 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| 01-11-2009, 11:19 PM | #133 | |
|
Lieutenant Colonel
 
111
Rep 1,764
Posts |
Quote:
If you have a question of anything I stated or if it needs further explanation then ask it in a civil manner instead of calling me a troll. Orb |
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
| 01-12-2009, 01:17 AM | #134 | |
|
Veni Vidi Vici
89
Rep 2,750
Posts
Drives: '11 JB/BBe-6sp-e90
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Macungie PA
iTrader: (0)
Garage List 2011 e90 M3-Sold [8.50]
2003 RS6 - Sold [0.00] 2009 e90 M3 - Gone [0.00] 2003 M3 SOLD [0.00] old 2002 [10.00] |
Quote:
I believe the theory behind your discussions is valid under certain circumstances. Most likely, the frequency ratio works well as a first approximation with some vehicles. But experience bares out that it doesn't apply to a modern production based BMW. |
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
| 01-12-2009, 09:55 AM | #135 | |
|
Lieutenant Colonel
111
Rep 1,764
Posts |
Quote:
You seem to think I’m bent on bashing KW which couldn’t be further from the truth. I simply pointed out that given the change in suspension frequency with the KW setup the balance of the car will be biased more towards under steer and this is without a doubt. How much is something will find out soon. Is it a big deal that KW changed the frequency then the answer is no as there are many advantages in the approach they went with. Are there any resources to change the balance back to OEM with this system then the answer is no but it can easily be done so it was never a big deal. You have blown this thread out of proportions because you simply will not ask any questions. You and a few others have been hostile for no reason. Orb |
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
| 01-12-2009, 10:09 AM | #136 |
|
Racying Dynamics
118
Rep 4,391
Posts |
 You don´t know what "frequency ratio is"??? Well, I have no clue either!! Haha! 
__________________
==================================================
 |
|
Appreciate
0
|
| 01-12-2009, 10:49 AM | #137 |
|
Veni Vidi Vici
89
Rep 2,750
Posts
Drives: '11 JB/BBe-6sp-e90
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Macungie PA
iTrader: (0)
Garage List 2011 e90 M3-Sold [8.50]
2003 RS6 - Sold [0.00] 2009 e90 M3 - Gone [0.00] 2003 M3 SOLD [0.00] old 2002 [10.00] |
Unbelievable. You actually found a web page with the same misinformation you've been spewing. Why don't we plug in some real world numbers into your reference page.
From your linked page I get for an e46 M3 rear suspension with 550 lb/in springs: Motion ratio = (0.67/1)^2 = 0.45 Wheel Rate = 550 / ((0.45)^2 * 1) = 2,730 lbs/inch (spring is vertical) Jeeze! No wonder my M3 rode so poorly! I had a wheel rate in the rear suspension that was over 2700 pounds per inch of travel! These are real spring rates and suspension geometry values I plugged directly into your linked equations. Did I do something wrong? Did I plug in wrong numbers? Do you need another shovel to dig yourself a deeper hole to try to get out of? If you are going to argue that you are correct, you should at least link to a web page that isn't demonstrably wrong. Last edited by Radiation Joe; 01-12-2009 at 02:52 PM.. Reason: Used the wrong geometry for the e46 rear control arm. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
| 01-12-2009, 11:35 AM | #138 | |
|
Lieutenant Colonel
111
Rep 1,764
Posts |
Quote:
Joe, we are done. You are just being an as*. Do check your math as you do not understand algebra at all. |
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
| 01-12-2009, 12:20 PM | #139 | |
|
Veni Vidi Vici
89
Rep 2,750
Posts
Drives: '11 JB/BBe-6sp-e90
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Macungie PA
iTrader: (0)
Garage List 2011 e90 M3-Sold [8.50]
2003 RS6 - Sold [0.00] 2009 e90 M3 - Gone [0.00] 2003 M3 SOLD [0.00] old 2002 [10.00] |
Quote:
You retort with a comment that I can't perform algebra. My algebra is fine as anyone who looks at your link can tell. I've pointed out exactly what was wrong with what you posted. I plugged real numbers into the equations you recommended. You have been completely discredited here and you refuse to acknowledge it. Fine. Just don't expect anyone but a fool to believe anything you write going forward. You are a hack and I am an a$$ for making sure everyone knows it. |
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
| 01-12-2009, 01:52 PM | #140 |
|
Veni Vidi Vici
89
Rep 2,750
Posts
Drives: '11 JB/BBe-6sp-e90
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Macungie PA
iTrader: (0)
Garage List 2011 e90 M3-Sold [8.50]
2003 RS6 - Sold [0.00] 2009 e90 M3 - Gone [0.00] 2003 M3 SOLD [0.00] old 2002 [10.00] |
To the others on this thread that have had to suffer through my attacks upon poor Orb, I appologize. He took some useful relationships that many tuners use in suspension design and completely mis-applied them. For the record, wheel rates in the rear of an M3 or 135i or what-have-you, that are almost half of the values used in the front are common. This is what the KW systems use. It's what Turner, TCKline and Ground-Control use. Is it theoretically correct? Maybe not. Suspension design is not as simple as plugging numbers into equations.
