Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi guys, this has been covered only a hand full of times as far as I can see and none have definitive answers on actual lengths, only the theory behind changing traction arm length. 

So, today Christian and I from Sideways motorsport in Brisbane tested a number of different traction arm lengths in a r34 gtt and measured toe through from full droop to full compression to measure bump steer (toe changes with changes in bump).

Firstly, we removed the rear coilover, and removed the wheel.

Christian then made a little jig to fit to the hub of the vehicle out of stainless plate that we bolted on to the hub using the wheel nuts, then setup a string line parallel with the hub and took a measurement of the distance from the string line to the hub from the front and back of the stainless jig / plate. 

We then jacked the hub up to full compression and measured the change in distance from the front and rear of the plate. We then had the measurement in mm for the toe change through the wheel travel. We tried a number of different traction arm lengths, from fuly extended to as short as possible. The least amount of toe change we found was with the traction arm set to 7mm longer than standard from centre of bolt hole to centre of bolt hole. The ride height is around 330mm and camber -2 in the rear. 

My question is what lengths have other people tested and found that a certain length minmises bump, im asking because the jig we made is relatively crude and my guess is a little bit of human error would certainly be involved in the measurement process. 

Any insights on this matter are most welcome !!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/474495-traction-arm-length-for-bump-steer/
Share on other sites

Everyone else's traction arm length will be specific to;

  1. Which car - R32 different to R33/4, etc,
  2. Upper control arm length,
  3. Static toe setting.

So there's no point in trying to compare too many apples with oranges.

You have likely found a setting which is far better than what you had before.  If your jig is a bit rough, then maybe it's not the best setting possible, but still better.

If you want to consider an alternative way of doing it, strap a mirror onto the hub or disc face.  Place a board upright, parallel to the car about 2-3m out from the side of the car.  Clip some paper onto the board.  Shoot a laser point at the mirror from a spot close to the edge of the board/paper so that it reflects onto the paper.  Keep the total angle as small as you can.  Jack the hub up and down and mark the reflection points on the paper.  You will get a line that goes up and down as the hub swings through its arc.  Any forward/backward motion of the reflected dot is bump steer.  You can change the arm length and generate another curve on the same piece of paper.  Do this and get worse bump steer?  Make the opposite change.  Then just increase or decrease arm length until the line is as close to vertical as possible.  It has the beauty of not needing to work in the same place to adjust the arm as your jig/dial gauge/whatever measurements are being taken.  It's less quantitative as to how big the toe change is in mm unless you measure the change on the paper and do some trig to work out the swing at the wheel, but that hardly matters, because all we're looking for is the smallest amount of bump steer.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Hi Gts boy, thanks for your feedback, ok I can understand why the upper control arm length and different cars are going to affect the relationship with the traction arm, but why does the static toe influence toe under bump ? I guess my thinking is setting static toe doesnt really affect toe under bump, thats the traction rods job, whether you set you toe at 2mm out or 2mm in for the rear, doesnt it just matter than its not changing under bump ? Or am I looking at this the wrong way ? 

Yep ok thats another neat method of measuring toe change, as you say and Carroll smith says in his books, we dont care how much bump steer we have quantitatively, only that we eliminate it !! 

Edited by Ben26

The static toe is set by the tie rod length (or toe control arm with no HICAS), which, for the purposes of the geometry of the swinging of the wheel, is a 3rd link (actually a 4h link) that swings through a different arc than the lower control arm that it runs near.  Different locations for the inner and out ends.  Causes a small tweak to the path of the other arms.

Ah ok, yep Im aware that you change toe using the tie rod but to me it looked as if adjusting that arm had little to no effect on the traction arm or upper camber arm. I will remember that for next time, thanks for your advice

OP are you using stock upper control/camber arms or adjustable? i think an exact length isn't commonly posted because as GTSboy says, it's relevant to the individual setup. It's prob 2 years back since i did mine - numbers are written down somewhere in the garage but to quote numbers through a foggy haze of memory, i think i measured my traction rod at 218mm stock length bolt to bolt, and ended up at maybe 223mm? 

The point was though, the 'best' length in my testing, was changing it by the same ratio as you change the camber arm to reduce camber once the vehicle is lowered (my rear camber is -1.75 deg). I would imagine Nissan spent a fair amount of time to minimize bump steer when calculating the suspension geometry so it would be no surprise that maintaining the same relative lengths on the arms would give the best results, to approximately maintain Nissan's geometry.

Hi Andy I have adjustable camber arms as well, so I set the camber roughly where I wanted it to be to begin with, then started playing around with the traction arm length. I measured my stock ones at 210mm middle of bolt hole to middle, and I ended up with a traction arm length of 217mm so it seems we have a similar result. Yea Im aware that the combination of the two upper arms has an effect on the toe curve of the rear suspension, But I was just trying to get a ball park figure of what people were getting. 

Yea that makes sense, so you think that if you get a ratio between the length of the standard traction arm and camber arm, and maintain that ratio, you would achieve a good result. I might have to test that, sounds like it might be a good starting point for future cars / set ups. 

Thanks for your insight my friend.

Edited by Ben26

If you are doing this type of thing on a regular basis I'd suggest that you invest in a couple of dial indicators and make a jig like this, it will give you the most accurate and repeatable results. Cheap dial indicators are available for as little as $35 these days so for a total investment of ~$100 and a couple of hours you will be able to create a measurement device that you will doubtless use on countless occasions in ctrp_1001_07_z+bump_steer_explained+whee future.

