This thread is so that Syd can specifically have space to provide the full account of his suspension theory.
I attest that I will not publish one iota of any of Syd's original theory.
[Edited on 25/7/08 by rpmagazine]
Hmmmm, this is very grown up then
as usual 
if you have another solution I will listen.
does the theory involve suspension being thin at one end, much much fatter in the middle and thin at the other end?
[Edited on 10/7/08 by 02GF74]
As somebody who is interested in cars, and somewhat involved with them, I have read the other thread carefully.
I have no theories of my own to offer, but if I was designing a suspension system I would be inclined to copy what has been known to have worked well
in the past, as long as it was relevant to the type of car I was working on, and took account of the time, money and effort that were available.
Having stated my own position I now feel free to say that I have found Syd's contributions to the other thread to be largely limited to how
clever and experienced he is, how silly most other people are, and to how he is going to keep his ideas secret (except to say how much better they are
than anybody else's.
Now is his opportunity to prove me wrong, and I hope he will.
John
The thing is though is that as a general rule in the mid engined section no one ever thinks they are wrong, admits they don't know or misses an
opportunity to demonstrate how clever they apparently are......... gets right on my t*ts to be honest so I only tend to read the threads if they are
on the 'most recent threads' page and I don't realise what section they are posted in.
Syds big enough to fight his own battles but if you don't agree with him or think he's a kn*b just ignore him, this handbags at dawn
nonsense just makes you look a bit of a twonk not him.
Having said that I know who's advice I'd ask first if I had a suspension related issue 
quote:
Originally posted by D Beddows
but if you don't agree with him or think he's a kn*b just ignore him, this handbags at dawn nonsense just makes you look a bit of a twonk not him.
This thread is not a 'throw syd from the train' and I would ask that we not get personal either (no I'm not being sarcastic). It is
possible that Syd has a very valuable contribution to make. I am fully prepared to admit I am wrong if Syd's theories hold some validity.
I asked Syd to give the detail in the other thread, but as you all know it became more than a little side-tracked and I am sorry for the thread
starter of the other thread and so here we are.
No hijacking other peoples threads, no personal insults, I just want to hear the whole kit and caboodle.
quote:
Originally posted by D Beddows
Syds big enough to fight his own battles but if you don't agree with him or think he's a kn*b just ignore him, this handbags at dawn nonsense just makes you look a bit of a twonk not him.
but what if it is a secret? syd has suggested another starting point to begin your thinking.
you can't call him a miserable tw*t just because he won't hand his logic to you. i think the whole argument is pointless and of little help
to the OP.
while we learn from discussion of two points, you can also learn from someone saying no, i don't think that's right, start here and go away
and think about it.
rpmagazine has exaccerbated this issue as much if not more than syd and i don't see this thread should have been started.
tom
"It's how I think. You look at everything you've done before. You look at other people's work. You feel you can improve and
don't give any secrets away. We do still look at roll centre and geometry, but if I gave you positions or camber change details my opposition
would think I was mental - or they wouldn't believe them."
Tony Southgate
"You cannot reduce the unwanted in a design to zero - you can only hope to minimise what is not good. You can draw the position of the Roll
Centre in static geometry but the dynamic position is a different matter. The point about which a car rolls can be totally modified by altering the
springs, or the weight transfer and the consequent loading on the tyres."
Trevor Harris
I think these two, very credible designers are worth listening to.
Also posted in the other thread.
quote:
while we learn from discussion of two points, you can also learn from someone saying no, i don't think that's right, start here and go away and think about it.
rpmagazine has exaccerbated this issue as much if not more than syd and i don't see this thread should have been started.
tom
You should all be ashamed, stop posting in these threads and get back to building your cars!
quote:
Originally posted by cloudy
You should all be ashamed, stop posting in these threads and get back to building your cars!
quote:
Originally posted by Paul TigerB6
I'd love to hear about a new way of thinking about suspension design myself but clearly it wont happen and never will (as stated prior to this thread)
I have been an avid and enthralled observer watching the peaks and troughs as this thread has developed. I have said to myself probably better to
wait until things stabalise than to offer my two pence worth mid argument. In the first instance I have to agree with Syd. Basic roll centre
thinking once dyanamic loadings have been applied offer less than the normally accepted relevance in the design process. RC migration is so transient
it is difficult to visualise with just a basic kinamatic drawing even when using Bill Mitchell's forced based roll centre design programme.
