follow ft86club on our blog, twitter or facebook.
FT86CLUB
Ft86Club
Speed By Design
Register Garage Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   Scion FR-S Forum | Subaru BRZ Forum | Toyota 86 GT 86 Forum | AS1 Forum - FT86CLUB > Technical Topics > Suspension | Chassis | Brakes -- Sponsored by 949 Racing

Suspension | Chassis | Brakes -- Sponsored by 949 Racing Relating to suspension, chassis, and brakes. Sponsored by 949 Racing.


User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-04-2013, 08:43 AM   #29
ZDan
Senior Member
 
ZDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Drives: '17 BRZ PP, '11 Cayman
Location: Providence, RI
Posts: 2,302
Thanks: 268
Thanked 1,350 Times in 793 Posts
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco-REX View Post
I'm having trouble picturing how a MacPherson strut design can be gaining Negative camber after the LCA passes horizontal. Once above horizontal, the LCA is effectively shorter so it should be pulling the strut inwards, tilting it towards positive. And as the strut shortens, this should increase in rate.
This would be true only if the line of action of the strut were vertical. It's not, it is canted inward at ~12 degrees or so. The wheel will gain camber until the LCA is perpendicular to the line of action of the strut, about 12 degrees beyond LCA-horizontal.
ZDan is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ZDan For This Useful Post:
Dimman (10-04-2013), Draco-REX (10-04-2013)
Old 10-04-2013, 08:55 AM   #30
Draco-REX
Corner Junkie
 
Draco-REX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Drives: 13 BRZ, 11 STI, 99 RS
Location: Ohio
Posts: 2,908
Thanks: 129
Thanked 1,512 Times in 700 Posts
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimman View Post
I drew this a while back while ZDan was helping to explain why a MacStrut isn't exactly a 1:1 motion ratio, but it also shows camber effects.




The discussion is in the 'Ask RCE and CSG Mike suspension question tag-team' thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7thgear View Post
here ya go... a buddy of mine made this a long time ago.



Quote:
Originally Posted by ZDan View Post
This would be true only if the line of action of the strut were vertical. It's not, it is canted inward at ~12 degrees or so. The wheel will gain camber until the LCA is perpendicular to the line of action of the strut, about 12 degrees beyond LCA-horizontal.
Thanks guys, that makes a lot more sense to me. I was missing the perpendicular to the strut angle thing..


Hmm... Need to do some thinking.
Draco-REX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2013, 08:58 AM   #31
7thgear
i'm sorry, what?
 
7thgear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Drives: Canada
Location: I rock a beat harder than you can beat it with rocks
Posts: 4,399
Thanks: 357
Thanked 2,501 Times in 1,268 Posts
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 3 Thread(s)
ALso, here is a MacPherson design used in a Lotus racing car.

I can guarantee you that under compression these thigns gain an ample amount of camber

i'd say pre-aero days this would have been a fantastic design.

-
__________________
don't you think if I was wrong, I'd know it?
7thgear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2013, 11:22 AM   #32
autobrz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Drives: Mazda 3
Location: round rock, tx
Posts: 413
Thanks: 487
Thanked 108 Times in 74 Posts
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
I only drive around on the street but even then I can appreciate a better setup suspension than stock. optimal static camber for maximum lateral grip level of the stock tires; more front roll stiffness from springs and less from sway bars will make steering response more linear and feel more supple. Having more bump travel in the rear will make taking bumpy corners so much more confidence inspiring. I've had quite a few instances on the street where the rear momentarily lost traction in the middle of a corner when hitting a bump, not to mention when the rear hits the bumpstops full-on, the chassis bounces off the bump stops and the whole car wiggles left to right.

there is so much I can improve on the stock setup that will make the car better without upsetting the balance and I only drive on the street... I see most bad setups start at very low ride height with not stiff enough spring rates or the use of too big sway bars...
autobrz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2014, 10:37 AM   #33
ayau
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Drives: Some rust bucket
Location: Polar ice cap
Posts: 2,939
Thanks: 310
Thanked 961 Times in 516 Posts
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7thgear View Post
here ya go... a buddy of mine made this a long time ago.



Excellent gif. It took me a second to realize what I was looking at. I think the pause in the animation threw me off a little because it looks like I'm looking at the rebound effect rather than the compression effect.

Based on this animation, one can infer that macpherson struts gain negative camber under rebound when the LCA and strut are past the perpendicular point. Not really useful when you're cornering since you want the outside wheel to gain negative camber and not the inside wheel.
ayau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2014, 10:52 AM   #34
ayau
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Drives: Some rust bucket
Location: Polar ice cap
Posts: 2,939
Thanks: 310
Thanked 961 Times in 516 Posts
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
So all else equal, if you lower the front of the car, you'd want to increase spring rate to minimize the LCA and the strut from being perpendicular under compression.

