Softer front springs for better launch?
02-26-2015, 09:56 AM
#1
Softer front springs for better launch?
Just thinking out loud. Here is my thinking.
I have v1 powell springs, koni shocks, and air bags in the rear. I was wondering if I put my stock springs ( or even softer springs ) in the front would that help with launch? My reasoning is that the softer front springs would throw less weight to the rear during launch?
What do you guys thing?
I have v1 powell springs, koni shocks, and air bags in the rear. I was wondering if I put my stock springs ( or even softer springs ) in the front would that help with launch? My reasoning is that the softer front springs would throw less weight to the rear during launch?
What do you guys thing?
02-26-2015, 12:23 PM
#3
I am trying to understand the physics of the softer spring causing wheel hop.
So, a softer front spring will " hop / jump / bounce " up in the wheel well during launch because it will compress more?
And a stiffer front spring will not " hop / jump / bounce " up in the wheel well during launch because it wont compress as much?
So, a softer front spring will " hop / jump / bounce " up in the wheel well during launch because it will compress more?
And a stiffer front spring will not " hop / jump / bounce " up in the wheel well during launch because it wont compress as much?
Last edited by Ronn2005; 02-26-2015 at 12:32 PM.
02-26-2015, 12:30 PM
#4
I am trying to understand the physics of the softer spring causing wheel hop.
So, because the front spring is softer it will compress and " bounce / jump " up in the wheel well more during launch?
And a stiff front spring will not compress " bounce / jump " up in the wheel well because it wont compress as much?
So, because the front spring is softer it will compress and " bounce / jump " up in the wheel well more during launch?
And a stiff front spring will not compress " bounce / jump " up in the wheel well because it wont compress as much?
That's why peeps tend to insert pee wee footballs in the rear coils to act as cheap drag bags.
02-26-2015, 12:37 PM
#6
Senior Member
Your axel has a tendency to compress the spring up until the point where the tire breaks grip. At this point, the spring rebounds, releasing the potential energy until your tire catches grip again. The whole thing repeats and you get a forced vibration aka wheel hop.
Stiffer springs will reduce the amount of stored energy and instead your tires will break grip before your spring compresses an appreciable amount.
The potential energy is 0.5*(spring rate)*(spring compression)*(spring compression). Notice that while the spring rate goes down, your spring compression will go up but since its multiplied twice then the energy build up from the softer springs will actually increase.
Lets say you go with springs that are a quarter as stiff. Then your spring will compress 4x as much (idealized). So, the extra energy build up is actually proportional to (1/4*4*4) the inverse of the factor of decrease in your spring rate. Of course, I am assuming the amount of force feeding into the spring from the axel remains equal in both scenarios (it isn't, the geometry changes as the spring compresses but the amount of change is small enough for this assumption to be valid).
I believe the idea of the rotated mounts is to align the driveline geometry to minimize the amount of force going into the springs, thereby reducing the build up of potential energy
Stiffer springs will reduce the amount of stored energy and instead your tires will break grip before your spring compresses an appreciable amount.
The potential energy is 0.5*(spring rate)*(spring compression)*(spring compression). Notice that while the spring rate goes down, your spring compression will go up but since its multiplied twice then the energy build up from the softer springs will actually increase.
Lets say you go with springs that are a quarter as stiff. Then your spring will compress 4x as much (idealized). So, the extra energy build up is actually proportional to (1/4*4*4) the inverse of the factor of decrease in your spring rate. Of course, I am assuming the amount of force feeding into the spring from the axel remains equal in both scenarios (it isn't, the geometry changes as the spring compresses but the amount of change is small enough for this assumption to be valid).
I believe the idea of the rotated mounts is to align the driveline geometry to minimize the amount of force going into the springs, thereby reducing the build up of potential energy
Last edited by LTBALTBMX; 02-26-2015 at 12:46 PM.
02-26-2015, 12:41 PM
#7
Your axel has a tendency to compress the spring up until the point where the tire breaks grip. At this point, the spring rebounds, releasing the potential energy until your tire catches grip again. The whole thing repeats and you get a forced vibration aka wheel hop.
Stiffer springs will reduce the amount of stored energy and instead your tires will break grip before your spring compresses an appreciable amount.
The potential energy is 0.5*(spring rate)*(spring compression)*(spring compression). Notice that while the spring rate goes down, your spring compression will go up but since its multiplied twice then the energy build up from the softer springs will actually increase.
Lets say you go with springs that are a quarter as stiff. Then your spring will compress 4x as much (idealized). So, the extra energy build up is actually proportional to (1/4*4*4) the factor of decrease in your spring rate. Of course, I am assuming the amount of force feeding into the spring from the axel remains equal in both scenarios.
Stiffer springs will reduce the amount of stored energy and instead your tires will break grip before your spring compresses an appreciable amount.
The potential energy is 0.5*(spring rate)*(spring compression)*(spring compression). Notice that while the spring rate goes down, your spring compression will go up but since its multiplied twice then the energy build up from the softer springs will actually increase.
Lets say you go with springs that are a quarter as stiff. Then your spring will compress 4x as much (idealized). So, the extra energy build up is actually proportional to (1/4*4*4) the factor of decrease in your spring rate. Of course, I am assuming the amount of force feeding into the spring from the axel remains equal in both scenarios.
02-26-2015, 02:37 PM
#8
As stated above strap the front and do a stiffer setup in the rear, but remember your not gonna see much gain here. If you already have good tires and are looking to get a little more out of your 60 ft have a th it but ride quality will suffer
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post