Type 44 Swaybar Questions..or: Listing Like A Spanish Galleon

[LL - NY]

See my recent post about the A2 Golf chassis. In a sense, Gerard is actually 
correct. When there is SO much positive camber change (as it seems most
ALL VAG products of the eighties seem to do) in the front, controlling that with
added roll stiffness allows the front tires to work as intended,
instead of cornering
on their sidewalls. This seems to violate the standard expectations of
adding roll stiffness causing the stiffened end to wash out, but that
assumption relys on the concept that camber change was already
controlled, such as in well designed double wishbone cars. There, the
addition of antiroll bars were intended to "fine tune" an already
properly functioning suspension. Now, far be it for me to criticize
the wisdom of Audi engineers, but they seemed to really aim to take no
risks on the handling of these cars (early '80's design VAG) in terms
of promoting oversteer, so taming ANY roll camber change seems to help
them out tremendously. And, as Scott J has so ably proven on the road
course (and myself indirectly using the A2 Golf in autocross) believe
it or not, adding front roll stiffness to these beasts really helps UP
TO A POINT. Beyond that, you'll then want to add some rear stiffness
to help balance things, but the front bar starts allowing the front
tires to operate in their desired range, the rear is simply along for
the ride. Only THEN is it worth tuning the back end of the car.

LL - NY


On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:28:48 -0700, Ed Kellock <ekellock at gmail.com> wrote:
> The front anti-roll bar in the 4.2 V8q is larger than the rest and
> still (or recently still) available through the dealer for about $350.
> 
> As far as I know, there's no slam-dunk bolt-on alternative for the
> rear.  There are some (one?) fairly well developed (?) ones for
> S-cars, but I don't have any info on their adaptability for other
> models.
> 
> My understanding (from nearly 10 years of observation on-list...
> scary) is that the T44 can initially benefit from more control in the
> front, up to a point, with some attention then to the rear, depending
> on one's motives.
> 
> The same has proven true for my CGT.  I installed a rear bar many
> years ago, but the effect was not great.  It would roll and then catch
> and then be really stiff and the oversteer without much predictability
> since it was then nearly at the limit. Not fun.  I pulled the rear bar
> and later installed a thicker 4kq front bar.  Hmmm, that's kind nice.
> Soon thereafter, I reinstlalled the rear bar.  Hmm, that's pretty
> cool.
> 
> I think the basic dynamics are similar between CGT and T44 equations
> regarding weight distribution, front to rear.  An improvement from
> stock can be realized with more roll stiffness up front.  At some
> point, more near than far, you need to add stiffness to the rear as
> well.
> 
> On my '91 V8q, I'm going to ditch the Bilstien HD's for Koni Yellows
> and add a 4.2 front bar.  Then I'll see what's next.  The CGT is fine,
> unless I decide to make it my track car (Carter, you demon).  The '85
> urq might eventually become my track choice.   The '89 200q will be
> sold as soon as I replace the door locks and front subframe,
> unless.... it might be the best choice for Steamboat...  $$$$ I
> digress.    When do those tax refunds come out anyway?
> 
> Ed
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alex Kowalski" <akowalsk at comcast.net>
> To: <quattro at audifans.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 1:25 PM
> Subject: Type 44 Swaybar Questions..or: Listing Like A Spanish Galleon
> 
> > With apologies to Sting...
> >
> > A while back there was a thread on Type 44 swaybar replacement, with
> some suggestions that a bigger swaybar from a V8 would be a worthwhile
> idea for the front end to tame understeer.
> >
> > In a galaxy far, far in the Archives, there was a long discussion on
> Type 44 swaybars, front and rear, and the most sanguine advice seems
> to be that upgrading the roll stiffness of the car is best done by
> increasing the front swaybar size and going to linear-rate springs at
> the rear.  Some people had managed to get an S4 swaybar to fit on the
> back of a Type 44, by "fabricating some brackets" and so forth.
> >
> > Some of the parts and techniques referenced in that thread were
> already NLA in 2003, so I'd like to try to bring this up to date:
> >
> > Type 44 Listers, what do you recommend to improve the handling of
> the car and reduce understeer at this point in time, with parts that
> are still available?  Bigger front bar/stiffer springs all around?  No
> changes to the swaybar except new bushings, and then stiffer springs
> all around?
> >
> > I realize that suspension tuning is a complex subject with a lot of
> variables, so I'll tell you what I'm after to help direct the
> discussion.  I have a bone-stock '87 5KCSTQ with relatively low miles,
> good struts and shocks, and the bushings aren't bad, but they are
> getting old.  I want to make some provisions now for upgrades that I
> will do in the not-too-distant future.  I would like to make the car a
> little more neutral, reduce the ride height slightly, but I don't want
> a bone-jarring, twitchy autocross-only type vehicle.   I plan to
> upgrade to 16" wheels and tires by the end of the year, probably to A4
> wheels, and I'd like to adjust the suspension to take advantage of a
> little more tire.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Alex Kowalski
> > '87 5KCSTQ
> > _______________________________________________
> > quattro mailing list
> > quattro at audifans.com
> > http://www.audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/quattro
> 
> _______________________________________________
> quattro mailing list
> quattro at audifans.com
> http://www.audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/quattro
>