i did this today and it is a lot stiffer than a g40 axel ......what you think will fit asap and let you know how it goes

Edited 17 June, 200818 yr by bort

i did this today and it is a lot stiffer than a g40 axel ......what you think will fit asap and let you know how it goes

why?

thats a very tidy job mate, I'm thinking of doing a similar thing although i was just going to weld in a bar going across but might try same way you have done it, how thick is the plate you put in?

Should make the backend feel better.

thats a very tidy job mate, I'm thinking of doing a similar thing although i was just going to weld in a bar going across but might try same way you have done it, how thick is the plate you put in?

Should make the backend feel better.

same as the axel ,didnt get the tape to it

it might help ,it may hinder .....we will see

Gusseting it like that is probably a better idea than just a bar across it because it still allows some flex of the beam

Remember, the rear beam is designed to flex slightly to offer a little bit of independence

That would be my take on the matter

That looks quite tidy Bort, for once you have concentrated, listened hard in class and not got bird poop for weld all over your work.

I am impressed A+

Local take on axle stiffening, or in this case trying to make sure the axle retains geometry when cornering...not sure how successful it'll be...

Sitting upside down on the bench:

good to see people trying things a bit different from the norm..................what axel is that ^^^^^^^

Edited 13 June, 200818 yr by bort

Golf Mk2 GTi, it's going to be attached to a track car running 20vT power I believe, quite a serious project.

Now this is what it is about, having a go & trying different things.............I wonder what else is out there??????

Now this is what it is about, having a go & trying different things.............I wonder what else is out there??????

that red mk3 [the full blown mental track car] has a rear ARB.

Hywel welded triangulating bars on his rally car. We spoke and came to the conclusion that such a modification on a road car is detrimental to handling as it will over-strut an already twitchy rear end.

Polo Performance Services are apparantly working on a rear ARB

Salzmann do/did a drop link rear ARB

On a road car (Polo mk1-3) I can't see any reason for stiffening the rear beam.

Lift off oversteer is already an apparent trait, why make it worse?

For road use, new O.E. mounting bushes along with decent quality dampers and springs are all thats needed.

nice to hear peoples opinions but are most of them bassed on rumors ? would be nice to hear from sombody who has got there hands dirty and done it !

On a road car (Polo mk1-3) I can't see any reason for stiffening the rear beam.

Lift off oversteer is already an apparent trait, why make it worse?

For road use, new O.E. mounting bushes along with decent quality dampers and springs are all thats needed.

hmm, not sure about that, my rear beam has been seam stitched, its a G40 one so has the original arb affair, and i cant say its very lift off oversteerey at all. i didnt add any triangulation based on the fact i thought if i smacked it sideways again i would rather it bend the axel than bend the shell.

i've also got those G-laderseite bushes and dont have any massive twitchy moments. unless induced of course! the twin arb setup is more to do with the actual handling than the gusseting bort has done, i doubt it will actually affect the handling very much at all gusseting there as its very close to the leverage point. the adjustable ARB that dogwoods got means you can run a softer spring to stop it being unstable but the extra arb makes it work actually in the corners. it's what all the F2 kit cars would run in the BRC/WRC of the 90s for the reason they would get unstable over a series of bumps when flat out which meant the rear end would get a bounce on, usually resulting in the car going arse over tit. theres videos on youtube of the Manx in the mid 90s of gwyndaff evans in an RS2000 kit car getting the above effect.

by boxing the crossmember it has removed any twist ie roll that i could previously put into it by hand the gussets may need trimming

actually yeh i had forgotten you had boxed that section in. you may find it just picks up a wheel at every opportunity now, which is exactly what mine does!

Some nice work there. Not see that before on VAG rear axles, makes a lot of sense though, a bit like strut braces etc. , keep the suspension geometry as it should be and the car will be more predicatable.

Stiffening the rear bar will have a similar effect as adding a rear ARB or increasing diameter. I like the rose-jointed effort there as it keeps the rear wheels in positive camber and so increases cornering grip rather than allow the wheels to buckle under and go negative and lose grip. be interesting which aspect has more effect, the increased grip due to correct camber or the reduced grip due to incrfeased torsional rigidity.

