Printable Version | Subscribe | Add to Favourites
<<  1    2    3    4  >>
New Topic New Poll New Reply
Author: Subject: Susp design - camber gain?
rpmagazine

posted on 29/6/08 at 10:49 AM Reply With Quote
syd, which single seat class with wings has more than 30-40mm total suspension movement in normal operation?





www.racemagazine.com.au

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Syd Bridge

posted on 29/6/08 at 02:43 PM Reply With Quote
I really don't know if you're deliberately trying to be awkward or what???

What I was trying to say, is that a go-kart is only a car without suspension(whereas in fact, the go-kart suspension is the stiffness of the kart combined with axle widths), and that single seaters today are pretty much the same as karts. Did I mention suspension movement?

Nothing changes in the dynamic. The first thing any (race) car does on commencing turning, is to roll about the front outer contact patch, then the front and rear outer, and then things start to complicate.

The prime 'rolling' couple is the CoM about the outer contact patches. No matter how soft or hard the suspension is. Always was, and always will be. Newtonian physics and all that. I enjoy watching road saloons and sedans of any sort racing, particularly in the corners, and seeing all this in action. Those big old Jags at Goodwood are like ballerinas, dancing and rolling all over the place.. Give it a try, you might just learn a thing or two, by thinking about what you are seeing happening in front of your eyes. Take a digi video along, and play it back as slow as possible, frame by frame. You'll be surprised by what you see. The video is an amazingly powerful diagnostic, and learning, tool when searching for answers.

How the chassis behaves relative to the suspension is dictated mostly by spring stiffness, wherever they are placed. You can have a single swing axle each side with the hubs rigidly attached at the outer ends. Attach (stiff)springs from the outside to the chassis as high as possble, and the behaviour will be different to that when the springs are terminated at a shallow angle, or soft springs. Swing axle lengths become irrelevant, as does all the fairyland RC stuff.

Does the suspension move the chassis, or the chassis move the suspension?

You gotta decide if the monkey is swinging the elephant by its tail, or the elephant swings the monkey,...so to speak.

And therein lies the dilemma.


Cheers,
Syd.

Edit. Having read all that above, it should now be very obvious to all, that the importance of keeping the CoM as low as possible, can never be overstated. And thus keeping the rolling moments minimal.

[Edited on 29/6/08 by Syd Bridge]

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
rpmagazine

posted on 29/6/08 at 11:35 PM Reply With Quote
what I am trying to ascertain is why you are relating this information to this discussion and our previous discussions of road/track cars?
Suspension design on a single seat track car places an overall emphasis on factors that have very little to do with cars that require suspension movement.
FWIW if I were designing another single seat car I would place far less emphasis on what the RC does or where it is...I think we shall have to continue to disagree.
The available CoM is most often defined not by what is perhaps perceived as 'perfect' or 'ideal' but what we can reasonably achieve given the available components, the budget and the intended function and what we can construct. I know I can lower the 190kg engine in my car 50mm from where it is, great for CoM. But in doing so I need a new bell housing, gear change mechanism, change to coolant circuit, clutch release mechanism, a dry sump system. In doing so I would increase my total expenditure considerably and I do not have the flexibility there. So I would need to give up the option of quality dampers and the engineering in getting them set up correctly. Frankly the dampers are far more important.

[Edited on 29/6/08 by rpmagazine]

[Edited on 30/6/08 by rpmagazine]

[Edited on 30/6/08 by rpmagazine]





www.racemagazine.com.au

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
cymtriks

posted on 5/7/08 at 09:21 AM Reply With Quote
Ok here's my take on this debate we keep hearing between Syd and others.

Point 1
Think of the car as a mass supported by a system of linkages. If this car was supported by very soft (by which I mean a theoretically total softness) springs then it would be free to move about on its supporting linkages and would move about the geometric roll centres in every direction.

Point 2
Think of the opposite case. Make the springs very stiff or just replace them with rose jointed links. The car's linkages still move but only by microscopic ammounts. The important thing now is the CoG, the roll centres just drop out of the picture from a practical point of view. The car now appears to roll about the CoG with the springs just holding it up. The "suspension", in terms of deflection anyway, is now the tire. This is exactly what I think Syd is describing

Conclusion
In a road car the result will be some way between point 1 and point 2 so the car will tend to roll, in cornering and squat/dive, about a point between the geometric RC and the CoG. Given the stiffness of a road spring I would expect this point to be closer to the RC for a road car and closer to the CoG for a race car.

Comments all!

Especially Syd, is this what you've been getting at?

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Syd Bridge

posted on 5/7/08 at 09:53 AM Reply With Quote
Geez, I'm now convinced I don't write in English!!! Can someone interpret for me??

Did I not say that the car rolls about the outer contact patches, due to the roll couple formed by the CoM trying to go about the contact patch.

Cheers,
Syd.

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Doug68

posted on 5/7/08 at 11:28 AM Reply With Quote
I think this is the simple point Syd is making...

In theory...



And in practice...







Doug. 1TG
Sports Car Builders WA

View User's Profile Visit User's Homepage View All Posts By User U2U Member
TheGecko

posted on 5/7/08 at 02:39 PM Reply With Quote
Nice pictures Doug = I think they do help to illustrate the point.

My take on this:

In pure geometric terms it may be true to say that the roll centre is the point about which the suspension appears to pivot. In practice, as anyone who's done any roll centre modeling will know, the RC's move all over the place so the car obviously isn't actually rolling around that point.

In kinematic terms, the fixed point is the contact patch of the outside tyre and everything else moves around that.

The problem is, calculating the geometric roll centre is (relatively) easy whereas calculating the kinematic behaviour is much harder. I'm of the personal belief that geometric roll centres are still a useful fiction for comparing behaviour of different suspension designs as long as we don't start believing the car actually rolls around them! I might have a bash at rejigging my RC spreadsheet to work backwards from the outer contact patch and calculate the position of everything else i.e. chassis roll and both inner and outer camber angles. To do that really requires some knowledge of roll stiffness, roll couples and the cornering force and their relationship to teh suspension geometry. My 3 semesters of engineering (from 20 years ago) are now looking pretty shaky! (I eventually completed an IT degree).

Do there exist amateur level tools for doing these calcs?

Dominic

View User's Profile Visit User's Homepage View All Posts By User U2U Member
v8kid

posted on 5/7/08 at 05:09 PM Reply With Quote
What does it matter?

Surely all we are interested in is making sure the tyres get the best grip possible which means keeping them upright or 1 or 2 degrees negative.

In ultimate terms the outside tyre is the most important and in transition terms the inside tyre is only important while there is significant weight on it.

Apart from that keep it low keep it central. You can't change the basic laws of physics no matter how fancy the linkages or theory!!

So use one of the loads of free spreadsheeets around and check out that the wheels are always 1 or 2 degrees negative for your range of bump and roll and Bobs your auntie. Also I'd think it would be handy if the changes in camber were smooth with no sudden changes - would this corelate to the "roll center migration" I wonder?

Trouble is I find it damn difficult to achieve it and after a few hours of plugging away at a computer get bored and go for a pint

Three nights so far and I still havn't found a suitable compromise between the available chassis mounts and ones that give good camber change - Its a hard life being a Locoster I'm off for a pint

Ah I should have mentioned we want to have both ends changing by the same ammount so that the oversteer/understeer ballance stays the same. Some cars, including mine, tend to oversteer more in fast corners so adding a bit of of understeer at the limit makes the driving less tiring.

Now I'm definitly going for that pint

[Edited on 5/7/08 by v8kid]

View User's Profile E-Mail User Visit User's Homepage View All Posts By User U2U Member
kb58

posted on 5/7/08 at 06:44 PM Reply With Quote
http://www.2kgt.com/MarkOrtiz/2004_6.pdf
http://www.2kgt.com/MarkOrtiz/2004_8.pdf





Mid-engine Locost - http://www.midlana.com
And the book - http://www.lulu.com/shop/kurt-bilinski/midlana/paperback/product-21330662.html
Kimini - a tube-frame, carbon shell, Honda Prelude VTEC mid-engine Mini: http://www.kimini.com
And its book - http://www.lulu.com/shop/kurt-bilinski/kimini-how-to-design-and-build-a-mid-engine-sports-car-from-scratch/paperback/product-4858803.html

View User's Profile E-Mail User Visit User's Homepage View All Posts By User U2U Member
cymtriks

posted on 6/7/08 at 08:11 AM Reply With Quote
After Syd's last comment here's my revised take on this debate we keep hearing between Syd and others.

