Roll stiffness distribution and effects of changing spring rates.
Roll stiffness distribution and effects of changing spring rates.
(OP)
Hi all, first post on the forum so go easy on me!
My question relates to a discussion on an owners club forum where the members were discussing the effects of spring rate changes on the cars handling balance. The car in question was a FWD sports car, with equal spring rates front and rear, and big front and rear anti-roll bars and around a 62% front weight distribution.
It was mooted that should one wish to increase the roll stiffness of the suspension for track use with sticky tyres, the spring rates should be increased by an equal amount front and rear so as to retain the stock cars fine handling balance. I disagreed and put forward the idea that this would infact increase understeer in this particular application, but my idea was rubbished by one member and then the thread died.
My thinking was this; given that the roll bars on the car generate a roll stiffness of around 2000lbs.in/degree at the front, and 4000lbs.in/degree in the rear, and the stock springs generate around 2500/2500 respectively, then we can see that the total roll stiffness is 4500/6500 or a 40.9% front RSD. If we double the spring rates to 5000/5000, sure we end up with an equal RSD contribution from the springs, but when considered in conjunction with the roll bars we end up with a total RSD of 7000/9000 with a 43.75% front RSD. So for the same increase in spring rate front and rear, we have actually increased the front RSD by 2.85%. In order to keep the RSD the same as stock, the rear springs would need to be increased by a greater proportion, in this case by an extra 22.3% to 6115.
While the one reply somewhat agreed with the maths, he said it was of no consideration as the imbalance could be made up by using more negative camber up front to combat the increased push, and that you should not throw away grip from one end of the car to improve the other. I see this approach as being the complete opposite, with the correct RSD balance then the neg. camber can be increased by an equal amount front and rear to generate an overall increase in grip on both axles, rather than just one.
Seeing as I had no further replies on this topic I thought I may have been barking up the wrong tree, but it could simply be that having never calculated the roll stiffness contributions, the other readers simply had no input as to whether I was talking gibberish!
I am hoping you knowledgeable folk here might set me straight on this matter...
My question relates to a discussion on an owners club forum where the members were discussing the effects of spring rate changes on the cars handling balance. The car in question was a FWD sports car, with equal spring rates front and rear, and big front and rear anti-roll bars and around a 62% front weight distribution.
It was mooted that should one wish to increase the roll stiffness of the suspension for track use with sticky tyres, the spring rates should be increased by an equal amount front and rear so as to retain the stock cars fine handling balance. I disagreed and put forward the idea that this would infact increase understeer in this particular application, but my idea was rubbished by one member and then the thread died.
My thinking was this; given that the roll bars on the car generate a roll stiffness of around 2000lbs.in/degree at the front, and 4000lbs.in/degree in the rear, and the stock springs generate around 2500/2500 respectively, then we can see that the total roll stiffness is 4500/6500 or a 40.9% front RSD. If we double the spring rates to 5000/5000, sure we end up with an equal RSD contribution from the springs, but when considered in conjunction with the roll bars we end up with a total RSD of 7000/9000 with a 43.75% front RSD. So for the same increase in spring rate front and rear, we have actually increased the front RSD by 2.85%. In order to keep the RSD the same as stock, the rear springs would need to be increased by a greater proportion, in this case by an extra 22.3% to 6115.
While the one reply somewhat agreed with the maths, he said it was of no consideration as the imbalance could be made up by using more negative camber up front to combat the increased push, and that you should not throw away grip from one end of the car to improve the other. I see this approach as being the complete opposite, with the correct RSD balance then the neg. camber can be increased by an equal amount front and rear to generate an overall increase in grip on both axles, rather than just one.
Seeing as I had no further replies on this topic I thought I may have been barking up the wrong tree, but it could simply be that having never calculated the roll stiffness contributions, the other readers simply had no input as to whether I was talking gibberish!
I am hoping you knowledgeable folk here might set me straight on this matter...





RE: Roll stiffness distribution and effects of changing spring rates.
Keep in mind that with greater roll stiffness and assuming that you end up at the same ride heights, you should experience less camber loss.
Norm
RE: Roll stiffness distribution and effects of changing spring rates.
Original values:
Spring rate: 250/250lbin
Sway bar linear rate: 74.48/142.99lb/in
With all the other associated values, this gives me 2749/2867lb.in/deg for the springs and 2186/4198 for the sway bars, so 4935/7065 in total for a 42.55% front RSD. This works out at 45.8% front load transfer distribution.
Double the spring rates to 500/500 and we get 5498/5734 spring contribution and 7684/9931 total, 43.62% front roll stiffness, 46.9% front load transfer distribution.
