Login    Forum    Search    FAQ

Board index » Racing Forum » Drive Train, Suspension and Brakes




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 150 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Suspension Dynamics.
 Post Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 6:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 8:20 pm
Posts: 5852
Location: N.J.
There is alot of talk and theory here from some but no one is telling me what or where I should set it as far as IC or height.......

_________________
Image
running E85
Best ET 8.07
Best MPH 170.71
Barry


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Suspension Dynamics.
 Post Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 4:12 pm
Posts: 1215
Location: Adelaide Australia
Im still waiting for the remainder of the information I need so i cant help you yet.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Suspension Dynamics.
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:54 pm
Posts: 1619
Location: Western Illinois
I gave my 2 cents worth. Raise COG and set IC close to neutral for starting spot. If distance out for IC is a concern, make it 68 and 1/2 inches. Pick one out of the hat, as long as it's close to neutral. Then let the car talk to you. Making a diagnosis over the net is tough, that is why these talks and theories are important. If you can grasp what is happening, you can fix it yourself. There will come a time you can't find help. I can only tell you what I believe and why I believe it. It is based on Physical laws of nature. Law not theory. It may sound like old school but most all laws of physics are over a century old. What's new is taking the old laws and adapting to the new tech available to us now.














i gave

_________________
Older I get the less I know for sure Dennis


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Suspension Dynamics.
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 5:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 7:05 am
Posts: 88
Location: Orlando, FL
Bubstr wrote:
I gave my 2 cents worth. Raise COG and set IC close to neutral for starting spot. If distance out for IC is a concern, make it 68 and 1/2 inches. Pick one out of the hat, as long as it's close to neutral. Then let the car talk to you. Making a diagnosis over the net is tough, that is why these talks and theories are important. If you can grasp what is happening, you can fix it yourself. There will come a time you can't find help. I can only tell you what I believe and why I believe it. It is based on Physical laws of nature. Law not theory. It may sound like old school but most all laws of physics are over a century old. What's new is taking the old laws and adapting to the new tech available to us now.
i gave

Amen!
http://home.earthlink.net/~whshope
over 140,000 page views


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Suspension Dynamics.
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 6:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 10:33 am
Posts: 1293
Location: Montgomery, Alabama
Quote:
Raise COG

Hey Barry, you always wanted to re locate that engine anyway didn't you? =;
You could try mounting the battery on the roof. =;


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Suspension Dynamics.
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 4:12 pm
Posts: 1215
Location: Adelaide Australia
Gentleman this is really quite simple; If you want to find out how a torque arm like a ladder bar works observe a speedcar on a chassis dyno. I have personally done it many times. If the diff or body is not strapped down and the car is only chocked or restrained from forward movement by a rope no other influences occur. When the throttle is applied the whole car sprung weight rises. The front and the back springs extend, it is very obvious. There is no acceleration involved in this test. There is weight being taken off of the front wheels and applied to the rear wheels via the torque tube. A torque tube is the same as a ladder bar in its torque holding reaction ability. The only difference is it doesn’t push the car as a ladder bar does.
Suspension design can indeed transfer weight from the front wheels to the rear independently of the forward acceleration of the vehicle. Whatever torque is present at the axle has to be resisted by the mounting system to the body and the only thing in the body that resists it is the weight. So if you have a 1 foot long ladder bar and you have 100 lbs ft torque in the rear axle the front mount of the ladder bar will exert a force upward on the chassis of 100 lbs and the springs will extend 100 lbs worth of compression. If you power it up enough the spring will become completely relaxed and you could reach under the car and remove it. At this point the rear tyres are supporting the weight of the car at the front mount of the ladder bar, that is the rear weight has increased to the same as if you moved the axle forward 1 foot and scaled it that way. The front wheels will of course weight less because the rear axle has been moved forward.
If the ladder bar was longer and the front mount was under the CG of the body considerably more torque would be needed to relax the rear spring completely. But this is not impossible, its actually quite easy to do. So this car with the longer ladder bar is powered up on the dyno and the torque will lift the whole body evenly front and back then you can take all 4 springs out of the car and it will stay suspended on the ladder bar as long as you have the power and traction on the rollers.
Torque is holding the weight of the car.
When I do the calculation of weight transfer for our drag car it says we need 4 odd G’s to make the front wheels weigh zero, that’s rubbish because the car actually pulls the front wheels at 1.8G.The reason for this is the lift from the 4 link reduces the weight of the front wheels (think of it as moving the axle forward), so now the car only needs 1.8G to have the front wheels in the air.

The shorter the ladder bar or the four link IC the more lift you get from the torque component. Its simple.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Suspension Dynamics.
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:45 pm
Posts: 248
Good read there Shrinker,....I pretty much agree with everything your saying there. That's why I was saying that he shouldn't rule out an ic that in the neighborhood of 45" inches or so. But the new settings he is going to try the next time should be a good starting point.

I'm sure that I'm going to be spanked for this comment, [-X but here goes anyways. What I have found in tuning dirt car chassis is that pinion movement can be converted into better traction. After all,...that movement is what's moving the lift bar, jerk bar, or even the upper bars of the 4 link in the drag car. How efficiently we put that movement to work will/should show up as traction. I have tuned alot of Drag cars in the past. Some of my friends in the dirt scene drug me over there to give them some help with their stuff. When I started making suggestions there they thought I was nutz, and the comment, " you know I have to turn left every once in a while " , kept comming up. But most of my ideas we have been using there has worked very good. :---)

If I'm reading Berettas graph correctly it kinda looks like he may be hooking so hard initially that he is actually bogging the engine a bit. #-o Which allows for the shocks to recompress during that bog. It kinda looks like he may be kinda bouncing his way out of the first 60' feet. jmo [-(

But like was said before,...it's kinda hard to tune a car over the net where you can't get a good visual feedback. ](*,)

Don

_________________
GOODSON Tools & Supplies For Engine Builders


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Suspension Dynamics.
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 5:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 4:12 pm
Posts: 1215
Location: Adelaide Australia
Its all a balance isnt it. The advantage of the four link over a ladder bar is the fourlink can move the IC as the suspension moves. The fourlink sits at the start line with a certain geometry but as soon as torque is applied it adds weight to the rear axle and that alters the spring compressed distance. This happens the instant the wheel spins before the car moves forward. It happens as the tyre wrinkles up even. When the fourlink does its initial movement the IC moves forward and up. A new geometry exists, and this new geometry exerts a new different upward force so the spring compression changes again. Then a new geometry exists again and so on. During all this the tyre squashes and alters the geometry too. To this mix we add in the acceleration compression of the rear spring and out pops a movement graph of the cars launch. That's why I couldn't do it all in my head years ago. So I wrote the physics into Excell and used circular referencing and it works it out for you. It shows a graph of the cars movements, a graph of the fourlink movement and weight profile of the rear wheels. This problem of working out a reaction movement of the car is not a simple one of how it sits on the start line. The thing that bugged me was the fourlink programmes out there and even the stuff on billyshopes web page says that our car has the front wheels on the ground but it clearly doesnt so I had to figure it out myself. I have done it and its the same answer on the Excell as the data logger shows. Its the same answer even when I alter the fourlink settings or the ride height, they still agree with one another.
The softer the rear spring is the more the IC moves around, the more the geometry can change. If it changes too fast the loading on the tyre can cause it to bounce like a big ball hence one cause for hopping. If the tyre looses traction it will also cause hopping. A loss of traction or a loss of engine power like want-a-be suspects causes the fourlink to shorten and then the geometry forces the wheel harder down again(weight transfer) The tyre "feels" less weight, and has less torque applied so it pops up, shortens the IC even more and starts a bouncing process or tyre shake. Stiffening the shockers is a "band aid" measure that should be avoided by correctly identifying the causes and correcting them.
I recommend to start with the lower bar horizontal to the ground, that reduces the movement of the IC in a vertical plane. It is helpful to do this at the start because you might be blaming the four link set up for another factors effect.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Suspension Dynamics.
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:54 pm
Posts: 1619
Location: Western Illinois
Scott Smith wrote:
Quote:
Raise COG

Hey Barry, you always wanted to re locate that engine anyway didn't you? =;
You could try mounting the battery on the roof. =;


If it was easy, everyone would do it. Really don't make it any harder than it is. An inch on all 4 wheels in ride hight gains an inch. A 2 inch spacer between fuel cell and frame can yield a 1/4. A raised seat can gain some. As far as moving an engine, if the car is built to work on, you can move one at the track in a matter of minutes. The weight don't have to be moved from below the COG to above. Anything you can move just a little adds up. It's like building to be light. Watch the ounces and the pounds take care of them selves.

_________________
Older I get the less I know for sure Dennis


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Suspension Dynamics.
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:05 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 3:20 pm
Posts: 1457
Location: Missouri
Bubstr wrote:
An inch on all 4 wheels in ride height gains an inch.
Yes, the easiest method, by far, like my earlier quote suggested.

Rick360 wrote:
I've found raising or lowering the car (especially in front) helps get the amount of transfer for the power being applied. Not enough transfer and you can raise it up, too much and lower it (if you can). But the bottom line is the ideal height of the C/G will change as the power level changes


On the overall subject being discussed about suspension, IC, % antiquat, lines of force etc etc...

There are 2 separate things going on. The torque applied thru the differential is lifting/rotating thru the bars (traction bars, ladder bars or 4-link bars) causing the suspension to want to rise or rotate around the differential. This will move weight to the rear tires. Then there is the inertia as the car accelerates which is acting on the tire contact patch from the CoG. This pushes back causing the car to lift up and transferring weight to the rear. They appear to do the same thing yet they are caused by different things. The torque rotation must be there first or there isn't enough traction to take the initial hit without spinning. Then the inertia from the acceleration takes over and keeps it there and adds to it.

my $.02
Rick


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Suspension Dynamics.
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:54 pm
Posts: 1619
Location: Western Illinois
shrinker wrote:
Gentleman this is really quite simple; If you want to find out how a torque arm like a ladder bar works observe a speedcar on a chassis dyno. I have personally done it many times. If the diff or body is not strapped down and the car is only chocked or restrained from forward movement by a rope no other influences occur. When the throttle is applied the whole car sprung weight rises. The front and the back springs extend, it is very obvious. There is no acceleration involved in this test. There is weight being taken off of the front wheels and applied to the rear wheels via the torque tube. A torque tube is the same as a ladder bar in its torque holding reaction ability. The only difference is it doesn’t push the car as a ladder bar does.
Suspension design can indeed transfer weight from the front wheels to the rear independently of the forward acceleration of the vehicle. Whatever torque is present at the axle has to be resisted by the mounting system to the body and the only thing in the body that resists it is the weight. So if you have a 1 foot long ladder bar and you have 100 lbs ft torque in the rear axle the front mount of the ladder bar will exert a force upward on the chassis of 100 lbs and the springs will extend 100 lbs worth of compression. If you power it up enough the spring will become completely relaxed and you could reach under the car and remove it. At this point the rear tyres are supporting the weight of the car at the front mount of the ladder bar, that is the rear weight has increased to the same as if you moved the axle forward 1 foot and scaled it that way. The front wheels will of course weight less because the rear axle has been moved forward.
If the ladder bar was longer and the front mount was under the CG of the body considerably more torque would be needed to relax the rear spring completely. But this is not impossible, its actually quite easy to do. So this car with the longer ladder bar is powered up on the dyno and the torque will lift the whole body evenly front and back then you can take all 4 springs out of the car and it will stay suspended on the ladder bar as long as you have the power and traction on the rollers.
Torque is holding the weight of the car.
When I do the calculation of weight transfer for our drag car it says we need 4 odd G’s to make the front wheels weigh zero, that’s rubbish because the car actually pulls the front wheels at 1.8G.The reason for this is the lift from the 4 link reduces the weight of the front wheels (think of it as moving the axle forward), so now the car only needs 1.8G to have the front wheels in the air.

