Convertible Tuba Help

[windshieldbug]

I also need to work on adjusting the camber & swaybar settings for a little nicer turn-in and better balance in mid-corner.

The problem there is that effective camber settings for autocross will wear down the sides of the tread if you use the car for anything else. And, since you're making such small radius turns so quickly, usually the tightest swaybar setting possible is the most effective.

[iiipopes]

Along with a stiffer spring, but not too stiff, as you will start getting body torsion instead of suspension torsion. Then be really carefull hauling the tuba, or a dozen eggs in it, for that matter.

[Getzeng50s]

Go to an auto parts store. they sell plastic guards that glue on the edge of car doors in gold and silver and clear. gauranteed youll be ok with one of the colors. put it on your bell instead of your car door and if u buy enough it will fit all the way around your horn. best protection youll get.

[Leland]

The problem there is that effective camber settings for autocross will wear down the sides of the tread if you use the car for anything else. And, since you're making such small radius turns so quickly, usually the tightest swaybar setting possible is the most effective.

As far as camber goes, I could probably add a full degree or two in front while keeping the toe at zero, which would minimize tire wear the rest of the time. Besides, toe eats tires more than camber. Right now, with a 1.5" drop (any more and the front camber curve gets nasty) on Mugen suspension and no camber kits, the front camber is at zero and the rear is about -2 degrees; not really good for getting rid of understeer. I'll probably go with camber plates up front rather than eccentric bolts, and I just have to pick a brand for the adjustable rear control arm.

For sway bars, at least for autocross, stiffer isn't necessarily better. Drivers would actually disconnect their front bars completely, which would allow each wheel to stay on the ground more often -- too stiff would raise the inside wheel and reduce its effectiveness. Right now I have a 23 mm front and 19 mm rear (stock is 25.4 fr./15 r), but I'll probably move to a 22 mm rear and leave it for better steady-state balance. Going to 27 mm front & rear is tempting, but probably too much; I'd probably upgrade to adjustable race-spec coilovers & struts instead by that point.

Oh yeah -- this chassis is already pretty rigid, so adding braces and strut tower bars would be overkill for all but the stiffest suspension setups. It's a lot stiffer stock than previous Civics.

Will I still be able to carry a tuba? Sure, at least until I rip out the interior and weld in a roll cage.

[iiipopes]

Yes, on my E-type the boot is too shallow, and the way the seat is contoured, there's just no way to carry it up front, even double-strapped with racing belts, unless I slide the seat as far back as it will go and shove the bottom bow of the tuba (forget any case - even a gig bag) on the floorpan all the way up to the fire wall. And then it will get so hot you would have to let it cool down for at least a half-hour before you could hold it in your lap!

[windshieldbug]

As far as camber goes, I could probably add a full degree or two in front while keeping the toe at zero, which would minimize tire wear the rest of the time. Besides, toe eats tires more than camber. Right now, with a 1.5" drop (any more and the front camber curve gets nasty) on Mugen suspension and no camber kits, the front camber is at zero and the rear is about -2 degrees; not really good for getting rid of understeer. I'll probably go with camber plates up front rather than eccentric bolts, and I just have to pick a brand for the adjustable rear control arm.

For sway bars, at least for autocross, stiffer isn't necessarily better. Drivers would actually disconnect their front bars completely, which would allow each wheel to stay on the ground more often -- too stiff would raise the inside wheel and reduce its effectiveness. Right now I have a 23 mm front and 19 mm rear (stock is 25.4 fr./15 r), but I'll probably move to a 22 mm rear and leave it for better steady-state balance. Going to 27 mm front & rear is tempting, but probably too much; I'd probably upgrade to adjustable race-spec coilovers & struts instead by that point.

Oh yeah -- this chassis is already pretty rigid, so adding braces and strut tower bars would be overkill for all but the stiffest suspension setups. It's a lot stiffer stock than previous Civics.

I had both rear-engine cars and mid-engine. The mid you'd set up like a go-cart. The rear engine setup is much like you describe in reverse; we'd disconnect the back (if you could - bad news for swing axles... ) and run full hard in the front.

I had a friend who ran an experiment to decide if he wanted tower bars/bracing: he ran two overlapping pieces of wood with a taped slider to see if it ever moved. Never did, so he decided it was stiff enough as it was.

Sorry, except for my 914/6, I was always trying to get rid of oversteer. And, of course, I realize now that you steer with your drive wheels.

Stiffer bars will just lift the inside back wheel that's along for the ride, I'd look at coilovers before going that stiff front/back, if they're allowed.

[Leland]

Glad my info was useful -- call it a crash course in handling a contra, although it's not intended to make anyone actually "crash".. lol

And, I'd just try reducing the rear wheel camber (less neg.) so that there's less patch in roll. Also, I would imagine that a stiffer front bar would reduce transfer so that it would actually reduce the likelihood of picking up the inside rear wheel, no? Also, with less lateral transfer, there's more weight on both fronts to steer the car.

Dialing out the rear camber is a definite to-do; I'd like to start with it about half of what I can get the front and go from there (if the front is -1, I'll have the rear at -0.5).

