Irs (Independent Rear Suspension) In 205

[Rippthrough 98]

Race and off-road use only, no liability given, implied or intended....

And, just in case, get some public liability insurance to cover your arse, it's not a fortune

[Cameron 16]

Well, this is all assuming anybody wants a really fast 205 so badly that they would fork out a fair few grand for a double wishbone kit!

[welshpug 1,657]

i wonder how viable fitting something like the focus rear end arrangement would be, its fairly compact but certainly wont be a bolt on job!

 

i cant remember what ford called it but it does gave some degree of adjustment built in and does adress the issue of camber changes with body roll.

[Rippthrough 98]

Control blade? It's a torsion beam with a fancy name.

 

Now that's one that isn't fully independent...

Edited August 8, 2011 by Rippthrough

[Sandy 191]

You don't want the back to grip perfectly, you can't ever get the front to work well enough to balance it and the chassis balance will be lost. The two key things about Colin's rear set up are 1:1 damper ratio, as has been mentioned and modulating the rear grip appropriately, rather than maximising it. With the right camber/toe and arm angle, the rear works almost ideally, for the overall chassis dynamic. Replicating the effect with double wishbones is going to be difficult, most likely more unsprung weight and hugely more expensive. I'm not saying this set up could be perfect on every car, just that it's hard to beat with this layout, providing the damping and geometry is resolved.

[Cameron 16]

I wouldn't put a double wishbone setup just on the rear though, the front and rear are both being designed to work together. There's a lot that can be done when picking camber curves and roll centre heights to ensure that you get a good handling balance, the rest can be done with springs and ARB's.

[SurGie 54]

When a car has a full independent suspension, there is no need for any ARB's.

[welshpug 1,657]

When a car has a full independent suspension, there is no need for any ARB's.

 

 

why does your car have them then? ...

[SurGie 54]

What i mean by fully independent is when each separate wheel/suspension is individually independent like when they are attached to an RSJ type of chassis, no need for an ARB.

 

Wont the double wishbone set up be the same category ?

[welshpug 1,657]

thats a descriprion of your own car...

 

indeed a double wishbone is fully independent, as is a trailing arm and macpherson strut arrangement.

 

just had a look at the Ford controlblade rear suspension, it is independent and fairly compact, doubt its any lighter than a pug beam though.

[Cameron 16]

What i mean by fully independent is when each separate wheel/suspension is individually independent like when they are attached to an RSJ type of chassis, no need for an ARB.

 

Wont the double wishbone set up be the same category ?

 

Only if your entire car has been designed perfectly from the ground up so that everything from the tyre width to chassis stiffness has been selected to provide the appropriate handling balance matching the weight distribution, CG height, driven wheels, etc etc including the driver preference and track conditions! Basically it's next to impossible. Some method of tuning roll stiffness is critical to getting the handling balance right, especially if your weight distribution is heavily biased to one end, and an ARB is by far the quickest and easiest way of doing this.

[foreigner 0]

So,

 

 

anyone with the front suspension at the back?

 

as I mentioned before, any experience ?

 

just want to hear something solid.

 

 

 

 

Cameron , we talk when you got your product ready.

[pug_ham 244 3 Cars]

So,

 

anyone with the front suspension at the back?

If you mean the full front subframe, arb, wishbone & strut set up at the back I think the only people with that, will also be those with an engine in the boot so on a normal front engined 205 you'd be adding weight to the back & making very little gain for all your work in the majority of circumstances or those that have spent the money for Colin set up, either way not a cheap option & definately not a bolt on thing.

 

g

[Cameron 16]

Not worth is considering the amount of work required IMO.. means having to modify the inner wings and boot floor, re-routing the exhaust amongst other things. Not worth the hassle for the small benefits of McPherson struts (which are still massively flawed).

[pug_ham 244 3 Cars]

Not worth is considering the amount of work required IMO.. means having to modify the inner wings and boot floor, re-routing the exhaust amongst other things. Not worth the hassle for the small benefits of McPherson struts (which are still massively flawed).

agreed.

 

g

[Rob_the_Sparky 9]

IMHO if you want decent suspension then buy a car with RWD and a decent suspension set-up!

 

Might sound a bit odd from a committed 205 owner but really as a road car the 205 does fwd very well but is a hot hatch built to a budget. Rather than spending thousands trying to make it something it isn't, you are better off buying a better starting point that a manufacturer has spent a long time developing.

 

The TVR may be an extreme example but there are other cars out there with RWD and good suspension set-ups out of the box. MX-5 being the obvious example...

 

Rob

[Cameron 16]

Depends what you want from your car really.. if you just want to go as fast as possible then get whetever you need, but some people (i.e. me) may just want to make a 205 that will go as fast or faster than anything else.

[Rippthrough 98]

 

just had a look at the Ford controlblade rear suspension, it is independent and fairly compact, doubt its any lighter than a pug beam though.

 

Nah, it's semi-independent.

[welshpug 1,657]

which bit makes it partially independent?? two separate trailing arms with two pair of arms bolted to a frame in the middle, pair of springs and dampers

[Batfink 201]

The cheapest option is probably Colin Satchells setup. Its not cheap though but for my track car I love it - sublime handling!. I'd question the cost on a daily hack though.

[Rippthrough 98]

which bit makes it partially independent?? two separate trailing arms with two pair of arms bolted to a frame in the middle, pair of springs and dampers

 

's alright, it's me getting mixed up with the one they used before.

The control blade is pretty much an evolution of what's already under a 205 anyway, but it's heavier than the beam system.

[welshpug 1,657]

's alright, it's me getting mixed up with the one they used before.

The control blade is pretty much an evolution of what's already under a 205 anyway, but it's heavier than the beam system.

 

 

you mean the Torsion beam used on the Escort?

 

Colin's arrangement is pretty straightforward, not too many custom parts or fabrication required, but its the development time thats gone into sorting the whole chassis setup that you'd be paying for mostly I would imagine.

 

You'd need a pair of dampers, two custom stub axles for the bottom end of the damper to bolt to, and some sheet steel for the tower in the wheelarch.

Edited August 9, 2011 by welshpug

[Tom Fenton 1,542]

I thought the Escort used quite a complex trailing arm type setup? Certainly the Ml3-4 did?

[welshpug 1,657]

 

not too dissimilar to that used on the VW's, they used an upright damper unlike the 205 though.

 

I think the clio is closest to the 205 in arrangement bar the upright dampers, they have a trailing arm with a half width torsion bar fixed in the centre of a beam tube.

[Cameron 16]

The Colin Satchel setup just tackles the issue of crap damper ratio though, right? It doesn't do anything for poor geometry when cornering?

 

What is the new damper ratio with the CS setup? I imagine it gets close to 1:1 if it picks up off the back of the stub axle.