Quote:
Originally Posted by RBbugBITme
You're right but the roll center for this car isn't that controlled. Depending on your ride height you can see RC heights during roll from -1" to +10" or +1" to -10". That is a big swing worth noting.
|
That's exactly the group of curves that I don't believe. They are greatly exaggerating RC height movement with roll the nearer static RC height gets to 0.
Quote:
|
Its also worth noting that RC movement is fairly well controlled at stock ride height so I would guess a properly designed roll center correction kit would be worth while.
|
Looking at those curves again, if far left is -3" and steps are 0.1", black vertical line is -1", but the far right is more like +0.5", not +2".
Either way, at OEM height this curve family still suggests a lot of movement of RC height with roll, about the SAME as for -2" lowered! Curves show that at OEM height the RC height is getting lower with roll, so as you corner you lose roll stiffness, whereas at -2" your gaining a similar amount of roll stiffness. But I don't think that's what's really happening. For sure it's not happening to the extent suggested for the -1" lowered case!
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBbugBITme
I would think just like I stated with the kinematic roll center, you wouldn't really want the FAPs to pass back and forth through the ground plane every time you turn the car.
|
Whatever points are "passing through the ground plane", it is still a (nearly) linear and continuous change. It's not like a sudden discontinuous change in handling behavior.
Nothing magical or spooky happens when these points pass the ground plane.
Is it better to have the roll center somewhat above the ground plane? To a point, yes. But in most cases, lowering a car with no geometry-"correcting" mods will still give handling benefits despite the lowered roll center height.
I would worry more about usable suspension travel when lowering.