So the values are less than the example in the original post, but the trend stays the same. Increasing the rear rate by that extra 22.3% brings the RSD back to 42.68% and front load transfer back to 45.6%, as predicted.
Point taken on the camber loss, but would I be on the right track with my setup verses the guy who chooses the 500/500 rates and runs a sub optimal rear camber angle to 'throw away' rear axle grip and balance the increased understeer?
RE: Roll stiffness distribution and effects of changing spring rates.
Norm
RE: Roll stiffness distribution and effects of changing spring rates.
The calculations are taken from Competition Car Suspension by Allan Staniforth.
RE: Roll stiffness distribution and effects of changing spring rates.
It all depends on which part of the corner the current setup fails. Increasing the roll stiffness is a bit counterintuitive to me, making the outside tires work harder than the inner ones doesn't seem like an automatic recipe for success. This assumes you have a decent geometry setup.
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?
RE: Roll stiffness distribution and effects of changing spring rates.
Meanwhile, a TLLTD of (wgt distribution minus a few percent) is most likely the factual number. Otherwise it would be unsaleable. The fwd inclined roll axis should be telling you this, as well as the difference in front and rear camber-by-roll ratios.
Can you name the car? I might have a K&C test on it in my tree house.
RE: Roll stiffness distribution and effects of changing spring rates.
"What are the ride rates? A ride rate ratio (rear to front) of GT 1 is commonly done."
Motion ratios are measured at .7 F/R so the ride rates are 122/123lbin given an unsprung mass measured at 61/68lbs. I do not follow the second part of that statement?
"Meanwhile, a TLLTD of (wgt distribution minus a few percent) is most likely the factual number. Otherwise it would be unsaleable. The fwd inclined roll axis should be telling you this, as well as the difference in front and rear camber-by-roll ratios."
I am not entirely sure I follow you here? Are you saying that the front LLTD should be 62%, matching the weight distribution? The stock car is known to be very tail happy for FWD, it is extremely resistant to understeer.
RE: Roll stiffness distribution and effects of changing spring rates.
I did suspect there would be no 'right' answer, but some opinion on the theory was needed to see if I was going the wrong way. Here, competition sprint/hillcimb cars are set up with the front heavy springs and then the geometry is set to match, the way I saw it, this was thowing away potential grip. In the US, autox cars are set up rear biased which makes more sense the way I am seeing it, although those guys go too far and end up cocking a wheel way up in the air.
"It all depends on which part of the corner the current setup fails. Increasing the roll stiffness is a bit counterintuitive to me, making the outside tires work harder than the inner ones doesn't seem like an automatic recipe for success. This assumes you have a decent geometry setup."
Nothing fails as such, but the car was designed around mid 90s tyre technology, throw on some >'10 spec R compounds and you are generating more lateral acceleration than the car was originally designed for, so the increase in roll stiffness is the usual method to bring the roll angle back towards stock levels to maintain the factory designed geometry.
RE: Roll stiffness distribution and effects of changing spring rates.
The TLLTD for a production car should fall within a few percent of the weight distribution numbers. Expect the front TLLTD% to run a few % higher than the front weight% for a RWD car, perhaps a few % less for FWD.
What's commonly done in autocrossing FWD cars is done to provide the best overall result in a rather narrowly defined set of circumstances involving low speeds, near-continuous rapid-fire maneuvering, and the lack of much that qualifies as a "straight" where WOT acceleration is possible without getting wheelspin. A successful autoX setup would not be appropriate for higher speed activities, and in many cases isn't all that acceptable for street driving either (too oversteerish). But within its activity, an autocross setup may not be as nutty as it looks - once a car becomes a tricycle, where do you think any additional LLT goes, and what might that mean in terms of tire loading and slip angles?
Norm
RE: Roll stiffness distribution and effects of changing spring rates.
For comparison, the base spec car does have a TLLTD of around 57%, which seems to tie in with what you say, but then it is a typical understeering FWD production car. With the substantial increase in rear roll resistance coupled with the LSD in the Type R, Honda managed to produce something that doesn't feel much like a FWD at all, it does certainly appear to be a special case among common FWD setups.
As for lifting a wheel, once that axle has contributed all of its load transfer, any more must come from the remaining axle. Thus lifting a rear wheel = increased front load transfer = increased understeer. In this case, for 1G lat. acc. the inside rear appears to be planted on the ground for all three setups 250/250 500/500 and 500/615, so I don't forsee any problems there. According to my workings the inside rear does not become fully unloaded until you reach 40% FLLTD, but we are well into the realms of akwardly set up autox setups then (i.e. no front bar, 500/700 springs, quite a common setup amongst Honda autox drivers.)
