Re: ur-q Roll stiffness and cornering

[Dave Eaton <dave.eaton@minedu.govt.nz>]

quite frankly guys, i'm puzzled as to why you'd want to reduce the ur-q roll.  
once you've replaced the suspension bushes and dampers as you should, excessive
roll is not exactly a problem.

i find the ur-q almost ideal in the respect of roll and damping, although a
better initial spring 'compliance' would help.  the rs2 has this without the
woolly damping of the s2, but then it doesn't quite have the ur-q's 'wrapped
around you' feel.

fwiw,
dave
'95 rs2
'90 ur-q

>Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 22:28:22 -0700
>From: Dave Weiss <dzweiss@worldnet.att.net>
>
>AudiQtroCp@aol.com wrote:
>
>>    It's my theory that the best way to decrease roll in the UrQ would 
>> be to remove the fuel tank from the stock location and put a fule cell 
>> in the lower center portion of the trunk.  Definitely not the most 
>> praftical mod for the street, but I'm sure that would help dramatically 
>> lower the overall center of gravity and balance the fr/rr weight ratio.
>
>audidudi@delphi.com (Jeffrey J. Goggin) wrote:
>
>> If decreasing roll is your goal, then run stiffer springs or a bigger 
>> a/r bar ... moving the gas tank won't do much to change this particular 
>> aspect of your Ur-Qs handling.  As for lowering the CG, why not carry 
>> less fuel around?  There's no law that says you have to fill it to the 
>> 23-gallon brim...
>
>If the roll center is below the CG, then wouldn't moving the CG down
>(w/o moving the roll center) reduce the roll moment?
>
>Seems like there was a recent post describing the ur-Q rear roll center
>as being near the parcel shelf...  If so, would moving the CG _up_
>reduce roll?  Which way would the rear want to roll (vs. the front)? 
>;^)
>
>Dave Weiss
>'91 V8 5-spd
>'93 90 CS UnQ