Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sperry
The way I had it explained to me, as the LCA pivots, the further away from 0* horizontal it gets, the faster the suspension geometry "gets bad",
|
This is not true. It's all just a question of application. If you have a heavy street car with a tall C.G., you might want a relatively high roll center to resist chassis roll, which would require angling the LCA's upwards towards the chassis. This then affects all those other parameters I mentioned before.
If you have a lightweight low-slung racecar, you might put more of a priority on minimizing jacking forces which requires a low roll center, so you go with a LCA angle near horizontal or even angled down towards the chassis. Which incidentally results in worse camber gain & more roll center movement, but that's not a big deal if you're mitigating it with static negative camber and stiff springs & swaybars. It's all a trade-off. Every single aspect of suspension design is a trade-off between one parameter vs. another.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sperry
If the dynamic camber change is really a linear function of LCA angle, and not as I described it, then it sounds like the handling issues w/ going super low aren't actually due to the dynamic camber change.
|
It's not perfectly linear.. but like I said I believe it's usually the other parameters I mentioned that have a detrimental effect on handling when a street car is lowered, when they're coupled with the amount of chassis roll that street cars have.