914 Suspension motion ratios, Comparing notes Options

[groot]

I measured my front and rear motion ratios yesterday and wanted to compare notes with any that have done the same.

For the rear suspension I took ~20 data points and did a best fit analysis to come up with 1.00 to 1.00 damper travel to wheel travel with strong statistical correlation.

My front geometry is a bit different than a standard 914, so the motion ratio should be different, too. I measure ~10 points and found 0.83 damper travel to wheel travel, again with strong statistical correlation.

I'm about to order my rear shocks and this is one of the bits of data they need to build the shocks.

[slivel]

Angled down towards the wheel (better than parallel) to the ground is a decent rule of thumb, but .... see my signature.....

You can always just drive it and have fun (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) and not stress about it. If the roll center is too low, you just need more roll stiffness to counter it. I think that's why there are so many big ARBs for the 914.

Since I know I'm not Montoya I need to build a car that is easier to drive and I like the engineering exercise behind it all.

Kevin,
Right now my front arms are roughly parallel to the ground. To adjust the roll center by angling the front up and down in the rear (towards the wheel) don't you wind up causing a binding in the pivot points. The crossmenber doesn't seem to allow much in the way of latitude here. Do you make some mod to either end of the suspension arm to allow the repositioning without binding? Additionally this may change the roll center but doesn't this now cause the arc of the wheel to be other than vertical under suspension travel?

Steve (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)