The shorter the ladder bar or the four link IC the more lift you get from the torque component. Its simple.


First at what height was the tie down on the chassis on that Dyno? You have lines of force that look a lot like what Obbcessed and Shazam in here have with their pulling trucks. You have a line of force going straight forward at the tire contact patch and the opposite but equal force is going threw that hold back. Ask them what a high or low draw bar will do for wheel stands. While it is almost impossible to tie it off low enough to avoid the front rising, If you move COG forward and low with the aid of a front weight box, it gets manageable. This really has little to do with torque from axle lifting on control arms. The torque just supplies the forward force. A pulling tractor with no suspension will do the same. In a way the results are the same, just the physics used to explain it.

Now for the 4Gs to unload front tires. Did you take into consideration how much compressed stored energy was it them front springs. They helped unload the weight from the front.

Now torque and length of control bars in the rear. Lets give the car lots of torque. 1,000lbs. With a 1 foot bar, you would have 1,000foot pounds of torque. With a 2 foot bar you would have 500flb. With a 3 foot bar you would have 333flb. Now is 333flbs going to lift the front of a front of a 100 plus WB car. At the 100 inch mark your mechanical advantage has dropped by 2/3rds making around 111pounds of force lifting at the front. Less than what you torque your heads at. It can't lift the front of a car. I grant you the car gets lifted but from other lines of force. Do you see what I am saying. We agree what it does but not why. The torque puts a straight linear force at the tire contact patch but very little rotational force.

_________________
Older I get the less I know for sure Dennis


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Suspension Dynamics.
 Post Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 7:05 am
Posts: 88
Location: Orlando, FL
rick360 wrote:
There are 2 separate things going on. The torque applied thru the differential is lifting/rotating thru the bars (traction bars, ladder bars or 4-link bars) causing the suspension to want to rise or rotate around the differential. This will move weight to the rear tires. Then there is the inertia as the car accelerates which is acting on the tire contact patch from the CoG. This pushes back causing the car to lift up and transferring weight to the rear. They appear to do the same thing yet they are caused by different things. The torque rotation must be there first or there isn't enough traction to take the initial hit without spinning. Then the inertia from the acceleration takes over and keeps it there and adds to it.

my $.02
Rick

No, weight transfer during launch is, for a given car, proportional to acceleration. Suspension linkage can do absolutely nothing (unless, of course, it affects acceleration). Some confusion has undoubtedly occurred as a result of a poster's comments regarding observations during chassis dynamometer testing. This would be a form of that which is called "constrained testing." Up until about 50 years ago, it was commonly used by the manufacturers to simulate cornering loads. A car was attached to a large truck or bus by means of a horizontal tether aligned with the car's center of gravity. As the car and truck moved forward at 2 or 3 miles per hour, the car was steered away from the truck. The tension in the tether simulated the inertial force that would have been generated as the car was driven at speed through a corner. The inertial force is proportional to the product of the mass and acceleration and is always acting in a direction opposite to the direction of the acceleration. So, though the car was not experiencing the radial acceleration resulting from its path through a corner, the loads imposed on the suspension and tires were the same.

Similarly, a car strapped down for a chassis dynamometer run will exhibit deflections similar to those in a dragstrip launch. In fact, if you take this a step further, you have that which I call a "traction dyno." But, unlike the constrained testing used for cornering loads and unlike the chassis dynamometer test, the engine doesn't even have to be started. You can simulate launch loads and make suspension adjustments in your shop. This is described at my site.
http://home.earthlink.net/~whshope
over 140,000 page views


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Suspension Dynamics.
 Post Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 4:12 pm
Posts: 1215
Location: Adelaide Australia
I have tested speedcars on rollers without restraining them with a rope Just clamping the front wheels is enough with those ratchet wedges. Anyway enough about speedcars.

