Printable View
I vaguely recall seeing a copy on Amazon some time ago (came up in a search for something else).Quote:
Originally Posted by string
Truth be told, I think I might be a scared to buy it, I hear it's rather heavy on mathematics, which isn't my strong point!
Thinking this through; fitting the type of 'roll center adjusters' pictured above (with no other changes), will lower the outer end of the lower wishbone (relative to the hub, wheel etc), and also lower (to a lesser degree) the point at which the coilover attaches to the control arm section of the wishbone (the WB being made up of the control arm and the radius rod).Quote:
Originally Posted by EGB18CT
This will cause the ride height to be lowered, and the risk of the upper suspension hitting the chassis will be the same as if you had fitted lowering springs that gave an identical chassis drop.
If you already have lowered suspension and then fit the RC adjusters to lift the GRC, then you'll get some additional chassis lowering. Ideally, after fitting the RC adjusters you'd raise the suspension so the chassis was back at the original lowered position.
An ideal solution to unwanted changes to suspension geometry that accompany lowering would be to lower the lower ball joint with the RS adjusters, but also to lower the upper ball joint to an identical degree. This would be a tricky mod on the stock upright as you'd have to shorten the upper part of it. In effect this is what uprights that have a raised hub mounting do, (i.e. uprights where the axle and hub fit to the upright at a height higher than stock, i.e. closer to the upper ball joint and farther from the lower ball joint). Such uprights are available for some cars, I think for some Hondas but no idea which (probably Civics, they get all the good stuff, not that I'm bitter...).
just at uni, they have the the vehicle dynamics book your loonking for! its about 3 inches thick, extremly heavy on advanced engineering mathematics, lots on leaf spring type setups, i dont think it would be much use unless your making a new car lol!
Yes, it's supposed to be pretty heavy going! I doubt I'm smart enough to digest it's contents!
yeh well i used to do engineering at uni, had a flick thru it and its 80% dynamics/engineering maths which i gave up on hahahha. i doubt you could just read it like a novel to! i think there was a good book on chasis design with respect to race cars and roll cages and welding etc at boarders books.
There are a number of worthwhile books on the practicalities of chassis design etc, but that don't really go very far into the first principles relating to chassis dynamics.
What I want is a book that intelligently investigates the physics of chassis dynamics in some depth, but without the mathematics, or at least math at a level I can cope with (which ain't all that advanced!). I've yet to see one though, and if it exists it's not likely you'll happen to see it on the shelf at the local book store!
The mathematics quantifies the physics, turning it into a tool that engineers might be able to use to predict the likely result of design decisions or modifications, but I don't see that it's absolutely essential to quantify them in order to understand the underlying principles reasonably well (physicists may disagree!). I'd like to think that I've gone at least some way to a reasonable understanding without needing to run numbers through equations (or even just to understand the equations).
I use a lot of visualisation, doing mind experiments to follow the force (i.e. simplistically; weight transfer) as it 'travels' through both the geometric and elastic vectors depending on the nature of the vectors, giving some idea of how much force (very approximate % of the force) might be passing through geometric and / or elastic vectors at any given moment.
This is how I came to suspect that the GRC simply (?) couldn't be the point around which the sprung mass actually rolls (i.e. couldn't possibly be the centre of roll motion as the sprung mass moves in an arc), despite what I'd been reading in books. Further investigation on the internet found a fair bit of opinion supporting my suspicion (which made me feel rather smart, for a short while!).
Chassis engineers talk a lot about "force based roll centres", an idea which attempts to explain the reasons why the GRC isn't the point around which the sprung mass rolls (except in very specific circumstances and cases), though I've yet to find a particulalry clear explanation of the physics relating to FBRCs. I suspect this might be because there aren't all that many people who do understand it well, and / or that it's very hard to describe.
This is what I find when trying to explain my take on this stuff, i.e. it's incredibly difficult to describe clearly and concisely, even if I can 'see' it fairly clearly 'in my head'. It might be easier with mathematics, but more advanced maths is verging on a foreign language for me!