RDRP LRC rear mounts for 210

[TonyM]

I recently bought the RDRP low roll centre rear mounts for my 210. The official blurb states:-

'The LRC suspension mounts lower the vehicle's rear roll centre by 2mm in order to improve handling on medium to low-grip surfaces . . .'

I'm confused as other sources say use a High Roll Centre for more traction e.g.TD's info on the 410 V3 inserts states:-

'Using the +2 block will raise the roll centre height making the car 'roll' more at the rear end, which will help to generate grip on low traction surfaces . . .'

So what is it - LRC or HRC for low grip surfaces?

[JoelMaher]

Hi tony,
I haven't used these yet on my 210 but when i had the 22 i preferred the LRC on low grip surfaces, a lower roll centre definitely makes the car roll more and creates more grip. Thats what i found anyway.

[TonyM]

Thanks Joel. Any other input is welcome.

[jo90]

a LRC should make the car pivot laterally more, so inducing roll and effecting grip, but it also slows the response of the car also, the opposite is the case for a HRC.

[Rebelrc]

This will help
http://users.telenet.be/elvo/
Book mark it on your phone for quick reference trackside

[TonyM]

I recently bought the RDRP low roll centre rear mounts for my 210. The official blurb states:-

'The LRC suspension mounts lower the vehicle's rear roll centre by 2mm in order to improve handling on medium to low-grip surfaces . . .'

I'm confused as other sources say use a High Roll Centre for more traction e.g.TD's info on the 410 V3 inserts states:-

'Using the +2 block will raise the roll centre height making the car 'roll' more at the rear end, which will help to generate grip on low traction surfaces . . .'

So what is it - LRC or HRC for low grip surfaces?

The mystery has now been cleared. TD must have realised that the wording in their tech tip section for RR anti-squat settings was wrong. It now reads:-

'Using the -2 block will lower the roll centre height making the car ‘roll’ more at the rear end, which can help to generate grip on low traction surfaces . . .'

It's a good job I'd printed the original, otherwise I'd be thinking I was going a bit doolally. :bored: