it makes no sense to have softer front rebound for more rotation...
Thread Starter
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
From: chicago, il, usa
it makes no sense to have softer front rebound for more rotation...
Since alot of us are using single adjustable shocks that only effect rebound, why do many reccommend to use a stiff rear rebound with a soft front rebound?
As you approach a corner and get on the brakes, a higher rear rebound will slow down the load transfer to the front tires...which will help in braking...now this I understand
Since the front shocks don't have compression adjustments, you can't control how fast load transfers to the front anyways, so it's a fixed point
As you approach the apex, load transfers from the inside to the outside tires. Having a high rebound for the front and rear inside tires helps slow down load transfer to the outside wheels...which is also a good thing.
On corner exit - We will use a right hand turn as our example now - load transfer will want to go from the FR to the RL. A high rebound setting for the FR will help slow down load transfer from FR to the RL which increases corner exit acceleration on a FWD car.
I know that this is really basic, but it contradicts everything about the soft front rebound idea. Thoughts?
As you approach a corner and get on the brakes, a higher rear rebound will slow down the load transfer to the front tires...which will help in braking...now this I understand
Since the front shocks don't have compression adjustments, you can't control how fast load transfers to the front anyways, so it's a fixed point
As you approach the apex, load transfers from the inside to the outside tires. Having a high rebound for the front and rear inside tires helps slow down load transfer to the outside wheels...which is also a good thing.
On corner exit - We will use a right hand turn as our example now - load transfer will want to go from the FR to the RL. A high rebound setting for the FR will help slow down load transfer from FR to the RL which increases corner exit acceleration on a FWD car.
I know that this is really basic, but it contradicts everything about the soft front rebound idea. Thoughts?
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 1
From: Charlotte, NC, USA
Re: it makes no sense to have softer front rebound for more rotation... (azian21485)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by azian21485 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Since alot of us are using single adjustable shocks that only effect rebound, why do many reccommend to use a stiff rear rebound with a soft front rebound?
As you approach a corner and get on the brakes, a higher rear rebound will slow down the load transfer to the front tires...which will help in braking...now this I understand
Since the front shocks don't have compression adjustments, you can't control how fast load transfers to the front anyways, so it's a fixed point
As you approach the apex, load transfers from the inside to the outside tires. Having a high rebound for the front and rear inside tires helps slow down load transfer to the outside wheels...which is also a good thing.
On corner exit - We will use a right hand turn as our example now - load transfer will want to go from the FR to the RL. A high rebound setting for the FR will help slow down load transfer from FR to the RL which increases corner exit acceleration on a FWD car.
I know that this is really basic, but it contradicts everything about the soft front rebound idea. Thoughts?</TD></TR></TABLE>
The name of the game is tire grip and cranking the rebound damping up on a specific tire will reduce its grip. You are looking at it strictly from the view of weight transfer. While weight transfer will reduce grip off of that pair, the effect of large damping forces on the tire will reduce grip by a large amount (up to a point, when the tire loses contact).
Also, high rear rebound damping in a FWD is also a function of the larger rear spring rates. Larger spring rates fundamentally require larger damping forces to control oscillation. The suspension isn't a perfect oscillator, but its a good approximation. The rear biased stiffness has a main effect on F/R weight transfer distribution in cornering.
...it's all about compromises...
As you approach a corner and get on the brakes, a higher rear rebound will slow down the load transfer to the front tires...which will help in braking...now this I understand
Since the front shocks don't have compression adjustments, you can't control how fast load transfers to the front anyways, so it's a fixed point
As you approach the apex, load transfers from the inside to the outside tires. Having a high rebound for the front and rear inside tires helps slow down load transfer to the outside wheels...which is also a good thing.
On corner exit - We will use a right hand turn as our example now - load transfer will want to go from the FR to the RL. A high rebound setting for the FR will help slow down load transfer from FR to the RL which increases corner exit acceleration on a FWD car.
I know that this is really basic, but it contradicts everything about the soft front rebound idea. Thoughts?</TD></TR></TABLE>
The name of the game is tire grip and cranking the rebound damping up on a specific tire will reduce its grip. You are looking at it strictly from the view of weight transfer. While weight transfer will reduce grip off of that pair, the effect of large damping forces on the tire will reduce grip by a large amount (up to a point, when the tire loses contact).
Also, high rear rebound damping in a FWD is also a function of the larger rear spring rates. Larger spring rates fundamentally require larger damping forces to control oscillation. The suspension isn't a perfect oscillator, but its a good approximation. The rear biased stiffness has a main effect on F/R weight transfer distribution in cornering.
...it's all about compromises...
Thread Starter
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
From: chicago, il, usa
Re: it makes no sense to have softer front rebound for more rotation... (GSpeedR)
can you explain how a higher rebound on a tire can reduce its grip? i don't understand how that works
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
From: Fort Worth, TX
Re: it makes no sense to have softer front rebound for more rotation... (azian21485)
Car rolls, more rebound damping means the shock will "pick up" the tire more during this roll.
You're looking at it backwards - as in by making it harder for the tire to extend out that you will have the same grip/normal force on that tire and you'll reduce how much load gets transferred, when it is actually the opposite. If you keep the tire from extending to the ground(which it wants to do because the normal force on it is less than it was before), then the grip goes down.
Sorry if that's hard to follow - it'd be easier to draw it out in person.
You're looking at it backwards - as in by making it harder for the tire to extend out that you will have the same grip/normal force on that tire and you'll reduce how much load gets transferred, when it is actually the opposite. If you keep the tire from extending to the ground(which it wants to do because the normal force on it is less than it was before), then the grip goes down.
Sorry if that's hard to follow - it'd be easier to draw it out in person.
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
From: wayne, pa, usa
Re: it makes no sense to have softer front rebound for more rotation... (Def)
as i understand , single adjustable shocks change both the bump and rebound in a fixed ratio usally at about 60%40%as you stiffen the shock up , both get stiffer
call advanced design to get the full boat of info
we are factory sponsored by TEIN on our championship winning Integras
ECHC 1st and 2nd Team Icarp-Hankook tire
1st in class at 12hrs summit point
ian
call advanced design to get the full boat of info
we are factory sponsored by TEIN on our championship winning Integras
ECHC 1st and 2nd Team Icarp-Hankook tire
1st in class at 12hrs summit point
ian
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 30,826
Likes: 0
From: RIP Craig Jones
Re: it makes no sense to have softer front rebound for more rotation... (icarp)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by icarp »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">as i understand , single adjustable shocks change both the bump and rebound in a fixed ratio</TD></TR></TABLE>
Not always - Koni 'yellows' only adjust rebound. They work for me
Not always - Koni 'yellows' only adjust rebound. They work for me
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 13,483
Likes: 0
From: cali
Re: it makes no sense to have softer front rebound for more rotation... (icarp)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by icarp »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">as i understand , single adjustable shocks change both the bump and rebound in a fixed ratio usally at about 60%40%as you stiffen the shock up ,
ian</TD></TR></TABLE>
um not really, IMO most single adjustable dampers don't adjust both, yes it changes but not really of any importance
here is a dyno of a SPSS3 koni
there is some small varance, but nothing to think of when you tune a shock
ian</TD></TR></TABLE>
um not really, IMO most single adjustable dampers don't adjust both, yes it changes but not really of any importance
here is a dyno of a SPSS3 koni
there is some small varance, but nothing to think of when you tune a shock
Trending Topics
Thread Starter
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
From: chicago, il, usa
Re: it makes no sense to have softer front rebound for more rotation... (Def)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Def »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Car rolls, more rebound damping means the shock will "pick up" the tire more during this roll.
You're looking at it backwards - as in by making it harder for the tire to extend out that you will have the same grip/normal force on that tire and you'll reduce how much load gets transferred, when it is actually the opposite. If you keep the tire from extending to the ground(which it wants to do because the normal force on it is less than it was before), then the grip goes down.
