Good work. Interesting that the engine damper helped a lot but didn't cure it completely. I doubt anyone even tries to cure this mechanically any more - with modern gearboxes any powerful car is going to be running torque mitigation in the first few gears anyway (limiting engine torque so the gearbox doesn't explode), so you might as well run TC as well.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Tramp, tramp, tramp, the boys are marching,
Cheer up comrades they will come,
And beneath the starry flag
We shall breathe the air again,
Of the freeland in our own beloved home.

Written in 1864 about Union army prisoners-of-war in the South. Tramp has been a military term describing the action of marching foot soldiers (One step up, one step down, get it ??). Tramp is typically used to describe the ASYMMETRIC wheel jounce and rebound axle roll usually in solid axle vehicles under very high drive torque application involving tire stick-slip, (usually) leaf spring deformation and drive-line torque variation due to a lack of Cardan joint geometric control. We call what you are describing HOP (as in the way rabbits run) because that's what the wheels do in irs and some solid axle powered suspensions (front and rear). Farm tractors with mechanical 4wd are notoriously prone to hop AND tramp mechanizations when pulling very large attachments (plows), so the selection of part-time hydraulic 4wA (assist) is a popular option.

Youtube videos of hop and tramp drive-line response show commercial solutions (Steede) to hop (Mustang solid) and BMW (irs) which do work but their constraint solutions ignore the prop-shaft Cardan phasing feedback in their package, when a CV joint at the pinion would help in that situation. Even though the drive-line is designed as 'CV' using double Cardan (transmission and pinion end), the excessive pinion nose up or down rotation takes that design WAY out of the marching field parade, so to speak.

Soldiers on your continent must surely look silly bunny hopping along when the Queen visits ! Tramping looks better. The Iranians have an even better formal parade march stride. Check it out !

BTW: To validate your fix(s), run the evaluation play in reverse (gear). Torque ought to be higher and the results should be about the same, all things considered, except for ONE major factor change.

With the cars I worked on with the problem it was say 40-50 kph out of a corner on damp or wet roads. Perhaps not easy in reverse!

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Keep comments coming please, as this IRS problem seems to be unsolvable by major manufacturers. Using electronics to stop wheelspin I think is a cop-out! To follow up BMW solid diff mounts, google DEFIB LOCKDOWN. The very good HOPNOT.COM solution is worth further use too. I really do want to comment on quite dangerous mods by some American firms. IRS systems have bearings, CVs and diffs bolted to a subframe. Under acceleration there is no torque applied to the connecting links, only axial force. Claims that the links twist are difficult to understand by suppliers of giant sized trailing arms and other links. The mere facts that the semi trailing arms, as indeed most IRS systems use, means that the pivot plane is along a line found by drawing a line from the midpoints of the inner pivots. This plane is at an angle to the bush in each link, hence as the wheel moves it must squish up each bush. Think of it as it wants to rotate over each bolt but geometry forces each link to move at an angle. Firms pushing poly inner bushes do not allow for this “misalignment” squish. Poly takes it for a short while then remains oval hence the links rattle in this oval shaped hole.

The front end design also uses a semi trailing arm with the “castor” arm inner bracket forming a pivot line at an angle to the “bolt” through this link. Hence the arm rotates not perpendicular to the bolt but about a plan, same as the rear IRS arm is moving. Using a stiff joint in this “castor” arm introduces a moment into that arm and joint that was minor previously with a std rubber joint. I knew of an after market firm in USA selling a “delrin” bush, and ,get this, a replacement “castor arm” made with AL to the same dimensions as the std steel arm. I rang this firm to warn them and was told “what would you know!!”. Result was a moment was introduced into the now 1/3 strength arm due to the stiff bush and the arm snapped!!!!

I query the design of semi trailing arms in this wheel tramp/hop issue. Properly designed wishbones would indeed allow the use of stiffer inner pivots/joints. Live axles transfer a moment to the whole axle unit and can “hop” by raising the wheel end, IRS systems work in bearings and cannot raise the wheel hub (except under braking due to ther calipars being bolted to the hub). I don’t care what the Queen thinks either!!!

Greg and others, please comment on “Hopnot”, his web site has great videos. Not treating the cause (my tuning fork theory of resonance!!), and dampers are treating the vibrations AFTER they they occurred, but it seems to work.

Last comment; easily the best way to test possible solutions is to experiment on wet roads. Firms claiming success only seem to test on dry roads, and using the same “solution” on a wet road soon highlights any deficiency. My changes listed previously cured about 90% of dry road tramp, but wet road tramp is only about 75% improved. I haven’t fitted horizontal dampers to the rear though, but wish I could!! Cheers R

What modern IRS design are you looking at that uses a "semi trailing arm"? What modern FRONT suspension design are you looking at that uses a "semi trailing arm"?

Current generations of Mustang, Camaro, Challenger all use some variation of multi-link suspensions with quite complicated three-dimensional link orientations. None of them appear to even remotely resemble a simple semi-trailing arm.

Wheel hop on front suspension is only a relevant issue with front wheel drive, and all of the front-drive wheel-hoppers that I'm aware of use MacPherson struts.

I understand your points about substitution of urethane or delrin bushings in applications that have motions other than pure rotation around the axis of the pivot bolt and agree with its inadvisability, and I also agree with the inadvisability of not allowing links to flex when the geometry of the particular suspension design relies on them flexing/twisting, but it would help with understanding if your explanation accurately describes the situations that you are talking about!

It's the old Omega suspension. Basically the cheapest way of getting an IRS into a vehicle. Not necessarily a terrible suspension but it certainly has kinematic challenges (which I'm not going into).

Anyway the 100% solution, as I've said before, is a rubber up tube propshaft, as described in the previous thread. This is a known solution, but expensive. Some OEMs know this, perhaps they just don't see it as a cost effective or possible durable solution.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Steady on Brian. Yes the front suspension I mentioned, on a VE and VF Commodore, same as Camaro, same as Pontiac G8 does indeed use McPherson struts. I was referring to a pivot plane formed by drawing a line from the lower “wishbone” links being the “castor” arm inner pivot and the control arm inner pivot. This pivot line is not parallel to the centreline; hence as the triangle setup moves through its arc, the inner links rotate at an angle to the bolts in each arm. Not a drama if squishy rubber is used, but is a problem if stiff poly is used and is a massive problem if delrin is used. Binding occurs and in the example of the Camaro that used, stupidly, the aluminium undersized “castor” arm, the bind introduced a serious moment and snapped it! Brian, the front end issue is indeed similar to the rear end on the IRS car studied, and very similar to many other makes of this type of suspension...... and they all tramp unless electronics intervene. Front wheel drive tramp I will leave to other more qualified forum members to solve.

