The ultimate solution for understeer?
Apr 8, 2016, 05:41 AM
#16
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
The calculated data you describe absolutely coincide with what my seat of the pants feel suggests ....
So you are suggesting that the PSRS (offset?) in addition to limiting toe change as a result of the solid bushing also has a geometric effect on limiting toe change/bumpsteer as the suspension moves through its arc?
So how does the additional caster/moving the suspension arm do that? Would you care to explain?
Thanks
So you are suggesting that the PSRS (offset?) in addition to limiting toe change as a result of the solid bushing also has a geometric effect on limiting toe change/bumpsteer as the suspension moves through its arc?
So how does the additional caster/moving the suspension arm do that? Would you care to explain?
Thanks
The only other effect of the PSRS is that by pushing the wheel forward, you're moving the tie rod pickup point forward as well. Since the rack cannot move forward by the same amount, you are essentially (and ever so slightly) changing the toe in condition by forcing the tie rod to travel in a tighter arc. In a case of rear steer, it could force toe out as the arc shortens faster.
This is all assuming there is zero caster. Since we have plenty of positive caster (7.5 with psrs + vorslag plates) The hub will move rearwards during compression, essentially straightening out the arc of the tie rod. And in a rear steer hub (that's what we have), it will actually force a toe in condition. I don't know what the relationship is between the two, but i think there is honestly a NET tradeoff for the worse by adding caster (in regards to toe). Atleast that's what my hunch is telling me without measuring it.
The only way to tell for sure is to measure it. Good thing i have fully adjustable LCA's that i can measure this on in the coming weeks
The following users liked this post:
PAdutch (Apr 8, 2016)
Apr 15, 2016, 10:38 AM
#20
EvoM Guru
iTrader: (1)
Originally Posted by Robevo RS
welded rear evo IX diff. lol
that is ultimate
that is ultimate
Apr 19, 2016, 01:45 PM
#26
Interested in where this goes. I had some interesting moments at my last track event (minus blowing up my engine) where the car felt great overall but some random moments where understeer came out of nowhere.
It was easily driven out by lifting a little to get the back end to rotate, little bit of counter steer and then throttle on, but that was slowing me down.
It was easily driven out by lifting a little to get the back end to rotate, little bit of counter steer and then throttle on, but that was slowing me down.
Apr 20, 2016, 05:39 AM
#27
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
Well, the first prototypes didn't fit up like i wanted them to. I took measurements from a whiteline balljoint, and now it seems i should have just taken measurements from the upright in the first place :/
Hopefully i can get another set made within a week and take more measurements.
On a related note, anyone with an 8/9 that is converting to X arms, let me know. I have a tie rod adapter/sleeve that you'll need to finish a swap like that.
Hopefully i can get another set made within a week and take more measurements.
On a related note, anyone with an 8/9 that is converting to X arms, let me know. I have a tie rod adapter/sleeve that you'll need to finish a swap like that.
Oct 30, 2016, 11:02 AM
#29
Newbie
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: france
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
, but I don't understand how, with this setup, you account for track width variations ?See how a Longacre bump steer kit is made, it follows the front of the plate fixed at the hub, thus measuring only toe variations.
Oct 31, 2016, 08:49 AM
#30
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
It doesn't matter what the track width is really. You establish a baseline at full droop, and meassure the change as you enter full compression. Then when you graph the toe chanve vs compression, you just choose the middle of the compression as your zero.