Sorry if that's hard to follow - it'd be easier to draw it out in person.</TD></TR></TABLE>
ah it makes sense, thanks for the explanation
You're looking at it backwards - as in by making it harder for the tire to extend out that you will have the same grip/normal force on that tire and you'll reduce how much load gets transferred, when it is actually the opposite. If you keep the tire from extending to the ground(which it wants to do because the normal force on it is less than it was before), then the grip goes down.
Sorry if that's hard to follow - it'd be easier to draw it out in person.</TD></TR></TABLE>
ah it makes sense, thanks for the explanation
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,144
Likes: 3
From: Union, KY, USA
Re: it makes no sense to have softer front rebound for more rotation... (azian21485)
Also another reason that people are running max rebound at the rear and min rebound at the front is to get as great a rear bias as they can within the existing shock valving. If they had a valving that had a greater range or differential (or other suspension parts that were helping with the balance mix), normally the ideal front setting is not at the softest setting but might me toward a mid setting. Still the rears will likely be making more rear force (again within an appropriate valvingfor the shock) than the fronts. I think people who are at max and min are more at the most available forces and the least available forces and would use more if they had it.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by icarp »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">as i understand , single adjustable shocks change both the bump and rebound in a fixed ratio usally at about 60%40%as you stiffen the shock up , both get stiffer </TD></TR></TABLE>
Actually, you really don't want your rebound and compression ever tied together with a single adjustment if you can possibly avoid it. Rebound and compression to two totally different jobs and should not be tied together or otherwise to refine one you will have too little or too much of the other. Look around and you won't find any real serious racing shocks that tie the two together.
Also, technically the internal valving tools that you would change to get both to change in one mechanical motion are going to be very limiting in the amount of actual change that is occurring. If you look at dyno graphs, you will see that both normally don't make large changes if they are tied together. If both did make large changes, then that shock would suffer from greater compromises of one aspect or another.
There are several street shocks that do change both simultaneously but they are neither very technically advanced or really recommended for real racing. And they are being sold to folks who either don't know or at a price point where they don't care about the compromises.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by icarp »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">as i understand , single adjustable shocks change both the bump and rebound in a fixed ratio usally at about 60%40%as you stiffen the shock up , both get stiffer </TD></TR></TABLE>
Actually, you really don't want your rebound and compression ever tied together with a single adjustment if you can possibly avoid it. Rebound and compression to two totally different jobs and should not be tied together or otherwise to refine one you will have too little or too much of the other. Look around and you won't find any real serious racing shocks that tie the two together.
Also, technically the internal valving tools that you would change to get both to change in one mechanical motion are going to be very limiting in the amount of actual change that is occurring. If you look at dyno graphs, you will see that both normally don't make large changes if they are tied together. If both did make large changes, then that shock would suffer from greater compromises of one aspect or another.
There are several street shocks that do change both simultaneously but they are neither very technically advanced or really recommended for real racing. And they are being sold to folks who either don't know or at a price point where they don't care about the compromises.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 18,961
Likes: 75
From: I am Tyson
Re: it makes no sense to have softer front rebound for more rotation... (CRX Lee)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CRX Lee »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">There are several street shocks that do change both simultaneously but they are neither very technically advanced or really recommended for real racing. And they are being sold to folks who either don't know or at a price point where they don't care about the compromises.</TD></TR></TABLE>
zing, touche mr.g.
zing, touche mr.g.
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Re: it makes no sense to have softer front rebound for more rotation... (Tyson)
So how come I've heard of several GS Celica guys running their shocks full stiff all around? I'm guessing this is something that is very car specific in terms of tuning.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,569
Likes: 0
From: MA
Re: it makes no sense to have softer front rebound for more rotation... (Burgh)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Burgh »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">So how come I've heard of several GS Celica guys running their shocks full stiff all around? I'm guessing this is something that is very car specific in terms of tuning. </TD></TR></TABLE>
in stock classes, the springs and swaybars are too soft. running the shocks full stiff temporarily subsititutes shock valving for spring stiffness.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by azian21485 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Since alot of us are using single adjustable shocks that only effect rebound, why do many reccommend to use a stiff rear rebound with a soft front rebound?
