rec.autos.simulators

by **Mark Rober** » Thu, 24 Oct 1996 04:00:00

While working on a qualifying set up for Silverstone today I came
across something that I find a little odd. My natural tendancy is to
set the car up very stiff and very low (so that I get about 0.3mm
plank wear in a 4 lap qualifying run). As I was struggling to find a
quick set up I started trying softer springs. When I checked the
plank wear to make sure I wouldn`t exceed legal limits I found I was
actually getting less wear. By reducing the overall spring rate by
400lb/inch (all other settings the same) I consistantly got a 0.2mm
reduction in plank wear. I always assumed that softer springs meant
the car would sit lower at high speeds and hence you would get more
plank wear. Has anybody got any possible explanations as I am
mistified?

Mark
_________________________________

"..every lap I think `Oh bollocks!
This is dreadful..`" Damon Hill
__________________________________

by **patvol** » Fri, 25 Oct 1996 04:00:00

I experienced this as well...my theory is that since Silverstone is a quite
bumpy track that the effect of the springs is to keep the plank off of the
ground more often while the chassis is bottoming out on the bump ***s.

- Show quoted text -

by **David Gree** » Fri, 25 Oct 1996 04:00:00

>While working on a qualifying set up for Silverstone today I came
>across something that I find a little odd. My natural tendancy is to
>set the car up very stiff and very low (so that I get about 0.3mm
>plank wear in a 4 lap qualifying run). As I was struggling to find a
>quick set up I started trying softer springs. When I checked the
>plank wear to make sure I wouldn`t exceed legal limits I found I was
>actually getting less wear. By reducing the overall spring rate by
>400lb/inch (all other settings the same) I consistantly got a 0.2mm
>reduction in plank wear. I always assumed that softer springs meant
>the car would sit lower at high speeds and hence you would get more
>plank wear. Has anybody got any possible explanations as I am
>mistified?

Hmm very strange. I don't know much about this stuff but here's a guess.
Perhaps you were running on the bump stops when you had softer springs
and this kept the ride height higher than when running on harder springs
that weren't fully compressed? Working on the premise that bump ***s
are harder than springs.

by **Mark Rober** » Sat, 26 Oct 1996 04:00:00

<snip>
>> actually getting less wear. By reducing the overall spring rate by
>> 400lb/inch (all other settings the same) I consistantly got a 0.2mm
>> reduction in plank wear. I always assumed that softer springs meant
>> the car would sit lower at high speeds and hence you would get more
>> plank wear. Has anybody got any possible explanations as I am
>> mistified?
>I experienced this as well...my theory is that since Silverstone is a quite
>bumpy track that the effect of the springs is to keep the plank off of the
>ground more often while the chassis is bottoming out on the bump ***s.

This prompted me to look at the telemetry from various laps, most
notably suspension travel. I found that with the softer springs the
car gets down onto the bump ***s much faster (I guess you would
expect this). Possibly because the car spends more time on the bump
***s you get the reduction in plank wear. I`m still not convinced
though.

Mark
_________________________________

"..every lap I think `Oh bollocks!
This is dreadful..`" Damon Hill
__________________________________

rec.autos.simulators

GP2: Springs and plank wear.

GP2: Springs and plank wear.

GP2: Springs and plank wear.

GP2: Springs and plank wear.

GP2: Springs and plank wear.