Syd Bridge
|
| posted on 5/11/07 at 12:20 PM |
|
|
Sorry, I've always had trouble speaking polite pommy english. Comes from a rough bush upbringing. 
And, if anything disproves,(or disregards, anyway) the theory, it's an F1 car. Suspension is in the tyre sidewalls for the major part, and aero
stability is the only priority at the front and overall. But the rear ends warrant some scrutiny.
Cheers,
Syd. 
I'm away to work now 'til next week.
[Edited on 5/11/07 by Syd Bridge]
|
|
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 5/11/07 at 12:29 PM |
|
|
What's de-wedging?
Sounds like an underwear problem 
I don't understand any of it so I'm going to carry on pretending it doesn't exist.
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
Doug68
|
| posted on 5/11/07 at 12:55 PM |
|
|
de-wedging... the action of taking de wedge out from under de door.
de-wedging
Doug. 1TG
Sports Car Builders WA
|
|
|
rpmagazine
|
| posted on 6/11/07 at 10:02 AM |
|
|
perhaps syd is talking about stuff like this?
http://phors.locost7.info/contents.htm
|
|
|
CaptainJosh
|
| posted on 6/11/07 at 04:15 PM |
|
|
I find when it comes to suspension design it doesn't harm to go back to physics.
I program for my day job and have always been interested in simulating dynamics and such. So i've tried many formulea's in my spare time,
to try and simulate the movement of a car ( im a geek  ).
An interesting formulae to play with is 'Pacejka's Magic Formulae', its used in all the latest racing games ( Grand Turismo, Forza
Motorsport etc ) to model the amount of friction force applied to the ground by a tire given its current variables.
Afterall, thats what suspension is all about, grip.
The force applied against the ground allows the body of the car to turn and therefore get us around corners. The higher/optimum the force, the faster
we can go around a bend without breaking trackion.
Its a very accurate model and i think its worth a look.
I don't know much about suspension design, but its probably a start
-Josh
|
|
|
rpmagazine
|
| posted on 6/11/07 at 09:40 PM |
|
|
josh when I last spoke to Ron Tauranac he said it was nearly all about the tyres.
Now the issues here of course is that he is designing racing cars and not compromised small trucks designed to carry more than one person...it is the
balance of compromises that is the tricky part.
|
|
|
CaptainJosh
|
| posted on 9/11/07 at 02:55 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by rpmagazine
josh when I last spoke to Ron Tauranac he said it was nearly all about the tyres.
Now the issues here of course is that he is designing racing cars and not compromised small trucks designed to carry more than one person...it is the
balance of compromises that is the tricky part.
I didn't really mean to come back to this thread, just thought I would bump it into a more constructive direction, but...
I don't understand your answer, what do you mean "compromised small trucks"? 
Sorry, im quite confused.
-Josh
|
|
|
kikiturbo
|
| posted on 9/11/07 at 07:02 PM |
|
|
the point about compromised small trucks, as I see it , is that road cars have to work in s much wider dinamic area... they do not have to be as good
or precise as racing cars, though...
I did a lot of design work on my chasis, spending much time on the uprights... and ust as I was so proud of brake packaging which left a lot of room
to place the uprights and joints well insidee the wheel, I realised that for my wheel travel, which is 70 mm bump + 25 mm bump stop + 80 mm rebound,
and for 25 deg of max steering angle, I had major clearence issues with the interference of the A arms and the wheel...
then I wanted to minimize the bending on the A arm that results from the spring forces.... well I think I did that, but I can not have the lower
joints mounted in double shear any more... you can't have it all...
|
|
|
rpmagazine
|
| posted on 11/11/07 at 10:12 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CaptainJosh
quote:
Originally posted by rpmagazine
josh when I last spoke to Ron Tauranac he said it was nearly all about the tyres.
Now the issues here of course is that he is designing racing cars and not compromised small trucks designed to carry more than one person...it is the
balance of compromises that is the tricky part.
I didn't really mean to come back to this thread, just thought I would bump it into a more constructive direction, but...
I don't understand your answer, what do you mean "compromised small trucks"?
Sorry, im quite confused.
-Josh
It was not Ron's comment, rather I was paraphrasing some other racer's views that here are 'racecars' i.e. single-seaters and
then there are trucks...i.e. anything that is not a 'racecar' and that are by default more compromised.
Of course the fallacy of this viewpoint is that a car is designed for 'best fit'...it will never be 'perfect'.
|
|
|
