- #481
willywipper
- 6
- 0
So the roll center-to-contact patch has an ideal angle? is 45 degrees the best combination of lateral and vertical loading ?
Automotive Race car suspension Class
- Thread starter Ranger Mike
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Car Class Race Suspension
Click For Summary
The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding race car suspension dynamics to improve handling and performance. Key issues include the car's tendency to push while entering corners and being loose upon exit, which can be addressed by adjusting downforce and the third link location. The roll center and instant center are critical factors in suspension design, affecting tire loading and grip during cornering. The conversation also highlights the significance of software tools like Suspension Analyzer for optimizing suspension geometry. Overall, proper suspension setup is essential for maximizing tire contact and achieving competitive performance on the track.
- #482
- 2,450
- 436
Saturday night duck walk - why RC location matters
Thanks Willy...a 45 degrees angle between RC and tire contact patch would place the RC centered on the right front grease zerk of the right lower ball joint. You would have maximum jacking effect and you would lift the left front tire thru the turns and overload the right rear tire...like the old sprint cars used to do..classic ..but wears out the rt rear quick.
This would permit air to get under the front end and defeat the aero down force which is what the BBSS ( big bar soft spring) set up is all about.
If we are running a traditional set up and not the BBSS set up we want a balance of placing the RC so it loads the right front tire without jacking the right front.
We want the RC as low as possible to kill of the jacking effect and minimize camber build yet...plant the right front using body roll without lifting the left rear tire.
On dirt tracks we want even more RC offset was we are dealing with a slick track 75 % of the time ( dirt track goes thru 4 phases from slurry slick to hard packed over the course of the night depending upon how the track owner maintains the racing condition). That’s why you see the super late model dirt cars really twisting the body. They set up for slick and when the track dries and gets hard the cars really hook up toward the end.
Pretty much a balancing act.
My point is that you should know where the RC is and understand what happens when weight is transferred in a turn. If you do this, your chances of making correct changes on the set up at the track are a lot better. If you get the RC close, then chance are you can bring in the balance with ARB (sway bar) tuning, J-bar, shock, stagger and wedge adjustments.
Personal rant coming on - Too many times we all have been in the pits and hear “ its pushing like a freight train”. The poor guy driving does not have a clue as to how to properly counter this condition and ends up chasing his tail all night. In fact I would bet that 50% of the grid does not have a clue about the RC thing, If you have ever been to a Saturday night race and it was quack quack...you know what I mean. No one can pass on the out side, everyone is in line like a parade of ducks..the pole sitter wins. One race team has settled on the “ hot set up” and everyone else has copied it because it “ works”. And it may be off a mile..but nobody cares and no crew chief wants to make a change from the “ hot set up”. Then when some one does set up the car with proper RC and really hooks up and runs the out side groove all night and wins.., he is immediately accused of cheating. Crazy...but I love it!
Thanks Willy...a 45 degrees angle between RC and tire contact patch would place the RC centered on the right front grease zerk of the right lower ball joint. You would have maximum jacking effect and you would lift the left front tire thru the turns and overload the right rear tire...like the old sprint cars used to do..classic ..but wears out the rt rear quick.
This would permit air to get under the front end and defeat the aero down force which is what the BBSS ( big bar soft spring) set up is all about.
If we are running a traditional set up and not the BBSS set up we want a balance of placing the RC so it loads the right front tire without jacking the right front.
We want the RC as low as possible to kill of the jacking effect and minimize camber build yet...plant the right front using body roll without lifting the left rear tire.
On dirt tracks we want even more RC offset was we are dealing with a slick track 75 % of the time ( dirt track goes thru 4 phases from slurry slick to hard packed over the course of the night depending upon how the track owner maintains the racing condition). That’s why you see the super late model dirt cars really twisting the body. They set up for slick and when the track dries and gets hard the cars really hook up toward the end.
Pretty much a balancing act.
My point is that you should know where the RC is and understand what happens when weight is transferred in a turn. If you do this, your chances of making correct changes on the set up at the track are a lot better. If you get the RC close, then chance are you can bring in the balance with ARB (sway bar) tuning, J-bar, shock, stagger and wedge adjustments.
Personal rant coming on - Too many times we all have been in the pits and hear “ its pushing like a freight train”. The poor guy driving does not have a clue as to how to properly counter this condition and ends up chasing his tail all night. In fact I would bet that 50% of the grid does not have a clue about the RC thing, If you have ever been to a Saturday night race and it was quack quack...you know what I mean. No one can pass on the out side, everyone is in line like a parade of ducks..the pole sitter wins. One race team has settled on the “ hot set up” and everyone else has copied it because it “ works”. And it may be off a mile..but nobody cares and no crew chief wants to make a change from the “ hot set up”. Then when some one does set up the car with proper RC and really hooks up and runs the out side groove all night and wins.., he is immediately accused of cheating. Crazy...but I love it!
- #483
willywipper
- 6
- 0
So front tire temps can tell us if we're loading the right more than the left... a little warmer means heavier load. If we pick the left front off the ground, it'll be cooler. ?thoughts?
Here's something new, Ranger. Hoosier just released its newest right-rear tire for us. It's 1" wider than the old style. Everything else is the same. What can I expect when we run it. Our track never goes hard, taking rubber... it always stays in the "shiny" stage, with little grip.
Thanks
Here's something new, Ranger. Hoosier just released its newest right-rear tire for us. It's 1" wider than the old style. Everything else is the same. What can I expect when we run it. Our track never goes hard, taking rubber... it always stays in the "shiny" stage, with little grip.
Thanks
- #484
- 2,450
- 436
if your rt ft tire is 10 degrees hotter than lft ft..ok..when it has average of all 3 temps 20 to 30 degrees hotter..time for a change...on rt rear tire, if you are running open wheel car..it may hurt to run wider tire...if you are in door slammer class go for it as wider is better..see track width posts 255, 264 and 322..
If you are not hooking up what you have now...it will probably be a waste of money..may even be slower...ifin it were me..try a set and see...we had a huge discussion in the Formula Car club one time about going to 10 inch slicks...would make for slower run times due to aero drag as we are limited to 2000cc and very strick engine mod rules..which really limits horsepower...but if I could cheat...would love um
If you are not hooking up what you have now...it will probably be a waste of money..may even be slower...ifin it were me..try a set and see...we had a huge discussion in the Formula Car club one time about going to 10 inch slicks...would make for slower run times due to aero drag as we are limited to 2000cc and very strick engine mod rules..which really limits horsepower...but if I could cheat...would love um
Last edited:
- #485
Fahlin Racing
- 91
- 0
Oh how I couldn't and still can't stand that type of thinking! Using the same setup makes for quite the boring race amongst competitors and fans.
- #486
NaLLa8705
- 6
- 0
Just read all 31 pages in this multi-year old thread. Signed up for a physics forum with no real interest in physics outside of making my race car faster...
And to say thank you for all your time in effort. How would you go about benchmark this front suspension?
And to say thank you for all your time in effort. How would you go about benchmark this front suspension?
- #487
- 2,450
- 436
Thank you and I am sure the other folks who have contributed to this discussion thank you as well..ref: bench marking stock suspension...if there is a way you can drive the car onto a full ramp lift ( the kind you drive on like those in muffler shops) and raise it..you can better measure the various mount points with car in normal ride height postition.
Alternative is to use jack stands and map the mount points as best you can then drop the car to normal ride height and try to get the outer BJ dimensions...
it is very difficult to do this wit hengine and all the shrouding in place...obviously..
Alternative is to use jack stands and map the mount points as best you can then drop the car to normal ride height and try to get the outer BJ dimensions...
it is very difficult to do this wit hengine and all the shrouding in place...obviously..
- #488
NaLLa8705
- 6
- 0
What would be the upper "ball joint" point? The pivot point between pieces 6 and 5 referencing my previous picture? Does piece #6 move?
Here are some other pics to help.
http://images.rvsmods.com/var/albums/Cars/SR20/Suspension/P11%20vs%20B15%20Front%20Suspension.JPG?m=1342499417
(on the left)
http://images.rvsmods.com/var/albums/Cars/SR20/Suspension/P11%20Multilink%20Tunring.JPG?m=1342499423
EDIT: Did some more research, apparently the upright "third link" stays stationary as the wheel is turned.
So we have a rotation point on the top of the spindle and then two pivot points above that.
Here are some other pics to help.
http://images.rvsmods.com/var/albums/Cars/SR20/Suspension/P11%20vs%20B15%20Front%20Suspension.JPG?m=1342499417
(on the left)
http://images.rvsmods.com/var/albums/Cars/SR20/Suspension/P11%20Multilink%20Tunring.JPG?m=1342499423
EDIT: Did some more research, apparently the upright "third link" stays stationary as the wheel is turned.
