ludicrous. See post 17 ('speculation') and 24 which speaks for itself. On topic, the two axles present a misleading impression - neither have braces due to their respective stages of development. The first is a Mk3 Golf DTC rear axle, previously here which could date from any point in the Mk3's racing career. The Mk3 rallying Golf was only upgraded to axle brace kitcar spec later in its model life, leaving a short window to put it on the DTC car (ignoring lodging homologation extensions which may have prevented it anyway). The Ibiza axle is early spec, "ready for the dustbin" after 1 event according to SEAT's then chief engineer. Fast forward both cars to evolutionary designs / subsequent models, and both the Evo 2 and Mk4 Golf DTC circuit car had axle braces. As before, IMO the circuit relevance boils down to driving style, and preferred inclination towards oversteer.
same old same old....I think you will find that all was going on quite amicably till post 15....who's was that? ah yes...Mr Administrator those ibiza axles are fitted to rally ibizas even today so there cannot be that much wrong with the design the Evo 2 does not have any relevance to this discussion, being a totally different animal discussional points stand, still without basis to the contrary please tell me you have more than this? edit - just an additional thought - an unbraced axle was good enough for german DTC racing in a Mk3 golf.......well if its good enough for that, its good enough for a few trackdays and sprints
Yes, same old from YOU. Nothing wrong with post 15 I'm afraid. Go look in the mirror for your answer. The reason why those Evo 1 axles are fitted to cars today is the Evo 2 axles don't fit the Evo 1s. I don't suppose you've seen the Evo 2 axle mountings? The Evo 2 is partly relevant because it shows the direction of development, but the most relevant point you've missed is the Golf 4 DTC race car: axle brace beams fitted by VW - page 92 here.
and you have conveniently forgot the point about an unbraced axle being perfectly ok for racing a Mk3 golf in DTC..... enough said mk1 golf - I can see the need later models - less of a need IMO
No I've not conveiently forgotten anything, addressed already: It's self evident why the Mk3 DTC beam didn't have them, and of course they worked fine without them, this is a statement of fact - what else would they use, when beam braces weren't available / homologated? You've definitely ignored the point of the Mk4 DTC beam - I've made it twice.
Saturday night is all right for fighting, at least according to Elton John. From my experience of playing with suspension geometry, I would find it very difficult to imagine attempting to measure the changes that having braces fitted or not would give. The camber and toe readings would need to be measured under matching loads on both axles to give any idea of what is really going on. What may benefit on one particular corner, may hinder on another. You have to remember that the works cars got new tyres on after every stage as near as dammit. It is possible that these setups were developed to work the tyre to generate heat and grip. I think you would have to be quite a driver, and an engineer to really notice more of a difference between the two setups than you could get by changing tyre pressures, suspension springs & dampening, rollbar and static toe and camber settings.
Various feedback, media articles and others have commented on the mod when installed. Couple of homologated Ibiza beams, rarely seen:
where? so we have beams with braces, and beams without braces all used at high levels of motorsport what relevance has this to cars used at the level we operate at? who knows.
Precisely...who knows... Those that have used the `suck it and see` approach have given positive feedback. Now, either; break out the welder, try it yourself, and report back with your findings or STFU...
It is my language, and if you persist in starting petty, pointless arguments for your own amusement/gratification, then you`ll see more of it.
Top sketching from the Daved. The location of the tie rods would be critical to how it will effect changes, as they will become ever so slightly shorter or longer depending on their mounting points on the beam and below the shock absorber mounts. Another point is the standard beam axle has built in camber and toe for a given ride height. If you lower the car a lot this changes these base settings too. A lot of the works cars probably had minimum weights to conform too. How heavy were they? A bit heavier than a stripped out mk1 I would imagine. This would mean there would be less weight and load / force on the beam resulting in less deflection. Whack a thin washer between the stub and axle mount face on the front lower corner to put more camber and a bit of toe out on, then take the car for a drive and see if it feels good or not. Production FWD cars are designed to under steer for safety and our vag products come with toe in on the rear as std.
The Royal Visit once again Thanks for the insightful illustration. One addition aspect is the way the beam behaves under intermittent / dynamic? load (eg over bumps or a large slide). It's my perception that the unbraced axle will 'ping' laterally in less of a controlled fashion, thus if hitting a bump mid corner, various toe out + unwind effects will occur more quickly as F0 increases and decreases. The release of a large or successive F0 values could adversely upset the balance of a car. Would you say that the braced axle will give a more predictable chassis in such situations? (in theory)
GREAT illustration! This is the exact phenomenon that bars are trying and manage to fight. Mate, your sketches saved me a lot of writing . After a lot of driving with the bars on the car past three months, these axle bars should definately be a must especially for track issues. More smooth oversteer control due to less toe change in the critical point. Less stress on the driver concerning sudden axle behaviour while on bend. Works fantastic on sudden line changes (S-bends) as it offers solid rear behaviour. Also, it is known that while on high MPH bends, cars with clutch-type LSDs used to suddenly oversteer due to hard diff lock. My Mk2 was a victim of that behaviour also. Now rear is very very stable encouraging me to push and push and push...Produces excellent results on a wider track too! Moreover, it is a clever way to adjust toe in/out of the rear axle and bring the geometry where desired. I was always asking some more toe-out while on track and now i can have it. As you toe-out you get more positive camber though. And as you toe-in you get more negative camber. There ARE times inside track (depending on circuit) that some rear toe-out will be needed (especially for non-LSD vehicles). Trying to do that, will decrease camber angle and someone will need shims to recover it to desired level (depending also on how low your rear is which favours camber angle). So, the only need for shims is for camber adjustment and not toe as it can be adjusted through the bars. At the end, the general point is that they really helped me, rear is charged much smoother, yes Chris chassis became more predictable and is rock-stable on the limit and my driving is not afraid of the flexible rear axle behaviour anymore. More friendly car=Better lap times. If it worked for VWM and SEATSPORT that invented and used it, it sure worked for me
Great feedback and that ties in with the information gathered and brief personal experience I have had on beam braces, but do you agree it depends on driving style? How oversteery do you set your car up?
Blimey, this went off topic ! Chris, I know Admins often quote previous posts, but you take it to a new level ! So, back to the triangulation, from what I can gather, a lot of it (like MANY things) is down to personal preferance. I`m willing to give a lot of things a go, but as I`m looking at a MK2 it would mean moving the fuel tank, so that means it would be unlikely. Thanks for the information on the effect and beliefs of these braces Off topic a bit, Rob, your aero tests really intrigue me, I`ve been reading NigeP`s build thread on another forum (more up todate than the build on here ?) and he made a plywood splitter on his MK2, with GPS before / after data showing the gains in cornering speed. As you rightly point out, a lot of these things have to be tried first and data backing them up / disproving them is not always available. Sometimes its an easy job to build / test, others its more involved, hence asking for thoughtsbefore progressing. I really like all the DIY guides and things people have tried on the forum, its brilliant
