so i can adjust my brake balance with anti-dive? so perhaps i should reduce
it, not eliminate it.
that might be worthwhile for me, as i have my valve full open to the rear,
plus more aggressive rear pads.
james
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Brown" <rbrown7@covad.net>
To: "James Creasy" <james@thevenom.net>; "Kevin Stevens"
<Kevin_Stevens@pursued-with.net>; <Larrybsp@aol.com>
Cc: "BayArea Team.Net" <ba-autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 10:55 AM
Subject: RE: antidive
> Sort of. Antidive takes the spring and shocks out of the weight transfer
> equation. The spring rate and damping of th tires is controlling the
> forward weight transfer. Now if your brake balance is set up properly for
> steady-state maximum braking, you will get front brake lockup with the
onset
> of heavy braking with a geometry high in antidive.
> --- Rick Brown
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net
> > [mailto:owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of James Creasy
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 8:42 AM
> > To: Rick Brown; Kevin Stevens; Larrybsp@aol.com
> > Cc: BayArea Team.Net
> > Subject: Re: antidive
> >
> >
> > so anti-dive acts as a stiffer spring, but just when decelerating? this
> > reminds me of using sway bars to differentially increase spring rate for
> > lateral weight transfer (turning). this would seem to be a good thing
to
> > me.
> >
> > i dont want any higher front spring rate, as it has a big effect on ride
> > comfort.
> >
> > james
> > OSP - Obtuse Suspension Problems
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Rick Brown" <rbrown7@covad.net>
> > To: "Kevin Stevens" <Kevin_Stevens@pursued-with.net>; <Larrybsp@aol.com>
> > Cc: "BayArea Team.Net" <ba-autox@autox.team.net>
> > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 7:15 PM
> > Subject: RE: antidive
> >
> >
> > > 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
|