Can you have fun in a Indie rear suspension ?
>meme suspension
those brakepads seem fun to change
>>13821593
What brake pads senpai
>>13821593
It's no more difficult than outboard brakes, if you have the space around them like that one does.
>>13821593
do you mean rotors?
pads would be cake.
It amazes me how recent so many suspension advances have been integrated into automobiles.
It's like everything had leafsprings except various French cars until 1985 ish, then bang, suddenly the world moves forward when it seems they had plenty of opportunity to before
>>13821593
half shafts typically aren't that hard to take off,
The bitch rotors are the captive ones immediately behind the hub, or even worse the rotor IS the hub.
>>13821692
Rotor/hub disks are not so bad. Worst part is packing unsealed bearings. I don't want to ever see captives. I'm not sure I could ever notice the difference in weight savings. I guess with a thousandth of a second for 1000 turns it adds up to be seconds faster.
>>13822034
My beef with Rotor/hubs, are that they are fucking expensive compared to basic rotors.
>>13821685
>It's like everything had leafsprings except various French cars until 1985 ish
Uh, no.
>>13821685
>except various French cars
hope you enjoy torsien bars mean while in england we've had double wishbone since.. fucking forever
>>13821555
Yes. In fact, I'd say it's impossible to have fun WITHOUT independent suspension.
Beam axles are for carrying loads; NOT handling.
>>13823100
>Beam axles are for carrying loads
Makes no type of sense. All suspension types carry loads, and solid axles don't have an advantage.
Yes, much fun.
>>13823111
Solid axles do have an advantage. They are cheaper.
>>13823111
The cost and weight of a solid acle is less than a indy. When you start talking about very large loads, or amounts of power, the difference becomes significant.
>>13823150
Only because most companies have already designed them them for heavy duty applications.
>>13823169
>weight of a solid acle is less than a indy
Uh, no. Especially not unsprung weight.
>>13823185
A heavy duty axle in a mustang? A solid axle has less components than a independent sus.
>>13823213
>A heavy duty axle in a mustang?
Who said anything about Mustangs?
>A solid axle has less components than a independent sus.
Barely, if at all.
>people own cars that don't have IRS
oh right, America
>>13823231
Before the 2015 mustang, every mustang has a solid axle, except the 04 cobra. mustang was just an random example for american automotive technology. But in the last few years things have changed.
>>13823265
Why are you talking about Mustangs? No one was talking about Mustangs.
>>13823046
there's always going to be that one guy that doesn't understand hyperbole for brevity and effect
Anyway I'd probably point to manufacturing technology getting better for the rapid rollout of more complex suspension technology on workaday cars. The technology existed, but the ability to make cheap and reliable systems had to catch up
>>13823286
As I wrote, mustang is just an example and for me the embodiment of american automobiles.
>>13823286
As I wrote, the mustang is just an example. For me it is an embodiment of american automobiles. Thats it.
>>13823324
>>13823330
None of this had anything to do with the discussion.
>>13823185
>Uh, no. Especially not unsprung weight
over all weight? yes, unsprung weight. well yeah, but in terms of total weight, the weight of a solid axle needed to bear 4000lbs is alot less than the total weight of an Indy bearing the same amount. the total weight of a solid axle handling very large amounts of torque is less than its indy competitor.
>>13823357
I was unclear, sorry, over all weight of a solid axle will be less than an indepedent if they both are handling the same weight and or power. The unsprung weigh of the indy will be alot less.
>>13823357
No. How do you even figure this?
>>13823185
There is a whopping 150 lb difference between they 8.8 irs and sra.
>>13821555
You can have fun in any vehicle, under the right circumstances
>>13826413
>swapping SRA into glorious Terminator
Why do people on /o/ who don't know anything about chassis engineering/dynamics try to make authoritative statements that are completely wrong? Do you guys do that in real life too or just anonymously on the internet?
>>13826450
Why do people who only drive their parents' Miatas tripfag on /o/ about cars they've never seen, let alone driven?