 

Ah yes I have also found decent bump steer measuring devices online for a few hundred dollars so I think for next time I will certainly either build a better jig with dial indicators or purchase an already made rig. 

Yep, on my car I also measured them at 210mm and my length I set at 217mm, the sweet point for me was between 215mm and 217mm so it seems as if we are on the same page even if setups are a little different. Thanks again gts boy. 

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

    • As discussed in the previous post, the bushes in the 110 needed replacing. I took this opportunity to replace the castor bushes, the front lower control arm, lower the car and get the alignment dialled in with new tyres. I took it down to Alignment Motorsports on the GC to get this work done and also get more out of the Shockworks as I felt like I wasn't getting the full use out of them.  To cut a very long story short, it ended up being the case the passenger side castor arm wouldn't accept the brand new bush as the sleeve had worn badly enough to the point you could push the new bush in by hand and completely through. Trying a pair of TRD bushes didn't fix the issue either (I had originally gone with Hardrace bushes). We needed to urgently source another castor arm, and thankfully this was sourced and the guys at the shop worked on my car until 7pm on a Saturday to get everything done. The car rides a lot nicer now with the suspension dialled in properly. Lowered the car a little as well to suit the lower profile front tyres, and just bring the car down generally. Eternally thankful for the guys down at the shop to get the car sorted, we both pulled big favours from our contacts to get it done on the Saturday.  Also plugged in the new Stedi foglights into the S15, and even from a quick test in the garage I'm keen to see how they look out on the road. I had some concerns about the length of the LED body and whether it'd fit in the foglight housing but it's fine.  I've got a small window coming up next month where I'll likely get a little paint work done on the 110 to remove the rear wing, add a boot wing and roof wing, get the side skirt fixed up and colour match the little panel on the tail lights so that I can install some badges that I've kept in storage. I'm also tempted to put in a new pair of headlights on the 110.  Until then, here's some more pictures from Easter this year. 
    • I would put a fuel pressure gauge between the filter and the fuel rail, see if it's maintaining good fuel pressure at idle going up to the point when it stalls. Do you see any strange behavior in commanded fuel leading up to the point when it stalls? You might have to start going through the service manual and doing a long list of sensor tests if it's not the fuel system for whatever reason.
    • Hi,  Just joined the forum so I could share my "fix" of this problem. Might be of use to someone. Had the same hunting at idle issue on my V36 with VQ35HR engine after swapping the engine because the original one got overheated.  While changing the engine I made the mistake of cleaning the throttle bodies and tried all the tricks i could find to do a throttle relearn with no luck. Gave in and took it to a shop and they couldn't sort it. Then took it to my local Nissan dealership and they couldn't get it to idle properly. They said I'd need to replace the throttle bodies and the ecu probably costing more than the car is worth. So I had the idea of replacing the carbon I cleaned out with a thin layer of super glue and it's back to normal idle now. Bit rough but saved the car from the wreckers 🤣
    • After my last update, I went ahead with cleaning and restoring the entire fuel system. This included removing the tank and cleaning it with the Beyond Balistics solution, power washing it multiple times, drying it thoroughly, rinsing with IPA, drying again with heat gun and compressed air. Also, cleaning out the lines, fuel rail, and replacing the fuel pump with an OEM-style one. During the cleaning process, I replaced several hoses - including the breather hose on the fuel tank, which turned out to be the cause of the earlier fuel leak. This is what the old fuel filter looked like: Fuel tank before cleaning: Dirty Fuel Tank.mp4   Fuel tank after cleaning (some staining remains): Clean Fuel Tank.mp4 Both the OEM 270cc and new DeatschWerks 550cc injectors were cleaned professionally by a shop. Before reassembling everything, I tested the fuel flow by running the pump output into a container at the fuel filter location - flow looked good. I then fitted the new fuel filter and reassembled the rest of the system. Fuel Flow Test.mp4 Test 1 - 550cc injectors Ran the new fuel pump with its supplied diagonal strainer (different from OEM’s flat strainer) and my 550cc injectors using the same resized-injector map I had successfully used before. At first, it idled roughly and stalled when I applied throttle. Checked the spark plugs and found that they were fouled with carbon (likely from the earlier overly rich running when the injectors were clogged). After cleaning the plugs, the car started fine. However, it would only idle for 30–60 seconds before stalling, and while driving it would feel like a “fuel cut” after a few seconds - though it wouldn’t fully stall. Test 2 – Strainer swap Suspecting the diagonal strainer might not be reaching the tank bottom, I swapped it for the original flat strainer and filled the tank with ~45L of fuel. The issue persisted exactly the same. Test 3 – OEM injectors To eliminate tuning variables, I reinstalled the OEM 270cc injectors and reverted to the original map. Cleaned the spark plugs again just in-case. The stalling and “fuel cut” still remained.   At this stage, I suspect an intermittent power or connection fault at the fuel pump hanger, caused during the cleaning process. This has led me to look into getting Frenchy’s fuel hanger and replacing the unit entirely. TL;DR: Cleaned and restored the fuel system (tank, lines, rail, pump). Tested 550cc injectors with the same resized-injector map as before, but the car stalls at idle and experiences what feels like “fuel cut” after a few seconds of driving. Swapped back to OEM injectors with original map to rule out tuning, but the issue persists. Now suspecting an intermittent power or connection fault at the fuel pump hanger, possibly cause by the cleaning process.  
×
×
  • Create New...