That's fantastic! Would you like me to set some braces aside for you? I still have 5 RMB's and TAB's at the moment but you never know how quickly they sell. I don't have any breastplates anymore but I'll make another batch if there's enough interest.
Topic starter
Posted : May 5, 2020 10:20 am
-TRD Sportivo rear subframe spacer replicas [Home made, got many left because nobody wants them :P]
Nóbody??
I am trying to remember what these accomplish...
Your available parts look awesome btw, unfortunate it costs so much to get them across the pond.
Not to go against Snelbaard but these dog bones were discussed in detail from long ago as they are suppose to change the roll center. I almost bought a pair from a Spyderchat member that had them made but after research I found out they lower the subframe and not correct the roll center as some thought. It actually moves it in the opposite direction and make it worse. It was made exclusively for the TRD Sportivo damper and the rational behind them is not understood and it might be for other reasons like to meet some sort of certification approval for some metric. This is why most people don't get them.
Posted : May 5, 2020 10:26 am
marsrock7 reacted
That sounds pretty reasonable to me. However I figured, if TRD developed these spacers to go with the Sportivo suspension, there might be some benefit to them we just haven't figured out yet. Also these spacers were the only Sportivo bit I didn't have yet, so I just couldn't stop myself from making some. Just to complete the puzzle. And if others feel the same way, well here they are 🙂
Dev, I was waiting to get the RMB.
About 2 weeks ago I was reminded out how nice this brace is during a slide where I lost control because of bad tires. The rear end felt solid, smooth and I was able to use the wheel to do a 180 under my control to move me back into my lane and into the grass. Most people think the most important brace is the mid brace, it's not. Some people think the pencil lower rear member braces are good enough, its barely noticeable. The only thing I don't like about it is the additional weight but its worth having the rear move as one piece.
Without this brace the Spyder always felt like it slid in abrupt stages where you cant get out ahead of it.
Posted : May 5, 2020 1:08 pm
WilcoMR-S reacted
I spend quite a lot of time on the highway and so when I had my 2ZZ swapped in, I chose to keep my C66 gearbox as it has pretty long gearing. I kind of regret doing that though, the final drive makes it so that the first few gears are really too long to get the most out of hitting lift.
So I figure I can just get the C64 gearbox which has markedly shorter (final) gearing, and drop in the C66 sixth gear so that I retain at least some hearing. I've been trying out several configurations on my highly scientifically accurate simulator (Forza Motorsport 3) and this really seems like the way to go!
This would be the new gearing with the stripes representing the gearing as it currently is.
Topic starter
Posted : May 8, 2020 10:41 am
Petrus reacted
The higher revving 2ZZ does not come into it´s own without a shórter gearing.
Looks véry good btw, your big mid brace, with the mods to fit with the front brace.
@Dev the dog bones have nothing to do with the roll centre. In the TRD info the relation is not mentioned. What they do is ever so slightly improve traction coming out of corners. Took me QUÍTE some time figuring out the geometry change. I have mine on OEM ride hight at the rear and have decided to fit them.
Posted : May 8, 2020 5:17 pm
The higher revving 2ZZ does not come into it´s own without a shórter gearing.
Looks véry good btw, your big mid brace, with the mods to fit with the front brace.
@Dev the dog bones have nothing to do with the roll centre. In the TRD info the relation is not mentioned. What they do is ever so slightly improve traction coming out of corners. Took me QUÍTE some time figuring out the geometry change. I have mine on OEM ride hight at the rear and have decided to fit them.
When you lower the subframe it changes the roll center, you don’t need literature for the obvious. It certainly changes the geometry. For what reason that might be a benefit for the TRD system as a whole is not necessarily a benefit on its own with other set ups simply because it’s not correcting for the change in the geometry from lowering, it’s making it worse. I believe by changing the inclination It possibly changes the camber without having to go lower to induce more camber naturally but that is guessing without any proof of what TRD was trying to do. If you use them in a system that is already low or with different offsets it might have a negative effect. There is a certain point where being too low makes handling worse and lowering the subframe has the same net negative effect of lowering with adjustable coilovers.
