Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

anti roll bar settings

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • anti roll bar settings

    Full front soft and full rear hard for oversteer or full front hard and full rear soft to curb oversteer? Am I the only one that thinks the MC comes with too much understeer from the factory?

    I'm getting mine fitted today and would like much expereinces or comments regarding settings. For some strange reason, I think the US guys recommend full front hard and full soft rear....

  • #2
    khooni,

    At the moment, I've got mine set on full soft both at front and rear and I think that the car handling is pretty much neutral, but that's with adjustable suspension.

    I like the front of the car to be pretty stiff in comparison to the rear so I would think that setting your front ARB on the stiffest setting and the rear ARB on the softest would give the sort of handling that I like. If there's any adjustability in anything that you fit, if you're like me, you'll never be happy until you've tried all the permutations. :wink:
    /// Exdos ///
    "Men who try the impossible and fail spectacularly are infinitely superior to those who reach for nothing and succeed" --Napoleon Bonapart

    Comment


    • #3
      I wouldn't say the coupe has a lot of understeer, although it probably will understeer as most cars do unless its power oversteered. I found the turn-in was really keen even on standard suspension.

      Exdos; I assume even on softest settings the ARBs are still a fair bit stiffer than the original bars?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by c_w
        Exdos; I assume even on softest settings the ARBs are still a fair bit stiffer than the original bars?

        They certainly are. The H&R ARBs have approx. 33% increase in thickness to the OEM and IIRC the stiffness is proportional to the square of the diameter, therefore the stiffness of the H&R ARBs is nearly a 50% increase on the OEM at lowest setting.
        /// Exdos ///
        "Men who try the impossible and fail spectacularly are infinitely superior to those who reach for nothing and succeed" --Napoleon Bonapart

        Comment


        • #5
          That's what I thought. You get much better turn in with full front hard. I am just thinking to myself that it would cause major understeer. But, at least it would make the car accelerate better as it will more likely squat in corners and rocket off.

          Comment


          • #6
            I'm not sure I follow what you've written Khooni, I'd imagine full hardest on front with softer at the back usually makes turn in less aggressive and potentially more understeery?

            Comment


            • #7
              You can theorise about this all you like, and the only definitive answer lies in the practical effect that it has on the handling of your MC.

              I didn't remember correctly about the stiffness, in fact the torsional rigidity is a function of the diameter to the fourth power of the diameter of the bar and not the square (second power] as I stated above. This means that a 33% increase in diameter of the H&R ARBs over the OEM has a massive increase in torsional rigidity.

              Khooni, the front ARBs, both OEM and aftermarket versions, come much thicker (hence stiffer) than the rear ARBs, therefore the effect these will have upon the handling of your car is naturally "factored in" provided you stick with the same setting (either softest or hardest settings) at both ends of the car.

              Stiffening the front more than the back will increase understeer, therefore if I were you, I'd keep both front and rear ARBs set on the same settings (be it softest or firmest) unless you have an airfield where you can experiment with different front to back settings and if you find that you create dangerous levels of under or oversteer, you'll come out of it all safely.

              In any case, I think you'll find the uprated ARBs on their weakest settings are more than enough for the streets of London :wink:
              /// Exdos ///
              "Men who try the impossible and fail spectacularly are infinitely superior to those who reach for nothing and succeed" --Napoleon Bonapart

              Comment


              • #8
                I have mine on the lowest settings and I dont think you would want them any firmer for London roads
                Ex 'V3RY M - MCoupe track monster'
                New toys

                Porsche widebody project

                Cayenne Diesel

                Comment


                • #9
                  I'm gonna try. BTW US roads are not better by any measure. So let's see if it's really bad.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I've got used to the handling of the new H&R ARBs on the softest setting so I set about changing to the stiffest settings yesterday. When I changed the rear ARB to stiffest, I found that the ARB makes contact with both drive-shafts to the rear wheels so it is impossible to adjust the rear ARB to any setting other than softest. The answer to this problem would be to use a longer stabiliser links than the OEM ones. Does anyone know if there is a BMW version for a different car or is there an aftermarket alternative?
                    /// Exdos ///
                    "Men who try the impossible and fail spectacularly are infinitely superior to those who reach for nothing and succeed" --Napoleon Bonapart

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      turn in is sharper than I remember at stock and I have full front stiff. Don't know about links though. If I may suggest, why don't you try stiffening the front to see what you get instead of adjusting for oversteer at the rear.

                      Let me know what you think

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by khooni
                        turn in is sharper than I remember at stock and I have full front stiff. Don't know about links though. If I may suggest, why don't you try stiffening the front to see what you get instead of adjusting for oversteer at the rear.

                        Let me know what you think
                        khooni,

                        I don't think of adjusting the ARBs in the way that you seem to be thinking in the terms of getting understeer or oversteer, I'm thinking in terms of general "balance" of the car. As I see it, in any car I drive, I get understeer if I drive into corners carrying too much speed and I get oversteer if I'm too heavy with the throttle when the car isn't straight enough and I have to learn to handle each and every car that I drive by assessing its "quirkiness" ASAP.

                        With my adjustable suspension I have managed to make my MC into a car which is extremely well balanced and handles precisely to my taste and my style of driving. I can't see the point of having the front ARB setting proportionately stiffer than the rear because I think I would be upsettting the general longitudinal balance of the car. As it is, I already have the dampers at the front set stiffer than the rear ones, which for me gives balance to the car.
                        /// Exdos ///
                        "Men who try the impossible and fail spectacularly are infinitely superior to those who reach for nothing and succeed" --Napoleon Bonapart

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Antiroll bars are used a lot to alter the balance of a car, stiffer on rear usually equals better turn-in, stiffer front (propertional to the rear) usually equals less turn in and can sometime introduce understeer.

                          I personally wouldn't go for full stiff at the front as that sounds like a huge increase on stock, I'd go with front and back at a similar increase.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by c_w
                            Antiroll bars are used a lot to alter the balance of a car, stiffer on rear usually equals better turn-in, stiffer front (propertional to the rear) usually equals less turn in and can sometime introduce understeer.

                            I personally wouldn't go for full stiff at the front as that sounds like a huge increase on stock, I'd go with front and back at a similar increase.
                            I won't be happy until I've tried the ARBs at their stiffest settings but I want to retain proportionality between front and rear. I already get more turn-in than stock from my front flippers and from negative camber, and my only reason for wanting to increase the ARB settings would be to see if the car can remain even "flatter" around bends than it already does now. I can already create understeer and oversteer, at will, by driving technique in any car.
                            /// Exdos ///
                            "Men who try the impossible and fail spectacularly are infinitely superior to those who reach for nothing and succeed" --Napoleon Bonapart

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              conversely to what you have suggested regarding turn in, the US guys and tuners have suggested stiffening the front for better turn in and in fact some have gone to the extent of disconnecting the rear altogether. I know this is normally the other way round and balance is generally better for stiffer at the rear vs the front but then again, most cars (I think) come stock rear bars stiffer than the front or at least the same. with the mC, the stock front is much larger than the rear. (can't remember the dimensions, but i think it was 23mm font and 19 mm rear).

                              might be wrong on the dimensions!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X