Time for a thread on these, as they're pretty new on the VAG watercooled scene (AFAIK, but I could be wrong... ). I originally came across them when mk1. linked to them, The chat was all about camber, so immediately they looked to have cosmetic value (and it turns out to be a way of centering rear wheel in the arch on a lowered car) but I couldn't help wonder about geometry too, restoring the beam to a more OE angle, with ?anti-dive geometry restored? All fine, and then these crop up: Off one of these pukka works Mk3s: So although more seriously modified, this then takes on a new relevance: cosmetic no more. This is anti-dive function, surely? I'll admit I'm in no hurry to fit this stuff to my car - lateral loads on the rear wheels of a circuit car without bracing mainly - but thought it a topic worth floating so folks can be on the look out for ideas
Second thing worth a mention are these which are beam pivot mounting relocators, to push the beam backwards & centralise the wheel in the arch once lowered: Mason Tech version: So what? Leave it to Ed38? Nope. Lengthens the wheelbase fractionally and (to me) doesn't look a million miles away from what Seat were doing with changing the location points for the Ibiza Kit Car Evo 2 rear beam. Fooks up anti dive by the thickness of the plate mind. I can't believe the 'scene' is supplying ideas which can be hijacked for the track!
anti dive? surely you mean pitch? or anti squat? sitting down on it's arris? raising the beam pivot would create more anti squat geometry. so moving the wheels up seems to promote squat? could be looking at it wrong, I just thing it's a way of lowering CofG within the limits of the stock beam setup. Mind I'd want those plates with a decent 90 degree flange on to stop them bending with slicks on.
Let's not argue about semantics: a car's rear suspension, lowered way below OE height, being therefore pre-disposed to compressing further under braking. For me, any track use, would need some form of bracing like the VWM beam.
but this plate would effectively do the same thing? the wheel centre would be loads higher than the beam pivot
Your man James Ford at PVW has apparently fitted some Banchwerks items to his Mk3 recently (I guess that`s what you`ve see too Chris). Along with a notched rear engine mount and chassis leg... ...notched wishbones... ...and raised turrets... ...all in the name of `stance`... ...and `laying frame`... (All pics courtesy of James` build thread on E38) TBH, I like the look of the car, but the money, time, and effort that`s gone into it is just excessive IMO...especially since it`s still `only` an 8v. The planned VR/R32 conversion with charger could have been done by now, with a `sensible` drop (or even a scene-pleasing slam), and he`d have had a pretty special car. All he has now is a nice looking, but pretty unexceptional Mk3 that just happens to be able to sit it`s subframe on the floor...woooo...mine wasn`t that far off (about 25-30mm) on 200 Ebay special coilovers... lol
Yes, it was PVW, not sure which car. Might need a thread split, but can I ask 2 obvious questions? 1) How is that driven? It has no bump travel at the front (also known as no steering). 2) How do you get that into an undulating show field? I assume no air ride?
unhijack Surely a stiffening web behind the plate, welded at 90 degrees to the plate and full length top to bottom and as wide as possible so as not to interfere with the strut would be stiff enough? without welding it to the beam.
These have ad my interests for a while too now. Take the lowering plate, weld some plates on at 90 degrees as some of you have said and maybe just tack them to the beam after bolting them in. Gurds
Un-hijack star for drunkenalan How does this address the weak point where it has no backplate behind it? Is the 90 degree part welded to the plate, or the axle?
it's pretty beefy to start with, but clumsy engineering, just to use a slab of metal, adding unsprung weight. lose 200 daved points. However, if you have the arch clearence then it will lower it without needing specially short dampers etc. Increases the twisting force on the trailing arms/beam but I do think it would make for more unplanned geometry changes when fully loaded up in a corner.
Chris leave your original posts alone to allow people's comments to remain their own, rather than just echoing your thoughts that weren't there previously
editing of your first post. the pics of that mk3 motorsport beam shows how much extra beef they added around those drop plates, makes me think the flat plate versions are only for the wicker basket roofrack boys a quick lash up of a scale model of the rear beam out of straws and cornflakes packets should make a lot of the forces involved easier to visualise has anyone driver a syncro, is there much difference in cornering behaviour with the wishbone rear end, would it be a worthwhile mod even if running 2wd
I would weld the web full length and both sides to the drop plate and shape the bottom to 'sit' on the rear beam, or as gurds says tack / stich weld it to the beam, is triangulating an option? looking at the VWM beams were they trianglulated?
i wondered this too, but then if you were to triangle the rear beam would you achieve a similar result?