>>13826448
Irs simply isn't an option at higher power levels.
>>13826448
It would make more sense for drag racing, if they wanted to do that. Plus, we get IRS to swap in.
>>13826455
To be fair he does have a Fairline from the 60s or something like that, and does seem to have done a lot of research on suspension and things.
He and Brosifine are kind of in the same category of knowledgeable, but retarded at the same time.
>>13826584
why is a solid rear better for drag racing? all I know is that it at least partly has to do with preventing wheel hop?
>>13826606
>To be fair he does have a Fairline from the 60s or something like that
No he doesn't.
>>13826612
It's something like that, yes.
>>13826612
It's lighter and much stronger. Cv axles don't like torque. SRAs also allow for much smoother and quicker launches because you don't have thousands of rubber bushings that flex and contact under load causing what is known as "wheel hop".
With that said irs does have some advantages, but none of them present themselves on a well prepped track.
![DSC02093[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/3VCtLkr.jpg "DSC02093[1].jpg")
>>13821685
That would be true for most american manufacturers. European and japanese vehicles have had better things than leafsprings and solid axles.
>>13823111
>>13823150
>>13823169
ACTURBARY
A solid axel is better for carrying loads because its immune to camber, and other suspension settings changes as load increases. For handling reasons (namely controlling contact patch under bodyroll), Independent suspensions tend to gain negative camber when you compress them, such as when you put a large load on them. A solid axle will have the same camber settings regardless of the compression of the suspension due to load. It also helps that a solid axle is much simpler, and can be built much stronger for cheaper, especially with leaf springs.
/engineered
>>13826612
Besides being able to handle rediculous amounts of torque, and less bushings, which makes the shocks to the work of controling compression like theyre designed to, solid axles are better for a similar reason as here,
>>13827036
because as the rear suspension compresses during a launch, the camber of the rear wheels doesnt change.
>>13826450
>Why do people on /o/ who don't know anything about chassis engineering/dynamics try to make authoritative statements that are completely wrong?
You mean like you?
>>13827036
There are several ways to set up independent suspension so that you have no camber gain. Or, you can simply manage the camber gain. I don't know how or why you think a solid axle is 'much simpler' or 'much stronger'. The only disadvantage is you can't make independent suspension work with longitudinal leaf springs, but that's not really a disadvantage since you can just use coil springs or even a transverse leaf.
>>13827036
It would be extremely easy to make a double wishbone with no camber gain, it has nothing to do with why solid axles are typically used on vehicles made to haul loads.
>>13827036
What about multilink suspensions?
>>13826413
Did you measure it like that? Because you're a retard, if so.
Suspension is a tricky thing, you have to consider how it behaves under braking, acceleration, turning, uneven terrain, and all the possible combinations of those you'll experience in the vehicle you drive and where you drive it.
>>13827099
it would, its called equal length double wish bone suspension, and it sucks going around a corner due to pic related especially in vehicles with lots of body roll
Just watched the engineering guy on youtubes video on IRS vs solid axle as I correctly assumed it's where most of the posters in this thread are getting their incorrect/misunderstood info
>solid axle is good for drag racing because the track doesn't have any imperfections
What?
>solid axle is bad because one wheel is affected by the other
That's a popular one on /o/, guess people who say this have thrown their sway bars in the trash for this reason
>Ford put IRS in the new Mustang because people who don't know anything about cars think IRS is better
At least he got something right. Not a single mention in the videos or in this thread of anti-squat, roll center, or most importantly range of adjustability.
Someone linked the torrent to one of these books last thread, I didn't save the link, and you won't read it anyway as you prefer to spew out nonsense, but I highly recommend -
Tune to Win - Carroll Smith
Engineer to Win - Carroll Smith
Chassis Engineering - Herb Adams
And no torrent needed, these posts (link to 4 posts at the top)
http://www.lateral-g.net/forums/showthread.php4?t=42423
>>13827202
good links nigga.