Point 1
Think of the car as a mass supported by a system of linkages. If this car was supported by very soft (by which I mean a theoretically total softness) springs then it would be free to move about on its supporting linkages and would move about the geometric roll centres in every direction. The important thing, in terms of how much roll occurs, will be the difference between the geometric RC and the CoG.

Point 2
Think of the opposite case. Make the springs very stiff or just replace them with rose jointed links. The car's linkages still move but only by microscopic ammounts. The important thing now in roll is the height of the CoG above the road, the roll centres just drop out of the picture from a practical point of view. The car now appears to roll about the outer tyre contact with the springs just holding it up. The "suspension", in terms of deflection anyway, is now the tire. This is what I think Syd is describing.

HOWEVER....

A search of the internet reveals a few threads on "force based RCs" which, according to people who claim to have modeled these, represent the true RC.

These are described as being higher than the geometric RC, part way between the geometric RC and the CoG

NEW Conclusions...

In a road car the result will be some way between point 1 and point 2 so the car will tend to roll, in cornering and squat/dive, about a point between the geometric RC and the tyre contact patch. Given the stiffness of a road spring I would expect this point to be closer to the RC for a road car and closer to the tyre contact for a race car.

However, as Syd has said, this is the initial event and after this it becomes "complicated" (his words!) so to continue the conclusions AFTER the initial turn in event and roll about the tyre contact the car settles on its suspension and adopts a stance partly based on the suspensions geometry, but...

Is this second event controled by the geometric RC, a force based RC or some other contact patch/RC/CoG relationship?

Comments again guys! We may yet figure this out!

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
rpmagazine

posted on 6/7/08 at 09:39 AM Reply With Quote
Geometric RC's and the theories behind them are an old tool to try to understand what happens within a very dynamic event. It is a tool clearly with flaws, but it has been around a while now as and with any theoretic perspective is has become somewhat reliable and predictive of certain events...but it is still only a tool.
Force based RC's are used with high end programs that we as mere enthusiasts cannot really access i.e. Adams etc. Agan it is a tool that manufacturers use and they would not spend millions without some reason, but they do also back it all up with a massive amount of testing and correlating test results with the programs that they use. This is one area that virtually all enthusiasts fall down on, partly because we don't have the time/skills/resources but also because we simply want to enjoy what we have created.
What does it matter?...well why do so many go to such trouble to work it all out? I was able through an acquaintance, able to ask some questions of the designer of the McLaren F1. He answered one of the questions by using the GRC theory and he took it seriously enough.
My concern is that we are treating the contact patches as static things are they simply are not, nor are they fixed points.
The other aspect to this is that we are discussing a single element of whole a cornering event, with the implication that this is the most significant element in a vehicles handling and IMO it is not really.
WRT keep it low and central, it is all a balancing act (no pun intended), particularly as to what is possible within our respective skills sets and finances. A good example is my drive-train: I *can* feasibly lower it 50mm but to do so is a lot of work and would absorb a lot of finances that are required for say good dampers. So I make the decision based on my set of priorities. I have a total CoG of 432mm which is reasonable and I need the money to buy dampers so there is no need to change. The dampers will have more of a positive effect than a 12mm OA lower CoG.

[Edited on 6/7/08 by rpmagazine]

[Edited on 6/7/08 by rpmagazine]





www.racemagazine.com.au

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
kb58

posted on 6/7/08 at 03:50 PM Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by rpmagazineWhat does it matter?...well why do so many go to such trouble to work it all out?

If you spend millions on an F1 team and lose by 0.01 seconds, that's a big deal. For most of us we're happy with getting 80% of the way up the expense/return curve, before it heads straight up in order to get that last 20% - we just can't afford to go there. However, teaching ourselves to understand what that last 20% is about is well worth it, though information on force-based roll-centers is not common yet. The articles I posted are very helpful.

