I was trying to find some suspension software but really haven't so back to CAD modeling. I've also been reading a bit and and best I can tell building anti-roll into the suspension is generally frowned upon because it produces "jacking" which raises the GC. I am pretty sure though that with the stiffer suspension increasing the camber gain is a good idea especially since the plan is sticky 200tx tires that like camber from what I read.
This bit is kind of interesting. The unreadable chassis drawing was a mondial, I should probably throw that book away as I keep pulling wrong info from it....but I noticed it had a little anti-drive in the front with the front A-arm at 7deg. Today i noticed the 328 is the same
308 is straight
Attachment:
20240510_164442.jpg [ 2.36 MiB | Viewed 231 times ]
328 and mondial 7deg
Attachment:
20240510_162323.jpg [ 3.23 MiB | Viewed 231 times ]
So it looks like ferrari added a bit of anti-dirve on the newer cars, likely a result of modern tires getting stickier. My original idea was just mess with the bolt on lower A-arm mounts but I'm realizing that is probably a bad idea as it will probably add too much and jacking will become an issue which is why ferrari used the top not the easier bottom. The anti-drive force is an extra force so in normal use its just the springs holding up the car, but on braking there would be the additional anti-dive force+ the spring force which results in the car CG lifting. That can be somewhat compensated for in the back as any anti-squat for acceleration becomes pro-squat on the brakes so with some math the car can stay relatively flat and steady height I guess.
In the rear both cars (308/328) A-arms are parallel to the ground, so no anti-squat...likely because the cars just didn't have the hp to need it
Last, a work buddy has a buddy with corner scales so there is a vague plan to set the engine back in and try to get so weights to make the math a bit more accurate then my guesses. We should have a pool for closest to actual weight
Oh, last last I'd never ever hear of tire spring rate. I knew they flex and different tires ride different but I never really thought about including that in the spring rate calculations and don't recall seeing it motion ratio or spring sizing formulas. I guess on most street cars the tire is stiff enough that it can be ignored without creating alot of error, but as spring rates climb, the tire rate starts to matter and is somewhere around 1500lb/in and in the rear of my car is about 1/3 total travel the way I currently have it sprung which seems too big to ignore.