As you approach a corner and get on the brakes, a higher rear rebound will slow down the load transfer to the front tires...which will help in braking...now this I understand
Since the front shocks don't have compression adjustments, you can't control how fast load transfers to the front anyways, so it's a fixed point
As you approach the apex, load transfers from the inside to the outside tires. Having a high rebound for the front and rear inside tires helps slow down load transfer to the outside wheels...which is also a good thing.
On corner exit - We will use a right hand turn as our example now - load transfer will want to go from the FR to the RL. A high rebound setting for the FR will help slow down load transfer from FR to the RL which increases corner exit acceleration on a FWD car.
I know that this is really basic, but it contradicts everything about the soft front rebound idea. Thoughts?</TD></TR></TABLE>
you have the rate of load transfer and the directions of load transfer wrong. increasing rebound stiffness (higher rebound force) will speed up the load transfer. the load transfer off the front axle onto the rear axle moves from both front wheels, not the RF to LR as in your example. also, if you speed the load transfer off a tire or tire pair, the opposite tire or tire pair will HAVE to increase the speed it takes on load. remember that the sum of your contact patches must equal the total vehicle weight less downforce/lift or surface changes.
if you've got an hour, read this. it's a mark ortiz article that does a very in depth discussion of tire loads, how springs, shocks and swaybars effect tire loads, and what happens in different phases of the corner.
nate
ps. on your typical h/a, you'll need a different front shock setting if you're lifting your inside rear tire very high compared to if you barely lift it at all. after you read the ortiz article, try to use what you learn in there to figure out why.
in stock classes, the springs and swaybars are too soft. running the shocks full stiff temporarily subsititutes shock valving for spring stiffness.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by azian21485 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Since alot of us are using single adjustable shocks that only effect rebound, why do many reccommend to use a stiff rear rebound with a soft front rebound?
As you approach a corner and get on the brakes, a higher rear rebound will slow down the load transfer to the front tires...which will help in braking...now this I understand
Since the front shocks don't have compression adjustments, you can't control how fast load transfers to the front anyways, so it's a fixed point
As you approach the apex, load transfers from the inside to the outside tires. Having a high rebound for the front and rear inside tires helps slow down load transfer to the outside wheels...which is also a good thing.
On corner exit - We will use a right hand turn as our example now - load transfer will want to go from the FR to the RL. A high rebound setting for the FR will help slow down load transfer from FR to the RL which increases corner exit acceleration on a FWD car.
I know that this is really basic, but it contradicts everything about the soft front rebound idea. Thoughts?</TD></TR></TABLE>
you have the rate of load transfer and the directions of load transfer wrong. increasing rebound stiffness (higher rebound force) will speed up the load transfer. the load transfer off the front axle onto the rear axle moves from both front wheels, not the RF to LR as in your example. also, if you speed the load transfer off a tire or tire pair, the opposite tire or tire pair will HAVE to increase the speed it takes on load. remember that the sum of your contact patches must equal the total vehicle weight less downforce/lift or surface changes.
if you've got an hour, read this. it's a mark ortiz article that does a very in depth discussion of tire loads, how springs, shocks and swaybars effect tire loads, and what happens in different phases of the corner.
nate
ps. on your typical h/a, you'll need a different front shock setting if you're lifting your inside rear tire very high compared to if you barely lift it at all. after you read the ortiz article, try to use what you learn in there to figure out why.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,144
Likes: 3
From: Union, KY, USA
Re: it makes no sense to have softer front rebound for more rotation... (Burgh)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Burgh »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">So how come I've heard of several GS Celica guys running their shocks full stiff all around? I'm guessing this is something that is very car specific in terms of tuning. </TD></TR></TABLE>
If they were at full stiff all around, I think you would find that if the valving was changed into a higher range then they would likely want to be higher than where they are now. As NAte said, in Stock classes you are asking the shock for extra firmness to overcompensate for other suspension parts that are too soft. Not really the right tool for this but in this restrictive class it is about the only tool.
