Re: sway bars

["I.Mannix" <mannix@privatei.com>]

At 07:48 PM 11/21/98 +0000, Ryan Schuermann wrote:
>
>> I don't get this statement - what is not recommended for autocrossing?
>> Body roll is bad.  Limiting it is good.  Limiting it such that the car is
>> so stiff that the car cannot absorb bumps is counterproductive.  There's a
>> happy medium in there.  In my experience, the car gets too stiff from a
>> bump perspective before all bodyroll is gone - I've put springs in my car
>> which are too stiff for bumps, but not necessarily too stiff when things
>> are smooth.  

>thats why i said not recommended for auto-x, nmy car is too stiff, and
>i'll will greater it has less than 1deg of body roll which is rounded
>down to 0. the car is 2" above the ground, 

Sounds to me as though the car has no suspension travel.  Owen already
asked what spring rates you're using - I am curious, too.  I'd virtually
guarantee that I've used stiffer springs than you, and even with my
stiffest springset, the car leaned some, oh, 2-3 degrees at least.
Admittedly, I am using a stickier tire than you, but even with the crappy
185/60-13 Yokohamas I have, the car leans.  

>I dont care what you think, you can't disprove me, again this is
>following the same crappy thread of you have no oil in your
>pan

Can't you discuss things?  I asked a question.  

>> I don't get this statement - what is not recommended for autocrossing?

There it is.  Not trying to pick a fight, I simply don't get your
statement.  If your car is 2" off the ground, it has to be sitting on the
bumpstops - even the lowest cars I have seen(lowest which have a semblance
of functionality, anyhow) are higher than that.  I have not figured out a
way to get my car lower than it is without building spacers for the camber
plates(that'll help), putting spacers between the control arms and
knuckles(illegal in SP), or dramatically shorter shocks(none readily
available).  Even if I get shorter shocks, the whole suspension geometry
issue comes into play.  Also, a 275/40(uuh, math - 275*.4 = roughly 108mm
sidewall) is pretty tall - unless you're using 13" wheels, the car sits
higher than mine by default, based on tires alone(assuming similar
suspension settings, I know yours is lower than mine in terms of
suspension).  If you're using 15" wheels, it sits 1" higher than mine
automatically.  

..wethere is was 0.1 quart of none that all pretty darn relatively
>close to 0, i have almost absolutely 0 body roll, i break my 275-40
>tires in the rear before my suspension gives.

You have 275s on a Scirocco?  Huh.  Reiger something or other with the wide
rear wheels/Yokohamas?  


>i would think you need - camber because as you turn, your inside tire
>will take on a positive camber if aligned to 0 deg camber.

I agree, but I'd maintain that the inside wheel going positive is a good
thing - if the inside wheel went negative, you'd have less contact patch on
the ground.  Of course, the outside wheel does the lion's share of the work
when cornering, but every little bit helps.  If the car has 0 camber, both
will go positive when it leans.  If the car does not lean, the camber will
not change.  The suspension would have to be rigid in order for the car to
not lean - not stiff, but rigid.  When the car leans, the outside
suspension compresses - the suspension does not compress unless the car A)
hits a bump or B) leans.  

Lets _discuss_ this, not get into some inane argument - I'd like to hear
your side of the story.  Unless your car has NO suspension travel, it sorta
has to roll some, more than a degree.   What are your spring rates?

I.Mannix



--
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send email to scirocco-L-request@scirocco.org,
with your request (subscribe, unsubscribe) in the BODY of the message.