Greg, I still don’t understand why the Lotus Carlton sleeved rubber prop works yet the prop on the studied car that has a rubber connection at each end of its shaft clearly does not work. Vibrations seem to be not dampened by these prop joints. This system resonance obviously relates to the overall stiffness of the total of the components. Examples that used solid engine mounts still tramped. I understand that GM experimented with various solid mounts in the drivetrain, and rear cradle, and failed to fix the issue. Hence the abs sensors were called on to fight the battle, and won it too. The idea of driving an expensive enthusiast’s car at full throttle to find the electronic throttle has been closed to avoid tramp is not a solution I like but may have to accept. I do like “Hopnot” though and would like further comment .... pity Mercedes, GM or BMW never thought of it.

As I understand it, the move away from the old semi-trailing arm IRS to the new multi-link designs at the OEM level did not stop the wheel hop (on the rear - I'm not sure how the non-driven front suspension would play into this).

The aftermarket is filled with "solutions" to perceived "problems" that not only fail to address the real underlying issue but also introduce new ones of their own. The old Fox-body live-axle suspension is a favorite one. Ford called it Quadra-Link at some point, everyone calls it Quadra-Bind. And yet, the stock setup works fine for the parameters that it was originally designed for (and I fully grant the point that the original design of that suspension layout was for the 1978 Fairmont). Hmm, upper links are an open cross section, and they twist. BAD. Let's replace them with solid. Hmm, the links have compliant rubber bushings. BAD. Let's replace them with urethane. Hey, why is the suspension binding? Ummm because it was originally designed to allow those links to twist a little bit and for the pivot points to have a bit of give in them ...

I've had wheel hop on wet pavement in a couple of front-drive VW cars, and in view of plenty of stories about broken differential cross-pins in those transmissions, I tried to avoid it (via driver intervention!) but I'm not drag-racing them and they certainly weren't designed for that. Folks who put silly power through the front wheels at the drag strip would be the ones to ask.

RUT prop works because it is very compliant. The Jurid couplings are incredibly stiff, from memory the torque is actually transferred via internal nylon cords, the rubber is there to encase them.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

I have tried to attach a file of the layout of a Camaro and hope it can be seen, albeit modified by BMR with links shown in red. (I hope the picture is attached!!). Greg and others, it is not the more simple Omega layout, and has upper and lower links that pretend to be wishbones. As you can see, the rear lower setup resembles a wishbone that clearly pivots about a line connecting the inner pivots and this line is about 30 degrees from parallel to the centreline, hence squishing the inner joints. Brian, the front setup has the similar problem as wheel arc means that the similar inner pivots also must squish up due to the geometry, admittably not to the same “misalignment” as found in the rear. The rear uses a toe arm to correct for the toe out condition with the lower “semi” trailing arm geometry. I understand that the simpler Omega design seldom used an additional toe arm ( Commodores 1997-2005 did) and did not also use an upper wishbone setup either; very different than the suspension I am trying to fix. Interestingly, to actually work, the toe correction must indeed have a “squish” bush somewhere, otherwise it will bind if not lockup. Suppliers of stiff poly or even delrin fail to understand this aspect. Observing open wheel formula cars at race meetings shows that they generally understand geometry, the ones that don’t fail to appear in the winners list!!

Still seeking comment on dampers at the rear, like Hopnot. GoPro vision of a resonating/tramping wheel shows the “ horizontal” damper on the hub needs to be generally parallel to the centreline but angled more towards the trailing arm mount. I need help to figure out how to mount such a system on the Camaro type suspension, the hub mount being the tricky part.

Greg, can you please explain how the vertical link on a 2017 Mustang and a M5 BMW works? I see it being useful under braking, but what does it do under acceleration? This part is the first thing replaced to fix tramp according to the aftermarket who use spherical bearings to replace soft Ford rubber in this link.

• http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=c1a5bb57-adf5-4685-b6f9-20

Is the diff housing vertical resonance a translation (like a heave mode) or a rotation about an axis parallel to the axle (like a pitch mode)?

If a rotation, this mode could be damped with a ladder frame and coil-over like the 5th coil-over used in (live axle) speedway sedans. Link

je suis charlie

I did some work on the old (1980s) Camaro, which had an arm connecting the diff nose to the back of the trans. That is an excellent arrangement. MX5 does the same.

Sorry, yes, I'd forgotten that in the last couple of years the Holden Commodore went to a direct copy of the Toyota rear suspension. I don't think suspension architecture is really the issue here, since I've seen similar problems on 3 different architectures. It's basically torsional windup along the driveline. My project to install tonewheels along the entire driveline was killed, sadly.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

GRUNTGURU, the diff has two mounts in the front and one in the rear offset inline with the crown wheel. “Gopro” videos are fantastic as the diff climbs as per the pinion climbing the crown wheel then as resonance occurs it pivots madly about the rear mount. “Snubbers” or a long arm connecting the diff front to a frame rail or perhaps gear box mount would certainly stiffen it. GM tried this on Camaro prototypes and cracked the housing, hence the steel diffs were used in the more powerful models. I would think the extra NHV would be a deterent. The BMW guy, google bmw diff lockout, claims success with solid diff mounts, with std soft rubbers in the rear cradle.

Greg, the GM VE/Camaro design is a copy of BMW 5 series, not sure what Toyoto model you are thinking of. All IRS seem to have similarities, and tramp is a usual outcome too. That is why i think it is a system resonance issue. Extra rear shockers to dampen the wheel hub, on a lever arm, seems the best idea for road cars. Racing saloon cars seem to eliminate all rubber and NHV is of no concern. Observation is that the only problem is under braking where the rear wheels can indeed lift off.

"Extra rear shockers to dampen the wheel hub, on a lever arm" may work, but it is attacking a torsional problem in a very second hand way.

I assume the modern Camaro picks up the final Commodore suspension, which was a plug and play copy of a Toyota suspension. Since the problem is torsional the suspension architecture is fairly irrelevant.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

“Snubbers” or a long arm connecting the diff front to a frame rail or perhaps gear box mount would certainly stiffen it. GM tried this on Camaro prototypes and cracked the housing, hence the steel diffs were used in the more powerful models. I would think the extra NHV would be a deterent. The BMW guy, google bmw diff lockout, claims success with solid diff mounts, with std soft rubbers in the rear cradle."

