07-11-2007, 04:58 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 2,573
|
|
|
Umb,
Care to ellaborate? I'm curious what you've learned. I'm reading the Smith book and also feel that just increasing the spring rates are NOT going to solve all problems, but I don't have a firm enough grasp on the subject to enter this debate.
__________________
1987 Milano Platinum - check for many new items. [B][COLOR="Red"][URL="http://alfabb.com/bb/forums/showthread.php?t=42980"]PARTING OUT[/URL][/COLOR][/B]
1989 Verde - Harsh shocks and SS rears, 27mm torsion bars, stainless lines, pads, 16X7.5 rims, 4.10 rebuilt platinum tranny, poly bushes, and RSR 28mm front and 25.4mm adjustable sways!
1984 GTV-6 - 80K miles
Last edited by Grant; 07-12-2007 at 09:02 AM.
|
07-11-2007, 08:58 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 572
|
|
 Quote:
Originally Posted by Grant
Umb,
also feel that just increasing the spring rates are going to solve all problems, but I don't have a firm enough grasp on the subject to enter this debate.
|
 suspension that doesn't work (eg cars with swing axles), but it falls apart (almost literally) if you have to drive over bumps  . Then you need to accomodate suspension compliance and travel.
Changing the geometry attempts to 'fix' the suspension without having to resort to the 'beam axle conversion' of fitting a huge anti roll bar   .
Some cars already have a lot of camber gain built in. Alfetta does not, and what it does have disappears when the car is lowered. Changing the axle height can allow camber gain to be kept on a low car. At the same time, the height of the top link can be raised to increase camber gain, which I understand from Richard's pictures and clear explanation is the objective - thanks for that Richard  .
Overall, the 'best' method will depend on what the car is for (road, rally or track).
A bit of each could be the answer. Certainly that is the generally accepted approach for 105 chassis ( illconceived my arse) where big springs, big anti roll bars and lots of camber gain/ackermann are the rule.
While there is a bit much 'mines better than yours' going on here, overall this thread has been quite enlightening and could continue to be so if people behave and treat each other like adults.
__________________
Strada: 1983 GTV6 2.8 "GTV26"
Corsa: 1974 2000GTV "GTV27"
|
07-11-2007, 11:28 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,962
|
|
Richard, thanks for your comments thus far in this thread.
I for one value multiple views into a particular subject. I believe I write for numerous other readers, most of whom have enjoyed this thread but like myself, may not have extensive experience in suspension tuning so we have for the most part stayed quiet. Your description of the benefits of a drop spindle makes sense to me.
For me, I have a less radical drop spindle setup in my Milano. I attribute my diminishing lap times to this simple mod to my torsion-bar'ed car. However, I have no doubt JJ's continued crooning over the "vastly superior, and technologically advanced, made of space-age material" offering from Ron Simons (disclaimer: those are my words, not his  , although that was the spirit that I saw shine through in post 178) does indeed "fix" deficiencies present in the original design. I just haven't put my own money into a set to prove it to myself.
I'd like for you to please continue to share your thoughts and experience on the subjects discussed in this thread, as well as others on this board. We're a small community, so any nugget shared is valuable to everyone.
And JJ - you know we still love ya! 
|
07-11-2007, 11:50 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: 58 Deg. North
Posts: 1,898
|
|
|
ubralfa: I hear you, I'll stay out of it from now on. np.
__________________
Mats Strandberg
GTV 2000 -77 [URL=http://www.alfapower.nu/gallery/gtv]Pics[/URL] <= These are picture links you know...
75 Turbo -87 *sold* [URL=http://www.alfapower.nu/gallery/75T-Modificata]Pics[/URL] <=
|
07-11-2007, 11:52 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Granolaville, Washington
Posts: 3,209
|
|
|
Oh yeah... It's all good - this is a drop-spindle discussion after all and not an RSR discussion...
RSR kindo comes up (along with other suspension options), because the need for this DS modification stems from a poor suspension setup to begin with. Believe me guys - having the LCA parallel to the ground is not that big an issue with the right setup on these cars.
And you are not "masking" the issue with suspension improvements via the wallet anymore than you are "masking" flaws in the overall design via a welder...
__________________
Full-Race 3.7 Litre 24v Milano; Street/Track 3.0 Litre 24v Milano Verde; 2.0 TS '73 GTV; 6-speed 3.45 litre 24v Street 164 LS/Super; '06 Scion XB - Runs!
|
07-12-2007, 04:59 AM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 834
|
|
Well spoken, Nizam!
To further the discussion...JJ spaketh:
Quote:
Originally Posted by junglejustice
Oh yeah... It's all good - this is a drop-spindle discussion after all and not an RSR discussion...
RSR kindo comes up (along with other suspension options), because the need for this DS modification stems from a poor suspension setup to begin with. Believe me guys - having the LCA parallel to the ground is not that big an issue with the right setup on these cars.
