And thats one of the big keys for why post rigs are such a big advantage over a simple dyno.DaveW wrote:Perhaps. I think however that dampers are impedance sensitive, especially when their response is characterised by "peak load peak velocity" plots. There is a very large difference between the impedance presented by a dyno (when the trajectory is forced) & that presented by a car (where the damper can make its own trajectory)....
The cars that I mentioned previously, that were exhibiting differing problems in corners going one way compared to the other almost exclusively had offset weight and did not have ballast margin to play with or had no minimum weights. Just something to qualify a data point.DaveW wrote:Probably. I have often though about that as a solution for offset c.g.'s, but never had the confidence to suggest it seriously. It does appear to work for "oval" vehicles, but the "low risk" solution for me (and the best, I think), is to suggest moving ballast around. We often play with that to prove the cause of asymmetric response. Incidentally, the solution probably also requires asymmetric springs...Eager Learner wrote:Is there any reason to run asymmetric (left to right) damping when the lateral mass distribution is not perfectly 50%?
p.s. By ballast I mean anything that is not "fixed by function" e.g. batteries, electronics boxes, etc.
Perhaps. I think however that dampers are impedance sensitive, especially when their response is characterised by "peak load peak velocity" plots. There is a very large difference between the impedance presented by a dyno (when the trajectory is forced) & that presented by a car (where the damper can make its own trajectory)....Belatti wrote:Then I would suspect of the dyno measurement, the purge and some other details, etc.. Even more if dampers are non presurized bi-tube. I have seen dampers measurements "normalize" after cycling them at different speeds, when recently assembled. I attribute the problem to shim+oil layer friction effects.
