1994-2002 [Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
 | [Main NG900 & OG93 Bulletin Board | BBFAQ |
Prev by Date | Next by Date | Post Followup ]
Member Login / Signup - Members see fewer ads. - Latest Member Gallery Photos
Re: Viggen front anti-roll bar... Posted by Nick Taliaferro [Email]  (#78)  [Profile/Gallery]
(more from Nick Taliaferro) on Fri, 2 Sep 2005 17:56:15
In Reply to: Viggen front anti-roll bar..., Lucas J., Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:56:40 Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup |
I do not know the actual reasoning behind it but can give a couple ideas that I have learned from experimenting with different combinations on our cars.
All things being equal (They are not, lets keep it simple though.) With lower springs having stiffer compression (they do same work in less distance) they control more roll of the vehicle and requires less roll stiffness from the bars. That is one possible explanation. Also everything stiffer makes for less compliance over single wheel bumps and with 17s from the factory ride quality was a big factor.
The other issue with the 9-3 is that it is a relatively tall and top-heavy chassis, making lots of roll. The more roll that is controlled by the front bar means less load and therefore traction for the inside tire. Without a limited slip differential that would make for lots more tire smoke. Especially on the 99-00 without TCS! This is why they keep the front ARB softer on a street car.
I have tried a few solutions to this problem. A stiffer rear bar alone, no, Lots stiffer can cover up most of the shortcomings on the street. If you are going to use it for club racing then there is more needed to make it competitive and nicer on the tires. (Excessive body-roll and the resulting positive camber is very hard on tires.) We can help with even stiffer aftermarket springs. Problem is the stiffer springs need more rebound damping found in aftermarket shocks. I have the H&R with Koni along with a medium 22mm rear bar it is nicely balanced, this same setup with a 1” will be a bit tail happy… Not for everyone. If we go one step further adding a 24mm front bar then with the 1” rear bar the chassis is nicely balanced. Will slightly understeer with lots of throttle or turn in nice with a bit of throttle lift or maybe some brake. I could not be happier. There is a compromise though, as with almost everything in life. There is a bit of a ride quality loss since we have removed most of the compliance, certainly ok with me for the improvement in handling. Hope this helps some of you understand it a little better. The most important thing to remember is that no two people have exactly the same end result in their mind and there are many ways to get to the same end result. Experience certainly helps. I have made and run ¾” rear bars all the way to a 1 ½” thick wall tubular beast on my 9-3/900 cars over the years with varying results on different models. A base model is not the same as an SE in responding to changes.
Nick Taliaferro
, Fri, 2 Sep 2005 17:56:15 <-- Viewing This Message
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
