ba-autox
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: antidive

To: "Kevin Stevens" <Kevin_Stevens@pursued-with.net>, <Larrybsp@aol.com>
Subject: RE: antidive
From: "Rick Brown" <rbrown7@covad.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:15:17 -0700
Antidive increases the rate that the weight transfers. Same physics hold for
braking as for cornering as Kevin noted.  You don't want to transfer the
weight too quickly for reasons Larry states, but you want the car responsive
for quick transitioning.  It's a tradeoff.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net
> [mailto:owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of Kevin Stevens
> Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 11:28 PM
> To: Larrybsp@aol.com
> Cc: BayArea Team.Net
> Subject: Re: antidive
>
>
> On Saturday, Jun 28, 2003, at 23:10 US/Pacific, Larrybsp@aol.com wrote:
>
> > eliminate antidive in autocrossing. Its a beneficial characteristic.
> > Without
> > antidive as soon as you hit the the brakes you are going to compress
> > the front
> > springs and increase the load on the front tires. Remember the
> > traction circle. If
> > the tire is loaded from braking forces it loses turning capability.
> > Not only
>
> Aren't you transferring the weight up front anyway?  Just as was
> mentioned the other day with lateral transfer, how much is transferred
> is just a factor of the CG and deceleration rate.  Or is it that
> regardless of the transfer, you don't want to get that much suspension
> movement?
>
> > have you have used up much of your suspension travel,  when you start
> > your
> > turn and introduce body roll you can bottom your suspension at which
> > point you
> > have no suspension and all the weight transfer load will go to that
> > tire causing
> > it to lose traction.
>
> Got it.  So analogous to lateral roll, it's A Bad Thing primarily
> because it upsets the suspension or takes it out of the favorable part
> of its operating range, not because of any inherent physics reason,
> right?
>
> KeS

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>