So we have a rotation point on the top of the spindle and then two pivot points above that.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #489
- 2,450
- 436
You are correct on upper Ball Joint at end of the strut..
Any good software suspension program should cover mcpherson strut design like you got. I hate these for racing purposes but you can trick them out.
Any good software suspension program should cover mcpherson strut design like you got. I hate these for racing purposes but you can trick them out.
- #490
NaLLa8705
- 6
- 0
Btw this isn't a strut design. The green, aftermarket piece in the top picture is a strut, but I am referring to the stock pieces. They are for two separate cars.
Once I get further along into my build I will report back with the bench marked front end.
Once I get further along into my build I will report back with the bench marked front end.
- #491
THORPE
- 41
- 0
Quick question on anti dive on dirt oval
This is a Rc car btw.
I'm reading in circle track mag where anti-dive on right front and pro-dive on left helps promote turn in.
I accidentally got them backwards on my setup and fought a bad push all night when letting off at the end of the straight. I found my stupid mistake the next day.
From my understanding anti dive only loads the tire initially then the spring takes Ove from there.
So it's beneficial to load the rf tire initially into turn then try to get equal loading from setup through the rest of the turn?
This is a Rc car btw.
I'm reading in circle track mag where anti-dive on right front and pro-dive on left helps promote turn in.
I accidentally got them backwards on my setup and fought a bad push all night when letting off at the end of the straight. I found my stupid mistake the next day.
From my understanding anti dive only loads the tire initially then the spring takes Ove from there.
So it's beneficial to load the rf tire initially into turn then try to get equal loading from setup through the rest of the turn?
- #492
- 2,450
- 436
Thorpe..it happens..but you found it!..great..pls read post # 314 on page 20.
Anti dive is used to keep the front end from diving when you are braking in a turn. Looking at the front end from the side of the car you will note different mount angles of the upper and lower A-arms. The problem is that you run into mechanical bind and start to lock up the pivoting of the A-arms. You run into large caster changes due to this as well.
Personally, I like a car with zero anti dive and like the suspension to be parallel with the track and minimal deflection. I try to minimize things like bump steer, rear steer, camber build. I like Ackermann and lots of it if the track radius warrants it. I like to use the suspension to tune the car. By this i mean I prefer to dial in the car with Spring rates and narrow it to optimum with ARB ( sway bar tuning) Then I really fine tune with shock adjustments. When anti dive and rear / roll steer and other factors come in I get confused and it takes too long to separate out what is causing what. If you can do all the heavy lifting in the garage when you are doing the initial build chances are you can dial it in a lot quicker at the tune and test. You had better not spend time at the race making major spring rate changes etc...if you do..you better go back top square one..my opinion
Anti dive is used to keep the front end from diving when you are braking in a turn. Looking at the front end from the side of the car you will note different mount angles of the upper and lower A-arms. The problem is that you run into mechanical bind and start to lock up the pivoting of the A-arms. You run into large caster changes due to this as well.
Personally, I like a car with zero anti dive and like the suspension to be parallel with the track and minimal deflection. I try to minimize things like bump steer, rear steer, camber build. I like Ackermann and lots of it if the track radius warrants it. I like to use the suspension to tune the car. By this i mean I prefer to dial in the car with Spring rates and narrow it to optimum with ARB ( sway bar tuning) Then I really fine tune with shock adjustments. When anti dive and rear / roll steer and other factors come in I get confused and it takes too long to separate out what is causing what. If you can do all the heavy lifting in the garage when you are doing the initial build chances are you can dial it in a lot quicker at the tune and test. You had better not spend time at the race making major spring rate changes etc...if you do..you better go back top square one..my opinion
- #493
missile07
- 14
- 0
Ranger Mike...First of all I love reading all these posts & the help you have been offering us racers!
