No real pull to either side when it was spinning the wheel(s). It could have been both I guess.

 

Yes it will spin both wheels thats what differential does. There are different types that change the type of spinning they do. http://www.howstuffworks.com/search....r+differential

 

I understand how a real LSD works, but the electronic type seems to just use the breaks to slow down or stop the wheel that lost traction and allow the power to go to the other wheel. I'm not sure they will both spin in this case.

 

All cars with Mcfurrson (sp?) strut front suspensions have torque steer issues. The first mod I did to my MCS was add a RacingDynamics CF strut brace. Torque steer, steering jerk on rough roads and tracking are essentially gone. Carrol Shelby's crew discovered this trick when they developed the GT350!

 

Hi Dwight-> Wow, CF strut braces really did the trick? Just curious, where'd you get them and did you install them? (easy? hard?)

Also, how about tires and effect on Torque steer? I'm up for a new set (17Kmi on the factory run flats)... Thinking of going non-RF -not digging the idea of no spare or the mobility kit...am digging the idea of lower cost, less harsh ride and better handling... Wondering about tire choice effect on the torque steer! Thanks!

 

I believe you mean McPherson strut. My 2007 MCS has the JCW strut brace. It did not eliminate torque steer, anti-torque steer, or steering jerk on rough roads.

 

Reason why? The JCW brace is aluminum and runs in a curve to clear the air box. It will flex as the forces being generated compress the bar. The CF bar runs in a straight line between the shock towers. Ever try to compress a CF oval tube? Whatever, it works just fine on my MCS.

 

I see two aluminum front strut bars for the R56 on Racing Dynamics' web page, but nothing in carbon fiber. Can you point me to it?

 

Worked for me! Got mine at MiniMania, but only the front bar. They do offer a rear as well. Install was a snap, ~20min. Only thing I know for sure about tire effect is that non-RF's significantly lower un-sprung weight. That always helps all aspects of handling. As soon as my RF's look done, they're gone. Good Luck and MINI-ON!!

 

That's odd. I got mine from MiniMania and they told me who made them. They could be wrong. I've seen an EVO CF bar for a Bimmer and the design and quality looked the same. Life's little mysteries!
Here's a laugh for all. After installing the brace, I would hear an occasional odd, hollow, rattling noise. On checking, the brace was barely touching the air box. Put a 1/8" piece of rubber in to stop it. Same sound, but not all the time. Grrrrrr. Gave up, but finally found the source by accident. My tire gauge was rattling around in the door map pocket. Duh!!

PS: Left the piece of rubber in place, just to remind me.

 

The early mustang wasn't a Mac Strut suspension. The Shelby's used something called an "export brace" to tighten the strut towers (First used in something called the "T5" or European version of the Mustang), but that has more to do with holding suspension geometry than anything else. The real key to the improved handling of the Shelby Mustangs was to lower the upper contact point of the upper control arm to change the camber curve.

The idea of stiffening car chassis to hold suspension geometry goes back much, much farther than the GT350.... Carrol did a lot in his carreer, but this is one he can't take credit for.

Matt

 

Thanks all.... But I still have the basic question(s): How to reduce torque steer on an R56 mini? Can front strut braces reduce torque steer on an R56 mini? Or, what are the most effective ways to reduce torque steer? I'll root and crawl through the posts again as well... The answer didn't jump out at me! Thx!

 

I go by people's testimony, and I have read several posts stating that lowering cuts out 80-90% of the torque steer, and ALTA PSRS, which have been stated to kill 80+% of the torque steer. I have also read that the bigger rear swaybar can cut torque steer, but that's impossible. It can probably mask the effects mid corner, but obviously can't stop the front wheels responding poorly to undulations in the road.

 

I have a 19mm rear sway bar. It does not lessen torque steer.

 

My thoughts, exactly. But it was scary *good*. When you come from a torque-less Honda, torque-steer feels like a good thing.

 

I give up. Why do you think it's called "torque" steer? Engine torque flexes the shock towers and screws up steering geometry. Bumps do the same thing. Last time I checked, I'm pretty sure my MCS is a front driver with front steerage!

 

I started THIS thread on the Suspension sub-forum. Might be worth a read. I'm probably going with updated non runflat rubber first, then will see on the rest.

 

Eric,

This is not the same thread as it is not about general torque steer but "anti-torque steer", which is caused by the LSD engaging too quickly and upsetting the balance of the car. Anti-torque steer is the term used in the European forums to describe this condition and not the same as getting rid of torque steer.

 

Got it, sorry.

 

Eric,

Thanks for your input. I read that thread you linked. I think your problem that you mention in that thread may be a anti-torque steer problem. Your equipment (MCS, 17" sport suspension, LSD) is very similar to mine. So you may be interested in this thread.

 

but it's possible, I guess. Most torque steer on front drivers is due to the effective contact point of the tire being offset from the rotation axis of the kingpin (the strut, in the Mini's case). Increasing negative camber helps move this point towards the car, decreasing the lever arm. Increasing wheel offset does the same thing. Adding wheels spacers to move the tires out should make it worse.

If you're sure that it's chassis flex, then you might want to try the sub-frame connectors. Things like the TSW X-brace really tighten up pan flex in the cars more than one would think.

As far as strut tower braces go, some swear by them, but the only guy who did any measurements was Andy@Ross-Tech, and he found that the struts tops didn't move much. But that was the R53 chassis.

One other thing that leads to torque steer is un-equal length half-shafts on front drivers. That's why one side of the Mini's drive shaft has a carrier with the part of the axle that bends the same length as the other side.

The new Focus RS in Europe does some tricks that moves the virtual pivot point of the front strut axis outwards to reduce the scrub radius to reduce the effects of torque steer.

And torques can come from all over the place. I think the "anti-torque steer" that is the subject of this thread has more to do with the action of the LSD trying to make the two front wheels spin at the same RPM, which fights what needs to happen in turns and causes the front end to move to the outside of the turn, just like a locking rear axle used mostly in race cars causes understeer.

Personally, after having driving my Quaiffe equipped car for a couple years, I'm finding that you go through traction regiems: The first is just conventional operation where the torques driving the wheels are so low that you don't get the LSD into the game. Then there's "power out of turns" where you get some increase in power being put down as you move out of the turn and the LSD is doing what it's supposed to. Then there's "Too much power out of turns" where you're starting to approach an LSD regiem where the front wheels try to rotate at the same rate, effectively breaking the inside front loose and then overpowering the outside front tire, and this is when the front end moves to the outside of the turn.

If this is accurate, there's nothing one can do but be a bit less agressive with the eGas coming out of turns.

Matt