And you are not "masking" the issue with suspension improvements via the wallet anymore than you are "masking" flaws in the overall design via a welder...
|
Now, if you're significantly lowering the ride height, you're introducing a major change to the overall design parameters of the suspension. Thus it's not a flaw in the overall design of the suspension, it's now a design that's being forced to operate outside of the parameters for which it was originally conceived. With this thought in mind, I think creating a spindle that allows the chassis to be lowered while restoring OEM geometry would be the most "gentle" (?) solution, as you would only be correcting the geometry issues that your lowering the chassis caused. If this was done, the result would be the lowered chassis and OEM geometry. In such a scenario I would then accept that any following changes would be made to address "flaws in the original design", though 'flaws' may still be a harsh word.
There's little point in going to the hassle of making yourself a new drop spindle though and keeping the stock geometry when it can be tweeked for more track performance, so this is probably always done.
I guess I tend to look at the geometry of the suspension as your foundation. This geometry is going to influence all your design considerations. So if you first engineer the foundational geometry or your lowered chassis to be less flawed, you secondary suspension design decisions can be less compromised by the need to overcome issues introduced if the car was lowered without correction. So if you've got a nice looking camber curve, maybe you don't need quite as high a wheel rate...or if your front roll couple isn't gigantic, maybe you don't need quite as much spring rate to achieve the same roll stiffness??
I'd really like to see the difference something like a properly executed drop spindle makes on two close to identical setups. I think the RSR would be an even better solution then it currently is (which is excellent as far as I can tell) if it could be integrated with a drop spindle. Maybe there could be reductions in spring and roll bar rates while maintaining the same amount of body control! And wouldn't that basically be a good thing for everyone??
__________________
James
1984 GTV6
|
07-12-2007, 07:53 AM
|
 |
Richard Jemison
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Pensacola, Fl. U.S.A.
Posts: 933
|
|
|
Suspension mods
[quote][For me, I have a less radical drop spindle setup in my Milano. I attribute my diminishing lap times to this simple mod to my torsion-bar'ed car. However, I have no doubt JJ's continued crooning over the "vastly superior, and technologically advanced, made of space-age material" offering from Ron Simons (disclaimer: those are my words, not his , although that was the spirit that I saw shine through in post 178) does indeed "fix" deficiencies present in the original design. I just haven't put my own money into a set to prove it to myself.
/QUOTE]
I`ll repeat my concerns, that the 116 type chassis are not designed for additional stresses of coilovers on the front corner. And that is from experience.
If it is spring rate you are after, change to 27,30,33, or 36mm torsion bars. They will give you all the spring rate you can ever need and carry the spring load back to the center of the chassis.
The RSR kit is not legal in SCCA "IT" Classes preparation as the GCR requires "Original Suspension Design" which is a consideration many of the Alfa racers must consider.
And if you are looking at handling improvement, spring rate isn`t the answer.
The 116 front suspension is a good design, like all manufacturors Alfa has compromises based on purpose. If you want to reduce ride hight without all the harsh ride of high spring load the dropped spindle & steering arm still produces the best handling package, as it will do with higher spring rates as well for racing. As a fact The Dropped Spindle Modifications would improve the handling on the cars that have added coilovers to the front. (RSR isn`t the only source, it is not a new idea. I tried it years ago and abandoned it bacause of chassis twisting on a Solo car. Mine were built with Carrera coilovers & 250 lb springs.)
The comments from those who have NO experience with my modifications are wrong. The results and absence of bump steer are evident in every application where they have been used. The referal to 101/105 mods simply indicated that this was not a new idea. I`ve learned to look at the postings from these nitwits in light with all there consistantly useless postings.
__________________
Richard Jemison
RJR Racing
http://scuderiagiallo.com
"you don`t have to listen, but you won`t win the argument"!
"Nothing that I might suggest will be legal in California"
|
07-12-2007, 08:55 AM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: ipswich, uk
Posts: 282
|
|
|
I`ve learned to look at the postings from these nitwits in light with all there consistantly useless postings.[/quote]
Hope iam not under that catagory!! I'll be perfectly honest, my 75 is my second ever car ive attempted to modify (power and suspension) as ive been working with bikes for the last 16 years!
Thankyou for explaining the reasons an principles behind the dropped spindles, i can now see the logic behind it...
but for now iam a very long way off doing such a modification as i have more important issues to address first (tired engine, vibrating drive train etc) but none the less, thankyou
__________________
Spence
75 3.0 24v
|
07-12-2007, 09:12 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 2,573
|
|
Just to clarify, I'm in the camp that likes softer spring rates and repaired suspension geometries. I've edited my type-o in the above post 
Another thing to ask yourself when reading all of these opinions is, what do you want to do with your car? My "race car" is also my daily driver. I'm rather glad I'm not running the spring rates that RSR has, but can definitely say that out on the track, I wished I had RSR spring rates!
Mats alsways brings up the poing that your alignment goes wonky if you brake hard with softer spring rates, which I think must be true. So even though with the D-spindles my car seems to grip a lot better, I'm sure I'm giving up some braking performance. But I'm tracking my car about .05% of the time I'm driving it, so that compromise is OK.
What are your goals? Can you see why everyone is arguing here?
__________________
1987 Milano Platinum - check for many new items. [B][COLOR="Red"][URL="http://alfabb.com/bb/forums/showthread.php?t=42980"]PARTING OUT[/URL][/COLOR][/B]
1989 Verde - Harsh shocks and SS rears, 27mm torsion bars, stainless lines, pads, 16X7.5 rims, 4.10 rebuilt platinum tranny, poly bushes, and RSR 28mm front and 25.4mm adjustable sways!
1984 GTV-6 - 80K miles
|
07-12-2007, 09:19 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: ipswich, uk
Posts: 282
|
|
|
Ive got a rough idea!
I want my car for fast road, and hopefully the odd track day, but we'll see!
as far as i see it, suspension settings (like a tuned motor) will always be a compromise depending on what you want from the vehicle!! Race track and public highway are a world apart for very obvious reasons.. hence adjustable suspension options....
A car (or bike for that reason) set up for track work can and will handle very poorly on the road... Same as if you set an engine up to make big h.p up top end, this may be fine for circuits with very few bends or open highway, but absiloutly naff for small twisty tracks or town driving!
As you say, when diciding how far to go with a vehicle you really need to know what that vehicle is going to spend most of its time doing!
I will appologise now if my thoughts and views upset anyone?!
__________________
Spence
75 3.0 24v
Last edited by alfaspence; 07-12-2007 at 09:29 AM.
|
07-12-2007, 09:29 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Granolaville, Washington
Posts: 3,209
|
|
One of the "nitwits" speaks;
These cars were also not designed to take more than 150 to maybe 200 horsepower, but that does not stop many of us to plunk 3-400 horses in there! They were not designed to race - but we do it any way!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfar7
...I`ll repeat my concerns, that the 116 type chassis are not designed for additional stresses of coilovers on the front corner. And that is from experience...
|
1) We DON'T install the coil-overs and remove torsion bars WITHOUT reinforcing that top shock-mount point (like we did on my and on Jes' 3.7 cars!) - You seem to respond well to pictures - see attached...
2) I know guys who have removed the torsion bars, installed coil-overs and did NOT reinforce the top mounts and who run WITHOUT any problems! I don't advocate it.
3) I know guys who have done the same and who have the top mount tear out - mostly due to rust and years of wear I'm sure, but still - you can not ask that flimsy top mount to now carry the weight of the car (in addition to suspension load), where it was not designed to do so.
4) With the RSR coil-over installation it is a "helper" setup - you RETAIN the stock torsion bars to carry the majority of the weight and load!
5) With literally HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of these setups running out there, how can you still argue that it is a problem? If you experienced it Richard - versus dreamed it - show pics or tell us more. Did you run coil-overs with the torsion bars removed and no reinforcement up there? Well, that is exactly what I say NOT to do!
With torsion bars and RSR - no reinforcement required.
Without torsion bars and just RSR - 50/50 - I recommend the welded reinforcement though!
I'm sure that if there were an improvement to be had with this drop-spindle modification (where's Larry Jr. on this - he has been doing them for years), then that advantage would continue with the RSR or whatever coil-over setup you go with!
Also, the largest torsion bar that you can fit only increases the spring-rate by about 60 kilos - this straight from somebody who has tested them! The 80 kilo per side, 100kg, 115kg, 125kg (and the end-result RACING IT THAT WAY), proves that what these cars want, is spring rate!
For the street - the 100 kilo front and 50 kilo rear has proven docile and mild and smooth and plenty soft for a daily driver! (For the record, Ron runs 200 kgs PER SIDE - IN ADDITION to the factory adjustable torsion bars in that works GTV6 of his!) On the 3.7 I am "only" going to 200 without the torsion bars.
__________________
Full-Race 3.7 Litre 24v Milano; Street/Track 3.0 Litre 24v Milano Verde; 2.0 TS '73 GTV; 6-speed 3.45 litre 24v Street 164 LS/Super; '06 Scion XB - Runs!
Last edited by junglejustice; 07-12-2007 at 09:51 AM.
|
07-12-2007, 09:55 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Granolaville, Washington
Posts: 3,209
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Echo Leader
JJ, are those kg/cm numbers?
|
__________________
Full-Race 3.7 Litre 24v Milano; Street/Track 3.0 Litre 24v Milano Verde; 2.0 TS '73 GTV; 6-speed 3.45 litre 24v Street 164 LS/Super; '06 Scion XB - Runs!
|
07-12-2007, 11:25 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 834
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by junglejustice
James, sorry - yeah - kind-o got lost there... Yes, it is 12.5 kilograms of pressure per millimeter, or 125 kilos per centimeter of m | | |
