nitram38
|
| posted on 22/2/07 at 09:30 PM |
|
|
Thanks for the idea but I think that this new set up will be ok.
I still haven't decided wether to run the car 50mm or higher off the deck?
With the 75mm suspension pump up, it will be at 125mm for speed bumps.
A standard rover has 125mm ground clearance. Maybe I am playing with fire by attempting to run so low.
Would 50mm be too low for a circuit?
[Edited on 22/2/2007 by nitram38]
|
|
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 22/2/07 at 09:43 PM |
|
|
i wouldnt want to travel round a circuit with 50mm under the car - you would lose more time by not being able to hit kurbs hard IMHO, than you would
save - in fact, i dont think there is much to save being so low! Aerodynamics arent likely to be optimal anyway to get any ground effect etc. Cant
think of any other benefit.
|
|
|
nitram38
|
| posted on 22/2/07 at 09:47 PM |
|
|
I used to race formula fords at only 20mm ground clearance !
I am more worried that the roads might also cause a problem too
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 22/2/07 at 10:13 PM |
|
|
Just wondering why you care about camber angles for a temporary jack-up to clear a speed bump?? Surely it's better to have the suspension
designed to give correct camber control under normal operating parameters and just let the camber go positive when you jack it up??
Liam
|
|
|
nitram38
|
 posted on 22/2/07 at 10:19 PM |
|
|
As you can see from my post I have changed my mind
I will now get more noticeable camber change and you are right about living with it for speed bumps.
Trying to be too clever I suppose !!!
That is why this discussion forum is so important to car design.
[Edited on 22/2/2007 by nitram38]
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 22/2/07 at 10:22 PM |
|
|
I don't think it is beneficial to go so low either. I would have thought that 100mm would be a reasonable level and I doubt that it will be any
slower than a car with 50mm clearance. Yes your CoG will be slightly higher and you will get more roll as a result but I can't see the benefits
outweighing the detractors.
Cheers,
Craig.
|
|
|
rav
|
| posted on 23/2/07 at 12:32 AM |
|
|
My vote goes for slamming it!
I ran my bec with a super low sump once (only because I hadn't got round to modifying it) - about 35mm. That was in a locost though with the
sump hanging down below the chassis.
In hindsight its a bit stupid having the sump hanging lower than everything else when thats the last thing you want to damage!
If I was building another locost, or building any chassis for that matter I think I'd be having the base of the chassi as the lowest point, the
sump flush with it. That way all the heavy bits in the car - driver, engine & box, diff etc are as low as possible for a given ground clearance.
So for a locost running say 90mm clearance (which is roughly what standard M3's and Elises run BTW, I measured a couple on the ramps in my last
job) the suspension brackets would need to be raised about 35mm on the chassis if using the same uprights and suspension geaometry.
For the road IMO 50mm may be a little on the low side and you'll obviously have to have its stiffly sprung and damped so the ride will be a bit
bone shaking! 75mm maybe? Dunno, how about 3", that sounds better!
|
|
|
nitram38
|
| posted on 24/2/07 at 08:29 AM |
|
|
I think I will go with 3", just incase I meet any unexpected objects on the road
The air suspension would then let me go up to a possible 6" off the ground.
It will also be possible to lower the car to 2" but it will increase my camber angle slightly.
Watch this space for updates
|
|
|
