Home Mobile Forum News Cookbook FaceBook Us T-Shirts etc.: Europe/Worldwide. eBay Motorsport Links Advertising Live Chat  
Site Partners: SpotterGuides  
Related Sites: Your Link Here  

Go Back   TenTenths Motorsport Forum > Racing Talk > Racing Technology


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 18 Dec 2006, 21:52 (Ref:1794061)   #1
meb
Rookie
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
United States
Wappinger Falls, New York
Posts: 98
meb should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Roll center and CofG...rate of roll or force of roll

I am under the impression that the farther the roll centers are from the centers of gravity - in a dynamic condition...real world - the more forcefull the roll. On the other hand, if the distance between RC and the CofG is reduced, so is the force. But, is the rate of roll faster with a shorter lever arm and slower with a longer lever arm? There must exist a sweet spot within every vehicle where the force and rate of weight transfer is ideally suited to very fast driving.
meb is offline  
Quote
Old 19 Dec 2006, 02:13 (Ref:1794236)   #2
TEAM78
Racer
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
United Kingdom
Posts: 234
TEAM78 has a lot of promise if they can keep it on the circuit!
Quote:
Originally Posted by meb
I am under the impression that the farther the roll centers are from the centers of gravity - in a dynamic condition...real world - the more forcefull the roll. On the other hand, if the distance between RC and the CofG is reduced, so is the force. But, is the rate of roll faster with a shorter lever arm and slower with a longer lever arm? There must exist a sweet spot within every vehicle where the force and rate of weight transfer is ideally suited to very fast driving.
the further apart the roll centre is from the CG (when facing the front of the vehicle) the greater the rolling moment is.
I think you got confused and using the term force when its a torque.

The rate of roll is dependent largely upon the damper settings and is not really looked upon being dependent upon the distance between CG and RC. the distance largely influences the roll angle taken up for a given lateral g.

[quote]There must exist a sweet spot within every vehicle where the force and rate of weight transfer is ideally suited to very fast driving [quote]
This doesnt make sense to me unless im misreading it,the sweet spot is dependent upon a huge number of parameters and not just weight transfer.
I reconmend you to work from the tyre back into the chassis, learn tyre load sensitivity. work on each senario such as steady state cornering, the transients and linear acceleration and braking. how each parameter affacts the vehicle for each senario. e.g the dampers are very much influencial during the transiants but not at steady state senarios, this of course ignoring surface variations.
Its a massive subject which few people fully grasp and I certainly dont know near enough, so best take one step at a time, weight transfer is a good place to start though along with undertanding the basic functions of the tyre.
p.s: Merry Christmas everyone
TEAM78 is offline  
__________________
If you want to make a million pounds in motorsport start with ten million pounds
Quote
Old 19 Dec 2006, 08:54 (Ref:1794351)   #3
ubrben
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
United Kingdom
Birmingham
Posts: 508
ubrben has a lot of promise if they can keep it on the circuit!
Quote:
Originally Posted by meb
I am under the impression that the farther the roll centers are from the centers of gravity - in a dynamic condition...real world - the more forcefull the roll.
With a larger roll moment the moment of inertia of the sprung mass about the roll axis will go up (parallel axis theorum) this will slow roll rate and require stiffer roll damping to adequately damp roll without overshoots, further reducing response.

You need to consider the ratio of elastic to inelastic load transfer IMO because if you have a low CG and wide track you might get adequate response without running a lot of anti-roll percentage.

The idea of one "sweet spot" is confusing. Sweet spot for what? The driver's perception of performance, what the tyres need...?

The only way of proceeding is to consider some high level metrics like lateral load transfer distribution, ratio of elastic to inelastic load transfer, damping ratios in heave, pitch, roll then test see what you feel about the car then change one and see how it feels then.

There isn't a correct roll moment.

Ben
ubrben is offline  
Quote
Old 19 Dec 2006, 22:01 (Ref:1795194)   #4
meb
Rookie
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
United States
Wappinger Falls, New York
Posts: 98
meb should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
My amateur statis is by now apparent . I'm a weekend warrior on the track and I like to know why and how things work...I cannot accept that they just do. So my uneducated background on occasion is prone to asking some really dumb questions.

...the sweet spot...torque is a much better word than force. My vision, which may be a disability, of the relationship between the CofG and roll centers and their migration is fundamental to how a car handles. I may have read into a reply about roll centers and this prompted the sweet spot question. Let me re-phrase. As a car turns, a torque is transmitted about the roll centers to the CofG, correct? If this is so, then the length of the invisible lever arm determines the amount of torque transmitted to the CofG? Does the length of the lever arm also independently affect the rate of roll? In this question, I'm concentrating literally on the relationship between the CofG and RC - meaning, what will the effects of a short or long lever be with regard to torque and rate of roll without consideration given to damping and springs rates? I'm looking for the most fundamental physical actions that occur, not components that control these.

I too use my dampers to control transitions thru turns. These transitions can either scare me or build confidence.

How would I use this information? I'm simply trying to establish an ideal relationship between track width modifications, ride height, and, spring rates for my 2005 JCW Mini cooper. The damping, swaybar adjustments and camber/toe adjustments I see as fine tuning.

If this helps, the tires are Toyo RA1s - 205/40/17. I would have preferred 16" wheels, but the 12.4" front rotors will not clear a smaller diameter wheel.

Thank you for your help,

Michael

Last edited by meb; 19 Dec 2006 at 22:09.
meb is offline  
Quote
Old 20 Dec 2006, 09:44 (Ref:1795560)   #5
trikesrule
Racer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 262
trikesrule should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Mini's - do they run independant suspension alround?.......trikes
trikesrule is offline  
Quote
Old 20 Dec 2006, 13:04 (Ref:1795737)   #6
meb
Rookie
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
United States
Wappinger Falls, New York
Posts: 98
meb should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Yes, Mac strut up front and a multi-link setup in the rear; two links per side (upper and lower control arms) and one trailing arm/hub. These rear links, or upper and lower control arms are quite long; their inner pivots points are seperated by only a couple of inches. Mine are adjustable with spherical rod ends. The struts up front are adjustable coilovers and the upper perches are a pillow ball setup with up to -2.5 degrees of camber adjustment.

The lower control arm is positioned via a ball joint in the forward portion of the control arm and a dual compound poly bushing in the rear attachment point. The rear bushing is not stock. The control arm does not have a lot of compliance, in other words.

Last edited by meb; 20 Dec 2006 at 13:11.
meb is offline  
Quote
Old 21 Dec 2006, 09:56 (Ref:1796588)   #7
trikesrule
Racer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 262
trikesrule should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Meb you have the ability to perform Toe-in / out changes as well as Caster changes with those spherical rod ends. But as too altering roll centre on the rear I don't see that you easily can unless I missed something. With this teams cars if I lower the roll centre I get more loading on the outside wheels (increase roll). If I raise the roll centre I get more bite off the inside wheel(decrease roll). I'm talking rear wheel drive. The rear arms being so long will slow down reactions in heave happening at the back of the car when compared to the same car with shorter arms. Not a bad thing if your racing on a hilly circuit.........trikes
trikesrule is offline  
Quote
Old 21 Dec 2006, 10:06 (Ref:1796597)   #8
trikesrule
Racer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 262
trikesrule should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
My view on r/c vs C of G is the C of G transmits a torque load thru the r/c'. Basicly I just work with what I've got to provide the driver with a balanced car. Does your car feel balanced? And yes a shorter arm reacts quicker than a longer one....trikes
trikesrule is offline  
Quote
Old 21 Dec 2006, 10:19 (Ref:1796610)   #9
Lukin
Racer
 
Join Date: May 2005
Australia
Perth
Posts: 133
Lukin should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by trikesrule
With this teams cars if I lower the roll centre I get more loading on the outside wheels (increase roll). If I raise the roll centre I get more bite off the inside wheel(decrease roll).
I might be missing something here. Lowering the RC (assuming all other things remain constant) will reduce the load transfer on that axle in steady state cornering and therefore reduce the load on the outside wheel and increase the load on the inside wheel. It will increase roll yes, but load the inner and outer tyres in an opposite fashion to the way it appears are you described it. Look at a anti-roll bar; it reduces roll yet increases the load transfer at that end of the car.

I've never really referred to RC's in terms of torque arms or anything but as Ben said it, more a ratio of RC:CoG. The problem with trading elastic for geometric load transfer is the way and speed which they act (which you guys have touched on). Raising the RC at one end will unload the tyre quicker (I think Ben said somewhere it unloads at unsprung mass natural frequency (wheelshop), which makes sense. Elastic load trasnfers at the sprung mass natural frequency). As a result a RC change won't make a big change in steady state but will make a big difference at the initial turn and as the steering inputs are changing.
Lukin is offline  
Quote
Old 21 Dec 2006, 10:46 (Ref:1796641)   #10
trikesrule
Racer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 262
trikesrule should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Hi Lukin re load transfer. It works just like I said at the track. Got the dust collectors to prove it. How much load if measured doesn't mean much to me. It's the ability to change / adapt the car to the changing conditions to keep the car at it's peak. I think we are talking about the same thing in a different language. If I lower the r/c the c of g rolls over the lower r/c easier. K.I.S.S works for me....trikes
trikesrule is offline  
Quote
Old 21 Dec 2006, 16:48 (Ref:1796943)   #11
Goran Malmberg
Racer
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Sweden
Stockholm Sweden
Posts: 319
Goran Malmberg should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by meb
IThere must exist a sweet spot within every vehicle where the force and rate of weight transfer is ideally suited to very fast driving.
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
Goran Malmberg is offline  
Quote
Old 23 Dec 2006, 14:50 (Ref:1798338)   #12
ubrben
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
United Kingdom
Birmingham
Posts: 508
ubrben has a lot of promise if they can keep it on the circuit!
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
ubrben is offline  
Quote
Old 27 Dec 2006, 18:20 (Ref:1800005)   #13
Goran Malmberg
Racer
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Sweden
Stockholm Sweden
Posts: 319
Goran Malmberg should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by ubrben
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
Actually I use the "Zero" car example as a way to explain the complex situation of many geometry angles involved in a race car. If we theoretically start off with a "Zero" car, we may then add just those components we do need, (for the driver or the car). Then those components will be balanced to the situation, no more no less a no unnecessary.
Goran Malmberg
Goran Malmberg is offline  
Quote
Old 27 Dec 2006, 22:37 (Ref:1800113)   #14
AU N EGL
Veteran
 
