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

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...