That said, I'm not sure it makes any difference for the majority of us. That is, most of us aren't good enough drivers to even see the lap time improvement provided by the slightly better suspension. It's like a very small signal improvement in a sea of noise; it's going to be very difficult to measure.

[Edited on 7/6/08 by kb58]





Mid-engine Locost - http://www.midlana.com
And the book - http://www.lulu.com/shop/kurt-bilinski/midlana/paperback/product-21330662.html
Kimini - a tube-frame, carbon shell, Honda Prelude VTEC mid-engine Mini: http://www.kimini.com
And its book - http://www.lulu.com/shop/kurt-bilinski/kimini-how-to-design-and-build-a-mid-engine-sports-car-from-scratch/paperback/product-4858803.html

View User's Profile E-Mail User Visit User's Homepage View All Posts By User U2U Member
rpmagazine

posted on 6/7/08 at 10:25 PM Reply With Quote
Actually, having spoken to some F1 designers I might suggest that they do not take RC's very seriously given the other priorities such as aero. Same for CART.
The engineers I know working with Adams etc are all OEM engineers and they have refined their understanding with empirical work too.
The person assisting me (actually he is doing nearly all the work - a choice I made given the information and process is in the public domain) works with Adams all the time. He noted that his work in Adams seems to constrain the GRC much as we have discussed in the past (he has checked a few times to satisfy his intellectual curiosity), but it is not an intention but more of a correlation.





www.racemagazine.com.au

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
v8kid

posted on 7/7/08 at 09:25 AM Reply With Quote
Guys,

What’s with these TLA's? Its just too much effort to follow the argument and decipher the latest three letter acronym. Easy to fall into I know.

I’m beginning to have some considerable sympathy with Syd he offers an alternative explanation, poses that we should think about it, and gets sniped at from all quarters.

That would be OK if the counter argument was original but when it runs along the lines of – a very important person says so or look at this link to someone else’s articles - there is not a lot of credibility in that as an original argument now is there?

I freely admit I do not understand the significance of geometric roll centre migration or indeed 50% of Marks articles and since I have a couple of engineering degrees I am conceited enough to think it isn’t stupidity.

The original questions posed were to very well chosen and have made me think. In fact the unasked question made me think more.

I reckon the answers should be Yes positive would be a good idea, No roll plus, Never ever and the unasked question – what are the other wheel pair doing at the same time.

Syd is absolutely correct when we are thinking about one axle, we were the ones who jumped to conclusions. He is also absolutely correct about the basic physics, what the roll centre myth is doing is trying to give us a way of understanding how the front and rear axles communicate.

Remember the chassis is rigid (hopefully) and the suspension is not (also hopefully). If the roll resistances at each end are different the difference is transmitted via the chassis. I think I’ll do a Syd here and let you fill in the gaps.

Depending on the arrangement of the wishbones the roll is resisted via the springs ( and very expensive dampers) or the wishbones. That has an affect on timing only when considered in conjunction with the above.

We also have to bear in mind the original question there is no point in getting the blunt end to communicate the way we want with the sharp end if the camber is all wrong.

Do you remember the great debate over analogue and digital recording systems? I was suckered and bought a very expensive Lynn Sondeck system. The engineering was awesome. When after a few years I really listened to CD’s I was blown away and sold my analogue system for a much cheaper and better sounding high street setup. The moral is - the basics source was right in the CD and no amount of gilding the lily on the analogue system could improve on what was never there in the first place.

Same with the fundamental architecture of the chassis - it’s worth the effort to get it right in the first place.

So there it is the thoughts of Chairman V8Kid. Can I ask you a simple question to be answered simply in your own words? “what is the effect of roll centre migration” (no TLA’s)

I don’t think anyone knows!

View User's Profile E-Mail User Visit User's Homepage View All Posts By User U2U Member
Syd Bridge

posted on 7/7/08 at 10:21 AM Reply With Quote
Someone agreeing with me!!!! I better check I'm still alive!

