A purist (mechanical engineer) drilled into me that roll control in a (low-speed, non-aero) autox car is properly managed independently at the coilovers, rather than with anti-roll bars.
If utilizing dual-rate (progressive) coilover springs for front roll control, should shock valving be linear or digressive?
Ugh. Pitch is controlled with springs, roll is controlled with bars. Since anti-pitch bars do not exist. This is similar to the idea that you tune a carburetor to idle first, and then attack everything above that. Or that you tune low speed handing with suspension and high speed handling with aero. Some things affect all aspects and some affect only one, so adjustment must follow in that order.
Minor confession: I like watching videos of the Audi S1 E2 on gravel suspension because of how much the chassis pitches on its stubby little 86 inch wheelbase.
Linear valving has no real place on a race car on exclusively paved surfaces. Also I assume you mean digressive valving, not regressive which is an off road thing where damping force is actually lower at high speed than at low speed.
There's a lot of different opinions of the springs vs bars issue. In a perfect world on a smooth surface with dampers that can handle any spring you throw at them, yes all spring and no bar is arguably the best solution. But those conditions are usually very hard to meet in the real world
Wow, no more posting at 3am for me. Could a mod fix the title?
The context was local autox with no aero consideration.
I'm no expert, but I thought if you were going to tune via math, you would tune natural frequency with springs, then roll control and TLLTD with bars.
You'll need to log in to post.