There is some confusion here that needs straightening out, firstly the force applied at the ground contact patch of the tyre is backward not forward. The ground has to resist the force of the tyre torque and that resistance is forward but the ground doesnt move does it. Im not going to be stupid here and start talking about the earths equal and opposite reaction to the force from your drag car. I look at it this way, the force applied to the ground is rearward and the axle reaction direction is forward. The axle gets pushed forward and the car goes with it.
The inertia of the CG is a rearward force at the tyre contact patch, its what the ground receives and resists.

For those interested here are some specs ---Our drag car has 5388 Lbs Ft of torque at the rear axle that's without factoring in torque converter multiplication. The wheel base is 107" that's a lift at the front of 604 lbs in just torque reaction. The front weight is 1211LBS; rear is 1174; CGH is 13" the IC is 35.55" the car runs average times of 8.25 1/4 mile with 60' times of 1.153 sec. The front wheels come in the air at 1.76G precisely and it maxes the G at 2.4 to 2.7 depending on track grip at launch. It spins the tyres at 2.8 g, I have never had more g than that. The rear suspension extends to 0.92" of separation from the body at the time the wheels become airborne. It has 200 Lbs to the inch rear springs and 225 pounds to the inch at the front wheels spring rate. The rear shockers are Carrera speedcar front shocks with a rate of 185lbs at 21" per second shaft speed set at 50/50. It has 435lbs of G force weight transfer at the point when the front wheels air borne. This figure is accounting front end rise during launch tyre squish, four link geometry change etc.
The torque plus the g force is 1039 lbs of weight transfer off of the front wheels. Leaving only 172 lbs available for four link lift. Any more than that is excessive. And that is the case; the suspension movement indicates 323 lbs loss by extension in the rear springs and I think that’s what is lost into the wheelie bars. It pads the wheelie bars on the ground for about 4 feet of the track. We have found that this setup is best for down the track stability. The short IC helps punch the tyres into the ground down the track and if it’s not done that way the car spins up big time and looses ET. So you can see that this car uses the fourlink for down track performance. It could (and it does) launch the same with a longer IC but it looses down track traction.

The stored compression in the front springs does indeed allow the front to rise and that raises the CGH etc Im not arguing any of that. But the rise is not enough to enable the CGH to air the front wheels of the car at 1.8 G.
The Tip over due to G force is equal to the tangent of the angle from the vertical of the tyre contact to the CG. That means in order to tip over at 1.76g requires an angle of 60.4 degrees. Our car has an angle of 76.9 degrees equals 4.3G. This is all at the static position on the start line.

I have been confused with BillyShopes point that the suspension design cannot contribute to weight transfer. As I read his posts it seems to me that he is advocating that its only CGH and acceleration that result in weight transfer. If we are defining weight transfer as the downward force addition to the rear wheels that is removed from the front wheel downwards force during acceleration then I can’t agree with that. One only has to look at a data logger of spring movements and you can see the springs extend at the rear on some fourlink cars indicating that the linkage is holding weight and the springs are holding less. When we have run our car with a longer IC the spring is more compressed down track indicating less lift from the fourlink. And the car spins the tyres on individual blocks of concrete. The evidence is there.

This what I did ; now stay with me here if your interested.
Plugging our car numbers into the tyre friction calculator and the weight transfer calculator on billyshopes web site answers with Tyre coefficient of friction of 3.37 and weight transfer of 814 lbs. Clearly not enough to lift the front wheels. So why does it? Perhaps my CGH is wrong, Ok so lets plug into Billy’s site and see what CGH we need to get the car doing what it actually does. It reveals a CGH of 19.3 inches with a tyre traction coefficient of 2.81
The tyre traction coefficient is exactly right the car spins the wheels at precisely 2.81 G according to the logger. However it doesn’t have a start line CGH of 19.3 inches. It would achieve this CGH dynamically though during a wheel stand. At that CGH it needs 2.81G to maintain equilibrium and that’s what the car maxes out at. So it seems to me that Billys calculator is accurate in the dynamic situation.
By utilizing this train of thought it bring me to the conclusion that I need to set the wheelie bar height so that the CGH can go to 19.3”. Doing that would maximize the weight on the rear wheels without any on the wheelie bars. That’s not going to be mechanically acceptable so my alternative is to lengthen the wheelie bars so they don’t unload the tyres as much as they are now.
I have always viewed a purpose of the four link or ladder bar as a mechanism to increase tyre downward force to a sufficient level to enable the forward acceleration to lift the front wheels. What I am saying is the ultimate acceleration ability of the car is definitely determined by the CGH in the dynamic situation and the wheel base. But its getting the car there that requires the thinking. I still advocate that the linkages increase the weight transfer of a vehicle when the total acceleration is insufficient to lift the front wheels. It is this skill in utilizing the linkages that enables an otherwise under tyred car to perform better.