On your last posts I noticed you said you like to minimize things like bump steer, rear steer, & camber build...we run 4 link modifieds on dirt and we have been playing with cutting back on rear steer. Other than trial & error is there any info out there on evening out rear steer
On your last posts I noticed you said you like to minimize things like bump steer, rear steer, & camber build...we run 4 link modifieds on dirt and we have been playing with cutting back on rear steer. Other than trial & error is there any info out there on evening out rear steer
- #494
- 2,450
- 436
Missile07 --Thanks for the kind words..pls. see post # 116 on page 8
When using a very trick 4 link rear suspension using roll over steer adds a big advantage on the dirt track surface. It allows the rear to roll into the corner without breaking traction. To review, when the rear rolls, if the outside wheel base grows longer than the inside wheel base we have roll over steer. This is because of the different in 4 link angles. I think if you start with left upper link at 13 degrees uphill, the rt upper link at 17 degrees uphill, and both lower links at 5 degrees down hill, it is a good base line. Make sure the rear end is straight and has not become bent thru wrecks and crashes.
When using a very trick 4 link rear suspension using roll over steer adds a big advantage on the dirt track surface. It allows the rear to roll into the corner without breaking traction. To review, when the rear rolls, if the outside wheel base grows longer than the inside wheel base we have roll over steer. This is because of the different in 4 link angles. I think if you start with left upper link at 13 degrees uphill, the rt upper link at 17 degrees uphill, and both lower links at 5 degrees down hill, it is a good base line. Make sure the rear end is straight and has not become bent thru wrecks and crashes.
- #495
missile07
- 14
- 0
We have been trying to figure out a way to properly measure at full drop the difference in the right & left. At full drop the left side is leading 3.5 inches more than the right. For the past couple of race nights we have shortened the right side bars up to 1 inch. Driver seems to think its helping him from the center off...but I am almost convinced that this is a band aid fix for something else.
- #496
- 2,450
- 436
i am n Kentucky today...will be back at home base tommorow. I think you have a roll understeer at center off. I agree that there could be something else off. Is is possibel to post the rear end settings on the 4 links?
What are the scale readings at each wheel? Have you read tires with pyrometer lately?
What are the scale readings at each wheel? Have you read tires with pyrometer lately?
- #497
missile07
- 14
- 0
Well I don't have the settings right in front of me but I can post what I know...
Bar lengths
LR top 16"
LR bottom 12"
RR top 16" shortened to 15.75"
RR bottom 12" shortened to 11.75"
Bar Angles @ Ride Height
LR top 24-26 degree (chassis manufacturer recommendation)
LR lower 5 degree
RR upper 18-20 degree
RR lower 0-2 degree
As far as the wheel rates I would be lying if I said an exact number but he was running 120 lbs of LR bite & about 55% rear. The last night we were able to race I did pyro the tires and the RR was about 10-15 degrees hotter on both of the final two runs. Car hasn't finished out of the top 5 since June but just missing something.
Bar lengths
LR top 16"
LR bottom 12"
RR top 16" shortened to 15.75"
RR bottom 12" shortened to 11.75"
Bar Angles @ Ride Height
LR top 24-26 degree (chassis manufacturer recommendation)
LR lower 5 degree
RR upper 18-20 degree
RR lower 0-2 degree
As far as the wheel rates I would be lying if I said an exact number but he was running 120 lbs of LR bite & about 55% rear. The last night we were able to race I did pyro the tires and the RR was about 10-15 degrees hotter on both of the final two runs. Car hasn't finished out of the top 5 since June but just missing something.
- #498
- 2,450
- 436
not having my notes with me, i think you got just a tic too much roll understeer. My guess is to take 2 to 3 degrees out of top right upper link and read tires..if the temp drops a few degrees and car is better...may have found some of the problem...small changes ...dont do anything dramatic...
- #499
THORPE
- 41
- 0
Thanks for the reply. I'll start over on that anti dive and work on other factors as you suggest.
I'm goin way back and check more into roll center too. I moved mine down and to the right for last night. I got more turn in. I was carrying the left rear going in. I stiffened up both front springs and it help.
From what I'm starting to understand, lowering my RC even lower in the front will counter lifting the LR correct?
I'm goin way back and check more into roll center too. I moved mine down and to the right for last night. I got more turn in. I was carrying the left rear going in. I stiffened up both front springs and it help.
From what I'm starting to understand, lowering my RC even lower in the front will counter lifting the LR correct?
- #500
- 2,450
- 436
Thorpe ...great...now your getting it. When you dropped the ft RC you lengthened the lever between the CG and RC so stiffer springs were required to counter the body roll. You got more turn in becuase you used the weight transfer to plant the right front tire better and this gave you more cornering ability.. Excellent. The Lft rear was lifting at turn in BEFORE YOU CHANGED SPRINGS as expected because the right front was loading more and thus unloading the left rear. Also you reduced the " jacking effect" caused by the tire contact patch and RC that tries to lift the left front; hence left rear as well. Montitor the tire temps,,,LR spring change may be in order too? Your camber build should be reduced as a result as well which is a good thing so tire temps should tell you this too. Glad to hear about the change in handling..keep it going!
