C10CoryM
|
| posted on 14/11/06 at 12:27 AM |
|
|
I would think on most cars the swaybar's effects have less to do with weight transfer and more to do with increased roll stiffness. Weight is
always going to transfer to the ouside wheel no matter what you do with the roll stiffness. In a super stiff racecar chassis you may see decrease in
weight transfer as whittlebeast is describing, but in most cases I doubt it.
Roll stiffness is what we are trying to increase by adding swaybars. Why do we want more roll stiffness? Because body roll changes the geometry of
the suspension and causes things like positive camber on inside tire and jacking effects among other things. All of which make the car slower and/or
less predictable.
The outside tire is being pushed DOWN by the swaybar and the inside is being LIFTED by the swaybar. Simplest way to view this is draw a solid link
from swaybar frame brackets to the swaybar control arm brackets and then add some bodyroll. The outer link is trying to get shorter, and the inside
link is trying to get longer. The swaybars stiffness is what controls this.
If your swaybars stiffness adds 200lbs/inch to your roll stiffness you have just added 200lbs/inch to your outer spring and this is where the reduced
roll comes from.
Hope Ive said that right. I rushed a bit.
Cheers.
"Our watchword evermore shall be: The Maple Leaf Forever!"
|
|
|
|
|
whittlebeast
|
| posted on 14/11/06 at 12:57 AM |
|
|
The reason that a floppy car handles better with sway bars has NOTHING to do with weight transfer. Lareral weight transfer is only a function of cg
height and g forces. The real reason they feel better is the less time that it takes for the chassis to reach full roll and take a set is reduced
with the increase in overall roll stiffness. The other thing that is a big factor is camber change that is roll induced. If both ends of the car
feel better by adding bars the real reason that it "handles" better is the outside tires are closer to vertical when fully loaded. Still
without chassis stiffness the two ends of the car will work independently from eack other. Also remember that the shocks also have similar issues.
If you realy want the car to handle you need a stiff chassis, stiff springs, good shocks and medium swaybars. 2 cycles per sec wheel rates, .75
degrees /g roll rates and 106% front tire loads.
AW
[Edited on 14/11/06 by whittlebeast]
|
|
|
gazza285
|
| posted on 14/11/06 at 07:09 AM |
|
|
That's enough pedantism, now what about monoshock systems? Any thoughts for a Locost application?
DO NOT PUT ON KNOB OR BOLLOCKS!
|
|
|
locostv8
|
| posted on 14/11/06 at 07:38 AM |
|
|
I would imagine it would be really tough to hook all 4 wheels to one shock. So I assume you are talking about the R1/R6 style coilover shock used on
a LC.
http://wrangler.rutgers.edu/gallery2/v/7slotgrille/hssss/
|
|
|
gazza285
|
| posted on 14/11/06 at 07:56 AM |
|
|
No, the monoshock systems used on some single seaters, with both front or rear wheels using one shock shared between them.
DO NOT PUT ON KNOB OR BOLLOCKS!
|
|
|
whittlebeast
|
| posted on 14/11/06 at 11:46 AM |
|
|
Monoshock is a fine option. There is two problems that I know of. Lack of well documented calculations that you can figure out. And roll is totally
undamped. You could add a second shock for roll damping only but to get the damping trully linier when rolling left and right may be tough and you
just ended up with the same number of shocks. The added weight of the larger sway bar may wash with the saved weight. It would look cool 
AW
[Edited on 14/11/06 by whittlebeast]
|
|
|
