01-30-2013, 11:50 AM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Drives: GBS Limited 6MT
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 200
Thanks: 186
Thanked 69 Times in 42 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
What is the purpose of the constant in the natural frequency calculations? I haven't seen that before.
Can you explain how you get to this conclusion from what you presented above? You can use mathematics/vibrations if you'd like. |
The Following User Says Thank You to u/Josh For This Useful Post: | Shankenstein (01-30-2013) |
01-30-2013, 12:56 PM | #30 |
Frosty Carrot
Join Date: Jan 2013
Drives: The Atomic Carrot
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 513
Thanks: 272
Thanked 428 Times in 199 Posts
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
As stated, we have a highly intelligent crowd for peer-review. Thanks for signing up to make a post, Josh.
I pulled most of the info from a guide found here: LINK to PDF First point. Here's the traditional formula for a spring-mass oscillator: F = sqrt(spring constant / mass) It will output in rad/s. Radians are wondeful for Bode plots, but not good for normal people... so 1/2/pi = 0.159 is the conversion factor for Hz. Second point may be very valid. It's a fine handwaving argument, but it may not be correct. I picked that up from a random forum post on the miata forums. Let's find out: Tire dynamics should minimally affect suspension dynamics. A decade of frequency separation is considered sufficient. F_tire > 10 * F_susp sqrt(tire rate / unsprung mass) > 10 * sqrt(spring rate / sprung mass) If both values are more than one, tire rate / unsprung mass > 100 * spring rate / sprung mass tire rate / spring rate > 100 * unsprung mass / sprung mass for our example: 6500 / 131 > 100 * 83 / 618 49.6 > 13.43 --> sufficiently separated I guess I should amend the above statement. Thanks for pointing it out! Continuing this thought: If we calculate the max spring rate that can be used without being affected by tire dynamics (at stock pressures): max front wheel rate = 484 lbs/in max front spring rate = 526 lbs/in max rear wheel rate = 422 lbs/in max rear spring rate is = 548 lbs/in At autox pressures, max spring rates would be 809 (front) and 843 (rear). In metric, that's 14.2k and 14.8k. Interesting, not that anyone would want to run them that stiff anyways. Last edited by Shankenstein; 01-30-2013 at 01:33 PM. |
02-02-2013, 12:01 PM | #31 |
I just Drive.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Drives: in the womb still
Location: WI/MN
Posts: 299
Thanks: 0
Thanked 116 Times in 86 Posts
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
in a non gay way I love you man
__________________
-Waiting patiently for the right FT-86...
-92' Acura Legend 5spd coupe twin turbo project |
02-02-2013, 12:41 PM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Drives: Subarus
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 189
Thanks: 20
Thanked 129 Times in 66 Posts
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
Be careful with roll centers. Over the last few years, it has become one of the most misunderstood terms on the internet. You are using the proper, SAE definition, but you are giving 2D, kinematic scenarios of roll center height. What we need to determine are the force application points (FAP) and use the force-based roll center, not the kinematic roll center. The KRC tells you an arbitrary point in space. It only works in a symmetrical 2D case. As soon as you turn the wheel and the suspension begins to compress/decompress as the car begins to roll, the model is no longer valid. So the KRC only works when the car is static and what good does that do? Worrying about roll center migration is also a load of crap. If the roll center can migrate up-and-down and side-to-side, what happens when the roll center is outside the wheelbase? All four corners would simultaneously be in tension or compression, a physical impossibility. Mitchell himself discusses the KRC vs FBRC here: http://www.neohio-scca.org/comp_clin...namics2007.pdf There is nothing wrong with having a KRC below ground per se. Sometimes, such as in the case of F1, there's a below ground roll center, but that's because suspension as a whole is compromised around the aero. But a below ground roll center means the suspension has anti-jacking built into it, creating a more stable aero platform in return. If you are going to discuss roll center height, you must include jacking/anti-jacking forces as a result. |
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to EarlQHan For This Useful Post: | Racecomp Engineering (02-02-2013), Shankenstein (02-02-2013) |
02-02-2013, 01:39 PM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Drives: Some rust bucket
Location: Polar ice cap
Posts: 3,058
Thanks: 312
Thanked 1,045 Times in 556 Posts
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Preface: I no engineering background.
