Still a noob to a lot of stuff whats drag?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/_W0QQ...KQ3aMEWAXQ3aIT

Then this one same price no drag?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/_W0QQ...KQ3aMEWAXQ3aIT

 

Drag setups typically have very high rear spring rates.

When your car moves forward weight shifts to the rear, thus, you lose weight/traction on the front. Stiffening up the rear alleviates that and gives you more traction than you would have with softer rates. Due to less weight transfer to the rear.

That said, drag setups should almost always be for track only cars. Those rates are extra stiff and would be obnoxious on a road.

The regular kit is 8k/6k which is fairly soft. ~440/330 I think.

10k/18k is 560lbs/~1000lbs+

 

thank you for letting me know i was googling it and couldn't find anything thx.

 

That's not correct.

The weight transfer stays exactly the same for the same acceleration force, you just get less suspension movement with stiffer springs. The only ways to actually reduce the weight transfer would be to not accelerate as hard, or redesign the physical aspects of the vehicle with respect to wheelbase and/or CG height/location.

 

Point taken. However isn't the idea still to promote more front end traction? I was just conceptualizing it improperly?

 

I'd guess that the idea is more to about providing consistency than anything else. It's difficult to maintain acceleration with the chassis bucking.

And a little bit of Googling still leaves me without a good answer as to why stiff rear springs are a good idea for a FWD drag car...

 

the stiff rear springs will from my understanding, reduce weight transfer (I realize this was just debated) by compressing less under acceleration. Thus keeping the weight of the car more over the front wheels. This would be the opposite of RWD cars that try to transfer the weight to the rear (extreme example being when the car pulls a wheelie).

For RWD, have a slight forwards rake (I have been told by a friend who is in my opinion very knowledgeable) can influence your traction by driving the wheels under the car and causing a slight lift. On the other hand, having the weight transfer backwards more (less forward rake) helps to load the rear wheels more under heavy acceleration.

My understanding would be for front wheel drive cars would be that having the forward rake and maintaining that rake under acceleration would help to prevent lift and wheel spin.

I could be wrong here, but it is interesting to conceptualize.

 

You're mistaking the effect of weight transfer (suspension compression) with the actual weight transfer (which doesn't change with spring rate changes).

The weight always transfers. You can't change that with spring rates, you can only change what that transfer does to the car.

The rake can have several purposes, but if you have adequate clearance for the tires and suspension travel, you want the car as low to the ground as possible, at both ends. This actually does reduce weight transfer, since the CG is lowered. However, depending on suspension design, doing this might increase axle stress or put the alignment into a less than favorable setting.

The more the car squats, the more the alignment changes. Ideally, you want the alignment correct all the time, and minimizing suspension deflection (run stiff rates) can help achieve this.

A positive rake helps with aerodynamics (for most cars), which could be a benefit towards the end of the strip.

 

The squat does cause a very minor weight transfer because the center of gravity shifts back. But I don't know if that makes a difference.

Maybe it influences how the tire behaves when traction is broken, by forcing the front end back down more quickly.