Until you lot let go of those cursed 'roll centres', of any flavour, then any hope is lost.

Rollcentres of any type DON'T come into the design process of a road or race car. Anyone telling you that they do, and professing to be a designer, is pulling your whatever. They may be examined 'after the fact', when the car is up and running, just as an academic exercise, but they just don't dictate design parameters.

It's all about packaging, but the race car can then be designed for specific behaviour which the road car compromises on, and placement of critical components can be properly designed in.

Move a spring mount up or down a little, indeed even change spring poundages, and all the GRCs, and even the dynamic, can change appreciably, with even some very small changes in springs and support placements. It's the big picture, not the fuzzy little one, that counts.

As I put previously, 'does the monkey swing the elephant, or the elephant swing the monkey'?

Cheers,
Syd.

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
rpmagazine

posted on 7/7/08 at 11:18 AM Reply With Quote
V8 and syd, the problem we (us doubters have) is that we have exhaustive literature, tools and well respected professionals constantly working in the field all noting that the way we have chosen is a reasonable way forward.
On the other hand we have Syd, an essentially anonymous forum member telling us they are all wrong and only he has the truth and that so far it comes down to 'the car rolls about the outer contact patch and then it gets a lot more complicated'
Apart from the mistrust of an obviously messianic allusion I have not yet seen any theory from syd.
So perhaps this is the time: Run us through the whole 'more complicated' bit of the cornering event and also inform us as to your specific background so that we can judge the extent of your experience. At the moment all I can see is the links you have to what looks like a ladder chassied 911 replica powered by a cast iron Ford Essex V6.





www.racemagazine.com.au

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
pbura

posted on 7/7/08 at 11:46 AM Reply With Quote
As I understand it, in a symmetrical suspension (one in which the geometric roll center is constrained), the force-based roll center and the geometric one will be very close. So, it's a decent tool for the home builder to use to estimate spring requirements, etc., in the absence of data acquisition sensors and racks full of tires, springs, shocks, and antiroll bars.

For the designer, there's no sacrifice involved in centering the GRC. You don't give up camber or Cg. So, I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Nor Syd's vehemence.





Pete

View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member
v8kid

posted on 7/7/08 at 03:30 PM Reply With Quote
Blimey we are getting a bit heated aren’t we? You know its not heresy to question or argue beliefs held by the majority nor do we live in a society that treats those who differ as outcasts. Do we?

I don’t think all well respected engineers do think the same way and there are well respected engineers who question the value of roll centres. Dare I mention Mitchell? Dixon? Engineers not journalists so their arguments are not as forcefully presented.

So what if we do get the GRC, (now look what you’ve done I’ve slipped into TLA’s myself) so it does not move. What difference does it make?

How does it affect the cars handling? Specifically what effect does roll centre migration have?

Third time I’ve asked with no answer and that’s because no-one knows. – So what difference does it make achieving something if you don’t know what you are achieving?

Jolly good original question by garage19 what? It certainly got me thinking that the only important thing is maximising the tyre grip and balancing the grip between the ends of the car at all times.

That means the camber has to be appropriate and the roll stiffness has to change the way we want it to with wishbone movement.

Now we are expected to believe that roll centres are more than just a measure of the roll stiffness and restraining the movement of the roll centre is some holy grail to be achieved without regard to camber.

Admittedly the roll center is a very rough approximation and the relative heights of the instantaneous roll centres front to rear do indicate which way the roll balance is likely to go but we can calculate that from charting the roll stiffness.

For all Syd is berated for not giving detailed explanations I don’t see his detractors making any contributions – apart from saying it must be so ‘cos a clever man says so..

So here’s your big chance answer the question.

P.S. Since you ask I have a HND in EEE ( Electrical and Electronic Engineering) , a degree in Mechanical Engineering, and work as a Design Engineer but I don’t think that matters as long as you can structure a good argument. If I recall correctly Cymtricks is no slouch either if I seem to remember reading a very informative dissertation on chassis design correctly backed up with experimental results.