A long torque arm connecting to a forward mount (especially the gearbox) should not have as much impact on NVH since force required to resist the axle torque oscillations is reduced by the lever length. Further - a more resilient mount can be used - it is control of angular displacement you are after and again, the long arm is your friend. Last - if mounted to the gearbox the factory isolation works in your favour.

je suis charlie

Kinda odd that no one has implicated a major root cause of this problem. (Ok, it IS very odd). Preserving the old-school suspension layouts developed with 180 kPa high grip high rolling resistance tires and then mandating 341 kPa low rolling resistance tires saturated with carbon and silicon has all the ingredients for axle hop, skip, tramp and a jump. From a simulationists viewpoint with a Pacejka tire root kit, we have a weaker 'D' term (peak force) and a lame 'C' term (shape factor). while this helps the ABS and traction control side of the house, the steeper downside slope of the mu curve (a negative spring rate) produces positive feedback to an already marginally unstable powertrain system. Therefore, look at a tire solution to this problem if you are tired of wrenching blind.

FYI, in the case of the G8, the car was developed in-house on low pressure YOK and PIR tires with some of the worst rolling resistance and unusual Fy characteristic I can think of. Because of the weight distribution (51%), the amount of understeer present in the car was extremely low already without the soggy bushings in the boomerang parts up front. At 26psi, there was some decent Mz on-hand to keep the car legal. Now we get to the "Global Vehicle Requirements" and the shit hits the fan. Not enough of these 'special tires' with low Fz sensitivity could be sourced (to try to make use of the 1-2 % weight, durability issues with the tires because of the carcass recipe, and of course now, the 35 psi slippery tires with a mile per gallon fuel economy mandate improvement. There goes the Mz, here comes the traction thing, and now comes along a transmission that grenades when the motor guys find some extra power between the mounts. (easily fixed as pilot build starts, by a TC twiddle).

And there we were, feverishly looking for a tire supplier with enough volume, enough resources, existing tire molds and enough patience to throw down a construction that would survive the Legal system's need for a 'safe' car in spite of 'foreseeable misuse' conditions (dreadful aftermarket tires and pressure loss with age). Did I mention that a spare tire fiasco comes along with this abortion in the making? GM certainly learned a lesson about cars designed by welding class graduates instead of mega Adams modelers. Made me a lot of extra money with the overtime, though. My IRA thanks all of you very much !

Quote (Ron364)

can you please explain how the vertical link on a 2017 Mustang and a M5 BMW works? I see it being useful under braking, but what does it do under acceleration? This part is the first thing replaced to fix tramp according to the aftermarket who use spherical bearings to replace soft Ford rubber in this link.

The vertical link is necessary to prevent the upright from flopping over in side view regardless of the direction of the longitudinal force at the contact patch. The single upper lateral link cannot do that job, so the upper part of the upright was tied off to the lower control arm instead. I suspect that the precise inclination of this "vertical link" (or a construction line drawn perpendicular to it through its upper attachment) plays a minor role in defining the SVIC and the anti-squat characteristics.

FWIW on bushings. Not all of the aftermarket companies are completely dense about what it takes to use stiffer bushing material. At least one aftermarket company has used a 3-piece sandwich design that places a short length of firm polyurethane in between softer pucks, the idea being to eliminate some of the moment resistance. And they ran a series of tests that generally showed that to be true. But unfortunately, most aftermarket bushing suppliers still insist on making the poly "bushing" material longer than the inner sleeves that the bolt runs through, which manages to take a poor approach and make it worse in most respects. But at least polyurethane is a fairly soft material as far as removing bits of it to induce a bit more compliance in some directions is concerned. A crude approach to voided bushing technology, but it does work.


Norm

I had a look at the Hop Stop site. If that solves the problem then it isn't the problem I solved. Nothing wrong with that, often problem definition is the biggest part of an investigation.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

FYI, the latest 3 generations of Corvette have the differential attached to the end of a 1-piece drivetrain assembly so it essentially creates a long "torque arm". The design also eliminates the issue of engine/transmission torsional movement. They still do it.

If you want to see something interesting, jack up the car, take off the wheels and re-install the nuts to hold the rotors. Then, let the car run in gear and watch the effect on the rear suspension as the traction control applies the rear brakes. You'll likely see the suspension moving quite a bit. Controlling that movement could explain why the hopnot solution helps.

Getting near the end of asking this forum for help on this topic. “Cibachrome” could you please have another go at explaining what you mean re tyre design. The VE Commodore and the Camaro were both designed in Melbourne to use very grippy Bridgestone Pontenza 050 tyres. I don’t like low profile 40 series tyres on road cars, perhaps address this too. The VE rear used a BMW 5 that was dismantled and viewed to the nth degree. It formed the basis of the IRS design despite the knowledge that those cars were generally very poor in ride on typical Aussie roads. Greg, the VE is not an Omega simple lower trailing arm, nor is it a Toyota copy. The top L shaped pseudo wishbone was used to fit available space. The weird pivot planes top and bottom are not parallel to each other and are at about 30 degrees to the centreline. Videos taken by BMR simply show the geometry change arising from the mismatched top and lower “wishbone” planes as the hub moves vertically with some rotation with normal driving, yet the company uses it as a display of massive movement that needs their products to correct! A rear toe correction arm pivots in a different plane to keep toe out changes reasonable. This geometry, especially the use of a toe correction arm, requires some joints to compress at weird angles to allow for the pivot planes not being “along the wishbone bolts”. Using stiff joints like poly or delrin is clearly not appropriate everywhere.

I agree with Greg that the engine mounts are the major source of the problem as the powerful V8 has lots of energy to store in its fluid filled mounts. Similarily, energy is stored in the corresponding gearbox rubber mount. The prop may well twist too, and then to the diff that is rubber mounted to a cradle that is rubber mounted to the monocoque. The onset of tramp occurs when the rear tyres lose traction. The release of the stored energy adds to the engine torque and makes the engine violently resonate, similarly the gearbox as seen by the gear lever resonating inside the cabin. The diff resonates about its only rear mount in a vertical motion, and it is indeed frantic as per my GoPro vision. The cradle moves but really this is minimal in comparison to the diff and much less violent. The wheels do not “hop”, that is a live axle outcome as the irs axles spin in bearings with no rotation being applied to the outer hubs only to the wheels. The tyres grip for say 6 inches, then spin for another 6 inches and this slip/grip process continues until traction is fully regained mainly by the throttle being lifted out of sympathy. The wheels themselves resonate in several horizontal directions seemingly as the arms’ rubber links flex. The massive amount of thumping and banging from tramp must surely have made the designing engineers cringe when testing! Pity they didn’t fix it!

Greg has suggested that “his” Lotus Charlton solution of putting a rubber twin tube in the tail shaft to dampen things actually works. I contacted English owners and they confirmed it too. This solution is beyond a DIY owner, and no manufacturer is interested now that a simple electronic solution is available!

My trial and error experience has shown that my biggest gain was obtained by using a $50 damper in the engine bay. Helped greatly in the dry road tramp, but still present on wet roads. Solid cradle mounts in the rear also helped but did not cure tramp. Poly diff mounts made very little improvement, a fact that the BMW “diff lockout” fellow confirmed to me; he tried poly but he needed solid aluminium diff mounts to achieve any success. I agree with a previous contributing forum member that poly rebounds at a very high rate and can make the situation worse despite reducing movement. Axles; at great expense I made up some big/small high strength axles to a torsion ratio of 4 to 1 like the Camaro and CTSVs; result was only a minor improvement. Despite the advertising hype from GM, I later confirmed that they drew the same conclusion and used electronic TC control; no wheelspin = no tramp. Funny how BMW and Mercedes also reached the same non-engineering solution.

Disappointingly, I have found minimal ideas from this forum despite the purpose of having a forum to share knowledge.

I found that the aftermarket generally has poor knowledge of the cause let alone the solution. When I saw poly bushes being sold with their inner tubes shorter than the poly, I knew they had no idea how their own joints actually worked. Discussion with several firms both in AMERICA and Australia soon made me conclude they were more interested in drag racing traction rather than curing wet road tramp.

The best free thinker on this subject has been “Hopnot”. Treating the end product at the wheels and not the cause at the engine, was a great solution (he does use a simple engine steady though). Cheap $100 dampers at the wheels to dampen the wheel resonance works. Same as putting your finger on a resonating crystal glass. Funny how other manufacturers have spent millions and failed as they never thought of the easy option. Annoyingly, it is too hard, so far, to fabricate mounts on the subject car (Commodore 2007-2017) and the Camaro (2010-2018).

So what has the forum offered? Grippy tyres I think but remain confused by Cibrachrome, rubber prop by Greg, and reference to Mu curves and models by others, being of little actual help. I remain amazed that huge companies like Ford sell Mustangs with IRS that have horrendous tramp. Solutions being left to the aftermarket and as I have found, they don’t test on wet roads and hence I have no faith in their ideas. Hopnot, GM, BMW, Ford and Mercedes would like to speak to you. R

http://www.edy.es/dev/docs/pacejka-94-parameters-e...


Norm

If your question to me is about the usage tire properties related to power hop and tramp, which one of these tires do you think has the likelyhood of a problem ? And the Oz tire selected for the GMX521 program submission were 245/50R19 Yokohama Advant S/T at 32 psi on the Goat but faded to the 'Stones needed for the global market. Too bad your concerns don't show up anywhere on the "Voice of the Customer" mission statement for the G8. The Market clearly doesn't feel your pain I'd say !.

• http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=500608c7-0004-4572-adec-a1

Norm, thanks for the modelling reference. I presume the main manufacturers have access to the same or similar models. The outcome is that their IRS cars all seem to tramp, so does this mean the models are of no help, or perhaps other factors like cost override. I see no value in this model in the situation of working on cars that have already been designed and are in production and tramp. I was hoping to obtain a direction from forum members.

Cibrachrome, thanks for the reply and the reference to the “Goat”, an Australian GMH “Monaro” sold in America as the Pontiac GTO that uses a simple semi trailing arm that Greg incorrectly assumed. The subject car is very different, the only common element being both tramp like crazy. I find it difficult to follow your posts. The subject cars, Australian VE Commodores (the G8 and GXP is the same vehicle except the G8/GXP is sold in America and is left hand drive), and the near identical Camaro since 2010. They use 245/45/18 and 245/40/19 Bridgestone Pontenzas in Australia and a variety of similar grip tyres in America. If you think that I am the only person worried about tramp, then you are mistaken. Ask BMR or gforce1320 for verification. If you have a clear suggestion to solve the problem, perhaps with tyre choice, then please give it in plain English. The Pontenzas are very grippy tyres with stiff sidewalls in the 40/45 profile. A low profile that I personally dislike for road cars. If you know of better road tyres, please list them. The simple rule “no wheelspin = no tramp” holds true, so grip is king. The link below shows the rear end in good detail.

• http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=37967952-2345-42f0-bb37-b7

Not sure what tire resources you have nearby, but I took a look at tire constructions and construction modifications that were going on at the time. Without a doubt, somebody was having trouble with the Bridgestone 245/45R18 and 245/40R19 submissions. (These are all on 8.5" rims).

If you want 'grip', there was a Goodyear and a Continental at the top of the list in the 18" size. In 19", there is a Michelin and a BFG that look interesting. If you want to go off the beaten path, There is a wizzbang Pirelli in 245/50R19 that showed up as the perfect Artgum Eraser. (Lots of real rubber instead of fake rubber.)

Now. Here is a cheap experiment to run on your car that may reveal the answer you seek. What I see in most of these tests is wayward Mx (Tire overturning moment). Not the stiffness so much, but the DC value. It's equivalent to the scrub radius you would think about on a steered upright. Under power, (as in MASSIVE power application) this design 'feature' is a player in torque induced steer (as in break your fingers from steering wheel fight). What I recommend is that you reverse your tires in the rims (outside sidewall now mounted inside). This may reverse the sign of Mx (unless its rotation direction dependent). The tramp may get horribly worse or get much better.Only need to do the rears. Next play, you would add wheel spacers to change the effective rear scrub radius and witness a change in tramp. You won't have access to spacers with negative thickness, but if the phenom is much worse, a change in wheel offset would make sense at this point. Tires and wheels have to fit the wheelhouse, though.

Then report back.

Hans Pacejka is one of the top authorities on tire behavior and how to model it. I suggest looking at the mu-slip curve more for its shape and what that might imply. It's more difficult to keep your tires operating within, say, 0.02g of a sharp peak than within the same 0.02g of the top of a wider one with more gradual curvature. I provided the link mostly to point you at how the "C" and "D" terms mentioned by Ciba fit into this.