Here is the way promoted in some books on how to calculate weight transfer.
Weight transfer = weight x cg height / wheel track x g. For drag racing use the wheelbase for the track. So for our drag car it becomes; 1285*13/107*1.76.
Answer is 274 pounds. Clearly this will not lift the front wheels in the air will it? This formula fails to account for a CG that isn’t in the center of the track or the wheelbase. In other words it fails to deal with a car other than a 50/50 weight distribution. But our car is close to 50/50 so what happens when we use 19.3” CGH. It calcs at 407lbs. What did I say in the third paragraph? It has 447 lbs of g force transfer in the dynamic situation when the front wheels become airborne. And then you add the torque reaction and pop go the front wheels.
See it all lines up. Billys calculator, my spread sheet, the data logger all line up. But I understand better than before why we use a four link because I did my calculator in Excel.
It how you look at it, it’s not simple to hold all these concepts in your head. We need a four link on our race car to get the weight off the front to gain traction to enable it to accelerate how it does with the front wheels in the air. Once the front wheels are in the air the four link does not add weight to the rear wheels, It can’t there isn’t any more to give. Once the front wheels are in the air you need the four link to stop trying to lift the body up and over the diff. That’s why spring rate is important. High spring rate reduces the geometry change of the fourlink and helps control the tyre bounce or shake.

I hope people can follow what I’m saying its seems long winded and probably will take a bit of effort to think this way but I feel it’s a valuable way to analyze the goings on.
Here is a Youtube video of our car. The run is a special run we did for the spreading of the ashes of our crew man who died of a Brain tumor at 43.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VG8ssJQl3R4


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Suspension Dynamics.
 Post Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:54 pm
Posts: 1619
Location: Western Illinois
Good read, Shrinker. Although we disagree on the lines of force You and I agree on a lot of the settings and cures for our suspension ills. I believe in a little higher than most IC setting and you call it a shorter one. The difference being the neutral line rising as you go forward. While shorter it is also higher. I believe in as high a rate spring as you can get away with as you do. I believe the IC does add or subtract down force on the contact, patch but gets it's energy in a little different way, and this force is not weight transfer, but the way the IC deals with the transfer. Yes it can wrinkle the side walls more. While it can not put anymore weight than what you transfer to that corner it can be mushy enough not to. It also can be too stiff and quick that it distorts contact patch. I like to compare that IC setting and spring /shock to two guys walking up to you, putting their hands on your chest and giving you a push. Both weigh the same but one has arms like Popeye, the other like Olive Oil with out spinach. You want a good firm push, but not one that will damage your back side.

It is kinda like that commercial where Jimmy is thinking with his dip stick. Some of us think with IC settings, some with spring shock, some with COG, some with tires and it is all of these to balance it out. It always amazes me that even with differing view as to how things work the end fixes are most times close to the same, and always follow the laws of physics.

_________________
Older I get the less I know for sure Dennis


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Suspension Dynamics.
 Post Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 8:20 pm
Posts: 5852
Location: N.J.
Shrinker, would you have a vid of that car from behind/side view that you can post. Very nice............But it looks like the driver is on the wrong side =; =;

_________________
Image
running E85
Best ET 8.07
Best MPH 170.71
Barry


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 150 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Board index » Racing Forum » Drive Train, Suspension and Brakes


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: