finally some first-hand experience - thank you very much for posting this up mk2sp interesting point about exhaust clearance - were the 'towers' added to the design to enable exhaust silencer clearance, or are they perhaps performing some other role (toe/camber control)? its noteworthy that the mk4 DTC axle has braces without towers
I think you're imagining things Personal preference and how you set up the car. How much you lean on that rear beam, and how you like it to behave when you do. The Mk2 is a pain with the fuel tank location. I think I have seen it done on one Mk2 with a standard tank, but it had tall inverted towers. What's more, often relatively simple to design and create
Driving style defines every progress someone does on his vehicle. I agree with that . From what i have been taught, race cars are designed to be set up as friendly as possible to a certain driving style. Back in 2002, i did my Msc for Coventry Uni Formula Student Project, and was responsible for that vehicle's dynamic characteristics. First rule was to build the vehicle as friendly as possible for the particular driver. It is that gold balance that has to be discovered (and is consisted of many many parameters and not only a braced beam ) and set up on the vehicle's dynamic characteristics and if succeeded, even if it means oversteery or understeery set up, it fills the driver with safety to constantly push. Now, from experience, i think that most first class drivers ask for a bit oversteery set up for easily understandable reasons. For my Mk2, even if i am not a first class driver, all dynamic progress was done so that i could achieve a controllable and smooth oversteery set up as it fits with my driving style. Just a bit, for quicker charging of the rear axle. This does not mean that braced beam was build to give a more oversteery effect on the rear. The opposite happens. I think that VWM built it to offer stability on the rear in straight line rallying bumps, to smoothly control oversteer effects on the rear by much less flexes (thus less change in toe in/out) and ,by easily adjusting toe in/out, to fine tune the amount of oversteer driver asks for helping him out. Rob, i am sure u know that it is a great and cheap add-on the braced beam. So, i hardly can find a reason why Mk3 DTC car was not equipped with one or why not having it on track as from practice i have seen great advantages . As it's been said, fuel tank has to go (Mk2 Ibiza has plenty of room for this upgrade as fuel tank is in front of the axle, so i strongly recommend it for these track-racers). Not big trouble withe exhaust though. As Danster correctly said, the location of the tie rods would be critical to how it will affect changes, depending on their mounting points on the beam. I am sure Mk4 DTC developers chose no mounting towers as they offer less changes in toe angle. Same in Reeve's Mk1 if i remember correctly. I have tested two beams. One with low (to Mk2 possible) mounting towers and the one you see in the first image of this thread with higher towers. At certain bends, by feeling speaking, the one with lower towers was more stable in hard direction changes or really sharp routes on the hills. But the one with the higher mounting towers, offers me space for my plan to install an extra in-car adjustable ARB on the beam.
You could have got first hand experience from the Reeves, long ago over the telephone, had you not burnt your bridges there
Too many handbags can cause excessive loading of the rear beam too lads! Having read through the ball joint extenders thread, and discovered that folk still have bump steer after fitting them, means that worrying about slight flex in the rear axle should be further down the list of jobs to do IMO. If you can get the front sorted first, it will give more front end grip and alter the balance of the car's handling. After the front end geometry is optimised would be the time to start tweaking the rear I would have thought. As I mentioned earlier and mk2sp confirmed. The mounting positions of the brace bars is very important. If they do not pivot on the same axis and plane as the axle and trailing arm, they will try to pull or push the mounting tower resulting in geometry change (camber and toe).
It starts driving like a mk 3 golf again? TBH with my driving skill I don't think I'd feel a difference..... Is it just a line you can use down the pub, talking about you triangulated rear axle beam, one way to clear a room
I myself have yet to find that elusive woman down the pub that was turned on by my camber, bump steer and rose joint chat up lines! TBH I am thinking of joining an online dating agency to see if those catch words can produce the goods at all.
I have done and i prefer it connected.The back end feels more predictable and better balanced. It seems to respond better to what i dial in and drifts in a more consistant manner. But the whole car is set up is based on the rear end. For a full comparision you would run different cambers, pressures, springs and toe settings. 2 different schools of thought. Then test the 2 back to back on optimum settings. Depends if you drive with a 'live' back end or one which you dictate to what it does. Same overall results as long as its set up right. A rear steering fwd car.
Why would you want negative camber on the rear? The BTCC Mk1/2 golfs ran positive camber on the back end, to help turn-in.
Well a long story. I once found a lady of this type. VW mad and working as a mechanic in the pits at donnington. We chatted during the afternoon and got on well with her. Where everyone else in the team had been blown out. we decided to catch up later in the evening with each other. After many a beer in the bar and talking about the addication of racing, why we do it. She announced she got 'wet' when on the pit wall. Turned her on so much with the smell of rubber fuel and brakes etc 1 hour later she was ****ing the driver i was spannering for. The dollar talks and the spanner monkey was left at the bar[:^(]
I have had a look at all of the photos of competition axles I can find. What surprises me is that none of them show an axle where the front, open face, of the beam has been closed in with a welded plate. This would stiffen the beam considerably in bending. But, even more so in torsion. Perhaps VW/Seat wanted to leave a lot of flexibility in the beam for some reason? Something I would try, if building a track car, would be to take the thinest standard beam. Weld a plate across the front open end. Fit a central bracket to the plate, and locate it with a bracket on the body. Fit two fairly long trailing arms, where the present beam to body brackets are. With an external anti-roll bar. Stiffening the body, of course, where necessary! Maybe 'box' the body across the three mounting points!
