Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultramaroon
I'm at work so no time to actually review but I think the article which makes that statement is incorrect.
http://victorylibrary.com/mopar/sprung-c.htm
All other parameters being equal, reduced unsprung mass does not require reduced spring rate. Actually, reduced spring rate in both cases lowers the resonant frequency of the suspension system which negatively affects the system's ability to recover quickly from a perturbation (bump). Traction is lost during that increased time required for the wheel to reverse direction and regain full contact with the road surface.
I'll wait until this evening to find out how wrong I am but for now, I'm going to stick it out there for consideration. |
Of course there is another factor at work and that is damping (the shock absorber). The damping would be enough to eliminate any oscillations from the lower rate (as you say, a lower resonant frequency too). I'm assuming though that there has to be an optimum spring rate for each unsprung mass designed to achieve certain goals of handling and traction, otherwise all car manufacturer would use the same springs. Toyota went to the trouble to change the spring rates on the 2015 FR-S compared to the two previous years to improve handling. They must have had their reasons.
I'll look forward to your later post, Ultramarine.