But as someone who OWNS a vehicle a vehicle with a solid axle, its not very good at handling on uneven surfaces because pic related. when one of the wheels hits an imperfection while going around a corner, it reduces the contact patch for both wheels. Sway bars have no effect on this.
If i drive my truck around a corner at speed at speed i can feel the rear end take tiny steps out as it hits inperfections in the road. In a world where there is no road imperfections, the solid axel is the optimum suspension because it doesnt allow suspension geometry changes. actually in a perfect world, no suspension is necessary at all, but mein schpine.
Imagine the picture is
Since this seems to be the thread for suspension discussion, I've got something to talk about.
I have a beetle with rear IRS, and I'm curious as to why swing axle was thrown out for later models. I've seen and experienced how under hard cornering the rear wheels get some strong camber changes due to body roll and a simple vertical travel design. Swing axle would seem to handle this better, since the camber becomes negative under heavy load and positive under light load, which is exactly what you want for the outside and inside wheels while cornering with body roll. I know about axle tuck and stuff, but, with IRS, when the rear driven wheels lose contact patch on a rear-heavy car, that's basically inviting a spin out. I've never spun out myself, but it's not like I haven't done some hektik skidz.
So my question is, why throw out a suspension design that turns better for one that doesn't seem to?
>>13828262
Swing axle is bad shit. There's a reason the early Corvairs were known as death traps.
>>13826670
Is this an MR2?
>>13828297
Yeah, now that I've been thinking about it, if you were turning hard one way, then quickly turned sharp in the opposite direction, that would seem to do it for getting the axle to go under. Now I'm a little more happy with IRS, it might be worse but it won't kill me.
>>13828297
>>13828327
I was thinking too hard about the roll effect and not enough about the later forces.
>>13828394
*lateral
>>13827429
Well said.
>>13823087
>implying torsion bars are bad
>implying the english don't drive more french cars than english ones
enjoy your rubber cones nigel
>>13827429
>>13828458
But everything in that post is nonsense
> Sway bars have no effect on this
of course they do
> In a world where there is no road imperfections, the solid axel is the optimum suspension because it doesnt allow suspension geometry changes
Not even sure what you are trying to say but dealing with road imperfections is a small part of a suspensions job, most of it is dealing with weight transfer, different types of solid and independent rears have different advantages in doing this
> in a perfect world, no suspension is necessary at all
A world where cars weigh 0 pounds?
I hope someday that someone on /o/ reads one of those links or something similar, maybe we could have meaningful discussion on the subject, it's a crazy dream I know.
>>13828510
>Not even sure what you are trying to say but dealing with road imperfections is a small part of a suspensions job
I don't think anybody ever said otherwise? Only that a solid axle gets a little weird when you hit a bump mid-turn. And I've also felt similar things happen in my own live-axle equipped car that don't really happen in my IRS-equipped one when suddenly hitting bumps in the middle of a corner. So I'm not really sure what exactly it is you're calling "wrong" on. Are you trying to say that this phenomenon isn't related to choice of rear axle but caused by something else? If so, why doesn't it seem to happen with an IRS in the back?
>>13828589
You seem to think the only variable is IRS or solid axle. There are many different link designs for both. Your two suspensions are on different cars. They have different-
vehicle weights
tires
wheels
suspension geometry
roll centers
spring rates
compression damping
rebound damping
chassis stiffness
I could easily list 50 more things. Your comparison between your two cars is completely meaningless. If you want to compare two different suspension designs you have to start by understanding how they work.
