Well I have been knocking up some movement sensors, these will be fitted to the suspension top mounts, one part on the centre, the other on the fixing nuts on turret top, this will enable a reading of flex in the rubber top mount (STD & TRD ).

The movement in the rubber will show to be many times greater than the turret top flex, specially when using a strut brace with rubber top mounts fitted, as any improvement of reduced flex made from the use of a strut brace would be lost in the play of the rubber top mount.

Another 2 movement sensor will be installed to Turret top mounts to bulkhead centre, this will allow reading from the turret tops to the centre of the car, longitudinal, and lateral movement to be measured.

I recon rubber top mounts with any improved spring rate will allow for more geometry movement, than any present front turret top flex on chassis.

As for the standard, strut brace unit. Well I cannot feel any difference with it connected or disconnected; if any noticeably gains were present, I would notice this, as I do enjoy using my four.


When using spherical bearing top mounts,” the only way forward “ this will be more important, as any extra bracing the strut brace gives would be more beneficial because of the reduced suspension top mount flex point when compared to using rubber ones

I will be using a 5 volt ref supply to all movement sensors, the 8 outputs into a data logger, this will allow for movement readings to be cross referenced to braking, cornering G’s etc subjected to the vehicle at the time of tests.

Once I have fully finished the test rig, I recon it should be possible to install on any vehicle within 15 minutes, this would allow for a good understanding of the Celica chassis and body shell flex though out its range.


I like having black and white data, it’s the only way to see what is going on, as these reading will not be subjected to any human expectance of bolt on upgrades.

I am sure that most people want to notice an improvement, as such think that a noticeably improvement is present when in fact its not..

I have falling into this trap myself, but since testing everything using telemetry/data loggers, this has stopped.

Will post my finding using a 185, with pictures shortly.

Maybe other vehicles with variations of suspension, top mounts, etc would be worth testing. ? some up and coming track days would be a good starting point.

_________________
Black UK 96 205 shed with heater full on telemetry.

project six million dollar 185, faster, stronger, lighter than before.

All very scientific and thorough! Hope you get some good info with the setup.

There are so many variables that can influence driver perception of car handling. A good example is driving a FF1600 with the roll bars set fairly soft. Driving at 80% the car may feel very predictable and easy to drive but as you work your way up to the 100% level it becomes a nightmare until you stiffen it up.

The point is that to get any meaningful data out of the system you will need to ensure that you have a competent experienced driver behind the wheel and the track conditions are as near identical as possible.

I'm sure you have all this covered with your own car but other vehicles may not be endowed with the same level of driver talent

_________________
Don
GT4DC Chairman
1994 Toyota Celica GT-Four ST205WRC JDM 269bhp @ 0.9bar
1994 Toyota Celica GT-Four Special GT 590bhp @ 1.8bar
1989 Van Diemen RF88/89 Formula Ford 1600
2008 Nissan Patrol GU 3.0L ZD30DDTi 154bhp