GermanLook Forums  

Go Back   GermanLook Forums > Technical Section > Suspension

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 7th 2011, 16:31
spannermanager spannermanager is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London and kent.
Posts: 185
Guys, its time to ask your self why Porsche fitted skinny little torsion bars to the aircooled cars? it wasn't for ride comfort, it was to reign them in, they cant be selling oversteer for a road car.
A swing axle bug can be fitted with 29mm short tb's and handle very well as long as the front is sorted, do the same trick to an IRS car, either super or b/j with IRS, and it will be undrivable, HUGE oversteer will result, not good unless your building a drift car, or maybe autotesting, i know because ive tried it. You just cannot make the rear very stiff...
i'm now running stock 1303 22mm tb x 20mm rear arb nowdays, with gas spax on full hard it oversteers mildly, i can still trail brake into hairpin or other turns that need it, 24 mm tb's just tip it into the danger zone where it just oversteers too much for comfort in combat, one slip and it was gone, tho i could do a quick lap time with them, you may be o.k on the street with them,
its possible to get away with 24mm rear bars if your front grip lets you, ie, you already have understeer, the hardest part of a quick track bug is to get the front working. Clive's table above is bang on and something is wrong if your a long way removed from it spring rate wise, damper or alignment problems would be suspect, and you need to be LOW, you wont beat a Porsche unless you are as low as one, and that takes a lot of work as your beginning to find out..
Reply With Quote
Old December 7th 2011, 17:33
owdlvr's Avatar
owdlvr owdlvr is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada - West Coast
Posts: 851
Originally Posted by evilC View Post
Dave, if my memory is correct Porsche's 911 2.0ltr rally cars ran 23.5mm (standard type3) rear TBs for gravel as an 'upgrade'


Which is similar in size, if memory serves me, to the bars the Huebbe brothers' are running.

Moot point, I cut out a 6" section of TB splines on mine

'71 Type 1 - Rally Project
'58 Type 1 - I bought an early!?!
'73 Type 1 - Proper Germanlook project
'68 Type 1 - Interm German 'look' project
'75 Type 1 - Family Heirloom
'93 Chevy 3500 pickup - Cummins Swap
Reply With Quote
Old December 8th 2011, 08:44
evilC's Avatar
evilC evilC is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK Where Leics is more
Posts: 644
I've found some data that is food for thought;

Car: Rear engine, rear wheel drive.
Weight: 970kg dry 40/60 split front/rear; 1145kg wet including fuel and driver, split 43.6/56.4 front/rear
Wheel rate front; 6.5kg/mm (368lb/in) = 368lb/in spring rate for a 500kg front axle load max
Wheel rate rear; 8.5kg/mm (482lb/in) = 616lb/in spring rate for a 645kg rear axle load max
Damper rate front; 180/80kg
Damper rate rear; 300/90kg
Frequency front; 147
Frequency rear; 137
Note that the weight will vary due to the aerodynamic loads. In this case the front lift was -0.05 this gave a down force of 20kgs @ 125mph and 45kgs @ 187mph with rear lift of -0.26 giving a downforce of 105kgs @ 125mph and 235kgs @ 187mph.

The car? This was the all conquering Porsche 935/77. The circuits it ran on were invariably billiard table smooth so the suspension ought to be considered at at the very stiffest end of the spec. I was interested to see how close to the same weights some of our bugs were.

Reply With Quote
Old June 4th 2016, 02:37
piledriver piledriver is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Van Alstyne, Texas
Posts: 34
Hate to bump an ancient thread, but there needs to be some clarification from the 935 specs and how those might translate to a beetle or 944T rear suspension.

If the shock/spring motion ratios and weights are all known, you can actually reasonably translate the springs/damping.

I'm currently trying to pull some reasonable numbers out of the available calculators for spring rate and damping.

The trailing arm length on a 911 and its children are IIRC much longer, so a given dia torsion would effectively be softer.
The shock//coil over attaches out BEHIND the axle.
The motion ratios for the rear shocks/coil overs is thus >1.0

The motion ratio of a 944T is supposedly ~.94 up front and .42 out back (pulled from Rennlist etc)
(I suspect similar for the early steel T1/T3 arms)

The front rates ~match up as the strut angle is close.

The rear spring rate and damper rates on a T1 or 944 suspension will have to be >2,5 X the 935 rates to have the same effect at the wheel.

Also, at least for the 934 (assuming same trailing arms), the published rear damping specs are more like 2200/1200.

Note that the base recommended Bilstein damping settings for a baja bug prerunner/race app are almost EXACTLY what is spec'd in the previous post for the 935 (including a 2x motion ratio correction for the rear, again, the weights are about the same, the front ratio corrected damping would be softer on the baja by about 30%)

Note Bilstein makes small body coil over-ready shocks in 6" stroke length, 17" overall (S6G) that take 1 7/8" springs, <100 for the shocks and $40 for the slip on coil over kit. (+ springs) They can be bought in 21 std digressive valvings or custom valved when built for only a little more.
Too long if the car is slammed, but about right if the stock shock length still works.

Last edited by piledriver; June 4th 2016 at 02:57.
Reply With Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 22:29.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
© 2002-2017. All Rights Reserved