Weight transfer is managed more by spring stiffness. Sway bars are more for controlling steady-state cornering (despite their name). The general rule is that whichever end is stiffer will lose grip first, so the stiffer front sway would allow more understeer. That's safer for the general public in most street conditions (better to plow a little wide on a turn than to have it snap around), which is why the stock sway bars on my car were a whole 10 mm thicker in front. I'm aiming for a more even front-rear balance to make it easier to steer with the throttle (and maybe trail braking if I ever get good at it).

As far as overall suspension stiffness is concerned, that's really dictated more by surface conditions. If the course is rough, going too stiff will make it harder to control because the car will be bouncing around too much --plus, it'll be losing grip while it's unweighted.

[Leland]

Nah, those are in real time. The interesting thing is that, on the horns-up, they don't bang on the shoulder as much as you'd think. Most of the "stop" comes from the left hand instead.

Of course, when appropriate, we'll move it slowly.

BTW, that's a 4/4 size G contra. I think the outer body is the same size as Kanstul's BBb versions. Other brands have their BBb marching tubas sized as BBb's normally are, which ends up making them smaller overall than the G contras they used to make.

[Leland]

Heh... well, he was one of the skinniest in our section.

As far as speed is concerned, as I've said before, it's all about technique. One of the kids in the first contra line that I taught came up to me after rehearsal one day saying, "I got it! I finally figured out how to get a good snap in the horns-up. It was just during drill, we're doing our thing, and then one time I snapped it up and it was really easy. It really is technique, not strength."

Hand placement is mainly muscle memory; avoiding facial injury is an evolutionary instinct commanding oneself to not smash themselves in the face with anything.

The defining line between looking good and looking effortless can only be crossed by doing it a lot. Most of the time, we can tell who's marched DCI and who hasn't. Most bands don't have the luxury of spending an hour or two per day on marching basics, or yoga-ballet-linebacker-like body control concepts, or can do the marching music thing for 6-8 hours a day over three months. Spending that much time handling the horn and learning how to optimize marching technique for good playing can only make it easier. I haven't heard of many bands working on 4-to-5 (step size, that is) jazz runs with the horn on the face, but it was something we did regularly on the corps field. After that, smaller, less-ridiculous step sizes became completely easy.

[iiipopes]

OK, I'll concede if we're talking contra G bugles, they are not as heavy, and probably too small to hold any other way. but I maintain my position on Eb and BBb horns.

[Leland]

OK, I'll concede if we're talking contra G bugles, they are not as heavy, and probably too small to hold any other way. but I maintain my position on Eb and BBb horns.

The G horns (technically, "GG") are bigger, actually -- they're pitched a third lower than BBb tubas. Our custom 2-valve horns are only maybe a pound or so lighter than an equivalent 3-valve G contra, but they're just as long. Their metal is on the thin side, though, so ours weigh around 20-23 pounds.

Overall, G contrabasses were noticeably larger than BBb marching tubas, and not just through different 3/4-4/4-5/4 size designations. Bell sizes were often pretty much alike (the Willson-built Dynasty Super Magnum contra's bell is awfully similar to the Willson 3050-3100 tubas), but the body of the horn is definitely bigger.

Marching tubas that are too small are actually more difficult to carry easily. More of their weight stays out front, which requires the player to spend more effort holding up the horn. Longer horns move the balance point back to just above the shoulder, and don't require as much effort. When companies started making contras with the wraparound leadpipe, the balance got even better.

[iiipopes]

Why on earth would anybody want to play an instrument pitched even lower? I retract my previous statement about G contra bugles and, seeing how my point about souzys or slings doesn't mean anything, I will retreat to the quote by Bob Jones, the great golfer, upon seeing Jack Nicklaus play, "He plays a game with which I am not familiar."

[Leland]

Why on earth would anybody want to play an instrument pitched even lower? I retract my previous statement about G contra bugles and, seeing how my point about souzys or slings doesn't mean anything, I will retreat to the quote by Bob Jones, the great golfer, upon seeing Jack Nicklaus play, "He plays a game with which I am not familiar."

Sit back, and see if I can remember enough of the story...

(now helped greatly by these websites:
http://www.tapsbugler.com/HistoryoftheB ... tents.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drum_and_b ... classic%29 )

It goes back to military regulations which standardized signal bugles into the key of G. All the bugles issued in World War I, and used in civilian drum corps at church youth groups and VFW and AL posts afterwards, were either military-issued M1892 bugles or based upon them.

Military bugles remained valveless, and some ensembles still use valveless bugles for special performances or ceremonies (our recent instrument purchase included about a dozen valveless G bugles and a few specially-built, 1800's style bugles for the Ceremonial Bugler position). However, that's been about the extent of evolution for military-issued bugles.

It was the civilian organizations that started changing the bugles. As you'd expect, besides parade appearances and post functions, they started adding exhibitions and, eventually, competitions. After long enough, though, it got boring playing the same bugle calls, so valves were added. G/D multikey bugles, where pressing the valve dropped it to D, became commonplace, and after long enough more valves and voices were added.

Here's the appropriate section in the Wikipedia article -- very concise, and still accurate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drum_and_b ... %29#Bugles