If they were at full stiff all around, I think you would find that if the valving was changed into a higher range then they would likely want to be higher than where they are now. As NAte said, in Stock classes you are asking the shock for extra firmness to overcompensate for other suspension parts that are too soft. Not really the right tool for this but in this restrictive class it is about the only tool.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,914
Likes: 1
From: Charlotte, NC
Re: it makes no sense to have softer front rebound for more rotation... (solo-x)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by solo-x »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">a mark ortiz article</TD></TR></TABLE>
I always think it's funny when I see people post links and quote him, as I see him almost every day here at school. He really does know what he's talking about. Oh, and don't forget:
http://markortizforcongress.org/
I always think it's funny when I see people post links and quote him, as I see him almost every day here at school. He really does know what he's talking about. Oh, and don't forget:
http://markortizforcongress.org/
Thread Starter
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
From: chicago, il, usa
Re: it makes no sense to have softer front rebound for more rotation... (solo-x)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by solo-x »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
in stock classes, the springs and swaybars are too soft. running the shocks full stiff temporarily subsititutes shock valving for spring stiffness.
you have the rate of load transfer and the directions of load transfer wrong. increasing rebound stiffness (higher rebound force) will speed up the load transfer. the load transfer off the front axle onto the rear axle moves from both front wheels, not the RF to LR as in your example. also, if you speed the load transfer off a tire or tire pair, the opposite tire or tire pair will HAVE to increase the speed it takes on load. remember that the sum of your contact patches must equal the total vehicle weight less downforce/lift or surface changes.
if you've got an hour, read this. it's a mark ortiz article that does a very in depth discussion of tire loads, how springs, shocks and swaybars effect tire loads, and what happens in different phases of the corner.
nate
ps. on your typical h/a, you'll need a different front shock setting if you're lifting your inside rear tire very high compared to if you barely lift it at all. after you read the ortiz article, try to use what you learn in there to figure out why.</TD></TR></TABLE>
awesome, thanks
is his newsletter still going on? something i'd want to subscribe to...but this dates all the way back 2 years...dunno if he's still doing it?
in stock classes, the springs and swaybars are too soft. running the shocks full stiff temporarily subsititutes shock valving for spring stiffness.
you have the rate of load transfer and the directions of load transfer wrong. increasing rebound stiffness (higher rebound force) will speed up the load transfer. the load transfer off the front axle onto the rear axle moves from both front wheels, not the RF to LR as in your example. also, if you speed the load transfer off a tire or tire pair, the opposite tire or tire pair will HAVE to increase the speed it takes on load. remember that the sum of your contact patches must equal the total vehicle weight less downforce/lift or surface changes.
if you've got an hour, read this. it's a mark ortiz article that does a very in depth discussion of tire loads, how springs, shocks and swaybars effect tire loads, and what happens in different phases of the corner.
nate
ps. on your typical h/a, you'll need a different front shock setting if you're lifting your inside rear tire very high compared to if you barely lift it at all. after you read the ortiz article, try to use what you learn in there to figure out why.
</TD></TR></TABLE>awesome, thanks
is his newsletter still going on? something i'd want to subscribe to...but this dates all the way back 2 years...dunno if he's still doing it?
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,914
Likes: 1
From: Charlotte, NC
Re: it makes no sense to have softer front rebound for more rotation... (azian21485)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by azian21485 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
is his newsletter still going on? something i'd want to subscribe to...but this dates all the way back 2 years...dunno if he's still doing it?</TD></TR></TABLE>
He hasn't done that in a while, as you said, but you can email him with questions. He's about as easy going as you get.
is his newsletter still going on? something i'd want to subscribe to...but this dates all the way back 2 years...dunno if he's still doing it?</TD></TR></TABLE>
He hasn't done that in a while, as you said, but you can email him with questions. He's about as easy going as you get.