I get that you're basically trying to develop a model of the car's suspension. Once you have this created, what kind of information can we learn from this? How does this benefit the owners of these cars? If I'm understanding this correctly, you're using a simplified version of this car (model) in order to get a better understanding of this car's vehicle dynamics, correct? |
02-02-2013, 01:46 PM | #34 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2012
Drives: Attitude
Location: MD
Posts: 10,046
Thanks: 884
Thanked 4,889 Times in 2,902 Posts
Mentioned: 123 Post(s)
Tagged: 4 Thread(s)
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to OrbitalEllipses For This Useful Post: |
02-02-2013, 01:57 PM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Drives: SWP BRZ 6MT
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 876
Thanks: 415
Thanked 576 Times in 332 Posts
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
Unfortunately, the accuracy of that data will be limited by the accuracy of the inputs, and most of the input data can only be determined from having a very precise model of the car's suspension. (And fancy software ) |
|
02-02-2013, 02:24 PM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Drives: Some rust bucket
Location: Polar ice cap
Posts: 3,058
Thanks: 312
Thanked 1,045 Times in 556 Posts
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
|
|
02-02-2013, 11:40 PM | #37 |
Frosty Carrot
Join Date: Jan 2013
Drives: The Atomic Carrot
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 513
Thanks: 272
Thanked 428 Times in 199 Posts
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
@ EarlQ,
All of the suspension nerds on here should read that paper. Not just because of the FAPs and jacking forces, either. Mitchell is the man, and he has a way of elegantly poo-pooing on everything you've ever learned. My interpretation of roll center isn't horrifically wrong, but it isn't terribly useful either. Hopefully it will atleast serve as an elementary-level understanding for the next-level theory and kinematic simulations. @ Ninjin, A model is just that, a simplified and solvable interpretation of reality. A good model is reproducible and transferable. My sincere hope is that we can make something that anybody can validate for themselves and apply to their specific modification. Ex: Somebody has heard that RCE Yellow lowering springs are the bee's thorax. They want to buy some, but would feel more comfortable knowing what the rear camber curves look like (since that's not factory adjustable). If we validate the base model, he can drop in the new spring rate and height... then be reasonably confident in the modest tire wear rates. Similarly, they could test the eccentric bushings, and see if that would correct the problem (before buying and installing them). @ Ayau, They have modelling, but when you're ballin' enough... you get big boy tools. 7 post rigs like this: [ame="http://youtu.be/aYgR38lC8JI"]LINK to KW's rig[/ame] and shock dynos like this: [ame="http://youtu.be/32XLPjdDlRA"]LINK to Ohlins' shock dyno[/ame] Even if it's a technician running the test and one experienced engineer calling the shots ... you can get a great setup. KONI and the rest have team of people on this, since it's their bread and butter. Just so it's said, 4 of the "posts" are the wheels, and the remainder are for the chassis. |
The Following User Says Thank You to Shankenstein For This Useful Post: | ayau (02-03-2013) |
02-03-2013, 12:54 PM | #38 |
Frosty Carrot
Join Date: Jan 2013
Drives: The Atomic Carrot
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 513
Thanks: 272
Thanked 428 Times in 199 Posts
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
I've started a spreadsheet of the suspension coordinates.
LINK to Google Docs Spreadsheet Very few points are correct yet. The front has been approximated based on pictures and specifications. The rear has not been configured, and is simply the program defaults. I'll fill these in shortly. I'll leave this publicly viewable. If anybody wants "edit" capabilities, just PM me. |
02-03-2013, 03:20 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Drives: Subarus
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 189
Thanks: 20
Thanked 129 Times in 66 Posts
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
That is awesome.
|
02-12-2013, 11:44 AM | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Drives: Subarus
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 189
Thanks: 20
Thanked 129 Times in 66 Posts
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
For people who track their cars: if you have data logs or track maps, can you please PM me? I want to build, verify, and correlate a few different simulations.
|
02-15-2013, 01:51 PM | #41 |
Frosty Carrot
Join Date: Jan 2013
Drives: The Atomic Carrot
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 513
Thanks: 272
Thanked 428 Times in 199 Posts
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Ran across the CAD drawing for the AST 4150 (front right) strut. For the sake of building our database of dimensions, some reverse engineering was done. This data is provided for non-commercial use. If you try to rip off AST (one of the premier suspension manufacturers), expect their lawyers to sue you, the 86 community to shun your products, and numerous internet photographs of your product being teabagged in public places. Save us (and our giblets) the trouble, and just don't do it.
Distance between strut bolts is 60.5 mm --> 2.4" Thickness of lower flange is 25.4 mm --> 1" Distance from strut center to lower bolt is 60.7 mm --> 2.4" Length from lower bolt to upper mount top is 392 mm --> 15.4" Upper thread is a M12x1.25-25, with 5 mm of thread relief Diameter of damper rod is 22 mm Diameter of spring perch is 60 mm Length of spring available is 181 mm --> 7.1" Distance from lower bolt to sway bar mount is 115 mm --> 4.5" Distance from strut center to sway bar mount is 50 mm --> 2" Diameter of sway bar mount is 10.2 mm --> 0.4" Edit: Main post updated with only the relevant parameters!
__________________
If you think you're nerd enough, join in the discussions about Suspension and Aerodynamic modelling!
Wall of Fame - JDL Auto Design, Raceseng, Vishnu Tuning, Penske Shocks, Nameless, Perrin, RaceComp Engineering, Essex/AP Racing, Verus, RacerX Wall of Shame - aFe Takeda, Wilwood, FA20Club Last edited by Shankenstein; 02-15-2013 at 06:14 PM. |
The Following User Says Thank You to Shankenstein For This Useful Post: | Anthonytpt (02-16-2013) |
02-16-2013, 03:04 PM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Drives: 4 wheels & some metal bits
Location: 000000N 0000000E
Posts: 210
Thanks: 222
Thanked 74 Times in 47 Posts
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Shankenstein - this is great. Thank you for starting it.
What products are you aiming to model first to work on your own personal suspension goals? Just curious. |
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New Rumor: Subaru Developing Turbo 4 2.0T for BRZ | Hachiroku | BRZ First-Gen (2012+) -- General Topics | 350 | 02-02-2013 01:52 PM |
Need opinions on two new items we're developing! | yospeed | Cosmetic Modification (Interior/Exterior/Lighting) | 56 | 12-03-2012 02:13 AM |
Chances of Someone Developing 5x114.3 HUBS (not spacers)? | Entropy | Wheels | Tires | Spacers | Hub -- Sponsored by The Tire Rack | 9 | 08-04-2012 03:35 PM |
Hi-res pics & list of BRZ JDM model grades from stripped down base model to STI(?) | switchlanez | BRZ First-Gen (2012+) -- General Topics | 68 | 02-14-2012 07:16 AM |