Rsb 101
08-05-2004, 01:33 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 160
Rsb 101
I seemed to be confused by this mod. Can someone explain it to me in terms of oversteer/understeer and science rather than vague layman's terms.
What i dont understand----most SE's are already super stiff in the back so what exactly do you benefit if you install it? By making the rear suspension even more rigid would mean that car would loose rear traction easier, because the force is redistributed more evenly across the two rear wheels (with RSB installed).
So if you go hard into the, lets say, right curve your left rear wheel would have less traction(since there is less vehicle's mass leaning onto it due to more equal distribution of forces and mass across the rear axle.) with RSB installed than without it. If rear suspension is a bit softer (w/o RSB) left rear wheel would dig into the pavement creating more traction since there would be more mass on that end. This of course would create more body roll, but between the two evils i would think body roll would be a 'better' evil than no rear traction.
I guess what im trying to explain is ....there is a point over which too rigid rear suspension actually detriments the handling in terms of rear traction. Someone elaborate...
What i dont understand----most SE's are already super stiff in the back so what exactly do you benefit if you install it? By making the rear suspension even more rigid would mean that car would loose rear traction easier, because the force is redistributed more evenly across the two rear wheels (with RSB installed).
So if you go hard into the, lets say, right curve your left rear wheel would have less traction(since there is less vehicle's mass leaning onto it due to more equal distribution of forces and mass across the rear axle.) with RSB installed than without it. If rear suspension is a bit softer (w/o RSB) left rear wheel would dig into the pavement creating more traction since there would be more mass on that end. This of course would create more body roll, but between the two evils i would think body roll would be a 'better' evil than no rear traction.
I guess what im trying to explain is ....there is a point over which too rigid rear suspension actually detriments the handling in terms of rear traction. Someone elaborate...
08-05-2004, 01:38 PM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 191
Most SEs aren't super stiff in the back. They have a firmer ride than a GLE, but still have substantial body roll. The RSB doesn't change the way the shocks/springs absorb bumps, it just changes the way the body rolls in a turn. Shocks/springs/etc handle force VERTICALLY, while the RSB helps to handle the LATERAL force applied on the car.
As far as handling is concerned, this means that more of the weight of the car is being held over all 4 wheels rather than being pushed outside of the center of the car, causing more weight to be handled by the tires on the outside of the turn. If you can keep your car as flat as possible, you have more potential for traction since you're splitting the force of the turn evenly across all four tires.
As far as handling is concerned, this means that more of the weight of the car is being held over all 4 wheels rather than being pushed outside of the center of the car, causing more weight to be handled by the tires on the outside of the turn. If you can keep your car as flat as possible, you have more potential for traction since you're splitting the force of the turn evenly across all four tires.
08-05-2004, 01:44 PM
#3
The stock suspension allows significant body roll by allowing the rear axle to tilt easily (one side is higher with the spring/strut compressed, the other side is lower with the spring/strut decompressed). It still compresses/decompresses in the normal fashion by compressing the springs/struts, therefore the rear end of the car can still bounce vertically (although it's damped by the spring/strut assembly), but the tiltability (for lack of better term) of the axle beam allows significant roll.
The RSB links the two trailing arms together so as to limit the tilting/rolling of the rear axlebeam, therefore drastically reducing body roll while still allowing normal compression of the rear struts/springs.
Now, I must ask the experts: Why wasn't this included stock... and is there a good reason? (A standard "'cause Nissan was stupid" answer is unacceptable, because they obviously did it this way for SOME legitimate reason...)
The RSB links the two trailing arms together so as to limit the tilting/rolling of the rear axlebeam, therefore drastically reducing body roll while still allowing normal compression of the rear struts/springs.
Now, I must ask the experts: Why wasn't this included stock... and is there a good reason? (A standard "'cause Nissan was stupid" answer is unacceptable, because they obviously did it this way for SOME legitimate reason...)
08-05-2004, 01:58 PM
#4
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 160
"As far as handling is concerned, this means that more of the weight of the car is being held over all 4 wheels rather than being pushed outside of the center of the car, causing more weight to be handled by the tires on the outside of the turn. "
i understand, but maxima has 60/40 weight distribution so with a more rigid and 20% ligher back end this will lead to oversteer in that right curve i was talking about.
"therefore the rear end of the car can still bounce vertically (although it's damped by the spring/strut assembly), but the tiltability (for lack of better term) of the axle beam allows significant roll. "
but the bounce and suspension travel is lessened by RSB, and cars can still handle great with big body roll...i.e. golf or any other high center gravity sports car.
i understand, but maxima has 60/40 weight distribution so with a more rigid and 20% ligher back end this will lead to oversteer in that right curve i was talking about.
"therefore the rear end of the car can still bounce vertically (although it's damped by the spring/strut assembly), but the tiltability (for lack of better term) of the axle beam allows significant roll. "
but the bounce and suspension travel is lessened by RSB, and cars can still handle great with big body roll...i.e. golf or any other high center gravity sports car.
08-05-2004, 06:38 PM
#6
Donating Maxima.org Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 308
Originally Posted by Skizza20
Most SEs aren't super stiff in the back. They have a firmer ride than a GLE, but still have substantial body roll. The RSB doesn't change the way the shocks/springs absorb bumps, it just changes the way the body rolls in a turn. Shocks/springs/etc handle force VERTICALLY, while the RSB helps to handle the LATERAL force applied on the car.
As far as handling is concerned, this means that more of the weight of the car is being held over all 4 wheels rather than being pushed outside of the center of the car, causing more weight to be handled by the tires on the outside of the turn. If you can keep your car as flat as possible, you have more potential for traction since you're splitting the force of the turn evenly across all four tires.
As far as handling is concerned, this means that more of the weight of the car is being held over all 4 wheels rather than being pushed outside of the center of the car, causing more weight to be handled by the tires on the outside of the turn. If you can keep your car as flat as possible, you have more potential for traction since you're splitting the force of the turn evenly across all four tires.
What you said sounds right on the money. And like Irish said once you driven with one, you'll never go back. Nissan should have installed these at the factory.
With a FSTB and a RSB the MAX handled good, now being lowered the MAX handles great. Minimal body roll in turns and sticks like glue (even with 29K miles on these RE 92's).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
thatcollegestudent
5th Generation Maxima (2000-2003)
18
10-05-2015 02:29 PM
Cumalot
4th Generation Maxima (1995-1999)
3
12-16-2000 11:55 AM