Why do you raise your suspension at the strip? Here's why.
Thread Starter
Former Vendor of MBWorld
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,513
Likes: 0
From: In a box
W211 E55
Why do you raise your suspension at the strip? Here's why.
jpohl402 brought up a very good question elsewhere, and I thought the answer deserved its own thread.
There has been much discussion about launch techniques, but no quantification of them.
I've always said that the best way to set up our cars was to go full Comfort mode with the airmatic, then raise the car to its "off-road" height.
As far as drag racing goes, one wants weight transfer to the rear. Increasing the height of the car helps do this.
Here's the math:
Weight transfer = weight x CG height
........................------------------- x g = weight to wheels.
..............................wheelbase
CG height is the Center of Gravity height, g is gravity, weight and wheelbase are themselves.
Now a 1.8 60' gives you about a 1.15 g average (3.73/TimeSquared)
A 1.7 60' gives you a 1.29 g launch.
Lets estimate the CG height at about 21 inches, raised 22.
Wheelbase is 112.4 in.
1.8 60':
((4100lb x 21)/112.4) x 1.15 = ~881 lbs of max potential weight transfer.
With suspension raised, ((4100lb x 22)/112.4) x 1.15 = ~ 923 lbs of max potential weight transfer.
1.7 60' :
((4100 x 21)/112.4) x 1.29 = ~988 lbs
Raised ((4100 x 22)/112.4) x 1.29 = ~1035 lbs.
Hey, 50 pounds is 50 pounds. Sorry for all the math, but it helps.
Curious - Ive read on this forum the best way to launch your car is with airmatic off (neither the double selectable llights by shifter) which I believe has the car at a comfortable, smooth and HIGHER height...... unless I am wrong about that info, why would a lowered car provide better stability? Merely gathering info folks.........
I've always said that the best way to set up our cars was to go full Comfort mode with the airmatic, then raise the car to its "off-road" height.
As far as drag racing goes, one wants weight transfer to the rear. Increasing the height of the car helps do this.
Here's the math:
Weight transfer = weight x CG height
........................------------------- x g = weight to wheels.
..............................wheelbase
CG height is the Center of Gravity height, g is gravity, weight and wheelbase are themselves.
Now a 1.8 60' gives you about a 1.15 g average (3.73/TimeSquared)
A 1.7 60' gives you a 1.29 g launch.
Lets estimate the CG height at about 21 inches, raised 22.
Wheelbase is 112.4 in.
1.8 60':
((4100lb x 21)/112.4) x 1.15 = ~881 lbs of max potential weight transfer.
With suspension raised, ((4100lb x 22)/112.4) x 1.15 = ~ 923 lbs of max potential weight transfer.
1.7 60' :
((4100 x 21)/112.4) x 1.29 = ~988 lbs
Raised ((4100 x 22)/112.4) x 1.29 = ~1035 lbs.
Hey, 50 pounds is 50 pounds. Sorry for all the math, but it helps.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area
2004 E55 AMG, 2002 Porsche 996 TT, 2004 BMW x5 4.8is, 2004 F360
jpohl402 brought up a very good question elsewhere, and I thought the answer deserved its own thread.
There has been much discussion about launch techniques, but no quantification of them.
I've always said that the best way to set up our cars was to go full Comfort mode with the airmatic, then raise the car to its "off-road" height.
As far as drag racing goes, one wants weight transfer to the rear. Increasing the height of the car helps do this.
Here's the math:
Weight transfer = weight x CG height
........................------------------- x g = weight to wheels.
..............................wheelbase
CG height is the Center of Gravity height, g is gravity, weight and wheelbase are themselves.
Now a 1.8 60' gives you about a 1.15 g average (3.73/TimeSquared)
A 1.7 60' gives you a 1.29 g launch.
Lets estimate the CG height at about 21 inches, raised 22.
Wheelbase is 112.4 in.
1.8 60':
((4100lb x 21)/112.4) x 1.15 = ~881 lbs of max potential weight transfer.
With suspension raised, ((4100lb x 22)/112.4) x 1.15 = ~ 923 lbs of max potential weight transfer.
1.7 60' :
((4100 x 21)/112.4) x 1.29 = ~988 lbs
Raised ((4100 x 22)/112.4) x 1.29 = ~1035 lbs.
Hey, 50 pounds is 50 pounds. Sorry for all the math, but it helps.
There has been much discussion about launch techniques, but no quantification of them.
I've always said that the best way to set up our cars was to go full Comfort mode with the airmatic, then raise the car to its "off-road" height.
As far as drag racing goes, one wants weight transfer to the rear. Increasing the height of the car helps do this.
Here's the math:
Weight transfer = weight x CG height
........................------------------- x g = weight to wheels.
..............................wheelbase
CG height is the Center of Gravity height, g is gravity, weight and wheelbase are themselves.
Now a 1.8 60' gives you about a 1.15 g average (3.73/TimeSquared)
A 1.7 60' gives you a 1.29 g launch.
Lets estimate the CG height at about 21 inches, raised 22.
