Quote:
Originally Posted by sperry
Well, I beleive all the Group N stuff is rubber because it's required to be the same material as the "factory" part per the rules... even though technically all the Group N bits are factory parts, since they're sold out of the FHI catalog. And they're all stiffer than the normal OEM parts.
So, I've got to think, if Group N rules allowed it, all the FHI Group N stuff would be poly or delrin or metal. If softer were better, why would they bother making the harder rubber stuff?
|
Despite what "she" might say, I don't think harder is always better.
Where is Austin when we need him?
I would assume there is some sort of trade off between stiffness and breakage. A little compliance in different directions has got to do something for you or everything would be solid non-compliant stuff for motorsport applications.
Soft mounting is not just about NVH as far as I know, it is also about about a designed wear/failure item/point.
Even on tarmac, there are impacts in non-standard compression/rebound directions as you hit the sides of rumble berms, drop a tire, etc... Those forces have to go somewhere? Metal fatigue is the alternative to rubber fatigue I would think. A worn bushing is easier to replace then welding a cracked/broken sub frame.
Also, If you solid mount an engine or tranny, do you end up having to add weight to reinforce those mounting points and/or use larger hardware to take the added shock load not dissipated in the rubber?
Shock loads break stuff, or so I get the impression. They sure loosen lug nuts with much less apparent effort than static pressure appears to.