Assuming @ZDan's suspension model is accurate, the front keeps gaining negative camber up until 4'' of compression. However, that doesn't take into account body roll, which changes the angle of the strut. That 4'' of bump travel is actually less when you take into account body roll, right?

Then you also have to take into account caster, which can change the amount of camber when cornering. More caster equals more negative camber under bump. I'm sure there are other variables as well.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears you want the front to be as stiff as possible when tuning macpherson struts (ignoring all other factors). From a pure performance standpoint (ignoring cost, packaging, etc), double wishbone appears to be the superior design. I guess that's why Formula One still uses it.
ayau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2014, 11:01 AM   #35
7thgear
i'm sorry, what?
 
7thgear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Drives: Canada
Location: I rock a beat harder than you can beat it with rocks
Posts: 4,399
Thanks: 357
Thanked 2,501 Times in 1,268 Posts
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 3 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ayau View Post
So all else equal, if you lower the front of the car, you'd want to increase spring rate to minimize the LCA and the strut from being perpendicular under compression.
no, if you lower the car, the LCA angle will change period, upping the spring rate will do nothing for that because it is a function of mechanical geometry.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ayau View Post
double wishbone appears to be the superior design. I guess that's why Formula One still uses it.
F1 uses the design because it packages better

but otherwise, F1 suspension design laughs and farts and throws beer bottles in the general director of production vehicle suspension theory.

so you should NEVER draw any conclusions of F1 design and production cars. If you want to immitate a racing body.. watch what the rally guys do.
__________________
don't you think if I was wrong, I'd know it?
7thgear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2014, 11:07 AM   #36
ayau
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Drives: Some rust bucket
Location: Polar ice cap
Posts: 2,939
Thanks: 310
Thanked 961 Times in 516 Posts
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
So by adding camber plates and adding negative camber, you're essentially changing the angle of the strut. This means you increased the negative camber bump travel to greater than 4", right? Let's assume zdan's model is accurate.
ayau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2014, 11:13 AM   #37
7thgear
i'm sorry, what?
 
7thgear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Drives: Canada
Location: I rock a beat harder than you can beat it with rocks
Posts: 4,399
Thanks: 357
Thanked 2,501 Times in 1,268 Posts
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 3 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ayau View Post
So by adding camber plates and adding negative camber, you're essentially changing the angle of the strut.
yes, but do it too much and wonky things start happening during steering
__________________
don't you think if I was wrong, I'd know it?
7thgear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2014, 01:15 PM   #38
Racecomp Engineering
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Drives: 2016 BRZ, 2012 Paris Di2 & 2018 STI
Location: Severn, MD
Posts: 4,384
Thanks: 2,285
Thanked 5,309 Times in 2,254 Posts
Mentioned: 258 Post(s)
Tagged: 9 Thread(s)
Send a message via AIM to Racecomp Engineering
There's some debate about whether it's better to add camber at the topmounts (camber plates) or at the lower strut mounting point (camber bolts). Using plates pushed in gives you a higher roll center and can improve camber curve. However, it also increases the SAI which has a negative effect on camber when you turn the steering wheel.

- Andy
__________________
Suspension and brake specialists
www.racecompengineering.com

+1 (410) 846-5407
instagram:@racecompengineering @theapexfiles
Racecomp Engineering is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Racecomp Engineering For This Useful Post:
CSG Mike (03-28-2014)
Old 03-10-2019, 02:08 PM   #39
PadSprouts
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Drives: 2016 Scion FR-S
Location: Washington
Posts: 3
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Wow, this thread was very informative and exactly what I needed!

So since FR-S engineers added less negative camber to the front, this helps break out of a slide easier? (harder to oversteer?)
PadSprouts is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Advice on negative rear camber Thongpocket Suspension | Chassis | Brakes -- Sponsored by 949 Racing 23 09-27-2013 10:38 PM
Camber Question Ryeong86 Suspension | Chassis | Brakes -- Sponsored by 949 Racing 5 04-12-2013 12:05 PM
Question about adjustable LCA's vs Camber Plates vs Camber Bolts djdnz Suspension | Chassis | Brakes -- Sponsored by 949 Racing 13 03-27-2013 11:38 PM
Camber Question subaruatheart Suspension | Chassis | Brakes -- Sponsored by 949 Racing 10 03-24-2013 01:49 PM
Excessive negative camber? MTeator Suspension | Chassis | Brakes -- Sponsored by 949 Racing 10 06-22-2012 10:30 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Garage vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.