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
| 01-12-2009, 03:05 PM | #141 |
|
Veni Vidi Vici
89
Rep 2,750
Posts
Drives: '11 JB/BBe-6sp-e90
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Macungie PA
iTrader: (0)
Garage List 2011 e90 M3-Sold [8.50]
2003 RS6 - Sold [0.00] 2009 e90 M3 - Gone [0.00] 2003 M3 SOLD [0.00] old 2002 [10.00] |
Before someone else catches my mistake, I appologize to Orb for getting the wheel rate equation wrong. It is indeed a squared function, not linear as I stated.
I stand behind the rest of what I said. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
| 01-12-2009, 03:21 PM | #142 | |
|
Lieutenant Colonel
111
Rep 1,764
Posts |
Quote:
Spring rate = 550 lb/in Motion ratio = 0.67^2 Wheel rate = (550 lb/in * 0.67^2) = 247 lb/in Spring rate = (247 lb/in / 0.67^2) = 550 lb/in The reason the motion ratio is squared because we have force and displacement. Force: 0.67 and then displacment 0.67 since the units are lb/in....that is the clue. Last edited by Orb; 01-13-2009 at 07:27 AM.. |
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
| 01-12-2009, 03:36 PM | #143 |
|
Brigadier General
 
142
Rep 3,523
Posts |
The angle multiplier may or not be a squared component. My reference says it is not.
The Eibach page for the WR is not correct. The WR=C* (d1/d2)^2*Cos A (not sure if this is squared) Anyhow, the whole point was to see if the KW spring rates they use reflect these formulae. I don't think we are going to get an answer other than field test data, which is fine but the field test data should back up the math if the math is correct. If the field test data does not back up the math then the math formulae is wrong. I think that was the point behind orb request. Anyhow, no one said KW stuff was crap, lots of users are happy. What we were trying to understand is why the spring rates are so much higher than the stock and how does this relate to the performance of the KW. I also wanted to know why they are pulling off the rear swaybar for the testing and if the rear swaybar should be removed for all KW set ups. Maybe we can start a new thread and talk less about a particular manufacturer and more about the numbers. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
| 01-13-2009, 09:21 AM | #145 | |
|
Racying Dynamics
118
Rep 4,391
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
==================================================
|
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
| 01-13-2009, 09:37 AM | #146 | |
|
Veni Vidi Vici
89
Rep 2,750
Posts
Drives: '11 JB/BBe-6sp-e90
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Macungie PA
iTrader: (0)
Garage List 2011 e90 M3-Sold [8.50]
2003 RS6 - Sold [0.00] 2009 e90 M3 - Gone [0.00] 2003 M3 SOLD [0.00] old 2002 [10.00] |
Quote:
"...The KW suspension frequencies are way outside the norm with a 0.2 to 0.45 higher front suspension frequency than the rear. Furthermore, the rear suspension frequency is so low for the Clubsport that optimizing traction for R compound tire is not possible as we need a frequency of 2.2-2.3 HZ+ in the rear. The rear KW Clubsport is about 1.7 Hz ... Look like we will get under steer given nothing else has changed other than springs. This is not a guess but a fact as the load transfer will be biased towards the front considerably (at least 5%). It can’t be corrected without a roll bar change not to mention that the cars pitch is a mess now and over compensated by heavy front rebound damping. The only thing that the KW setup will do possible is make the car feels softer but this is far from what a performance setup should be. One thing is for sure BMW engineering is a lot better than KW’s." My point all along has been that this is not a valid argument. Turner, TCKline and Ground-Control suspensions all have similar ratios of front suspension frequency to rear suspension frequency compared to the KW suspensions. I propose that these frequencies are the norm and your theory is just that, theory. You confused the whole issue with discussions of a parameter which is not applicable to our cars. Last edited by Radiation Joe; 01-13-2009 at 10:26 AM.. |