Wheelbase is 112.4 in.
1.8 60':
((4100lb x 21)/112.4) x 1.15 = ~881 lbs of max potential weight transfer.
With suspension raised, ((4100lb x 22)/112.4) x 1.15 = ~ 923 lbs of max potential weight transfer.
1.7 60' :
((4100 x 21)/112.4) x 1.29 = ~988 lbs
Raised ((4100 x 22)/112.4) x 1.29 = ~1035 lbs.
Hey, 50 pounds is 50 pounds. Sorry for all the math, but it helps.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,092
Likes: 13
From: Salt Lake City (but not Morm)
2003 E55 & 2014 GL550
I mean if we wanna talk first grade mathematics, perhaps those number can apply, but if we really are talking about weight transfer quantification.....
You have totally missed differentials of the three spatial dimensions. In the geometry of weight transfer relativity, a fourth dimension is added, derived from time, so that the equation for the differential of distance becomes:
Then must ask the obvious at specific time of maximum force at launch, are we using Euclidean Metric or the space time Minowski Metric.
Again, not even a mention of tensors in the formula such as the Lorentz Transformation tensor so I typed up a laymans version below.
In conclusion, I hold nothing against one that tries to prove his point through a 3 vector velocity covariant, but one must also lend credence to the four vector summation or one risks sounding completely scalar or being drawn into a paradox.
You have totally missed differentials of the three spatial dimensions. In the geometry of weight transfer relativity, a fourth dimension is added, derived from time, so that the equation for the differential of distance becomes:
Then must ask the obvious at specific time of maximum force at launch, are we using Euclidean Metric or the space time Minowski Metric. Again, not even a mention of tensors in the formula such as the Lorentz Transformation tensor so I typed up a laymans version below. In conclusion, I hold nothing against one that tries to prove his point through a 3 vector velocity covariant, but one must also lend credence to the four vector summation or one risks sounding completely scalar or being drawn into a paradox.
Trending Topics
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
6 Mercedes Models That Did NOT Age Well (But Are Somehow Still Cool)
Verdad Gallardo
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
Super Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 925
Likes: 2
From: Maine
Not an AMG :(
So, does 'drag force' not factor significantly into short drag races like 1/4 mile? Wouldn't the drag force be lower when the car is lowered?
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,952
Likes: 4
From: Hollywood CA
2011 twin turboed prius
Although the front raises less the energy is still wasted as the front drops back down. A better solution would be to tie down the suspension so the car could not raise up in the front when going WOT off the line.
The raised suspension on my car did not result in better 60 ft times,
The raised suspension on my car did not result in better 60 ft times,
Thread Starter
Former Vendor of MBWorld
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,513
Likes: 0
From: In a box
W211 E55
Juicee63: how many tries did you give it? Do you think your car has a stiffer suspension mitigating rearward weight transfer? I'm interested in your thoughts on this.
FWIW, the trick setup would be to program the suspension to stiffen the front and soften the rear.
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area
2005 E55 / 2008 E63
Has anyone shot down the track in reverse creating a mean front wheel drive monster? Just wondering. The looks alone may be worth the try. I may have to add distronic if this works...
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,649
Likes: 207
'03 E55, Range Rover Sport Supercharged, Ducati 748R
i have no way of knowing this but to me it feels like the suspension gets stiffer when going from "comfort" mode to "off road" mode. this could negate a little bit of weight transfer.
while i do run my car in "comfort" mode for the reason implied above, my reason for raising the car beyond "comfort" mode is based upon tire contact patch. my car is lowered which changes camber. by raising the car beyond comfort mode it reduces the negative camber and allows a better contact patch and improved traction.
while i do run my car in "comfort" mode for the reason implied above, my reason for raising the car beyond "comfort" mode is based upon tire contact patch. my car is lowered which changes camber. by raising the car beyond comfort mode it reduces the negative camber and allows a better contact patch and improved traction.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,952
Likes: 4
From: Hollywood CA
2011 twin turboed prius
Sure. You can always hit the button after launch, or let the car do it just before the 1/8th mile mark by itself.
Juicee63: how many tries did you give it? Do you think your car has a stiffer suspension mitigating rearward weight transfer? I'm interested in your thoughts on this.
FWIW, the trick setup would be to program the suspension to stiffen the front and soften the rear.
Juicee63: how many tries did you give it? Do you think your car has a stiffer suspension mitigating rearward weight transfer? I'm interested in your thoughts on this.
FWIW, the trick setup would be to program the suspension to stiffen the front and soften the rear.
It actually slowed me by 2/100ths out of the box. We noted that there seemed to be alot of wasted motion in the suspension when the car was raised.. The airmatic has alot of movement so we thought we could tie down the front of the car this would allow the weight to transfer w/o the wasted raise and drop of the front.
running in Comfort on normal ride height has given me my best 60 ft times, and also leaving , rolling into the gas off idle vs. the Power brake. On my next rental I am goingto try the trans brake throttle blast .
you're going to try WHAT!?!?!?