I think I may have just found the flaw in my idea though, I recall writing in the sums necessary to account for wheel lift (not given in the book), but they are not taken into account on the number I am looking at, they run on a seperate table where I was attempting to model tyre behaviour. I guess given a target increase in peak G, I could well run into wheel lift problems with the stiffer setup.
I'll check it out and report back!
RE: Roll stiffness distribution and effects of changing spring rates.
Stock car lifts at 1.2G
500/500 lifts at 1.25G
500/615 lifts at 1.2G
So it still hints at 500/500 increasing understeer and 500/615 retaining the stock balance? I guess the question would rely on whether the tyres are capable of generating more than 1.2G!
RE: Roll stiffness distribution and effects of changing spring rates.
No names no pack drill, but a very good handling FWD has a 60/40 weight bias and a 43/57 LLTD.
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?
RE: Roll stiffness distribution and effects of changing spring rates.
There are a few ways to look at this. One is that the progressive coils are concerned mostly with ride, and that all body motions are controlled by the 'main' rate. Having looked at the coils on my car, they look very close at the top, so much so that I expect they will be bound at ride height. Would this have the same effect as them being linear under normal driving conditions?
Another view is that the rear axle experiences an increasing rate of load transfer in a corner. A simplistic way of looking at it without considering the geometry, but this is also possible.
Needless to say, this throws any estimates of what linear rear springs I would need out, as I now have no way to compare the load transfer effects between a linear and progressive spring.
RE: Roll stiffness distribution and effects of changing spring rates.
At say 3 deg/g of chassis roll gain you'll have about 40mm of jounce travel on one side and and 40mm of rebound on the other, at the wheel.
So on the rebound side you'd almost certainly be seeing the soft progressive rate of the springs.
Basically if you are trying to do it properly and analytically you need to measure these things, otherwise you are playing with numbers, which can be useful, or can just be a waste of time, depending on how good your guesses and approximations are.
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?
RE: Roll stiffness distribution and effects of changing spring rates.
Rod
RE: Roll stiffness distribution and effects of changing spring rates.
That was the aim, to increase total roll stiffness but NOT to increase the front relative to the rear. I would disagree that the rear just follows though. As I see it, the rear has a significant effect on how well the front can work.
Lifting a rear wheel is not a problem as long as the front is planted and going where it's pointed.
Depends on whether you subscribe to the school of thought that when the rear wheel lifts, no further load transfer can happen at that axle and any further load transfer must happen at the front. Some people agree with this, others do not. The ones that do see lifting a wheel go hand in hand with an increase in understeer, which seems logical.
Going on the above assumption, I think that a slight lift right at the peak lateral acceleration, or under combined braking and turning is probably inconsequential, however picking that wheel up in a steady state corner at mid lateral Gs is a probably a good indicator of a wonky balance. This might be necessary in some cars to overcome other shortfalls within the design, but on the car in question with double wishbone suspension all round and a well regarded chassis, there does not appear to be much benefit, only potential disadvantages.
Autocross setup is NOT the hot setup for circuit racing. From what I've seen, 50/50 to 60/40 would work for autocross. My car is 70/30 with rear anti roll bar only.
But we are considering a car that is close to 45/55 out of the factory, what you would consider a full autocross setup, yet has almost universally praised handling on circuit. I think they key here is the cars we are comparing, assuming that is your Mini in the photo? A 70/30 setup on a Honda would create an understeering barge of a car, it would be nigh on undriveable in any kind of competitive arena. Last year I changed my setup from a 58/42 to a 43/67 to closer match the Type R specifications and the improvement in handling on both circuit and autocross was significant!
The suspension design on the two cars must account for most of the difference in the roll stiffness requirements, double wishbones must surely require a different approach to a live axle or MacPherson struts, the latter of which I am aware requires a large amount of front roll stiffness to combat the rubbish camber curve...
RE: Roll stiffness distribution and effects of changing spring rates.
I couldn't honestly say!
At say 3 deg/g of chassis roll gain you'll have about 40mm of jounce travel on one side and and 40mm of rebound on the other, at the wheel.So on the rebound side you'd almost certainly be seeing the soft progressive rate of the springs.
This sounds about right, having different rates on either side of the car sure makes for some unpredictability!
Basically if you are trying to do it properly and analytically you need to measure these things, otherwise you are playing with numbers, which can be useful, or can just be a waste of time, depending on how good your guesses and approximations are.
Very much a case of 'garbage in, garbage out' however it does give me a insight into how various changes will potentially affect the setup. The rate of the rear spring is given in the specs available online as 2.5-4.5kg/mm. Changing between a 2.5 and 4.5 rear spring appears to alter the LTD by about 1%.