...

Go Back   Lateral-g Forums > Technical Discussions > Chassis and Suspension
User Name
Password



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-22-2015, 12:05 PM
bergers59 bergers59 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 48
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Consensus on big bar/soft spring?

I'm trying to make a decision whether I want to go big bar/soft spring, or soft bar/stiff spring. From the research I've done, I've mostly found articles pertaining to late model asphalt cars rather than autocross. From what I can understand, soft springs are good for rougher surfaces(parking lots for autocross?) and making the tires work. I intend to run c prepared(slicks) and maybe a few 200tw events. Car will be 80% at track, so ride quality is of little concern. It seems as though BBSS requires different geometry(less camber change) to accommodate increased dive, and more testing/tuning to setup, is this true? I understand its a subjective question, but which setup is best for my application?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-22-2015, 05:40 PM
Rod P's Avatar
Rod P Rod P is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Thompsons Station, TN
Posts: 977
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bergers59 View Post
but which setup is best for my application?
that choice is mostly decided from training and driving style...I have driven and raced both in other cars for testing
__________________
Rod Prouty
My websiteAuto-cross 101
I'm not a Real Racer but I did spend a night in the Pozzi's motor-home
Bangshift Stories
I’m not the smartest guy at the track … but when he goes home … I’m still there testing, tuning, learning & getting faster.

Last edited by Rod P; 08-24-2015 at 10:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-24-2015, 12:15 PM
BMR Sales's Avatar
BMR Sales BMR Sales is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 8,345
Thanks: 479
Thanked 1,474 Times in 1,106 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rod P View Post
that choice is mostly decide from training and driving style...I have driven and raced both in other cars for testing
I agree. I like a RaceCar stiff, but that is not for everybody!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-25-2015, 12:26 PM
bergers59 bergers59 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 48
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

So one isn't faster than the other? Why are more people switching to a BBSS setup recently?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-25-2015, 12:51 PM
SSLance's Avatar
SSLance SSLance is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Peoria, AZ
Posts: 2,668
Thanks: 72
Thanked 337 Times in 211 Posts
Default

There is a big long explanation as to why that Ron Sutton I'm sure could explain better than I, but in a simple form...having a high travel setup lets one configure the geometry to work best in all areas of a turn and the straights as well.

With a super stiff spring setup, the static geometry is what it is pretty much all of the time. You dial in camber to help the outside front tire contact patch, but completely give up the contact patch on the inside front tire.

With a front suspension that travels, you can maximise the contact patch on both front tires in a turn. Aren't two tires gripping better than one?

Watch this video to see how well a soft spring\big bar setup helps make a G-Body turn.

__________________
Lance
1985 Monte Carlo SS Street Car
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-25-2015, 07:50 PM
bergers59 bergers59 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 48
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

point definitely taken, but could you not compensate for the stiffer spring rate car by making the dynamic camber change larger for a smaller distance of travel?
Another thing I just thought of, since I intend to run c prepared and I intend to get the car as low as I can, would running a softer spring rate and higher travel limit my static ride height setting?

Last edited by bergers59; 08-25-2015 at 07:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-25-2015, 09:03 PM
Ron Sutton's Avatar
Ron Sutton Ron Sutton is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 2,422
Thanks: 45
Thanked 35 Times in 26 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bergers59 View Post
point definitely taken, but could you not compensate for the stiffer spring rate car by making the dynamic camber change larger for a smaller distance of travel?
Another thing I just thought of, since I intend to run c prepared and I intend to get the car as low as I can, would running a softer spring rate and higher travel limit my static ride height setting?

I'd like to suggest you look at it a different way. We don't care where the CG is when the car is sitting in the pits. We care where the CG is out there in turn 6 ... just before turn in.




__________________
Ron Sutton Race Technology
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-25-2015, 11:44 PM
bergers59 bergers59 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 48
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

ohhhhhhhhhhh
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-26-2015, 11:41 AM
Ron Sutton's Avatar
Ron Sutton Ron Sutton is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 2,422
Thanks: 45
Thanked 35 Times in 26 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bergers59 View Post
ohhhhhhhhhhh

It is/was pretty common to set-up a car low, with the crank centerline (at the balancer) at 12" above ground "to get the mass low". Then with a stiff front spring set-up, the car may travel (compress) 1" ... so this mass is 1" lower with the crank centerline at 11". Modern, high travel set-ups, may place the crank centerline at 13". Then travel the front end 3" to 4.5" under braking, before turn in. That puts the crank centerline at 8.5" to 10" depending upon the travel strategy.

If we put that mass at 8.5" ... the cornering speed capability compared to it being at 11" ... is a significant difference. All things being equal ... contact patch, car weight, track width, optimized spring & bar rates ... the car with the lower CG can carry significantly more speed. The other bonus is, the front end is loaded more from static load transfer of the front end being 3"-4.5" lower. This is in addition to the dynamic load transfer from braking g-forces.

Lastly, combined with the strategy of running the car flatter (less roll angle) increases the loading on the inside front tire ... increasing it's grip ... adding to the total grip the front end has. We can't go faster through a corner than the front end has grip. That needs to be our focus. Running a low roll strategy ... say 1° ... keeps the inside tires loaded more than a high roll strategy around 3°.

Make sense?



__________________
Ron Sutton Race Technology
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-26-2015, 12:05 PM
Rod P's Avatar
Rod P Rod P is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Thompsons Station, TN
Posts: 977
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Sutton View Post

It is/was pretty common to set-up a car low, with the crank centerline (at the balancer) at 12" above ground "to get the mass low". Then with a stiff front spring set-up, the car may travel (compress) 1" ... so this mass is 1" lower with the crank centerline at 11". Modern, high travel set-ups, may place the crank centerline at 13". Then travel the front end 3" to 4.5" under braking, before turn in. That puts the crank centerline at 8.5" to 10" depending upon the travel strategy.

If we put that mass at 8.5" ... the cornering speed capability compared to it being at 11" ... is a significant difference. All things being equal ... contact patch, car weight, track width, optimized spring & bar rates ... the car with the lower CG can carry significantly more speed. The other bonus is, the front end is loaded more from static load transfer of the front end being 3"-4.5" lower. This is in addition to the dynamic load transfer from braking g-forces.

Lastly, combined with the strategy of running the car flatter (less roll angle) increases the loading on the inside front tire ... increasing it's grip ... adding to the total grip the front end has. We can't go faster through a corner than the front end has grip. That needs to be our focus. Running a low roll strategy ... say 1° ... keeps the inside tires loaded more than a high roll strategy around 3°.

Make sense?



ummff! know it all
__________________
Rod Prouty
My websiteAuto-cross 101
I'm not a Real Racer but I did spend a night in the Pozzi's motor-home
Bangshift Stories
I’m not the smartest guy at the track … but when he goes home … I’m still there testing, tuning, learning & getting faster.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Lateral-g.net