Here's another Pacejka link that I only had to type his first initial and last name to find. https://books.google.com/books/about/Tyre_and_Vehi...


On "no wheelspin = no tramp".
In a front engine/RWD car with more than half of the static weight being carried by the front tires, engine torque (briefly assisted by sudden clutch engagement) times overall gearing in 1st gear and divided by drive tire rolling radius may be putting you in a situation where wheelspin with reasonably normal road tires simply cannot be avoided. Keep in mind that anti-squat for most IRS systems tends to be significantly lower than what is possible with a live axle system intentionally designed for hard launching. Meaning that you aren't going to get as much traction help from near-instantaneous load transfer to the rear tires. Nor would I expect tires with higher vertical stiffness to cope as well with sudden traction loads as more compliant tires. Wrinkle-wall slicks were developed to serve a very specific purpose . . . and they aren't much good for anything else.

I'm quite aware of the unhappiness over the electronic approach GM has taken in the 6th generation Camaro (Alpha chassis), most noticeably in the supercharged V8 versions fitted with manual transmissions.

Norm

I was obviously wrong on the suspension geometry. I'd observe that the traction forces are not directly resolved longitudinally but instead go through those red NVH bushes (they provide the longitudinal compliance and damping at the wheel) and the pivots. That setup works well for 150 hp front wheel drives. My experience is that a longitudinal arm (eg Chapman strut) that directly resolves the traction forces is a lot less trouble than messing about with nice packaging friendly designs.

Now as to solutions. I've told you what worked on the Carlton. You complain that an owner can't fit that solution. True-ish. Nonetheless that indicates that at least some manufacturers were aware of the problem and knew how to solve it mechanically. Since these days it can be solved with correctly calibrated traction control then you'll no longer see OEM mechanical solutions for it. That's life. You seem to have found an aftermarket solution. Great, go and fit that.

The reason you are getting little traction here is that there isn't a big bumper book of secret solutions with the answers written down, problems have to be defined and investigated before most solutions can be applied. Different cars may need different solutions. I'd estimate that a proper mechanical resolution of that problem would cost about 1000 hours of engineering time and add about $200 in parts to the cost of the car, or about $1000 on the selling price. That is not small potatoes.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Thankyou to Cibachrome, Norm and Greg for the type of replies that I was seeking initially from an engineering forum.

Greg, GM invested huge dollars in seeking a solution, as did the others, way more than you suggested and still came up short. I suspect that they ran out of ideas rather than money. Seems the white flag solution using TC wins in the end! I bet future experimental models will have engine dampers and horizontal rear hub dampers, if they have read this forum that is. Pity the rubber prop didn't find its way throughout GM.

Ciba, I will try to find, borrow or steal different offset wheels and see what happens. Not much clearance to the bodywork but maybe a little will be enough to help. I am keen on Michelin Pilot Sport 4 but they seem to love the low 30/35 series profile that pleases the looks dept but not the usefulness dept. The weight of the huge wheels and tyres these days is massive (mine are 26kg). GOPro vision of a wheel tramping is scary as it wobbles around with great energy. The American fascination with drag racing means that little can be achieved with road going tyre options. I was banned from a web site simply because I pointed out to PeddersUSA that their poly joints were inappropriate due to geometry squish issues. Rule apparently is to never critise a forum sponsor, even if they sold inappropriate "bushes" to an American market that seldom questions authority. PeddersUSA went bankrupt soon after!

Norm, thankyou for your input. Yes likely that GM, BMW, Merc etc used these tools but all reached the same conclusion; to use electronics. Hotup offshoots like Aussie HSV, Harrop and Walkinshaw are good at bolting on extra horsepower like superchargers and soon found the tramp issue in spades. They simply used the "tune the TC" solution hence making the extra power of little benefit. Driving one of their rocket ships, I remember getting wheelspin at 160 kph on dry pavement, a scary experience. Their high HP mods mean the tweaked TC now eliminates wheelspin at a very early stage, and thankgoodness really for these cars are missiles.

Conclusions: don't believe the advertising hype from manufacturers or from (most) vested interest aftermarket. IRS has indeed great advantages over live rear ends, but the downside seems to be you must deal with tramp issues. I am aware that you could always manually lift the throttle, as if that will ever happen! R

"GM invested huge dollars in seeking a solution," cite please?

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

When I worked with GM products we used to come up with solutions to the problems we found, and the respective GM division would say, "Oh we know that but we can't afford to put it into the car". Now that may be true, or it may be CMA. A RUT prop is an expensive proposition and at $200 would be a deal breaker for many programs I have worked in, especially if an electronic fix is available.

Holden in particular are not famous for over-engineering their cars.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Info to follow. I will attempt to attach photos first.

• http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=2ffea99e-cf2e-46bc-92ab-67

Here's the other end.

• http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=b9c806d2-1b14-4dd7-a587-c7

I’ve read the entire thread and guess I have little to add. I will be testing my setup for torsional stiffness at the differential pinion with the axles locked – maybe this info will be useful as it will represent a solidly mounted differential carrier with stock (and later poly?) carrier bushings.

I’m putting a 2011 Gen 5 Camaro (Zeta Platform) rear suspension in a ladder chassis. I have the differential carrier installed and ready for load testing. Load testing will consist of locking the axle shafts and applying torque to the pinion flange to load all the connections and parts. The load testing will include measuring the torsional stiffness, which will be collective of pinion axis, and axle shaft axis torsional stiffness. I will use this as a baseline for future carrier bushing replacement. I have installed the carrier mounts rigidly in the chassis but have retained the stock GM carrier bushings for now. I have thus eliminated the stock GM cradle which attaches the entire rear suspension and differential carrier to the structure of the car through four large bushings. These bushings are huge (3 ½ inch diameter) and that has to provide significant deformation for the whole rear end (and likely present secondary vibrations between the differential carrier and suspension as separate flexible elements?). These bushings are designed for lateral as well as vertical compliance. The stock cradle itself appears to be an effectively rigid shell structure and I wouldn’t expect much deflection from it. But the bushings? Also, the Zeta platform has those “L” shaped upper control arms bushed to provide fore-aft compliance at the top of the upright (hub carrier?). The geometry of the lower attachment of the control arms to the upright is not physically describable – you must first thoroughly understand astronomy. The stock driveshaft has Giubo joints at each end and a single universal joint in the center. Enough said about that!

Have you measured the collective torsional rigidity of your entire assembly? Has anyone done this?

