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 know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...