ALFAGTV6.COM

Barry · Post by **Barry** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 10:24 am

The ex Rouse car-Thanks Andrew..mail me sometime ..

grant · Post by **grant** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 11:03 am

So you're saying the springs might even be stiffer than they need to be from a handling stand point just to keep a car that's so low to the ground from bottoming?

Do you have pictures of your suspension on your race car anywhere Micke?

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 10:25 pm

grant wrote:
Micke wrote:Let's invert the question:

Why should it be bigger?
On a track, couldn't you get better lap times by having slightly softer spring rates, and using a sway bar to pick up in the roll stiffness? I know brake dive is negatively effected, but over bumps you might have an upper hand over an overly stiff setup?

That's the american way of seting up suspension according to Carroll Smith. Probably due to the difference in track surface smoothness he writes.

grant wrote:So you're saying the springs might even be stiffer than they need to be from a handling stand point just to keep a car that's so low to the ground from bottoming?

On our cars? No. On high Aero-download cars - very much so. But if will give you better laptimes and gets you in front of your competitors.

The ratio long-lat I've heard is that in the transition from full braking to full cornering the inner rear shock and outer front shock should not change their lenght. The thought being that hte less the car weight/body moves around the better the situation for the tires to develop grip. And tires is everything, right Micke?

Micke · Post by **Micke** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 10:56 pm

Sheit. My reply is gone.
However, Mats said it very good I think. I actually didn't think of it that way but it does make sense.

I'm sure I posted pics here but can't remember where.

grant · Post by **grant** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:38 am

So, admittedly, I haven't had time to finish Smith's book, but by trying to remove body movement, is that developing maximum grip b/c the tires stay closer to their static camber/alignment settings, or keeping the suspension geometry the same?

What's that ordeal about roll does not cause more weight transfer?

Micke · Post by **Micke** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 1:00 am

Weight transfer creates roll - not the other way around.

grant · Post by **grant** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 1:55 am

So then, if the roll is reduced with stiffer spring rates...what happens to the weight transfer?

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:06 am

It stays the same, it's a function of Center of Gravity Height (CGH) and acceleration only.

U5tabil · Post by **U5tabil** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:52 am

grant wrote:
Micke wrote:Let's invert the question:

Why should it be bigger?
On a track, couldn't you get better lap times by having slightly softer spring rates, and using a sway bar to pick up in the roll stiffness? I know brake dive is negatively effected, but over bumps you might have an upper hand over an overly stiff setup?

And Micke, I'm simply trying to learn.

@U5,

Any reason you dind't go with Ron's 4 position adjustable rear bar?

I was originally going to buy Andy's bar (as I'm in the US) but with my 75, I'd have to buy his sway bar end links as well, and at that point the bar was nearly as much as Ron's, all the way from europe.

Mostly because it wasn't made then. And he sayd that he didn't know when it was going to become ready. But i don't think that there are any big major difference between the one that i got and the one Ron sells.