AU N EGL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
United States
Raleigh, North Carolina
Posts: 4,418
AU N EGL should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridAU N EGL should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by meb
I am under the impression that the farther the roll centers are from the centers of gravity - in a dynamic condition...real world - the more forcefull the roll. On the other hand, if the distance between RC and the CofG is reduced, so is the force. But, is the rate of roll faster with a shorter lever arm and slower with a longer lever arm? There must exist a sweet spot within every vehicle where the force and rate of weight transfer is ideally suited to very fast driving.
This may help you slightly

http://www.racelinecentral.com/RacingSetupGuide.html

It is set up for NASCAR. However, make some wording changes for road racing, left AND right turns is not difficult to do.

Here is a quote from part of the information:

Quote:
Where to Begin
Before attempting any chassis adjustments it is important for you as a driver to know & understand what your car is doing on the track. The only way to understand how your car is reacting is through seat time. The more laps you turn, or practice you get; the better off you will be in deciding what your trouble points are on the track.

Learn how to hit the same line lap after lap with the default setups packaged with NASCAR Racing before attempting any other adjustments. The biggest mistake rookie drivers make, are trying to adjust a chassis for what they believe is an ill handling car. I get so many emails from drivers that think the default easy, intermediate or fast setups that come with the sim are terrible because they cannot drive them. You must become comfortable with these default setups before you should even look into tinkering with any adjustments in the garage. Begin with the easy setup, then graduate to the intermediate setup and lastly the fast setup. Only when you can run clean consistent laps with the easy setup, should you move up to the intermediate setup. The same goes with the intermediate setup before graduating to the fast. Only when you can run competitively with the fast setup against the AI at 97% without spinning out, should you attempt to make any adjustments in the garage. There are nothing wrong with the default setups in NASCAR Racing. If you cannot drive them properly it is because you simply do not have enough seat time and or experience.
I can't stress enough the importance of adjusting only ONE component at a time. Making more than one change is nonproductive because you won't be able to determine what change made the car better or worse. Be sure to have plenty of paper & pencil on hand. It is critical to take notes after every adjustment you make. With all the adjustments available to make, it's real easy to forget what adjustment you made 3 practice sessions ago. Record keeping is important. If you do go the wrong way with an adjustment you can always set it back to where it was before making the change by simply referring back to your notes. By tracking & logging information, it also allows you to refer back to them to see how you progressed to cure your handling problem. These notes could be useful for setups at tracks with similar configurations which can turn out to be a real time saver. By keeping track of adjustments, you will be able to refer back to your notes to see what worked & what didn't. This will help you decide what to adjust if a similar situation arises at another track.
AU N EGL is offline  
__________________
"When the fear of death out weighs the thrill of speed, brake." LG
Quote
Old 8 Jan 2007, 14:56 (Ref:1809675)   #15
meb
Rookie
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
United States
Wappinger Falls, New York
Posts: 98
meb should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by trikesrule
Hi Lukin re load transfer. It works just like I said at the track. Got the dust collectors to prove it. How much load if measured doesn't mean much to me. It's the ability to change / adapt the car to the changing conditions to keep the car at it's peak. I think we are talking about the same thing in a different language. If I lower the r/c the c of g rolls over the lower r/c easier. K.I.S.S works for me....trikes

Yes, the last sentence feels intuitively correct to me. But, something Lukin wrote is new to me; a car will roll more with a lowered roll center - all other things equal - but the load or weight transfer (what unit of measurement, pounds?) will be reduced...and perhaps proportioned a bit better between the inside and outside tires. The second part is new to me, but helsp me to understand the intricate dynamics at work.

So then, if weight transfers more readily - rolls over the RC - but is distributed more qeaully between the inside and outside tire, what linds of decisions should one begin to make with regard to spring rates? And part of my goal is to increase track by 15mm per side up front and 10mm per side in the rear.

Thanks for your help, this is great stuff!
meb is offline  
Quote
Reply

Bookmarks




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Roll couple or roll centre??? HELP!!!!!! jonners Racing Technology 66 30 Dec 2006 02:48
To Roll or not to Roll pootles Track Day Forum 4 23 Jun 2005 16:06
Roll hoop's classic_racer Racers Forum 11 16 May 2004 19:55
ROCK n roll racingdick WTCC & European Touring Car Series 10 21 Jun 2003 20:33
Roll cages zefarelly Racing Technology 2 19 Aug 2002 14:24


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT. The time now is 13:43.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Original Website Copyright © 1998-2003 Craig Antil. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2004-2018 Royalridge Computing. All Rights Reserved.