Kuching wrote:... I’ll spare you my theories on vehicle dynamics
Don't do that Simon,
The thread started with a lack of understanding. It's all helpful.
Ray
Home | WikiLEC | Repairs | Upgrades | Gallery | Buy & Sell | Mountain Chips | Meets & Events | Contact |
|
Moderators: theelanman, dapinky, Specky, clemo, Nige, Sy V, Dave Eds, DaveT, Elanlover, muley, Enright, algirdas, nitroman, GeoffSmith
Kuching wrote:... I’ll spare you my theories on vehicle dynamics
Kuching wrote:I’ve just caught up with this thread and it sounds like its getting quite interesting – especially for me as I have a bit of previous with such matters, and as Brian was ‘kind’ enough mention me, I probably ought to reply.
I often hear misconceptions about anti-roll bars and how they work but I’ll spare you my theories on vehicle dynamics because ultimately the spec is defined by what works on the track, regardless of what the maths tells you.
Having stuck my head under the back end of the car and it looks to me like it would be fairly simple to produce a stiffer version. Adjustable blades would be nice but would probably cost in excess of £1000 a set, so may not be practical. I’m thinking of a range of interchangeable tubular centre sections mounted onto fabricated arms. The arms could have 2 or 3 alternative hole positions at the upright end to change the effective lever-arm length (similar to what Brian suggested) and act as a fine adjustment. Once this has been tested and we have a better idea of the optimum stiffness, the design could be simplified with perhaps no need for interchangeable tubes.
I'll knock up a scheme when I get chance and post it on the thread.
RayD wrote:
Taking Nige’s picture as an example, while it might be an illusion it looks as if the rear inside wheel has gone up almost in unison with the outside rear, and already borrowed the available amount of help from the inner spring.
Kuching wrote:
I would suggest the conclusion therefore is that there little to achieve by playing with the rear roll bar in isolation. What we need is adjustable spring platforms so that the ride-height can be changed in combination with roll stiffness. Then we stand a chance of seeing off those pesky Elises!
Specky wrote:I know this maybe be the incorrect thread, but wouldn't stiffer bushes be the way forward to start with...
bobbrown wrote:but as spring rates and shock bounce and rebound are so closley associated it seem to me to be that they need to be done together.
bobbrown wrote:There are problems with stiffer bushes, one is knowing what is stiffer than standard as the "shore hardness" value of the current bushing is unknown or at least I do not know it..........
......Also the current bushes are of a bonded type and as far as I am aware the "poly bushes" are not.
bobbrown wrote:So how did Chris Witor come to the figure of 70 for the shore hardness, raised his thumb in the air or did he actually measure it?
Does the poly bushes retain the same amount of material between inner and outer steel parts? e.g does it have the same amount of material in the bush,
The fact that there is no perceptable differance on the road I doubt this will be much of a step forward, you also have to take into account the rubber bushes are of a moulded (bonded) type.
bobbrown wrote: it is in the interests of Chris Witor to say these will be an improvement .......
.......Your own road tests have shown there are no real improvement over the standard bushes, as for track use as you point out you have not been able to prove this one way or the other.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest