|
Lol @ state certification and "engineer". Right... and cute (and very wrong) use of Newton's second law. My friend you are about as much of an engineer as I am Tony Stark.
Your first posts reminded me exactly of why everyone should take everything on the internet with a grain of salt, including mine. Thanks for helping with the noise to signal ratio... For the rest of you people, don't be thrown off by arbitrary formulas thrown out by some keyboard warrior who did a quick search on google to back up his argument. As for you "wu_", go take your argument to the suspension model section, they will rip you a new one quickly.
Sure you can assume relative arbitrary points, fact is, you are lowering the entire mass (minus the unspung, which is a small portion) relative to the contact patch has immense benefits. You really think, that in this obvious case that the COG would not be different? You know damn well (well, YOU don't...) for all intents and purposes, the center of gravity would be effectively acting on the center of mass in this case. Period. Btw, COM is arbitrary and a made up point to simplify modelling and not anything physical. Why don't we just take a point of the moment of the car around earth relative to Pluto huh? Will that make sense? You think race cars are low for fun?
Not only are you reducing the moment LATERALLY but you are decreasing the available volume for air underneath the car, which aids in high speed stability by reducing the pressure delta at higher speeds (generating less lift). Why are you decreasing the moment laterally? Because the COM/height of the vehicle is analogous to the effective lever arm, which you are reducing by decreasing the height, thereby decreasing the effective force to roll the body. You think trucks roll because they are unlucky and hit pixie dust too much? Higher COM, higher moment laterally (about the x-axis as a reference point, as any REAL engineer would take it) and you have more roll. Less moment laterally = less body roll = more use of the contact patch, especially on a mcpherson strut which sees positive camber gain with body roll. Thats just the tip of the iceberg too, as there are so many variables and components that your already WRONG and SILLY arguments is moot. Stop with the BS, you are wrong on so many levels and its not even funny. Geek talk my @$$, you don't even understand principle fundamentals.
|