Bob

You should see quite an improvement in secondary ride and handling when you replace the subframe bushes with solid mounts. Road noise and diff whine will get worse. You may see a reduction in linear range understeer, if they have used the compliance of those bushes correctly. " stock cradle itself appears to be an effectively rigid shell structure " - no such thing!

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

In rechecking my structural design for the differential carrier mounts, I note that the load on each of the three carrier mounts is different since there is rotation about two axis. Is there any kind of torsional vibration possible from this? I had ignored this, however, if individual axle torsional stiffness is relevant, could two axis sympathetic torsional vibration occur?? I can’t find any references on this. I'm out of my league.

Bob

Ah, you mean that the torque in the propshaft is 1000 Nm, and in the axle is that times the axle ratio?

What will happen is that the diff nose will not just pitch in response to torque, but the it will also roll. That may explain why people put the third diff mount to one side of the pinion. The net effect is to put some angle into each of the inboard CV joints on the halfshafts, and the rear Gibo. They are all designed to cope with that and are effectively true CV joints so you don't see much vibration from them.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Buggar, well done, nice to know I’m not Robinson Crusoe after all. I have solid cradle mounts and found that of course movement in the cradle is zero. I too rethink the cradle is over designed and did contemplate (for 30 seconds) making up a complete rear tubular cradle mainly to mount the upper and lower “wishbone” arms parallel to the vehicle centreline to avoid any joint squish with spherical joints, stiffer rubbers or poly. But not done so far. The only weak point that I can see is the mounting for the lower trailing arm, GoPro video does show that this bracket is suspect as it seems to vibrate. However, by far the biggest movement is the diff itself so I applaud your work. As previously stated, google “BMW diff lockout” and you will find that using solid diff mounts, even with all else the standard flex rubber, seems to fix the problem in the very similar BMW setup. Note also that 2017/18 M3s also now use a solid cradle mount but stick to flexible diff mounts and electronic TC or “launch control” or similar advertising hype. Just be wary though, the TCs don’t always switch off, and I seem to be the only one who tests on wet roads where tramp is easily the most severe.

I also have poly joints in the diff; a suspect material as rebound in poly is very odd because displacements are better controlled but frequency is higher. My thoughts now are that a rubber snubber or damper is worth experimenting with, given that my engine damper was very successful. Be aware that GM tried this and snapped the alloy diff housing. Buggar, the jig looks good and I feel that a damper is needed though. If I can figure out how to attach GoPro vision to this forum, it makes for a fun movie. File type needs a special viewer though. Greg, solid cradle mounts improve the handling as expected as the result is that the rear takes a “set” quicker entering a corner. There is not a lot of extra noise, but yes there is a bit more. I am thinking that Cibachrome’s view that tyre (tire for some of you!) sidewall stiffness experiments may help. 26 kg wheel/tyre at resonance is a big worry too. Funny that circuit racing cars all use high profiles like 50; these silly 30 series profiles for the road must come from the non engineers in the team. Rollcentre is close to where the driver’s hips are and too hard to change so far to get more squat. (Camber change works against you though as it squats)

Instead of loading the pinion nose with a large moment to measure the roll and pitch stiffness, I suggest you use the proper driveshaft set in a fixtured position to represent the transmission tailshaft angle and height. Under full diveline torque load and suspension jounce, the U-Joint angle is going to tip the pinion nose to another sideview angle. I suggest you make your setup such that the driveline is aligned straight under this load instead of just layout position. Plenty of videos on this. You should know that 'some' racers run their motors opposite direction to make this problem disappear. Its a fantastic little know 'secret', but there are a few unsderground 'reverse' motor accessory shops with zippered lips. It all started with water pumps and took off from there.

BTW: The Camaro's have about 4% rear roll understeer (tad less on the SS) and about .08 deg/1000N lateral force understeer. Corvette's values are about half this, but the Mz oversteer is twice (as you could imagine).

The attach photo link shows a simple diff bracket to suit a BMW. The link to a description is https://bmw.spoolstreet.com/threads/clark-performa...

Not sure of long term use, but hey, don’t knock it as there are plenty of BMW owners that say it works. Bob, yes the welders solution, but certainly worth a try.

• http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=05a16da0-ac0f-4c1a-9081-42

Ron, is your suspension setup the same as the one I am using? I am curious about the vibrating lower control arm. On my unit, this arm has the non-spherical bushings on either end and thus defines the lower trailing arm plane, with the other lower arm having a spherically rotating joint. The bracket holding the inner end of the lower trailing arm (the one that you saw vibrating) on the stock cradle that I have is a U-Shaped steel stamping cantilevering off the cradle shell. Although the cradle shell is boxed at this attachment, I can see where there might be some deflection in the structure here, likely in a vertical direction at the inner joint.

I watched the BMR before and after videos of the cradle lockout and was surprised by how much the stock bushings move. With the Camaro bushing diameter at 3 ½”, how much of that is for deflection? It has to be too much!

I am making a new cradle setup to hold new control arms parallel to the vehicle as you mentioned. The stock geometry makes my teeth hurt! The control arms will be attached to adjustment plates on aluminum outriggers attached to the 2x3 frame rails. I have drawings but this site makes it too difficult to post them.

Actually, I’m building a rolling “test” chassis adaptable to a variety of venues and vehicle types. Most important toward this end is the adjustable inner control arm attachment plates I am using. This is to vary the location of the control arm instant centers and thus the roll center (I think more correctly called the suspension linkage fulcrum point), camber gain, track change, etc.
The vehicle design weight is 2500 lb. however the cradle mount assembly shown in the photos was designed to wheelstand a 3500 lb. car - the black iron bolts shown are structural bridge items (I used to design bridges). With this design, I could cut off the frame rails shown in the photos and hang the whole assembly under other cars. You can buy a complete Gen 5 Camaro IRS for US$400. With a heavier vehicle, I would change the suspension outriggers to steel. The outriggers are not installed in the photos.

Cibachrome, the differential will be solidly mounted in the chasses initially with the stock bushings. The aluminum angles shown in the photos are slotted to allow adjusting both the pinion angle and lateral offset, and the differential height (notice the A325 slip critical bridge bolts). The bolts have weld washers to weld it all up (not the bolts) when it is aligned, if necessary. I plan to convert the driveshaft to a conventional phased U joint driveshaft since it will have to be custom made anyway.
I’ve heard of reversing engine rotation but never knew why. Do they flip the ring gear? Doesn’t this just mirror the problem? Would this be the same as turning the engine around and running a V-drive?
I’m also studying the geometry in view of the roll understeer you mentioned (my setup is the SS). I need to simplify this geometry; is it all necessary? My favorite driving car ever, ever was my Dart go kart. Simplify.

