I don't care how you look at it or how it gets there, if you decrease left front rebound and reduce the load of un sprung weight on left front ( let the left front tire drop) on acceleration weight is gone transfer to right rear. im not saying the left rear is not gone get some to, but the majority is going diagonally, left front to right rear
I don't care how you look at it or how it gets there, if you decrease left front rebound and reduce the load of un sprung weight on left front ( let the left front tire drop) on acceleration weight is gone transfer to right rear. im not saying the left rear is not gone get some to, but the majority is going diagonally, left front to right rear
In general, I agree. This same concept is why a heavier RR spring and more RR top rod angle helps keep the LF down.
Well i have enjoyed reading this discussion, it has helped me think a little deeper on how the weight moves around while driving through the corner. I seem to always be a little too tight going in through the middle, causing me to have to break the car loose to get to turn. I have made some progress toward the end of the 2013 on helping with the issue. I think its something i want to explore to fine tune with and also had thoughts of the soft LF spring too. I had my shocks revalved about 3 races to go last fall and that was one thing i had wrong was the LF, they almost reversed what i had, that along with the other corners made a big difference in the car. So that got me to thinking how that affected the car, I think i can agree with most everones opinion, I believe its just a matter of how everyone explains it that makes it look different. I have moved some weight to increase my left side also over the winter. I'm eager to get this cold weather behind and get to some practice sessions to look at these options. I think this is one of the most imfomative post i have ever read, and please continue I'm sure i am not the only one learning from this.
Yeah the more momentum and less time you spend coasting the car the better you will come off and the less dialed in drive you will require. I saw a chassis builder a pretty reputable one in my area VA, NC, PA, TN, Running a 400 LF I'm not sure I'll b trying it in 2014 hes also on a Tie Down RF It seems to be working quite well on our heavier tracks we get, but it was surprising to see that on there.
Just because force, weight, ends up on the RR does not mean it moved diagonaly from the LF. As you enter a corner braking or scrub as you slow down AND turn reduces speed. Weight from the LR corner, the heaviest corner on most race cars first travels forward to the LF wheel. As the car rotates left into the turn the weight then moves out to the RF wheel. As you pick up the throttle the weight on the RF starts back to the RR, usualy while still turning left as you straighten out the car the weight that has rotated to the RR now moves back to the LR, giving you the weight transfer for drive off, then as you enter the next corner it all starts over again. Springs stop or take a certain amount of that rotating weight and apply it to the tire patch as this weight rotates around the car. Once the car has the right rate of springs to apply weight during this dynamic transfer the shocks act as timing devices to apply, compression, and release, rebound, this weight. There I am done do what you think is right.
That is one thing i want to do, a 400 lb spring. I run non-adjustable shocks but i have 2 for the right front with different rebounds and different than my LF. I have about 6 different combinations with springs and rebound I want to try.
I guess I was posting at the same time as you but that is how i see the weight transfering around the car. I run a paperclip track mostly and seems from the info everyone has shared I can gain some from playing with the ideas.
Lemme know how the 400 works on your LF and what chassis its on sounds interesting, I'm not sure I'll try it yet, one of the cars is on a 450 but its on a semu-banked track so it might be acting much like the 400 would.
[QUOTE=hpmaster;1760983]Just because force, weight, ends up on the RR does not mean it moved diagonaly from the LF.
I don't understand your thinking here, whether its forced or not, if the tire contact patch of the right rear is loaded more from a light rebound left front shock and the tire drooping, then that seems to me to be diagonal transfer to some point to the right rear
I don't know much about a teeter totter, guess im to old, but getting back to the original post concerning tying the left front, I still say it effects weight transfer to the right rear
To a point yes. The wedge is what you end up rotating around the car. Now static load is different than dynamic, if i throw a 168 grain bullet at you it might sting you more than if I drop it in your hand but if I fire it out of a rifle it hits you with over a ton of weight. First a teeter toter is another rotational movement of weight. This combined with the car turning left affects the movement of weight in a circular direction. This change in loading at the fulcrum as the car lifts, rotates and trys to send energy in a straight line is only stopped by the loading on the tire patches as we try to drive forward and turn the car. This is causing me to use classes I took 40 years ago.
ok, you might be older than me lol, I was trying to answer the original posters question about chaining the left front, I do understand dynamic load aspects , someone stated that weight cannot transfer diagonally, I was only trying to explain that you can manipulate weight transfer from left front to right rear by adjusting shocks and using chains on left front . it hasn't been quiet 40 years for me, but I may have to go dig up a few of them ole stone tablets we used....LOL.
This is a car that runs at a local track it's a floating X car that's running a tied down LF on a track that's notoriously slick this is as it's passing under the flag stand on the last lap. You can maybe see why there can be an aero advantage also not running crazy hike or rear steer....he won that week but that floating x car can be very moody it seemed
heres my opinion or whats going on from a physics standpoint,does weight move diagonally??? the answer is no,now I can understand why some people would think so but its impossible,i could break it down but it would be 9 pages long to explain about a late model going 100mph and then slowing to 60mph,
it takes two movements to get the weight to the rr,the car has to fall to the rear and with the side load to the right,now in a late model this happens at a very high rate of movement,but again I can see how some would think it moves diagonally,but in a physics world its two or more movements
this is without getting in great detail,just trying to help some understand whats going on
I could explain it but you have corner entry,mid corner,exit, straightaway,but then would have to wright a 20 page article,
mark bush and some others have classes on this,
just trying to explain from a phyics standpoint and not trying to ruffle any feathers
It's an X brace in the chassis that's clamped and not welded solid it's supposed to allow the car the flex for it's less sensitive to changes but the problem there is it takes a huge change for a small effect. The hope is that a well built car will run in any conditions, so we can tune ourselves out the problem is they end up fatiguing and go dead over time IMO some still get them built as an add on option but most people welded them up
Senior Member
Originally Posted by fastford
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks