| So the plan is to go widebody in the near future. Going to build out the plugs for producing molds for full rear quarter overlays as well as new front fenders to match for fitting ~315 rears and ~265 fronts.... Not much of quantitative conversation is to be found around here regarding the effects of traction bias; how to properly improve upon widening the traction patches... And ultimately, improve the handling properties of our chassis through a widebody modification.... there's a lot more to it from the performance perspective than the aesthetic appeal of such a modification. Most of those who appeal towards the "widebody" modification, I feel, are compelled primarily by the visual appearance of the mod and in some passing conversations would further reinforce the modification based on improvement of traction. I cannot contest the former opinion for such a mod but the latter statement is wide open to scrutiny. Gunning right to the point - putting wider tires out back, after a certain point, has diminishing returns on improvement of traction and tips more towards inability to corner efficiently. In short, you cannot just widen the rear without widening the front as well so as to maintain effective cornering in the vehicle. So you widebody the rear.... then you widebody the front..... without modification of the suspension system at both ends, while you move towards a balanced front/rear traction bias so as to attempt to maintain good cornering characteristics, you have now offset your wheel center thrustline and suffer from effects of bump-steer, mismatched cambering geometry relative to side-load tire deflection, and...... to name just the first couple of concerns... and then you have a whole new mess on your hands. To me, the idea of going widebody is to improve in an all-around way, the handling performance characteristics of the vehicle.... such that it retains as much straight-line performance as cornering performance as is possible AND through various adjustments of ride height, damping rates, anti-sway bar configuration, tension rod/caster/FUCA,RUCA/camber adjustments, and toe adjustments, the vehicle can be easily tailored on the spot to accommodate, in the best way possible, any type of performance requirement. For the non-widebody setups, we already have all of the equipment required to adjust these base-line parameters. However, when going widebody, there is far more that needs to be considered. Alterations in the larger, base components of the suspension will be required... to the subframes themselves; such as the mounting positions for the FUCAs, RUCAs, traction bars; relocations of the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical mounting positions of these members, the length of these members from the subframes to the wheel hubs, as well as modification to the hubs themselves where these suspension members connect... I dont think much of any attention to these details has been considered when going widebody.... .... and for that matter, most of us are no longer running stock sized wheels/tires anyhow.. Wider, lower profile wheel/tire combinations produce different cornering response characteristics and require different suspension geometry response. I dont think much of any attention to these same details have been analyzed in a quantitative and scientific manner when it comes to the development of the aftermarket suspension components we currently see on the market.. Adjustable tension rods, FUCAs, RUCAs, Traction Bars, etc etc... they do give us a means of adjusting base positions but they do not enable us to adjust the rates of which their respective effects have on wheel position as the suspension moves through its range of motion... Has anyone modeled our front/rear suspension systems and studied the requirements for alterations to the OEM suspension geometry in order to produce the most effective performance characteristics for a given setup in a particular application? When you purchase all of the adjustable aftermarket suspension components, what do they say the configuration points of camber/toe/caster/damping/ride height should be for any particular application based on what their empirical testing suggests? Or is there really any empirical testing performed at all? If so, why haven't we seen additional suspension components come to light that allow us to not only change the lengths of these suspension members, but to also allow us to adjust the principle or secondary pivot of said members at each respective position? .... certainly the camber rate to body roll cannot be the same for a 285-35-18 series tire as it is for a 245-45-16 series tire.... nor can the caster rate for a 225-45-16 series tire be the same for a 245-40-18 series tire... The differences become even more pronounced when you go widebody to a 315-355 series rear and 255-265 series front! ... the relative rates of change in geometry between all of these factors cannot be adjusted for by the conventional aftermarket components. and it is the relative rate of change in geometry between these factors that must be addressed in order to maximize the potential of what a given tire/wheel setup can produce in any particular application....
Enthusiasts soon understand each other. --W. Irving.
Are you an enthusiast? If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the
tailor.
Albert Einstein
|
