Board logo

Competition Car Suspension by Alan Staniforth
sooty - 17/2/13 at 08:54 PM

Has anyone a link or know where I could download a PDF copy:-

Haynes - Competition Car Suspension by Alan Staniforth

To give some tips for my striker with the new year of track days.

Thanks

rodgling - 17/2/13 at 09:58 PM

No, but have you tried here? http://www.amazon.co.uk/Competition-Car-Suspension-Practical-Handbook/dp/1844253287/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1361138211&sr=8-1

loggyboy - 17/2/13 at 10:16 PM

Or Competition Car Suspension: A Practical Handbook by Allan Staniforth... 1844253287 | eBay

designer - 17/2/13 at 10:38 PM

You will be better getting your suspension set up by a professional rather than buying the book.

Uphill Racer - 17/2/13 at 11:38 PM

If you just want to have fun without having to work at it a professional set up will work well.
If however you want to get the best out of the car and be able to fine tune the set up to suite your driving style, differing conditions and types of track go for Stannies book and spend the time it takes to learn a skill that will serve you forever. You won’t regret it.
On the other hand, if you can afford it, get it set up while you are learning how to tune it.
If you are computer literate you can enter the suspension set up mathematics from the book into Excel.

It is brilliant, but maybe Alan was being a little malevolent when putting it into print as there are two mistakes in the maths.
That’s my thoughts for what they are worth...................................

motorcycle_mayhem - 18/2/13 at 08:54 AM

I bought the book (Amazon) a few years back, along with a few others (e.g. Racing Car Chassis Design). I built a string computer too, so really got into the whole thing - moving pickup points, eliminating bump steer, etc., etc.

Three outright Sprint Championships followed.....

Knowledge, you simply can't beat it.

Sam_68 - 18/2/13 at 09:59 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Uphill Racer
It is brilliant, but maybe Alan was being a little malevolent when putting it into print as there are two mistakes in the maths.


Yes, he was no mathematician (and that's from someone who counts with his fingers!) and for that reason I don't tend to take too much notice of his calculations.... where have you spotted errors? The only one I can remember from memory is that there's a basic error with one of the formulae for suspension leverage, but I tend to rely on Mitchell for reference when it comes to the sums!

The chapter by David Gould on weight transfer is also flawed, IMO, even though it's possibly the most useful and instructive part of the whole book (it takes no account of transient response due to damping or the effects of steering geometry, or tyre spring rates - though perhaps to do so would have made it too daunting - and I'm not comfortable with his use of independent front and rear CoG's for the calculations, since with any reasonably stiff chassis all forces on the sprung mass act through one, single CoG and should be calculated as such). Still the best and most accessible primer on weight transfer that I've seen in print, however.

The book is still a good introduction, though, and I strongly disagree with 'Designer': the cost of the book is trivial compared to getting your car set up by a professional, so even if you do choose to go with a professional set-up, get the book as well - it will help you to understand cause and effect, and perhaps why they're changing the things they are changing. I agree totally with Uphill Racer in that respect.

There are also a number of 'professionals' in this game who really don't know their arse from their elbow in terms of actual understanding, and are merely going through the motions of basic good practice combined with trial-and-error experience... which is fine until they encounter a problem that falls outside the scope of that experience and have to diagnose from first principles.

The other very good introductory text - possibly even better than Staniforth - is Carroll Smith's 'Tune to Win'.

matt_gsxr - 18/2/13 at 10:06 AM

quote:
Originally posted by designer
You will be better getting your suspension set up by a professional rather than buying the book.



You might also be better off buying a car from a company than making one, but whats the fun in that?

TimC - 18/2/13 at 11:45 PM

All fair arguments above. However, what might be a good idea is getting the car setup by Dave at www.trackdevelopments.co.uk near Castle Combe - the reason being is that you can kill two birds with one stone as it were: at the same time as sorting the car, Dave will give you a lesson on car suspension and geometry. He's got a number of useful models to help explain and makes good use of a white-board too - and all for the cost of a setup.