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,864
Likes: 1
From: Wilmington, De, USA
Re: it makes no sense to have softer front rebound for more rotation... (drdisco69)
azian, you could experiment the theory at an auto-x, which is what I accidentally did. First three runs I ran 60.xxx. In b/w heats I was confused as to why I had so much understeer and I decided to check my shocks, and I had forgot that I had put them on full stiff a couple days before the auto-x. I dialed them down towards full soft and ran 3 consecutive 57.xxx. All the while i have the rears near full stiff, but I have to take them off to adjust so I wasn't able to make an adjustment with them.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,569
Likes: 0
From: MA
Re: it makes no sense to have softer front rebound for more rotation... (88 rex)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 88 rex »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">azian, you could experiment the theory at an auto-x, which is what I accidentally did. First three runs I ran 60.xxx. In b/w heats I was confused as to why I had so much understeer and I decided to check my shocks, and I had forgot that I had put them on full stiff a couple days before the auto-x. I dialed them down towards full soft and ran 3 consecutive 57.xxx. All the while i have the rears near full stiff, but I have to take them off to adjust so I wasn't able to make an adjustment with them.</TD></TR></TABLE>
doubtful that you'll get THAT much of an improvement. hell, going from a completely stock car on all season tires to a full ST suspension on azenis is only worth about 3 seconds on a 60 second course. most you'll see would be around .2-.3 seconds from just the shock change. placebo and phsycological effects of thinking the car is better are hard to guess at. i'd wager that the real cause of the 3 second improvement was a combination of improved surface and improved familiarization and comfort with the course.
nate - thinks this phenomenon is responsible for a lot of confusion and really wants a data logger to eliminate at least one of the variables.
doubtful that you'll get THAT much of an improvement. hell, going from a completely stock car on all season tires to a full ST suspension on azenis is only worth about 3 seconds on a 60 second course. most you'll see would be around .2-.3 seconds from just the shock change. placebo and phsycological effects of thinking the car is better are hard to guess at. i'd wager that the real cause of the 3 second improvement was a combination of improved surface and improved familiarization and comfort with the course.
nate - thinks this phenomenon is responsible for a lot of confusion and really wants a data logger to eliminate at least one of the variables.
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,864
Likes: 1
From: Wilmington, De, USA
Re: it makes no sense to have softer front rebound for more rotation... (solo-x)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by solo-x »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
doubtful that you'll get THAT much of an improvement. hell, going from a completely stock car on all season tires to a full ST suspension on azenis is only worth about 3 seconds on a 60 second course. most you'll see would be around .2-.3 seconds from just the shock change. placebo and phsycological effects of thinking the car is better are hard to guess at. i'd wager that the real cause of the 3 second improvement was a combination of improved surface and improved familiarization and comfort with the course.
nate - thinks this phenomenon is responsible for a lot of confusion and really wants a data logger to eliminate at least one of the variables.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Well, It was only my 1st official auto-x and although my times were consistant the fastest times were high 40's to low 50's. So for me to go from 60-57 was hardly nothing considering I was one of the slowest. Stil lhad fun though and learned tons
STS2 13 Will Neide 88 CRX
60.887 59.771+1 60.022 57.748
57.290 > 57.010 T: 57.010
The only mechanical difference on the car was the front shock settings and I could really feel the difference which gave me tons more confidence on the course.
doubtful that you'll get THAT much of an improvement. hell, going from a completely stock car on all season tires to a full ST suspension on azenis is only worth about 3 seconds on a 60 second course. most you'll see would be around .2-.3 seconds from just the shock change. placebo and phsycological effects of thinking the car is better are hard to guess at. i'd wager that the real cause of the 3 second improvement was a combination of improved surface and improved familiarization and comfort with the course.
nate - thinks this phenomenon is responsible for a lot of confusion and really wants a data logger to eliminate at least one of the variables.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Well, It was only my 1st official auto-x and although my times were consistant the fastest times were high 40's to low 50's. So for me to go from 60-57 was hardly nothing considering I was one of the slowest. Stil lhad fun though and learned tons
STS2 13 Will Neide 88 CRX
60.887 59.771+1 60.022 57.748
57.290 > 57.010 T: 57.010
The only mechanical difference on the car was the front shock settings and I could really feel the difference which gave me tons more confidence on the course.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
SOHC4life 96
Road Racing / Autocross & Time Attack
6
May 16, 2008 02:57 PM
akteamster
Honda Civic / Del Sol (1992 - 2000)
6
Jul 19, 2004 08:32 PM