Quote:
Originally Posted by
SolsticeMan
With my background in vehicle dynamics, my experience is this is not unorthodox at all. Many cars have a higher wheelrate in the rear than the front. The S2000 is only slightly biased to the rear, and the MX-5 is just plain too weak in the rear (you can feel this just by driving it), and in my experience are prolly more the exception than the rule. But I know of MANY cars that are set up with ratios of ride stiffnesses that are biased to the rear.
This does some things for handling -
1) it reduces the need to augment the rear with a very large stabilizer bar, the natural roll distribution from springs is already helping you to achieve turn in and create a stable "pivot" for the vehicle. Remember, in autox stock classes, you're not allowed to play with the rear bar.
2) it creates a more natural pitch feel for weight tranfer, especially in corners. The result is better transient stability when utilizing braking and acceleration while turning
there are other benefits of which I won't continue to bore you with... a simple explanation is the stiffer the rear, the better the "anchor" or "pivot" that the vehicle relies on. Understanding the 'anatomy of a turn' is key here. The front initiates everything, and tho it sounds weird, the rear actually "stops" everything. You need stiffness in the rear for it to "stop" everything that the front is initiating.
Many of the people who think 'drag racing' tend to have lower rear wheelrates - supposedly for 'bite' or a myriad of other reasons. But you're not turning if you're drag racing, and drag racing is never done on chop, transitional tracks that are pavement between concrete reinforcement in corners, or low-lying water seeping areas where the pavement is 'chattery'.
The proof is when you click the stopwatch.

I would love if you could bore me with additional details! I also sent you a PM although my allowance is only 1 message total (??) so I wanted to post here as well.