Genuinely recommended.

filemon - 19/2/13 at 10:16 PM

Got this book in PDF, third edition, if anyone is interested. I can email it, but it is over 20MB.

bi22le - 19/2/13 at 10:28 PM

i got the chassis and suspension books as a secret Santa a few years back. i have read them both. my car is booked into procomp in a couple of months!!!

i just want a basic good setup to allow me to understand what a car with good settings actually feels like. then i will start playing.

Uphill Racer - 22/2/13 at 12:46 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
quote:
Originally posted by Uphill Racer
It is brilliant, but maybe Alan was being a little malevolent when putting it into print as there are two mistakes in the maths.


Yes, he was no mathematician (and that's from someone who counts with his fingers!) and for that reason I don't tend to take too much notice of his calculations.... where have you spotted errors? The only one I can remember from memory is that there's a basic error with one of the formulae for suspension leverage, but I tend to rely on Mitchell for reference when it comes to the sums!

The chapter by David Gould on weight transfer is also flawed, IMO, even though it's possibly the most useful and instructive part of the whole book (it takes no account of transient response due to damping or the effects of steering geometry, or tyre spring rates - though perhaps to do so would have made it too daunting - and I'm not comfortable with his use of independent front and rear CoG's for the calculations, since with any reasonably stiff chassis all forces on the sprung mass act through one, single CoG and should be calculated as such). Still the best and most accessible primer on weight transfer that I've seen in print, however.

The book is still a good introduction, though, and I strongly disagree with 'Designer': the cost of the book is trivial compared to getting your car set up by a professional, so even if you do choose to go with a professional set-up, get the book as well - it will help you to understand cause and effect, and perhaps why they're changing the things they are changing. I agree totally with Uphill Racer in that respect.

There are also a number of 'professionals' in this game who really don't know their arse from their elbow in terms of actual understanding, and are merely going through the motions of basic good practice combined with trial-and-error experience... which is fine until they encounter a problem that falls outside the scope of that experience and have to diagnose from first principles.

The other very good introductory text - possibly even better than Staniforth - is Carroll Smith's 'Tune to Win'.


The maths I was referring to is in the chapter by David Gould, agree it is instructive and for most people understandable probably because it doesn’t include transients.

Totally agree with you about 'professionals'.

Carroll Smith, you couldn’t miss him with his trademark hat could you. I was lucky enough to meet him in a professional capacity once, a joy to talk to.

I think you are a little disingenuous regarding Allan although I have to agree he was no mathematician,during his national service as a navigator he managed to bring a bomber down at the wrong aerodrome.

Also with regard to Mitchell, Allan, although late in life and relying heavily on Ian Scott produced an SEA paper 2006-01-3638. Analysis of Ackermann Steering Geometry with him.

chillis - 22/2/13 at 09:48 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
quote:
Originally posted by Uphill Racer
It is brilliant, but maybe Alan was being a little malevolent when putting it into print as there are two mistakes in the maths.


Yes, he was no mathematician (and that's from someone who counts with his fingers!) and for that reason I don't tend to take too much notice of his calculations.... where have you spotted errors? The only one I can remember from memory is that there's a basic error with one of the formulae for suspension leverage, but I tend to rely on Mitchell for reference when it comes to the sums!

The chapter by David Gould on weight transfer is also flawed, IMO, even though it's possibly the most useful and instructive part of the whole book (it takes no account of transient response due to damping or the effects of steering geometry, or tyre spring rates - though perhaps to do so would have made it too daunting - and I'm not comfortable with his use of independent front and rear CoG's for the calculations, since with any reasonably stiff chassis all forces on the sprung mass act through one, single CoG and should be calculated as such). Still the best and most accessible primer on weight transfer that I've seen in print, however.

The book is still a good introduction, though, and I strongly disagree with 'Designer': the cost of the book is trivial compared to getting your car set up by a professional, so even if you do choose to go with a professional set-up, get the book as well - it will help you to understand cause and effect, and perhaps why they're changing the things they are changing. I agree totally with Uphill Racer in that respect.

There are also a number of 'professionals' in this game who really don't know their arse from their elbow in terms of actual understanding, and are merely going through the motions of basic good practice combined with trial-and-error experience... which is fine until they encounter a problem that falls outside the scope of that experience and have to diagnose from first principles.

The other very good introductory text - possibly even better than Staniforth - is Carroll Smith's 'Tune to Win'.