In the aftermarket world they sell products to correct the roll center. This is the first of its kind to do just the opposite and that’s why it’s puzzling. It doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing for the TRD system as a whole but it doesn’t make much sense from a logical suspension position.
It would be nice of someone were able to test these in an autoX but until then it’s controversial and for good reason.
Posted : May 8, 2020 6:51 pm
Píng; remembered. Made a mistake. It doés change the roll centre but it is not so much about higher, lower or correcting the effect of lowering; it is about roll centre bálance.
https://www.mr2roc.org/forum/index.php?topic=68590.msg814108#msg814108
We should best see it as going with a front strut brace.
I have it fitted and it works as explained.
Posted : May 8, 2020 7:08 pm
it’s controversial and for good reason.
´for good reason´??
By Jove man it´s part of the TRD Sportivo kit; Toyota themselves thinking it´s a good thing. The only controversial bit is the MR2 community not having figured out what TRD figured out. That is what kept bugging me.
The confusion it changing the roll centre but not being about that. It´s about the balance of front and rear responsiveness and traction.
As I observed it imo it should be disconnected from the lowering but matched to the stiffening by the front strut brace. I have disconnected it as I have not lowered mine, hence my mistake.
They are cheap and easy to fit. Imo TRD having conceived them is the good reason .... to use them 😎
Oh and roll centre tuning is rather trick; only a few connaisseurs have it on their Spyder 😊
Thanks Petrus! It seems the folks on MR2roc weren't quite as charmed by its design so it's good to hear you like it.
Topic starter
Posted : May 9, 2020 4:34 am
Thanks Petrus! It seems the folks on MR2roc weren't quite as charmed by its design so it's good to hear you like it.
I cannot fit more than your mid plate, otherwise I would.
Ground clearance RÉALLY is a thing here. Just noticed that the undershield has collected weeds agaín. Don´t see how but it´s there. Not a good thing to have dried plant stuff there. Don´t want to but may nééd to take that plastic off and leave the whole rear bottom naked: Better a bit of turbulence than a bush fire under the rear.
Posted : May 9, 2020 5:09 am
Don´t want to but may nééd to take that plastic off and leave the whole rear bottom naked:
I've been running bare-assed since my trip to California when the diaper got torn off by driving on their shitty roads. I haven't had any issues other than more frequent cleaning back there...
http://zero3nine.com/files/dospwn.gif
Posted : May 9, 2020 7:53 am
it’s controversial and for good reason.
´for good reason´??
By Jove man it´s part of the TRD Sportivo kit; Toyota themselves thinking it´s a good thing. The only controversial bit is the MR2 community not having figured out what TRD figured out. That is what kept bugging me.
The confusion it changing the roll centre but not being about that. It´s about the balance of front and rear responsiveness and traction.
As I observed it imo it should be disconnected from the lowering but matched to the stiffening by the front strut brace. I have disconnected it as I have not lowered mine, hence my mistake.
They are cheap and easy to fit. Imo TRD having conceived them is the good reason .... to use them 😎
Oh and roll centre tuning is rather trick; only a few connaisseurs have it on their Spyder 😊
The same argument can be made why didn't Toyota just adjust the geometry of the car from the factory. The same argument can also be use if lets say 3mm dog bone is good why not a 5mm. This matters because you just cant add them and expect a benefit because ride hight and spring rates matter when adjusting the roll center.
If you use the spacer it should be in the context of the entire TRD kit as there is a lot more to it like spring rates and damper design. If you were to use it in a different application and you are off on these variables that TRD has set forth when designing the kit to exact specifications then it goes against every thing the TRD engineers were accomplishing for the kit as a whole.
I found an interesting posts where some people tried it and had mixed results. Some people went though the trouble of removing them. Im not saying don't try it but there needs some context to what is being achieved which is poorly understood as it might not work for everyone outside of the TRD kit. The guys on this thread are long gone but they were competitors in AutoX not just for namesake but they actually won in their respective classes and understood suspension. I felt that if it were to have restored the roll center it would have been more popular but thats not what they do.
https://www.spyderchat.com/threads/trd-sportivo-roll-center-adjusters.8912/
Posted : May 9, 2020 10:20 am