with your Konis back in 2009.

I was skeptical of all your talk and thus didn't invest in Phase 1 of the rack. Now that the program progressed, I am very interested and would invest if I had confidence in the effort, but your level of understanding and closed minded actions aren't selling me to invest..

It is a lot more difficult to design a non power assisted rack than power assisted, and since MVO likely is not experienced with the NSX, tracked one to subjectively feel the steering effort or gathered objective data on steering effort, they are blind to what may or may not be acceptable.

Have you ever had to catch a slide and countersteer an NSX? The steering effort is quite high and difficult to manage. A 33% steering weight increase is a BIG issue. Also keep in mind that I have instructed a lot of people who are the resident NSX track rats. Steering effort when catching oversteer or big slides/spins is an important factor and any increase in effort should be viewed very closely, and not from guess work. If you are just putting around town on a canyon road and aren't near the limit, this probably isn't a concern until you are in a bad situation.

You continue to show how dense you are. The 18/19 wheel thread was due to the lack of modern performance tires having NSX specific sizes, and what sizes are necessary and that could fit on an NSX for what I feel is one of the best performance street tires on the market -the Michelin Super Sport. Everyone who has run a PSS raves and loves the performance, ride quality, grip, and longevity. Since I'm turbocharging my car and don't want to swap from street to track tires, the heavier 18/19 is worth the compromise for the PSS. Are 17/18s lighter and better? Yes, and I'll have a set of those with slicks when I want to track the car with them, but that's not the point of the thread.

I'm interested and would be a buyer of this rack if we were able to cordially work together and put our collective assets together to make the best product for the community. You seem to struggle with that possibility and are putting too much blind faith in MVO due to your own lack of understanding. Since you seem to strongly want to proceed in that direction alone, I am not interested in investing in this program because my lack of confidence in you. I would be a buyer if I tested it and it turned out well, but I'm not interested in your proposed rack due to the very little difference it'll make up to 45* of wheel input, and the potentially unmanageable steering effort increase beyond 180*.

If you change your mind, I would be willing to reconsider and help, but as of now, I will be out of your hair and you can proceed with your exhaustive sales pitches.