Two Rear Anti Roll Bars?

[VisaGTi16v 1]

Bear with me on this as im not too familiar with the rear end of a 205 as ive always owned Visa's but I was over in France on Saturday watching the Rallye du Nord (photos in motorsport section) and spotted this bizarre setup on the back of a rather nice looking 8v carbed 205

 

To my untrained eye it looks like it has those braces coming out of the standard ARB then linked to the arms to increase the stiffness but then it also has another ARB mounted under the standard one which was then connected at each end to the rear arms via short connecting links with rose joints.

 

Seems a bit excessive or am I just being stupid?

 

[RossD 44]

They look more like a "brace" rather than an ARB, much like the 206 SW and GTi180 models had??

Edited March 1, 2010 by RossD

[brumster 135 1 Cars]

Agreed, this looks like some effort to add additional triangulation to the rear arms - although depending upon how the inner ends of those 'tie bars' are connected/wrapped around the ARB would be interesting. I'm not sure of the value though; are the rear arms that flimsy?! Is the extra stiffness worth the extra weight? Obviously the owner thinks so.

 

My guess would be the inner ARB has been removed/disconnected to create a pivot axle for the inner ends of those tie bars, so the additional ARB was needed just below the beam to continue to provide that function. Was it all worth it? Only the driver can tell us ;-)

[VisaGTi16v 1]

Results of the rally not posted yet so will find out later heh

[welshpug 1,645]

looks like they've been shopping with KRS;

 

 

 

[brumster 135 1 Cars]

Ahhhhh haaaa

 

So what's the benefit, wider track? The pics above seem to show rather generous spacers behind the hubs... is this to increase track but also provide some extra strength to manage that?

[welshpug 1,645]

No expert but I'd imagine it'd be to add stiffness to counteract the extra twisting forces from the camber kit's longer stub axles.

 

Adjustable ARB there too.

 

 

Nice to see decent money spent on 205's other than the norm of tatty examples that are no higher specified than most road rally cars

[Cameron 16]

Nahh it's just some extra triangulation to remove flex in the trailing arms. When you're cornering hard the trailing arm will bend inwards and give you geometrical nasties like toe and camber change.

[shalmaneser 26]

Holy s*it that's a bit advanced isn't it?!

 

If you're going to spend all that cash why not just go for a turreted rear? Although I guess you'd still have flex issues if you did that.

[welshpug 1,645]

Holy s*it that's a bit advanced isn't it?!

 

If you're going to spend all that cash why not just go for a turreted rear? Although I guess you'd still have flex issues if you did that.

 

probably because their regs don't allow it.

[Cameron 16]

I'd say that was as good or better than a turreted rear, at least it controls flex. But if you were going to the lengths of turreted rear and that extra bracing, then why not get some proper suspension in there and do away with the beam altogether.

[Baz 421]

Same reasons the post before yours states...

[Cameron 16]

Not on this particular car, just in general.

[Batfink 201]

rules will mean they have to use a beam. I'm going to guess that with slick tyres there will be a lot of strain on the trailing arm bearings rather than being to stop the trailing arms flexing.

[Baz 421]

Not on this particular car, just in general.

 

Yeah i meant in general.

 

Believe it or not the majority of people that build cars like they're a competition car actually use them for that!

[Batfink 201]

Is there really much requirement for a more complicated suspension system on a fwd car? Under power the rear pretty much follows the front anyway. A double wishbone setup might end up lighter than a rear beam and trailing arms but certainly not just trailing arms on their own.

Honda have gone to trailing arms for the Civic.

If I find I have money to burn I want to look at removing the rear beam as I could save 20 kilos or so but then I will end up with a 80% or so front heavy car which cannot be good for handling..

 

Kev

[VisaGTi16v 1]

Cough 104/Visa rear end cough

[Rippthrough 98]

I'd say there is, the rear end affects the vehicle stability massively, hence the weird and wonderful setups to stay within regs on these rally cars...

[Cameron 16]

Yeah i meant in general.

 

Believe it or not the majority of people that build cars like they're a competition car actually use them for that!

 

 

Well mine isn't built as a competition car, it's a hobby / track dayer.

 

Is there really much requirement for a more complicated suspension system on a fwd car? Under power the rear pretty much follows the front anyway. A double wishbone setup might end up lighter than a rear beam and trailing arms but certainly not just trailing arms on their own.

Honda have gone to trailing arms for the Civic.

If I find I have money to burn I want to look at removing the rear beam as I could save 20 kilos or so but then I will end up with a 80% or so front heavy car which cannot be good for handling..

 

Kev

 

It doesn't have to be complicated, but trailing arms (or the ones fitted to the 205 at least) give really horrible kinematics in roll.. just look at pics of 205's in corners and the horrible positive camber. I'd imagine the Civic ones to be a little more complex than 205 ones anyway, and they definitely won't have fitted them for any reason other than packaging.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Cameron

[brumster 135 1 Cars]

Ah but Cam, who would want to get rid of that delicious, agile, pointy-pointy knife edge known as "the arse end of a 205" ? Taming the back end would be like newtering your pitbull; looks the same, but just not quite the same 'bite' there as before

 

(topical pun intentional)

[Cameron 16]

I would!

 

Deliberate oversteer is fine, but constant oversteer is bad mkay.