Whilst it's a good indicator of movement it does not offer any solutions in where chassis/suspension design should start. Being primarily
involved in race car design I tend to gloss over static roll centres. Once a vehicle has a dynamic change it needs to be tuneable for optimum
handling, it is then too late to make any MAJOR alterations to what would have been a fixed perameter within roll centre construction.
SO ARE STATIC ROLL CENTRES IMPORTANT, of course they are. They are important to any newby/first time designer as a tried and tested starting point.
Case studies are numerous and well documented. A newby designer has enough problems and choices to contend with without having to visualise concepts
that he has yet the knowledge nor experience to understand. Will he achieve the optimum in handling and performance, I suspect not, but will he
produce a vehicle that contains fewer bad handling characteristics, I would guarantee so.
I have always been a great advocate of outside the box thinking but this can only be done afer one has gleaned some knowledge through one's own
experience or the experience of others. I would like to pose a secondary question to the RC debate, at first it may appear to have no relevance but
with some thought it makes one visualise points beyond the confines of the chassis construction.
QUESTION roll centres are viewed from the front of the vehicle, if we view the vehicle from the side, where would the forum members think the ideal
pitch centre should be to prevent excessive nose dive under breaking and excessive squat at the rear (RWD) car. For the last few years my cars have
had the charateristic of the whole vehicle squating under braking how do the forum members think this is achieved ???? Ian Scott
Ians I'll get to your question in time. My frustration with syd has been clearly stated. It helps no one on a forum where we try to help one and
other to claim knowledge or background without divulging information on either and we sceptics can do little other than doubt the veracity of the
claims.
Syd's claim about rolling around the outside front contact patch seems to assume:
1. That Newtonian physics apply to tyres which they plainly do not.
2. that we are assuming a rigid or extremely stiff suspension and on this forum that is unlikely.
3. A certain cornering event - having just gone over some data from a datalogger I can find few corners that would fit Syd's initial premise of
an immediate roll event
quote:
Originally posted by rpmagazine
Ians I'll get to your question in time. My frustration with syd has been clearly stated. It helps no one on a forum where we try to help one and other to claim knowledge or background without divulging information on either and we sceptics can do little other than doubt the veracity of the claims.
Ians I'm not so much stuck by the how of your question but the why?
I was just saying that thinking outside the accepted box can often quicken ones learning curve, people oten assume the pitch centre has to be within the wheelbase and is the point about which the car rocks .My point was to simply get members to think how to move the pitch centre to get less pitch fore and aft, the kinamatics /maths are easier to understand but the priciple is the same as for RCs migration ,ie having a point of rotation outside the confines of the chassis structure. Ians
Blimmey i cant honestly beleive some of you blokes, I've been sitting on the fence watching this drama unfold from the beginning, and Syd has on
numerous occasions given you all the answers you require but you dont seem to see the forrest for the trees, i cant blame him realy for being a
little, shall we say arrogent, as i think i would to, if what i was saying was being listened to, but not heard.
and for what its worth i have discussed his ideas with a couple of very experienced race car builders that i no and they agree with Syd.
JMTBW, ill now jump back on the fence.
Kaspa
Kaspa you think I too have not discussed it? The opinions are mixed to say the least.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaspa
Blimmey i cant honestly beleive some of you blokes, I've been sitting on the fence watching this drama unfold from the beginning, and Syd has on numerous occasions given you all the answers you require...
quote:
Originally posted by pburaSyd reminds me of a schoolyard blowhard going around telling all the kids that their slingshots are poo because he has a sniper pistol at home... that he's not allowed to show anyone.