Dislocate or Retain?

Articulation and traction should not be confused.
It's traction that gets you places. Traction requires downforce on the wheels and dislocated springs have none.

Everyone has an opinion on the topic, my advice would be to try running both ways if you have the time to play with your setup. I know what i liked, the only issue i ever had was bending lower retainers and dropping a spring, i suggest your beef these up either way!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uninformed

just becasue a large group of people are doing something, doesnt make it right or best practice.....and you will see a fair bit of this in many levels of motorsport.

you can have 3 foot of atriculation if you want, but first tell me what the suspension geometry is doing and how is it transmiting the hp from engine to the ground....Ill give you a hint, look at Anitdive and Antisquat...

and yes there are proven balance issues and neglegiable traction improvement with dislocated coils...

---

like clockwork serg;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uninformed

you can have 3 foot of atriculation if you want, but first tell me what the suspension geometry is doing and how is it transmiting the hp from engine to the ground....Ill give you a hint, look at Anitdive and Antisquat...

and yes there are proven balance issues and neglegiable traction improvement with dislocated coils...

---

How would a dislocated rear spring in real terms have a bearing on anti squat/dive Serg? Would a wheel of the ground be any better?

I don't really have an opinion either way, but common sense would say that a wheel still toucing the ground, would offer more traction than one in the air, even though the downward force would be low.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by discowhite

like clockwork serg;)

---

got something to say champ??? why not add some tech to this thread....better yet answer my question regarding the suspension and what its doing with large amounts of travel.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psimpson7

How would a dislocated rear spring in real terms have a bearing on anti squat/dive Serg? Would a wheel of the ground be any better?

I don't really have an opinion either way, but common sense would say that a wheel still toucing the ground, would offer more traction than one in the air, even though the downward force would be low.

---

Ill let discowhite answer this as he seems to have it all covered

Articulation from the rear is easy...

Harder to get from the front.

Traction is about grip on all 4 wheels. Put as much effort into getting flex out of the front as you do the rear. Or more.

Its about balance. A sexy flexy rear is wasted without similar movement in the front.

Imagine a set of alternating wombat holes. Which is better, the wheels working underneath, body relatively level, or the body mass rocking from side to side because one end is too stiff? The former has all four wheels loaded as much as possible, the latter has all the load on two, with two waving around in the air, maybe pawing at the ground if dislocated. Plus the latter has CoG issues with the body leaning.

If you get the chance, watch a well sorted Jeep. Blasphemy I know. But the way the front end flexes is something we can only dream of.

Summary? Just because you can dislocate doesn't mean you should.

Caveat: Loosening up the front end means losing on-road handling, as discussed in prior threads.


Regards
Max P

P.S.

Wombat holes in Appin, as an example

Regards
Max P

Dannie, I think you should really return your car to stock.

(It's becoming far to capable!!)





:tease:


Tim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uninformed

Ill let discowhite answer this as he seems to have it all covered

---

get off your bike champ!
i just knew that when i saw this thread....again..that you would pop in;)
i dont give a flying **** what you think, everyone has an oppinion and if i want to run re location cones i will, if you dont want to fine.

see how the world works