Good Handling=Bad Braking?

[PoorManQ45]

It would seem to be that by upgrading your shocks/struts and springs to stiffer ones to acheive better ahndling would actually decrease your braking performance.

The reason I am thinking this is because the extra stiffness of the front suspension would cause less weight to be transfered to the front wheels while braking. Which would cause decreased braking performance.

Am I semi-right, or am I just way off base? Can you understand why I am thinking this way?

Can someone explain it to me?

*edit* With less weight transfered to the front wheels, wouldn't that lower the friction that the tires can acheive? Which in turn would cause decreased braking perfomance?
Modified by PoorManQ45 at 12:40 PM 12/23/2004

[Repo Man]

no.

[AZhitman]

I'm no expert, but I'd think that more neutral body position (i.e. weight distributed equally over all four wheels) would increase braking performance.

Think of it this way: Exaggerate the frontal weight shift of the braking effect to where the rear tires completely come off the gound (I know, extreme example). You now have 2 contact patches interfaced with the road rather than 4, which = 1/2 the available braking interface.

Dennis will be able to give you a more "educated" explanation, that was just the first thing that came to mind...

[louiegz]

I would think that the less dive you get, the more balanced the car should be for better braking.

[96Qowner]

Yes, my experience is that less pitch = better braking, and stiffer suspension = less pitch. Equal weight on all four tires is better than more weight on two. Plus, loss of traction is more predictable with a stiffer suspension.

Front braking is more effective than rear braking, but can't make up for the loss.

[Jeff Williams]

The theory is correct, if you only look at the front tires as providing braking. What is happening, is the rear brakes contribute more to the overall braking, if less weight is transferred to the front. What you actually achieve, is more controllable stopping. Less nose dive equals better steering. Better steering equals better braking control.

If you really want to improve your braking, replace your 10-year-old fluid, and adding stainess steel braded lines, in place of the old rubber ones. This will greatly enhance your braking experience.

[squeefoo]

The weight shifts forward pressing the front down onto the tires, so the whole thing becomes front heavy. The rears drag with less weight on them, if it's too stiff the weight won't transfer. Kind of a balance act.

Well... it's one way to look at it.

[AZhitman]

Yep.

That's why lots of pickups have ABS on the rear wheels only.

BTW, locking up the brakes actually creates shorter stopping distances in certain conditions than ABS-controlled braking.

[Q45tech]

Spring stiffness does not control weigh transfer only center of gravity divided by wheel base set the ratio. Body dive - rise just shows what's happening.

Soft springs, stiff springs, or body welded to suspension transfers the same weight to front tires..........ultimately.

Stiffer suspension or no suspension will have less [no] suspension camber gain so assuming the camber is correct -0.7 degrees static.........the less camber gain the more rectanglish the tire patch stays........a trapezoidal [from too much camber over heats the inner tire edge causing it to overheat [burn] and reduce friction..........it quickly goes thru the 200F optimum [summer tires] in the first second of a 2.5 second stop.

Lowering increases camber so braking may be less----- unless you correct extra camber created by lowering.

Not sure of the ratio as what counts is the total negative camber under load..........when the 26/120" ~~=22% weight shift at 1 G ~~= 435 pounds pivots forward on 146lb/in x2 springs..........435/292= 1.5" suspension compression..........the static camber increases by ~~1.2 degrees to the already 0.7 so what does your specific tire lose with 2 degrees negative camber vs. a lower stiffer sprung Q with -1.5 degree static camber and say 1.1 degree camder gain ~~2.6 degrees loaded camber.

My guess is an Eibach equpt Q [without camber correction] brakes worse than a standard Q [2 degrees camber vs. 2.6 degrees] as the front springs are only 15% stiffer thus the dive will be 1.3" vs 1.5" stock.

Lots depends on tires ability to handle braking heat.

Toe changes from level static to rolling to braking is another situation....... all depends on the contact patch shape under the extreme braking load......turning and braking is too complex for this discussion.

The better the tires the few and shorter the ABS pressure shut downs are thus the braking improves........... why some tires stop in 110 feet and some need 130 feet on the same car....................wet braking is a better measure than dry braking........see tirerack test.

Some tires stop from 50 in 110 feet some 100, some 90 some 88 on the same car...........22 feet difference from only 50 wet can you imagine 70 mph.

You get what you pay for [if you study this parameter]........most trade wet braking ......Some like Aqua tread 3 are awful in wet braking but the advertising lies to you in a legal way...........watch out for the words...Aqua, hydro.