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,952
Likes: 4
From: Hollywood CA
2011 twin turboed prius
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,649
Likes: 207
'03 E55, Range Rover Sport Supercharged, Ducati 748R
you crazy nut!
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,952
Likes: 4
From: Hollywood CA
2011 twin turboed prius
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,342
Likes: 11
From: PA
S600, GL450, GLC 43
I mean if we wanna talk first grade mathematics, perhaps those number can apply, but if we really are talking about weight transfer quantification.....
You have totally missed differentials of the three spatial dimensions. In the geometry of weight transfer relativity, a fourth dimension is added, derived from time, so that the equation for the differential of distance becomes:Then must ask the obvious at specific time of maximum force at launch, are we using Euclidean Metric or the space time Minowski Metric.
Again, not even a mention of tensors in the formula such as the Lorentz Transformation tensor so I typed up a laymans version below.
In conclusion, I hold nothing against one that tries to prove his point through a 3 vector velocity covariant, but one must also lend credence to the four vector summation or one risks sounding completely scalar or being drawn into a paradox.
You have totally missed differentials of the three spatial dimensions. In the geometry of weight transfer relativity, a fourth dimension is added, derived from time, so that the equation for the differential of distance becomes:
Then must ask the obvious at specific time of maximum force at launch, are we using Euclidean Metric or the space time Minowski Metric. Again, not even a mention of tensors in the formula such as the Lorentz Transformation tensor so I typed up a laymans version below. In conclusion, I hold nothing against one that tries to prove his point through a 3 vector velocity covariant, but one must also lend credence to the four vector summation or one risks sounding completely scalar or being drawn into a paradox. 
Great Post
See yeah
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,175
Likes: 19
From: London, UK
No longer stock '06 E55, A3 3.2 Quattro, GLE 400d, R107 280SL, Golf Polo
It should give better bite as the car lurches back more, but the transition of the weight will take more time... I guess it comes down to if the additional weight transfer is sufficient to overcome tripping T/C / wheelspin, if not I dont think it will help.
The maths is pretty handy, but does this not tell you what weight transfer you need to achieve those 60' times rather than say what the weight transfer is given the G from the 60'?
I.e. you need GREATER weight transfer to achieve a higher G (lower 60') with a higher CG?
The maths is pretty handy, but does this not tell you what weight transfer you need to achieve those 60' times rather than say what the weight transfer is given the G from the 60'?
I.e. you need GREATER weight transfer to achieve a higher G (lower 60') with a higher CG?
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
From: Brisbane, Australia
2003 E55
Fill the gas tank or add a bag of cement to the trunk would increase the weight over the rear wheels.
The weight over the back wheels is not particularly relevant.
The 'perfect' launch involves applying the maximum turning force to the wheels (per unit time) that just avoids loss of traction through spinning the wheels too much. Some loss of traction may be needed to bring the engine up to maximum 'power' ASAP. Any spin after that is wasted. The real problem is that there are so many variables that affect traction - track, tires, throttle depression rate. All are independent and immeasurable.
A good launch is the drivers best guess at the rate of throttle depression that maximises traction for the conditions. Assuming the same track conditions and tires - 'practice makes perfect'.
The weight over the back wheels is not particularly relevant.
The 'perfect' launch involves applying the maximum turning force to the wheels (per unit time) that just avoids loss of traction through spinning the wheels too much. Some loss of traction may be needed to bring the engine up to maximum 'power' ASAP. Any spin after that is wasted. The real problem is that there are so many variables that affect traction - track, tires, throttle depression rate. All are independent and immeasurable.
A good launch is the drivers best guess at the rate of throttle depression that maximises traction for the conditions. Assuming the same track conditions and tires - 'practice makes perfect'.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 1
From: Mia
2005 E 55
Although the front raises less the energy is still wasted as the front drops back down. A better solution would be to tie down the suspension so the car could not raise up in the front when going WOT off the line.
The raised suspension on my car did not result in better 60 ft times,
The raised suspension on my car did not result in better 60 ft times,
The only time you should tie or limit front end travel is when the car shifts way to much weight to the rear tires, ie the car does a complete wheel stand out of the gate or hits the wheelie bars to hard and unloads the rear suspension causing massive wheel spin.
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
From: DC
junk
Sure. You can always hit the button after launch, or let the car do it just before the 1/8th mile mark by itself.
Juicee63: how many tries did you give it? Do you think your car has a stiffer suspension mitigating rearward weight transfer? I'm interested in your thoughts on this.
FWIW, the trick setup would be to program the suspension to stiffen the front and soften the rear.
Juicee63: how many tries did you give it? Do you think your car has a stiffer suspension mitigating rearward weight transfer? I'm interested in your thoughts on this.
FWIW, the trick setup would be to program the suspension to stiffen the front and soften the rear.
isnt this why oldgixxer shallow stages? this all sounds good to me the way he does it and this equation sounds dead on.
Banned
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,323
Likes: 0
From: orange county NY
'05 C55(sold)'05 E55(sold)'06 911C4S(sold)'06 ML350 '06 CLS55(sold),buncha slo bikes
