Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Goran Malmberg
I may not answer the question right off what you ask for, I am just adding a few words to the debate.
There are a number of circumstances other than the "roll action" of the chassis that govern the geometry of the A-arms and thereby the Rc. Like If the car has much downforce, parallell to ground A-arms is often used to lessen the cambercompensation. More parallell to ground A-arms also makes it possible to let the intersection of the forcelines to follow load transfer precentage from side to side, thereby even out the influence of the jacking effect.
Roll is a way of having the car sprunged sideways therby adding to tiregrip,
(but of course roll also create camber problems). So, low CGH is imperative.
Myself I like close to ground Rc, longer and quite parallell A-arms. That is to keep the car more "Zero" (a word of my own for a car that has less inbuilt geomerty effects) fo an easier track tuning-setup situation. I also speak for less scrub and SAI numbers. Roll is then taken care of by springs, antirollbars and shocks. And, as allready mentioned, a low Rc.
Right now I am constructing a new "Nordic Supercar" based on the mentioned theory. I may put out som images later on when production has come that fare.
http://www.nordicsupercar.com/
Goran Malmberg |
I really don't understand why you're so obsessed by having no geometry effects. It seems you only reason is that they make it easier to understand. Forgive me, but that doesn't seem a very good reason.
Damian Harty makes some very good points about geometry effects in that they don't fundamentally alter the vehicle characteristics, but they can dramatically alter the perception to the driver. Therefore it seems odd to remove much of that opportunity by dumping any geometrical effects.
Ben