When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
That does appear to be a lot. I agree...and I'd wonder the same thing, if I were you. Can you use some string (or something to find points and see where your roll center is now?
I that^ at Devens? How long have you autox'ing that car? I think I remember seeing that car back when I used to auto-x in the NERSCCA, but that was back in the early to mid '90's.
It could be those tires, Brian's car sticks like glue! What do you have for sway bars?
I find it surprising how much roll is in that picture, it sure didn't feel like it was that bad when I went for a ride. Those tires are REALLY sticky though.
From: Boston, Dallas, Detroit, SoCal, back to Boston MA
This one explains my oversteer issues.
I thought it was the stiff springs, but looks like I driving on three wheels!
Originally Posted by Tom400CFI
...
I that^ at Devens? How long have you autox'ing that car? I think I remember seeing that car back when I used to auto-x in the NERSCCA, but that was back in the early to mid '90's.
By lowering the car you raise the RC reletive to the CG, but since the whole car is lower (including the CG) you still lower the RC as well. I dont think you messed anything up there.
What size anti-roll bars are you using? What are your wheel rates with the coilovers?
The rear wheel lifting is one of the disadvantages to going coil overs verse the transverse spring, ARTICULATION. The coil over will unload the wheel sooner than the transverse spring.
The rear wheel lifting is one of the disadvantages to going coil overs verse the transverse spring, ARTICULATION. The coil over will unload the wheel sooner than the transverse spring.
If the rates are the same, I don't understand why the transverse spring should act any different than a coil.
At a glance I wondered if the front end is diving due to too low a front spring rate? But the body doesn't look like it's diving THAT much, does it?
Brian, its a lot of work but you can download a 10 day trial of suspension analyzer and input your pickup and suspension and see what you did R/C wise when you lowered it. As some one above said, I kinda doubt it's a R/C issue
Look at earlier photos to verify the body roll has indeed increased, If it has and the springs are all that were changed. I would make a BIG spring rate change and try again.
Kimmer and Kubs are pointing you in the right direction - sway bars , wheel rates and motion ratios, there is a direct corelation between spring rates and sway bar rates, if you put heavy springs in but dont change the sway bar it wont work properly,
there is a reason they are called an "anti-sway bar", its not necessarily the spring that stops body roll, its more the anti sway bar, but they need to be within a certain percentage of each other to work effectively,
google the subject - its a bit of a black art but just read up on it.
If the rates are the same, I don't understand why the transverse spring should act any different than a coil.
The transverse spring actually acts as an anti-roll bar also. When the body rolls, the spring forms an S shape and pushes on the loaded side to keep the car from rolling. Going to a coil setup without changing bars could potentially increase roll.
The transverse spring actually acts as an anti-roll bar also. When the body rolls, the spring forms an S shape and pushes on the loaded side to keep the car from rolling. Going to a coil setup without changing bars could potentially increase roll.
Not the way I see it. That spring is held in place, very rigidly, in two points, any "s" shape movement, if there really is any, would not in any way act like a anti roll bar, the spring between those two mounts is virtually unbendable. Although the rate may be slightly affected.
Its always pushing on the loaded side, that's what holds the car up.
I suspect the overall rate of the spring may not be linear and as a result has a higher average rate than first indicated.
If springs are all that were changed I would try hard to quantify the original spring rate and duplicate that with the coils.
Going from a transverse leaf to a coil over(if that's what Brian did??) could also change the motion ratio. If that is the case wheel rate should be calculated and compared.
Not the way I see it. That spring is held in place, very rigidly, in two points, any "s" shape movement, if there really is any, would not in any way act like a anti roll bar, the spring between those two mounts is virtually unbendable. Although the rate may be slightly affected.
Its always pushing on the loaded side, that's what holds the car up.
I suspect the overall rate of the spring may not be linear and as a result has a higher average rate than first indicated.
If springs are all that were changed I would try hard to quantify the original spring rate and duplicate that with the coils.
Going from a transverse leaf to a coil over(if that's what Brian did??) could also change the motion ratio. If that is the case wheel rate should be calculated and compared.
Why do you think GM still uses the transverse leaf in the C6 instead of going to coils? It is exactly how they are designed to work. Those two brackets on the front spring are not there to hold it in place, they are there to help with the roll bar effect.
Why do you think GM still uses the transverse leaf in the C6 instead of going to coils?
The transverse leaf requires no maintenance over the life of the car, A big issue with the average buyer. Coil overs are not nearly as trouble free, they have rod ends as well as huge shaft bushing loads the stock shock absorber never sees.
Originally Posted by Kubs
Those two brackets on the front spring are not there to hold it in place.