>>13827429
>In a world where there is no road imperfections
I was reading an old book from the 1960s stating that manufactures were hesitant to develop independent suspension for mass market cars
given that ever improving road conditions made better handling a moot point
>>13827036
de dion axle is a type that keeps steady geometry throughout its travel
the down side is extra complexity and high unsprung weight compared to something like Chapman strut
>>13828644
>You seem to think the only variable is IRS or solid axle
In this situation, it's the primary variable. Everything else listed is secondary. Nothing on that list affects the effect of a mid-corner bump hit more than choice of axle. They can mitigate it on a solid rear such that the driver can easily keep it under control, but the slip still happens due to sudden reduction of contact patch. It's a downside of a beam axle, inarguably. Where /o/ constantly makes errors is in assuming it's always a fatal downside. It's actually a really minor downside that a well-designed suspension can compensate heavily for. Otherwise you'd never see solid-axle cars able to compete with IRS-equipped ones, of any linkage design.
>>13828783
>I was reading an old book from the 1960s stating that manufactures were hesitant to develop independent suspension for mass market cars
>given that ever improving road conditions made better handling a moot point
Kek. It's a good thing that a few better-handling cars got made anyway.
>>13828852
it was a book about the early career of alec issigonis
for some reason that dude liked independent suspension and tried to put in as many cars as possible
>>13828510
I assume I have corrected your belief about the flaws of solid axles since you skipped right over that.
>sway bars
Sway bars have no effect on the this because all they do is push down (from the body on the out side wheel in a turn, and pull up on the inside wheel, in an effort to combat body roll. It has no effect on the actual mechanism that makes solid axles want to step out, since the imperfection that causes the step out can be on either wheel, whether it has weigh on it or not.
>weight transfer.
Weight transfer is mostly a function of how high a car is off the ground. Its not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. Where weight tansfer becomes a problem is when it causes body roll. Then again body roll is only a problem because it causes suspension geometry changes.
this is complicated so ill go slow
Engineers want the tires of the car to stay as perpendicular to the ground as possible, because this where the tires have the most contact patch...
ah fuck it, im not gonna get through to him anyway.
Its all about camber changes mane, beyond the basic saftey of not leaning so far over in a turn you flip.
rollcenter adjusment etc are all ways to combat body roll which is a the main problem with IS
I just made this to compare the basic workings of independent, solid and swing arm. its like 4000 px wide sorry. it also has a neato evolution and compariosn of IS types i found
>>13828644
>>13828402
>>13828297
>>13828327
you swing arm guys will enjoy it too
>>13829005
>>13828783
Thats fuckin funny
>>13828466
torsion bars, like leaf springs, are just a way to provide spring force, there is nothing wrong with them mechanically. there disadvantages are that they are harder to adjust, take up more room, and are heavier. My 2500HD, where none of those things make a difference has both torsion bars and leaf springs, kek
I also made this for the guy that was saying that Solid Axles arent simpler than IRS
The first row seemes to be out of the same book even. I had to add a diff to the IS to make it comparable to the solid axle.
Solid axles arent inherently stronger, besides the forces all travel in straight lines, and shit isnt cantilevered over shit. Theyre normally stronger, because theyre simpler, which means more money is spent on making all 5 parts of it strong, then all 300 parts of an IRS
The second row is litterally comparing an ox cart to an R8, but you get the point. Try to add up all the bushings, CV joints, nuts and bolts in the IRS ans see how many you get. I think there is 8 bolts in the solid axle total kek.
3 and 4 are '14 and '15 mustangs with a shot under the car to show im not making an invalid comparison like here
>>13826413
Dont get me wrong IS is fantastic, and all handling focused cars should have it, but it bugs me when people whine about which is "better", because it really truly depends on what your trying to do.
Fuck swing axles tho.
>>13829005
>Sway bars have no effect on the this because all they do is push down (from the body
>Weight transfer is mostly a function of how high a car is off the ground
>Then again body roll is only a problem because it causes suspension geometry changes
>rollcenter adjusment etc are all ways to combat body roll which is a the main problem with IS
Please actually read something about chassis engineering, your posts are starting to rot my brain. You seem to actually have the will to understand it but your posts demonstrate a severe misunderstanding of the laws of physics, and I hope that English isn't your first language.
>>13829180
explain it to me then ya bastard.
>>13829212
Just ignore him, he's an idiot who wiles his time away shitposting when he's not out doing chores for his mother in her Miata.