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
| 01-13-2009, 07:10 PM | #147 |
|
Lieutenant Colonel
111
Rep 1,764
Posts |
Joe,
In a single day you proved that you could not understand what a motion ratio is along with massacring a simple formula, made up new terms and theories in vehicle dynamics, and blown a lot of hot air. A intelligent civil discussion with you is beyond your capabilities and knowledge so there is nothing more to say. You can’t propose anything (God knows what your even trying to propose) because you proven you can not even understand the basics and yet blowing more hot air. There is no substance to a signal word you said. Maybe go get some help to find out why you’re so upset about this thread. Honestly, you’re a bit delusional. Have a nice life….. Orb Last edited by Orb; 01-13-2009 at 11:16 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
| 01-13-2009, 08:32 PM | #148 |
|
Brigadier General
142
Rep 3,523
Posts |
I'm out, I ordered some suspension tuning books off Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/High-Performan...1900272&sr=8-1 Thx anyhow Orb. We can have more discussions in other threads.  |
|
Appreciate
0
|
| 01-13-2009, 08:37 PM | #149 | |
|
Major
238
Rep 1,125
Posts |
Quote:
 |
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
| 01-13-2009, 09:33 PM | #150 | |
|
Lieutenant Colonel
111
Rep 1,764
Posts |
Quote:
If you have not order then this is the bible of all other book http://www.amazon.com/Race-Car-Vehic.../dp/1560915269 . It is certainly written for mechanical engineers and deep in content and probably why I like it so much. Orb |
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
| 01-13-2009, 11:21 PM | #151 | |
|
Veni Vidi Vici
89
Rep 2,750
Posts
Drives: '11 JB/BBe-6sp-e90
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Macungie PA
iTrader: (0)
Garage List 2011 e90 M3-Sold [8.50]
2003 RS6 - Sold [0.00] 2009 e90 M3 - Gone [0.00] 2003 M3 SOLD [0.00] old 2002 [10.00] |
Quote:
I'm sorry I disappointed you with my ignorance. I'll try to pay more attention to your learned explanations in the future. Perhaps I'll learn to post equations on internet forums instead of actually building fast cars. |
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
| 01-14-2009, 10:21 AM | #152 | |
|
Brigadier General
142
Rep 3,523
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
| 01-19-2009, 03:23 AM | #153 | |
|
Second Lieutenant
 
20
Rep 293
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
| 01-20-2009, 06:11 PM | #154 |
|
New Member
0
Rep 9
Posts |
Hello Everyone,
I am still here, and like you awaiting the test data from Germany. I was able to get one of my engineers in Germany on MSN for a quick second, and he is checking back with me to let me know what times they have booked. Currently Porsche AG is in house on the 7-post dyno . Oh to be in Germany...I will keep you all posted, and maybe as was suggested, I will post a new thread, with this one linked of course. Orb, check your PM. Thanks!
__________________
Glen Messinger
Director of Sales, Marketing and R&D KW automotive North America, Inc. 559-875-0222 x 105 glen.messinger@kwautomotive.com |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