Somebody mentioned wrinkle slicks. I have to do some more study on this but I believe they act in the same way as a buckling type ship’s fender on a wharf, only in a torsional direction. They absorb energy in a buckling mode which is non-linear and therefore capable of absorbing a lot more energy than if in a purely elastic mode. But, unlike a marine fender, a wrinkle slick can run out of buckling wrap and then go elastic. A wrinkle slick should be perfect for the acceleration direction but it limits other directional uses of this type of tire?

Does anybody have any ideas on the two axis differential torsional vibration as a possibility? The pumpkin weighs 140 lb but has a low polar moment of inertia. I really have no idea.

Bob

Bob, I will try to figure out how to send GoPro vision to this forum as it really is fantastic, especially the diff and the wheel tramping. My setup is the same with the exception that the lower rear arm that contains the strut is rubber mounted to the hub whereas your s is a letter version that uses a spherical joint. I made up new trailing arms with inner spherical joints, hence threaded for camber and toe adjustments. I also bought some 2017 Camaro toe arms that have wonderful spherical joints with legal rubber boots too; hence defining the arc taken somewhat. Note that because the upper L arm and the lower “wishbone” pivot planes are not parallel, then the original toe arm was designed to twist as the vulcanised rubber bush squished up and added a moment to this arm. With the amazingly good value spherical toe arms now available from Camaro, twist in the toe arm has to be zero as the spherical joints will only allow axial forces. A bridge guy like you will be familiar with the Tacoma Narrows bridge resonate failure; vision really is similar. Plenty of YouTube vision of the bridge as per this link and worth a look.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nFzu6CNtqec

Re the trailing arm mount. This is the weak link in the cradle attachments. It looks underdone and when the wheel tramps, the wheel wobbles around in a “figure 8 path” about the lower control arm hub link, a spherical joint in your setup. This means additional forces adding to the thrust from the tyre pushes/pulls the trailing arm and vision indicates that this joint could do with a simple brace. I was hoping to mount a damper “Hopnot” idea to the cradle near this joint. That is why I went to a solid AL cradle mount to eliminate cradle movement as limited room prohibited a damper mounting back to the “frame”. Pity the forum prohibits personal email contact...... but I will try to figure out the GoPro file issue. Building a tube cradle to allow proper top and bottom wishbones would allow good quality joints to be used. Please note that I agree with Greg, that the problem starts with the engine and the energy stored in the mounts. Fancy damping at that end may reap more reward.

The link shows a photo of the Camaro toe arm, a bargain at $100 pair, and trailing arm with an inner spherical joint and its bracket that could be stronger. The standard trailing arm being rubber jointed at both ends; you have to have at least one joint to “squish” to allow the toe arm to do its job.

• http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=63010543-7b56-4a91-8fb6-a9

Ron,
I wanted to confirm that this is the deflecting bracket. This photo was taken with me standing above and to the left front of the differential, looking back and down on the bracket and cradle bushing. The arm has been removed but the bolt left in place. I measured the sheet steel in the bracket and cradle shell and they are both 0.11 in thick. I can see where this would deflect.

Bob

• http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=ed3af24d-c13b-466a-973c-cb

BOB, your trailing arm bracket looks slightly different. The photo link of mine shows the original trailing arm and toe rod, before I cleaned it! Note the top part of the bracket. Looks suspect. The original TA has a very soft rubber bush and when tramping this bush obviously will flex. Close look at my GoPro vision shows some vibration in the bracket, and it does seem a bit light for the task especially when harder joints are used. If you zoom in on the photo you will see what I mean.

• http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=8634c69b-bc8d-421b-986e-6b

Ron,
Agreed, your bracket looks light compared to the one on the cradle I have.
How far away are you from testing your setup on the road?

Bob

Hi to Greg and others, I have attached a go-pro video comprising a few shots of various drivetrain pieces tramping showing a VE Commodore suspension as it tramps. Of note is the engine bay, first as standard, (note how the steering fluid aerates) then engine bay with the addition of a damper; a massive reduction in resonance and confirms Greg's theory that this is the start of tramp. The diff in resonance is an eye opener. The diff has two soft rubber front mounts and a single offset rear mount (in line with the crown wheel). Note how under acceleration the diff rises at the front pivoting about the rear, then resonates fiercely again pivoting about the rear.

The vision of the gear stick in the cabin is scary and more so as the Tremec T56 box weirdly mounts the gear change mechanism to the body, hence the front of the mechanism is attached to the shifter rails! Why on earth it isn't mounted fully to the box is presumably to reduce NVH, but seeing it resonate madly, obviously in tune with the engine, is indeed enough to make any driver lift the throttle.

The wheel hub end videos are more subtle and generally show that the loss of traction results in again a resonance of the hub that moves according to how soft the various rubber mounts move. Interestingly, using polyurethance at the joints does little to fix tramp, despite claims by suppliers of these items. The hub seems to pivot about the lower control arm mount (the one that also mounts the strut). Later models use a spherical joint at this location but defying theory, this does little to reduce the tramp.

Greg, I agree that the engine resonance passes along the drivetrain at the point of traction loss and basically it is a system resonance that shakes all the bits in this system. Solutions then are to make the system stiffer to raise the resonance point. I favour using the immpressive results of the engine damper and apply it to the rear sections.

I will take more GoPro of the rear end now that I have added solid cradle mounts, spherical joints, and stiffened the diff mounts too. Again, it is only wet road tramp that is worth bothering about to test a "cure" as dry road tramp is harder to induce and far less violent. More time spend in "slip mode" on wet roads allows more energy to be released hence is more violent, well that's my thought! I have followed the "Steeda" and BMR" results of "fixing" IRS Mustang tramp with stiffer rear joints with interest and note that they never seem to test on wet roads!! Their videos show only the third stage; being massive wheelspin. First stage is grip, second stage is slip/grip tramp, third stage is too much power overcoming traction and lots of smoke; hence proving nothing as a standard car using too much power does exactly the same thing. Solving stage two is the challenge. My videos also clearly show that the wheel does not hop, it merely oscillates from slip to grip. I have attached a photo of the resultant rubber marks left on the road when tramping and the grip stage is when the wheel/tyre is still on the ground. Live rear ends can indeed hop into the air but unlikely with IRS. I hope the video "attaches" okay. Otherwise I will have to post a link to something like photobucket. I can only try!

