Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

With two wheel drive and Nissan multilink rear suspension, what are the suspension's critical areas in regard to rear grip and stability?

My wild guess is reducing anti squat, lighter rear springs than front and ensuring toe in at all times.

And is removing the rear ARB completely ever an option?

Richard Sounds like you know a trick or two with suspension setups are you running rosejoints ? and what were the benefits as i'm just in the suck and see stage.

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Cheers Gary i;m rebuilding my back end using solid alloy cradle bushes and rose joints in all my arms ect i;m just trying to get a faster reaction out of my suspension.

Gary

There is no doubt that taking out unnecessary movement is a good thing, if done properly. The problems that I see are not in the theory itself but in the physical application of the theory. For example, solid mounting the rear cradle without allowing for adjustment of its angle. Even worse, adjusting control arms with spherical links and not correcting the bump steer. Or using roll centre adjusters without knowing where the actual role centre or the CoG are.

Any the sphincter of the universe can buy a box of bits and bolt them on, but it just makes the handling worse if the knowledge on how to use those bits isn't there. If you don't have the knowledge, experience and the equipment to measure the results its pretty much guaranteed to be a waste of time and money. The underlying problem is the parts themselves are relatively cheap (in time and $'s), but acquiring the knowledge is expensive in that it takes time. Then you require the equipment, scales for calculating the CoG, bump steer guage, wheel alignment equipment etc and the knowledge to use them. Lastly I need the time and $'s to test their effects and optimise the set up accordingly. In a full day of testing, with 1 driver, 4 crew and a suspension engineer/manager I might just optimise the geometry. Provided I have spent a full day before hand doing the homework.

In simple terms, what I have found is if I spend $500 on suspension components I often need to spend 20 times that on optimising them. If I don't do that then it's pretty much guaranteed that I will have wasted the $500. It's the reverse of having a big power engine, you spend $10K on buying the engine and $500 turning it.

Cheers

Gary

With two wheel drive and Nissan multilink rear suspension, what are the suspension's critical areas in regard to rear grip and stability?

My wild guess is reducing anti squat, lighter rear springs than front and ensuring toe in at all times.

And is removing the rear ARB completely ever an option?

The requirements are no different to any other IRS system;

1. Eliminate the bump steer (not necessarily toe in at all times)

2. Optimise the camber curves to suite the tyres

3. Run the softest possible spring rates that you can within the tyre's working window

4. Adjustable squat

5. Separate adjustment in the shocks for bump and rebound

Number 3 above almost always demands that some rear anti roll be utilised. Let's face it, why would you remove the easiest, cheapest and most effective way to tune the handling balance.

Cheers

Gary

There is no doubt that taking out unnecessary movement is a good thing, if done properly. The problems that I see are not in the theory itself but in the physical application of the theory. For example, solid mounting the rear cradle without allowing for adjustment of its angle. Even worse, adjusting control arms with spherical links and not correcting the bump steer. Or using roll centre adjusters without knowing where the actual role centre or the CoG are.

Any the sphincter of the universe can buy a box of bits and bolt them on, but it just makes the handling worse if the knowledge on how to use those bits isn't there. If you don't have the knowledge, experience and the equipment to measure the results its pretty much guaranteed to be a waste of time and money. The underlying problem is the parts themselves are relatively cheap (in time and $'s), but acquiring the knowledge is expensive in that it takes time. Then you require the equipment, scales for calculating the CoG, bump steer guage, wheel alignment equipment etc and the knowledge to use them. Lastly I need the time and $'s to test their effects and optimise the set up accordingly. In a full day of testing, with 1 driver, 4 crew and a suspension engineer/manager I might just optimise the geometry. Provided I have spent a full day before hand doing the homework.

In simple terms, what I have found is if I spend $500 on suspension components I often need to spend 20 times that on optimising them. If I don't do that then it's pretty much guaranteed that I will have wasted the $500. It's the reverse of having a big power engine, you spend $10K on buying the engine and $500 turning it.

Cheers

Gary

Gary understand where your coming from but yes in every change that i make i will use my alignment equipment to check and i will be using my corner scales and yes will be keeping records. As most parts that i fabricate and machine including rose joints need to be tested. Chow.
..................................................................

3. Run the softest possible spring rates that you can within the tyre's working window

....................................

Number 3 above almost always demands that some rear anti roll be utilised. Let's face it, why would you remove the easiest, cheapest and most effective way to tune the handling balance.

Cheers

Gary

Why? To transfer as much roll on to the front suspension as possible. Yeh I know thats a obvious answer but with some cars with some suspension systems and often where big power is involved that can work best. Tune with the front ARB, spring rates, etc.

But I see your point, better to be able to tune both ends rather than just one.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
    • Yes they do. For some maybe. But for those used the most by abusers, ie Skylines, the numbers are known. The stock eyebrow height for R32/3 Skylines is about 365/375mm or thereabouts. The minimum such heights are recorded in adjacent columns in the database.
×
×
  • Create New...