Last edited:
- #501
- 2,450
- 436
Anti Dive
I was in a manufacturing facility last week and saw the 2013 Dodge Viper chassis. That car had huge Anti Dive. On the front the upper A-Arm mounts were more or less parallel with the ground but the lower mounts were significantly angled. Rear was like this as well but not as dramatic. If you think about it Detroit thinking is to have the car go straight when you mash the brake pedal so anti dive throws a lot of caster into the front geometry when in dive. The motion of the lower A-Arm moves the bottom of the spindle forward with upward movement and this adds caster which makes the car go straight under braking. Since the arc of travel is “ straight” up as a true race cars front end would be, this adds to spring rate somewhat. Anyway, that’s the rationale as far as I can figure it...
I was in a manufacturing facility last week and saw the 2013 Dodge Viper chassis. That car had huge Anti Dive. On the front the upper A-Arm mounts were more or less parallel with the ground but the lower mounts were significantly angled. Rear was like this as well but not as dramatic. If you think about it Detroit thinking is to have the car go straight when you mash the brake pedal so anti dive throws a lot of caster into the front geometry when in dive. The motion of the lower A-Arm moves the bottom of the spindle forward with upward movement and this adds caster which makes the car go straight under braking. Since the arc of travel is “ straight” up as a true race cars front end would be, this adds to spring rate somewhat. Anyway, that’s the rationale as far as I can figure it...
- #502
THORPE
- 41
- 0
Ranger Mike said:
Thanks for the info. I've learned a lot from this thread. Mostly you.
Just to make sure I have my head right, when u say possible lr spring change you mean stiffer correct?
We don't really have a way to measure tire temps on these small scale cars. I may can use an infrared temp gauge that we check engine temps with but I haven't tried that before.
I'm going back to review your spring info. This weekend I ran a split in the front springs. Stiffer lf. Equal in rear both stiffer than front.
The rear Rc is a bit higher than front. I have fully independent and adjustable a arms in rear to play with.
- #503
- 2,450
- 436
correct on left rear needing stiffer spring to keep the tire in contact with the track. Typically you will have non equal springs on rear too if you are set up to turn left. You could do it with wedge but a tad stiffer spring will do it too.
Last edited:
- #504
John LNZ
- 11
- 0
Hi Mike. I am a new member to this forum. I am a racecar fabricator in New Zealand. Have found your posts on this site really interesting as I am very much into the physics and the effects it has on racecar set up and construction. I build various types of cars for dirt oval racing exclusively on 1/4 mile tracks. These are spaceframe cars which are classed as "Super Saloons" in NZ and are unique to NZ but similar to a late model with late model front suspension with a sprint car type rear end and tyres. My initial question to you is could you please explain the physics behind moving the LR wheel further out on a slick track as we are struggling for forward bite. I notice a lot of guys are doing this and would like to understand the physics behind it. Many thanks
- #505
- 2,450
- 436
Thanks John..means a lot when we get reports from the other side of the world...and I was the guy who thought the internet was a FAD...
we went thru this on page 26 of this forum with a fellow running a drawf car...wider is better in that you have more cornering ability in that for a given set up you will transfer less weight and the tires can better accommodate the weight that is transferred. Also the Left rear to right front leverage is improved slightly...and thus side bite off the turn with a tad more wedge..read the whole page as we had a good debate on this...
General Rule of thumb - 1 inch lower COG transfers 3 to 4 % less weight. 1 inch wider car transfers 1 to 1 1/2 % less weight.
Assume we have a race car with 66 inch wide rear track and we add 100 weight to the ballast and we locate this weight 20 inch from the center line of the left rear tire. 20" divided by 66" = 37% of the added weight will go to the right and 63 % will go to the left side of the car ( diagonal weight is not in this calculation). Now if we increase the track width on t he left side by one inch we have 21" divided by 67" = 31% right side weight and 68 % left side weight. (from Short track chassis set up by Duke Southard)
we went thru this on page 26 of this forum with a fellow running a drawf car...wider is better in that you have more cornering ability in that for a given set up you will transfer less weight and the tires can better accommodate the weight that is transferred. Also the Left rear to right front leverage is improved slightly...and thus side bite off the turn with a tad more wedge..read the whole page as we had a good debate on this...