What do most people with serious front drive cars with solid rear beams run on the track camber wise? I'd guess at 0° to maybe 1° negative? And a good couple of degrees negative up front.

What do most people with serious front drive cars with solid rear beams run on the track camber wise? I'd guess at 0° to maybe 1° negative? And a good couple of degrees negative up front.

this is the beginning and end of your problem. Nobody really successfully made a serious FWD. Anybody who wanted good handling knew better and made the car to be RWD

FWD people carriers/estates usually run a few deg of positive camber on the assumption that fully laden it will result in 0 or slightly negative camber.

Running camber on the rear with a solid rear axel is often done on the theory that when the car begins to tip [kicking up the rear wheel] the wheel in contact will level itself out.

The torsion beam "axle" is supposed to be just that - torsional/twistable etc.

If you stiffen the rear beam and reduce the torsional twist too much, you will loose the "independant action" of the rear suspension. I can't see how this can be any good to a road car? If it can't twist properly, the suspension won't work as intended. It would pick up a wheel under hard cornering far too easily and increase lift off oversteer, particularly in the wet.

'Pinches car has a lot of suspension travel due to the nature of its use, and I suspect that is why he hasn't noticed the problems that you could get on a lowered, stiffer sprung and firmer damped car that the majority of people own on here.

I'm not suggesting the beam as it stands is the be all and end all in terms of design, but for by far the majority of Polo's driven on the road with a bit of track use thrown in it is more than adequate.

Its the front suspension that really needs sorting out ie, tension struts/wishbones.

no body successfully made a serious fwd car? F2 kit cars of the 90s were serious!

running more camber on the back should take away some of the lift off oversteer. i just run whatevers standard camber wise and run 1deg toe in on the camber and toe shims. although i might dial in half a degree of camber, we'll see what its like with the new axel fitted.

i have to say last night i drove mine again for the first time and i was really impressed by the handling, i've driven quite a few well tweaked rally cars over the past 3 months and mine really is just like a massive go kart to drive, although with the camber dialed in i can really feel the need to get a tension strut kit there was occasion where i would turn in to a point and i could physically feel it loading up the outside wheel and trying to lift the inside one.

i really don't think the rear end is the problem, the way i have mine setup it doesnt pick up a wheel any more as far as i know and feels firmly planted, it wont oversteer in a snappy manor you really have to induce it. but i'm guessing no one else has the setup i do!

What do most people with serious front drive cars with solid rear beams run on the track camber wise? I'd guess at 0° to maybe 1° negative? And a good couple of degrees negative up front.

this is the beginning and end of your problem. Nobody really successfully made a serious FWD. Anybody who wanted good handling knew better and made the car to be RWD

Honda Type R range (jdm at least), entire Renault Sport range and the Focus RS are all pretty serious cars. Most helped along by some tricky diffs up front. As soon as you realise you can steer the car with your foot as well a your hands front wheel drive takes on a whole different meaning.

What do most people with serious front drive cars with solid rear beams run on the track camber wise? I'd guess at 0° to maybe 1° negative? And a good couple of degrees negative up front.

this is the beginning and end of your problem. Nobody really successfully made a serious FWD. Anybody who wanted good handling knew better and made the car to be RWD

FWD people carriers/estates usually run a few deg of positive camber on the assumption that fully laden it will result in 0 or slightly negative camber.

Running camber on the rear with a solid rear axel is often done on the theory that when the car begins to tip [kicking up the rear wheel] the wheel in contact will level itself out.

Go watch BTCC- They'd show all but the UK's quickest Caterhams a clean set of heels.

If you want to learn about suspension I suggest you buy this book:

Competition Car Suspension

It's good and will give you all the info you need to get started.

Polo PP are currently investigating (and testing) drop linked rear ARB and a rose jointed rear axle- we'll manafacture whatever we find to be best.

do the above cars run a solid rear axel?