Hi Jonny,
There are multiple aspects that we have been arguing the toss about,
but one key one is that I believe you can calculate the load
distribution based on roll rates only, without caring whether the roll
resistance is provided by bars or springs. Simon contends (I think --
correct me if I'm wrong!) that in a steady turn you get more weight
transfer with bars that you do with springs alone, even assuming the
same roll rates.
If you use ARBs then you'll have softer springs for a given roll rate
of course. This will lead to handling differences due to the increase
in pitch movement, which will make their presence felt during
longitudinal force transients (braking, lifting, accelerating).
Clearly, the less main spring rate you trade off against bar rate, the
less these differences will be.
-= mike =-
> > So with ARBs fitted (even if they are equal) at any time that the
> > sprung mass is rolled towards one single wheel, the oposite wheel
> > loses load to it's adjacent axle partner. The stiffer the arb the
> > greater this transfer.
> Oops, I've just hit the point where I've forgotten what we were
> disagreeing about! :-) ('cos it's not this...)
> Erm... is it to do with how this compares to achieving the same,
> increased roll rate with springs? Now that I'm thinking about it,
> actually this is reminiscent of my empirical approach which says that
> front bar controls corner entry, rear bar controls corner exit...
> So what was the original question?!?
> Regards,
> Jonny