General Rule of thumb - 1 inch lower COG transfers 3 to 4 % less weight. 1 inch wider car transfers 1 to 1 1/2 % less weight.
Assume we have a race car with 66 inch wide rear track and we add 100 weight to the ballast and we locate this weight 20 inch from the center line of the left rear tire. 20" divided by 66" = 37% of the added weight will go to the right and 63 % will go to the left side of the car ( diagonal weight is not in this calculation). Now if we increase the track width on t he left side by one inch we have 21" divided by 67" = 31% right side weight and 68 % left side weight. (from Short track chassis set up by Duke Southard)
Attachments
Last edited:
- #506
THORPE
- 41
- 0
Ranger mike:
What do you feel is more important On dirt oval?
Getting shocks to work perfectly with spring rate for each corner of the car
or
Using dampening to control weight transfer.
This is to settle argument.
I feel like proper spring selection should be used to control weight transfer and dampening should be used to control that particular spring
What do you feel is more important On dirt oval?
Getting shocks to work perfectly with spring rate for each corner of the car
or
Using dampening to control weight transfer.
This is to settle argument.
I feel like proper spring selection should be used to control weight transfer and dampening should be used to control that particular spring
- #507
THORPE
- 41
- 0
To specify:
Using front tie down shocks and a lr with stiff bump and light rebound.
Using front tie down shocks and a lr with stiff bump and light rebound.
- #508
- 2,450
- 436
The purpose of a shock is to dampen the kinetic energy stored in the spring during weight transfer. Specifically the shock converts this vertical energy to heat energy by creating resistance to movement within the shock. Shocks control the RATE of weight transferred during cornering. Shocks have nothing to do with the amount of weight transferred during cornering. They can affect how quickly the weight is transferred. So using shocks dampening to control weight transfer is not exactly correct. Using the dampening to control the RATE of weight transfer is correct.
The amount of weight transferred is dependent on the center of gravity, roll axis and roll rates. Where the weight is transferred is dependent on the spring rates. How quickly this weight is transferred is controlled by the shocks. So Thorpe, you are a little closer to the true purpose of the shock than the other fellow..my opinion. And you are right on with the tie down scenario in that you are tuning the chassis regarding rate of transfer after you get the spring rate real close to perfect!
The amount of weight transferred is dependent on the center of gravity, roll axis and roll rates. Where the weight is transferred is dependent on the spring rates. How quickly this weight is transferred is controlled by the shocks. So Thorpe, you are a little closer to the true purpose of the shock than the other fellow..my opinion. And you are right on with the tie down scenario in that you are tuning the chassis regarding rate of transfer after you get the spring rate real close to perfect!
Last edited:
- #509
THORPE
- 41
- 0
Thanks for the info. We just agreed to disagree lol.
What I'm looking for this weekend is s small bit of tire loading control by change in transfer rate.
On a med bank track with decent grip.
I plan to run:
Rf lf Soft.
Lr 2 rates higher than front.
Rr one rate up from front.
Then stiffer bump and rebound in both lf and lr.
From what I understand stiffer lf bump and lr rebound unloads lr tire load sooner on entry and takes cross weight out.
Then stiffer lf and lr bump adds cross weight on exit.
My hope is to be slightly loose entry and slightly tight off witch fits my driving style.
What I'm looking for this weekend is s small bit of tire loading control by change in transfer rate.
On a med bank track with decent grip.
I plan to run:
Rf lf Soft.
Lr 2 rates higher than front.
Rr one rate up from front.
Then stiffer bump and rebound in both lf and lr.
From what I understand stiffer lf bump and lr rebound unloads lr tire load sooner on entry and takes cross weight out.
Then stiffer lf and lr bump adds cross weight on exit.
My hope is to be slightly loose entry and slightly tight off witch fits my driving style.
- #510
THORPE
- 41
- 0
Btw this spring setup has been very close with equal dampening all 4 corners
Similar threads
Automotive
Suspension interaction with car
- · Replies 4 ·
- · Replies 20 ·
Automotive
Normal load on the tires of car
- · Replies 5 ·
- · Replies 9 ·
- · Replies 4 ·
- · Replies 7 ·
- · Replies 49 ·
- · Replies 6 ·
- · Replies 8 ·