View User's Profile E-Mail User Visit User's Homepage View All Posts By User U2U Member
Syd Bridge

posted on 8/7/08 at 09:09 AM Reply With Quote
Mock as you may, Mr. Magazine, but one of those 'ladder chassised 911's' (which are actually space frames if you got close enough to look) designed and built by an aussie mate of mine, nigh on 20 years ago, would and did kick ten bells out of genuine 911 turbo's of the day around a circuit, and powered by a measly 200 hp Cosworth(with a cast iron block!), against 300hp+ of the 911. Those cars will still do it today, and do at track days.

The essence of the superiority is in the suspension. Double wishbones all round and coilovers. And the 'ladder framed grp 911' also was about 200 kg's lighter.

Then I was fortunate enough to be invited to work alongside some very well known designers, who laughed when I brought up the subject of 'roll centres'. To a man, they all asked, 'have you been reading Staniforth or something similar?'

It was a couple of sentences by Gordon Murray, whilst writing about the McLaren F1, that made me ask pertinent questions, and as I worked more within the confined space that these designers operate in, I gathered the answers and the mindset that these fellas operate with.

Today, this small band still keep things close to themselves, and I don't have anywhere near the knowledge they have on the subject.

But, like them, I'm willing to learn and more importantly, to think for myself, and question things that just don't make any sense to me whatsoever. Like 'roll centres', no sense whatsoever.

Think for yourself, I've given you enough clues to come to your own conclusions.

Cheers,
Syd.

I've heard it said, that sarcasm is the poor friend of anger, or the lowest form of wit. Both fairly sad, in reality.

[Edited on 8/7/08 by Syd Bridge]

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
rpmagazine

posted on 8/7/08 at 09:33 AM Reply With Quote
LOL!
Whilst I think both posts above are quite insightful as I am neither heated or mocking.
I have simply asked for more detail on Syd's theories and asked for some background so I can judge what weight to give to his original theories, particularly given his habit of openly mocking others as 'armchair experts'. I think it is a perfectly reasonable question to ask, obviously you do not V8kid and Syd seems slightly outraged!
V8kid you have also mistaken another aspect of my post, I was not asking for formal qualifications as frankly I rate long experience just as highly, hence the phrasing of my question. Should you wish to make up a defining question I will pass it on and get an answer for you.
As for original thought, I think that most on this forum and I include myself, have enough trouble working accurately with accepted theories that are known to have a desirable effect.

[Edited on 8/7/08 by rpmagazine]

[Edited on 8/7/08 by rpmagazine]





www.racemagazine.com.au

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
v8kid

posted on 8/7/08 at 11:39 AM Reply With Quote
Eh!

I think thats my case QED then!

Pity it was looking to be a jolly good discussion and I certainly clarified my own thinking although it I didn't think my point would be so easily accepted.

Cheers all

David

View User's Profile E-Mail User Visit User's Homepage View All Posts By User U2U Member
rpmagazine

posted on 8/7/08 at 12:49 PM Reply With Quote
you had a point?
I missed it in all the noise, what was it?





www.racemagazine.com.au

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
mr henderson

posted on 8/7/08 at 12:52 PM Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by rpmagazine
you had a point?
I missed it in all the noise, what was it?


I missed it too.






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
garage19

posted on 8/7/08 at 03:58 PM Reply With Quote
Sooo..... back to the original question...

In the car/application I have previously described would I be way off the mark if i had camber gain that happened to be pretty equal to body roll?






View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member
Alan B

posted on 8/7/08 at 04:54 PM Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by garage19
Sooo..... back to the original question...

In the car/application I have previously described would I be way off the mark if i had camber gain that happened to be pretty equal to body roll?


That's what I'd be aiming for......

View User's Profile E-Mail User Visit User's Homepage View All Posts By User U2U Member
<<  1    2    3    4  >>
New Topic New Poll New Reply


go to top






Website design and SEO by Studio Montage

All content © 2001-16 LocostBuilders. Reproduction prohibited
Opinions expressed in public posts are those of the author and do not necessarily represent
the views of other users or any member of the LocostBuilders team.
Running XMB 1.8 Partagium [© 2002 XMB Group] on Apache under CentOS Linux
Founded, built and operated by ChrisW.