>>13829212
>Teach multiple physics, geometry, and applied mathematics classes to me over an online message board
Do me a favor and read your posts out as loud as you can before deciding to post them
>>13829116
Depending on the layout torsion bars can be more compact, lighter and easier to adjust.
The main problem is cost of upgrading.
>>13829212
Explain the laws of physics?
>Sway bars have no effect on the this because all they do is push down (from the body
A sway bars force comes from the suspension on the opposite side of the car pulls up
>Weight transfer is mostly a function of how high a car is off the ground
Weight transfer is a function of Newtons First Law, because a large steel object going straight at speed wants to continue to do so
>Then again body roll is only a problem because it causes suspension geometry changes
If this were true track cars would be completely rigid
>rollcenter adjusment etc are all ways to combat body roll which is a the main problem with IS
Why would body roll be more of an issue with independent suspension? There's lots of factors that determine roll center and where you want it to be to determine the handling, especially adjusting it front vs. rear.
If you want literally everything explained to you I would first start paying attention to physics class at school, and second read the links I already provided and make half an effort to understand them. Not trying to be a dick but I don't understand why people come into these threads and spew nonsense, then get mad when they hear they are wrong. I'm sure it's mostly Dunning Kreuger affect but I would think some posters would eventually make an effort to be knowledgeable about the things they post about.
>>13828783
its Mcpherson strut. fist pioneered in tby ford in the mk1 ford zephyr/zodiac
the de dion strut set up was used on many single seat race cars in the 50s
>>13828984
you are incorrect on that one. he liked the hyrolastic set up. the problem with all his car designs were they just got longer... mini into 1000-1300 to 1800 landcrab to finally austin tasman with a austin healy 3000 straight 6
the first IRS setup was pioneered by triumph cars, but got beaten to the patent office too late by BMW by about an hour. well aint that a kick in the balls huh?
hot rodders have used the (jaguar xj6/12) IRS set up in the back of their cars for years. the reason is the middle section has more weight in the centre than a solid rear so it stays more planted on the road than a live rear. and that helps when you have more than a standard v8 up the front.
>>13829264
>If this were true track cars would be completely rigid
what is a tradeoff
>>13829264
>I don't understand why people come into these threads and spew nonsense
You should, you're doing it right now.
>>13829301
Most of what he said is correct.
>>13829331
Barely anything of what he said is correct.
>>13829264
>>13829334
>>13829331
Most of what he says is correct, but i dont see how it contradicts what im saying...
>>13829334
What isn't?
>>13829349
If he can come in here and post what amounts to "lol ur wrong" with no other explanation given except some random book suggestions and links with information literally completely unrelated to the subject at hand, I see literally no reason to give back more than I am getting.
>>13829348
You were both correct for the most part, but you misunderstood a few things. Neither of you were really wrong though, and pretty much have the same point
>>13823100
>>13823111
Solid axle is indeed superior for 4×4 vehicles. Ifs/Irs is trash on a truck or suv.
>>13829005
>Weight transfer is mostly a function of how high a car is off the ground
bro you are confusing weight transfer with body roll. two very very different things.
>>13830074
and if i read the rest of that line id see you are indeed confusing it with body roll.
body roll isnt bad. is natural on cars with high ride height and soggy suspension.
>>13830081
again its not a bad thing. many cars that are worshiped for their handling get quite a bit of roll.
why cant i just do one post
>>13829270
he wanted the morris minor to have irs and a flat four but got shut down by the accountants who preferred the use of off the shelf parts
>>13823242
Also, all small cars in yurop.
>inb4 torsion beam is independent
>>13830176
some have semi trailing arms or swing arms
but they are old
>>13830060
Nope.
Jesus christ.
There is a fuckload more to improving a suspension than coilovers and IRS.
There's a lot more to it than just double wishbone and multilink.
Suspensions have improved a shitload the past 20 years even if it's still mostly various multilinks or double wishbone setups that have been around for a long ass time.
