Kozy
-
Posts
48 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Posts posted by Kozy
-
-
Uprate front bar = More front roll resistance = More front axle load transfer % = More understeer.
Uprate rear bar = More rear roll resistance = More rear axle load transfer % = Less understeer.
He claims that shouldn't happen on paper, but it does.
-
on the Starlet I found that by uprating the front alone it produced more understeer
when matching the rear to the front it reduced it, but didnt overcome it
by then reducing the front to below oem size and ratings it produced a neutral handling with no dramatic over or understeer
by experimenting you find things out, that on paper shouldnt work !
On paper, that works perfectly!
-
Yep, think you've got me there with the bolts. Was single mindedly considering double wishbone adjustment via top arm.
-
The change of SAI in the unsprung chassis will move the SR, or in other words a change of camber from the unsprung chassis.
Scrub radius as I understand it, is the distance between the point described by the SAI's intersection with the ground and the centre of the contact patch in the lateral plane. If you change the SAI by 1° by moving the upper ball joint inwards towards the vehicle, would you not alter the angle of the wheel too, and therefore leave the SR unaffected?
For the SAI to affect scrub radius, would it not need to be adjusted independently of the wheel angle, i.e changing the angle between the SAI and the hub plane on the spindle?
Maybe I have my definition of SAI wrong which is confusing matters, it is the angle between of the line through the upper and lower ball joints and the centreline of the car is it not?
-
A true explanation would need many other factors but distorting the rear tyres contact patch geometrically will change the tyres saturation limits. Obviously pneumatic slip angle and actual saturation limits cannot be measured but that's where experience comes in.
Yes tyres are certainly a bit of a black art. As far as I have learnt though, it is generally accepted that load transfer results in a loss of grip on an axle due to tyre load sensitivity. More roll resistance at one end, either from springs, dampers, geometry or bars, will result in more load transfer at that end with a resulting reduction in the total lateral force available from that axle.
Not arguing experience of course, if you have fitted a front ARB to a Focus and found increased oversteer then fair enough, however I added a large rear bar (from 14mm to 24mm) on my Civic and found it greatly increased oversteer, thus I would expect a front one to increase understeer. Different chassis and suspension designs admittedly, but this is what got me wondering whether this trait was specific to the Focus...
-
Good article's and well written...... Confused about this part "positive camber on the outside will in almost direct proportion to the total roll angle'
Camber migration will be negative on the outside wheel and positive on the inside wheel, or am i reading it wrong?
If there is no camber gain built into the suspension and the wheels are at 0° static, when the car rolls 1° the outside tyre camber would be 1° positive. Negative camber migration might be different terminology for the same thing, I'm not sure...
-
I wrote these a while back on one of the owners forums I frequent, the chap running this blog spotted them and asked if he could publish them to which I happily obliged.
-
Depends how you want the car to handle, just the front would invite oversteer, both should keep it neutral.
Sorry for digging up old topics Tony, but could you expand on this comment a bit? Are we talking about the Focus chassis specifically? Based on load transfer alone a front upgrade would generally increase understeer, how do the geometry effects counter this to produce oversteer?
-
The RFL must not be confused with the Scrub Radius, which is in essence the tyres contact patch within the mechanical pivotal points.
Are they not inextricably linked though? As far as I know, the scrub radius is what gives you the effects you mention but is tricky to measure, RFL is certainly a far more convenient method of checking.
What can change it:Changes in camber will effect Rolling Force Lever by tilting the spindle/ hub.
But it will tilt the wheel too so RFL should remain unchanged?
-
Good question.......
Many reasons for the rake bias, namely weight transfer under braking, diagonal transfer during yaw while on a lock and as you say maintaining the contact patch during suspension bump.
Strange, I always thought cars were best off with a positive (nose down) rake angle, certainly for aero at least. But then I am used to FWD shopping cars so that may sway things a tad...
Moment of Inertia
in Geometry
Posted
Interesting stuff, I've always been interested in the S2000 but never really fully understood its flaws dynamically. I was lead to believe it was a problem with the rear steer effects so that when the throttle was lifted in a corner the rear wheels toe'd out, so in effect to keep the rear planted in a corner you had to keep the throttle applied, obviously requiring a more committed driving style than a lot of buyers were capable of... resulting in a lot of crashes and complaints that it handled badly.
Does this sort of tie in with your explanation on the rebound reaction? Can it be properly fixed?