Roll Centres, Front to Rear, my learnings and Jaguar E type calcs

280mm front roll center height does not even seem plausible. That's swing-axle roll center height. Double-check your geometry.

I know only as much about Jaguar E-types as I can look up on google, and from what it looks like, it appears to be a pretty conventional upper-and-lower-A-arm arrangement with the arms more or less parallel and horizontal at nominal ride height, and that's a recipe for having a roll center somewhere near ground level ... which would be pretty conventional on a vehicle like that.

Also keep in mind that high roll center + independent suspension design = jacking. Jacking + soft spring rates = badness.

Data I have on your Jag indicates front roll center at 60 mm and rear at 150 mm (Force based, measured on K&C rig).

A few things to clear the air.

Setting the roll axis requires knowledge about the tires, wheelbase, weight distribution and sprung mass inertia (dressed with powertrain, battery, fuel, passenger(s), glass, etc.). Then, figuring out the cornering compliances (tires, weight distribution, kinematic and compliance parameters factored into net front and rear axle sideslip gains (deg/g), you compute the yaw velocity (yawrate) natural frequency and damping metrics. These are speed dependent, the faster you go, the less damping and the higher the peak frequency becomes.

Next, you figure out or measure the sprung roll inertia. Knowing this and the parallel axis theorem, figure out what the total sprung roll inertia needs to be, given the roll gradient you desire, so that the roll natural frequency is lower than the yawrate frequency. This prevents the yawrate frequency from hooking up with the roll frequency ('Q') to animate any roll yaw coupling that you have in the body or chassis. Things like roll steer and roll camber and load transfer are the culprits here.

Now that you have a roll axis height at the sprung mass cg location, you figure out the load transfer you need to produce a TLLTD you need or can live with. This establishes the load transfer delivered by your suspension and springs and bars and track and tire Fy, and Mx, etc. The kinematic roll centers deliver the load transfer first (suspension path, followed by the elastic components delivered by springs, bars and roll inertia. So, low roll center at the front with matches with a reasonable roll bar library given the instant centers intended to produce camber changes during steer and cornering force application. This gets you easy track deltas because bars are cheap and often incrementally adjustable. Not so with a spring library. Spring increments are usually pretty big and cost a lot. For production engineering, you might want a Level 1 handling vehicle with no rear bar for cost and mass savings. So, your rear roll center is set to deliver this 'feature'. Yes there is the danger of jacking force contributing to rollover. Yes the low roll center drives a lot more lateral force into your control arms, (and that's what you signed up for), so changing horses in the middle of the stream may break some parts if you lower it a bunch after the fact.

Low is fast load transfer, high is slower load transfer. A vehicle can feel 'lazy' if you lower it to much, as the distance between the sprung cg and the roll axis height gets too large.

Of course, changing the roll centers and roll axis can be quite a project. You need new attachment points in the chassis where structure may not exist to support the loads. Breakage and compliance and wreckage often result.

My first response to this thread died somewhere or was removed by a Propeller Head. Maybe this one will survive !