I await your comment gentlemen.

• https://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=2572b502-52c6-4be3-b500-d

I see that the forum only allows one video or photo link at a time!!

• https://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=ca3e5a52-8f9f-48b7-98c5-7

Another Go Pro

• https://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=dbd0c51e-02a7-4308-abeb-5

another one for the rear suspension to see what part moves

• https://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=849baea7-52bb-45bf-8728-7

M4v video files on this forum do not seem to work! Can someone suggest how to post videos here? They work fine one my iPad and on a windows 10 laptop, but not when posted via this forum. I will explore photobucket. Pity as they are very good tramp videos.

Forget about using Photobucket. There are a lot of people who are very angry about losing illustrations in their forum posts due to a recent change by P-bucket to stop allowing files stored on their site to be linked to from other sites. They didn't even allow already-existing links to remain. They gave people a "work-around", but it'll cost you about $400 US to P-bucket. Might be an annual expense, I don't use them so I don't know.

Best bet . . . post the videos up to Youtube and go from there.


Norm

OK, here's the surgical solution instead of homeopathic Bandaids. Your drive-line + tires + roadway is in a state of positive feedback control (negative slope on mu-slip ). You can attenuate the feedback loop by rebuilding the tramp symmetry into asymmetric geometry. This will/can/could cut the feedback loop gain down by a considerable amount.

So, staggard shock geometry F/A and L/R, different port and starboard axle stiffness, cradle mounts and ladder rung placement, different cradle mounts left/right and even different rim widths and air pressures should give you a respectable launch.

The other solutions are merely damping control mechanisms to dissipate the energy in the system. Geometric solutions reduce the (positive) feed forward loop gain by means of proportional (displacement based) feedback attenuation. Damping solutions reduce the derivative (velocity based) feedback. Pinion nose pitch has a positive integral (U-joint angle) component so a nose bumper helps if it goes "Up". Set the rest of the geometry up for best direct power transfer at the torque level you can sustain. A quasi-static test (lever arm on the front prop-shaft with a come-a-long on the end) should reveal the magnitude of the displacements to you. A K&C machine can/will also mimic this phenom if it's run in an "inertia relief" mode. (All tire and driveline forces and moments applied externally with minimum chassis restraints (F/A, yaw, lateral). On MTS K&C systems you can animate this process at about 2 Hz. and make some startling videos. Perhaps the A.B. machines can do it too (call Morse Measurements and talk with Bob Simon).

That's my Controls Engineering analysis of power hop, tramp and launch.

Great, thought-provoking post cibachrome.

je suis charlie

I thought the whole thread was great. Thanks to all for participating and I have changed some mounting thinking on a current IRS build.

I believe we are waiting for some follow-up GoPro. Cheers to Ron for hanging in there.

A rookie.

Agreed this was/is a great thread. What are your latest thoughts on your IRS build?
I'm going with stock diff. carrier bushings but a direct mount to the frame, no cradle.

Now I'm bothered by why they use the different-stiffness half-shafts. Has anybody experimented with different weights of wheels to tune the rotational vibrations? How about a set of those J.C. Whitney dynamic wheel balancing rings you just snap on under your hubcap? Fill them with that electro-magnetic shock absorber fluid?

Stay tuned for the YouTube videos, just trying to do it without getting 500 comments from non-engineers! I hope to take more GoPro of the current, generally well tied down irs. Still trying to adapt a damper to the hubs and would ideally like to dampen the diff. Solid cradle mounts give no annoying vibrations. The premise that I, and Greg, believe is that the resonance all starts at the engine seems true with the hard to understand bit being why doesn’t the tailshadt with its flex joints at each end apparently transmitting the vibrations. Stay tuned for the diff video hitting resonance, worth the wait!

I will update the IRS single trailing arm thread soon. I have completed one arm and now building some pedestals to weld to a table to verify the thinking. I probably won't go back and change anything that is already done but at least I will know what is up and make the best of what I have with adjustments. I am not counting on a fail, but just know there are always unknowns. (Tramp)

Of interest during this work might be how easy it was to push a whole spherical bearing out of a rod end. We have several ideas how to remedy that and plan on verifying. I only have four rod ends that can get hit axially. Interesting that it only took 2000 lbs to press out the spheical bearing axially with the rod end rated at 100klbs. We are looking into options but only four out of 20 or so could get hit axially on a regular basis.

This thread has got a couple groups thinking about tramp. In our "Hot Rod" breakfast group, one just sold his Camaro after trying most everything to calm the rear down. I am pretty sure he had already hard mounted the diff, but how far after that, I am not sure. In our offroad group/team we are experiencing some awful driveline vibrations. We have an over-all winning rig that will do 137mph on dry lakes, 90mph in 3' whoops, and climb 10' waterfalls, etc. Everything is rigid mounted to the frame. Bolted or 1.25" rod ends that get changed out every couple races at least. Unfortunately we cannot see tramp at the tires, or at least we think we can't. The tire tread continues into the side wall so we always think of chatter coming from the roosts as tread related. We will look closer now. (Exaggerated tread on the sidewalls can cost you over 70hp at well under 90mph as it is a fan.)

From a drivetrain standpoint we have 4 driveshafts. Only the rear one "moves." And they are HEAVY. They have to survive instant stopping of a tire hitting rocks and landing jumps. And the back one has to survive 90 mph solid rock hits. 4000 stall converters are used to divorce the engine from this abuse, and T400 Transmissions can run $28K. It is a crazy world we run in. Now looking into double wall per this thread.

The rear differential on the straight axle racer is intentionally moved as close as possible to either rear wheel. This allows the driver to center skid over most 18" rocks. Drivers will put a wheel on the bigger ones. The wheel protects the differential and somewhat the driveshaft. This makes the rear axle shaft lengths different. 40 spline or nearly 2" diameter is common. One shaft is around 5' and the other less than 2'. For weight and stiffness they are gun drilled. Newer double 4 bar triangulated suspensions have virtually eliminated any axle wrap, and rear steer. Historically, if there is anything going on minimizing bite it is first attacked with position sensitive shocks, then pinion angles and anti's. Common now is driveshaft CV's. They are trying torsion bars for driveshafts in some graded dirt series with jumps so they can land on the gas. In offroad we always have "wet pavement".

So thanks. We are looking at this from the different angles. (The more you know. The more you don't know)