I was beginning to think I was the only person who had spotted mistakes by the way some people 'revere' Allan. His books are easy to read though and I have learned a lot from them over the years that has helped me professionally.
A professional set up is not cheap and looks at the car in isolation, that may work well at one track and not so well at another. Learning how to do this yourself will allow you To tune the car at each track so it handles in a way that you feel most comfortable, only when you have confidence in the car can you be quick.

Sam_68 - 22/2/13 at 11:06 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Uphill Racer
The maths I was referring to is in the chapter by David Gould...


Ah, fair enough - I've effectively re-written these calculations from scratch (and allowing for some additional complexities), based on my belief that separate front and rear 'centres of gravity' and the concept of 'mass centroid axis' are pretty much nonsensical, anyway.

So far as I'm concerned, unless you've got a dismally floppy chassis, the best way to visualise the effects of weight transfer on the sprung mass is to imagine a piece of string tied to the (one and only!) CoG and pulled forwards (for braking), backwards (acceleration), sideways (cornering) or diagonally (combination of cornering/acceleration/braking) to simulate the forces acting upon it (and thereby the springs/dampers).

quote:
Originally posted by Uphill RacerI think you are a little disingenuous regarding Allan...


In what respect? If I have, it certainly hasn't been deliberate.

quote:
Originally posted by chillis
I was beginning to think I was the only person who had spotted mistakes by the way some people 'revere' Allan. His books are easy to read though and I have learned a lot from them over the years that has helped me professionally.


I can't claim to have been a close friend of Allan, but I knew him well enough to be on first name terms, so I don't think I'm speaking too much out of turn.

...But, yes, I think you have to remember that he was a journalist by profession, not a trained engineer (though he did do suspension analysis and set-up professionally in later years).

He is to be very much admired and respected for bringing the subject within reach of the amateur enthusiast but, in addition to the occasional plain and simple mistake, he'd have been the first to admit that his understanding was incomplete... for example, he wrote in one of his books (I can't remember whether it was Competition Car Suspension or the Race and Rally Car Source Book) that whilst he had a strong belief that limiting roll centre movement was important, he didn't really know why - it was merely an article of faith for him, born of experience and analysis of other people's designs. I actually pointed out to him myself that, ironically, the reasons were there, staring him in the face, in David Gould's chapter on weight transfer in his own book!

His books are a perfect introduction, though, and a brilliant tool to lead people into thinking and learning about the subject in more depth.

Uphill Racer - 23/2/13 at 12:55 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
[
quote:
Originally posted by Uphill RacerI think you are a little disingenuous regarding Allan...


In what respect? If I have, it certainly hasn't been deliberate.


His books are a perfect introduction, though, and a brilliant tool to lead people into thinking and learning about the subject in more depth.


Only by your statement 'Yes, he was no mathematician (and that's from someone who counts with his fingers!) and for that reason I don't tend to take too much notice of his calculations.'

In regards to my last paragraph regarding his collaboration in the SAE paper on Ackermann.
But I did say ‘a little’....................

Sam_68 - 23/2/13 at 01:25 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Uphill Racer
Only by your statement 'Yes, he was no mathematician (and that's from someone who counts with his fingers!) and for that reason I don't tend to take too much notice of his calculations.'

In regards to my last paragraph regarding his collaboration in the SAE paper on Ackermann.
But I did say ‘a little’....................


OK...well, I stand by that bit - I've never seen him come up with anything more sophisticated than O-level geometry, even in his work on Ackermann.

...and by your account even his 'O'-level geometry seems not to have been so hot - I hadn't heard the story of him navigating his bomber to the wrong airfield!

On the subject of Staniforth and Steering, incidentally, it occurs to me that that's another area where 'Competition Car Suspension' is now out of date, if not necessarily inaccurate - with the advent of CAD his two methods of determining the correct rack and pinion length and position for bump steer aren't how I do it any more... much better to sweep the 'virtual model' of the suspension through its full range of movement in CAD, plotting the arc described by the steering arm in the process, and the 'perfect' rack end position is simply at the centre of that arc. Using this method can take account of the effects of any longitudinal or vertical inclination of the wishbones, which is difficult to do by the traditional (Staniforth) methods.