How do i control my camber dynamics ?

[Ashish_FSAE]

option 1: -ve camber in static condition, while cornering, outer wheel at more -ve camber, givin me camber trust and helping the car corner better. and the inner wheel at lesser -ve camber.

option 2: same for outer wheel, but designing the suspension such that the inner wheel takes a +ve camber during cornering, givin even more camber thrust in the required direciton.

give ur comments / suggestions on which option is better.

[Ashish_FSAE]

option 1: -ve camber in static condition, while cornering, outer wheel at more -ve camber, givin me camber trust and helping the car corner better. and the inner wheel at lesser -ve camber.

option 2: same for outer wheel, but designing the suspension such that the inner wheel takes a +ve camber during cornering, givin even more camber thrust in the required direciton.

give ur comments / suggestions on which option is better.

[exFSAE]

Option 3: Take the extra two seconds to spell out "negative" and "positive" so you don't look silly. I hate to sound crass but why does it seem that so many of the Indian teams want to abbreviate every other word?

To be honest, I really don't even understand what you're saying. Put some numbers to your example? Include how you intend on achieving these goals?

Sure you can put an incredible amount of caster angle in your front suspension to get the tires inclined in the direction of steering.. but there's so much more to it than that.

How does that affect the steering effort on a car like this where the ratio can be as fast as ~5:1?

How does that change the tire rates and weight jacking?

What camber range do your tires want in any particular load scenario?

[Shashi]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I hate to sound silly but why does it seem that so many of the Indian teams want to abbreviate every other word? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The guy has 9 posts now. Posting etiquettes should have been understood by now. Plain stupidity has no geographical localisation. The generalization was uncalled for.

Ashish, as for the post, you might spend more time on the forums and on your work desk to figure out what you really want. And as exFSAE said, some numbers would surely be helpful for a discussion.

[Bazanaius]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Option 3: Take the extra two seconds to spell out "negative" and "positive" so you don't look silly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In fairness, this is a fairly common abbreviation - and easy to read. I'm not a massive fan of txtspk (even in texts!), but -ve and +ve isn't exactly taxing. I don't type out do not every time, for the same reason that I can't be bothered to type cannot.

[JDS]

I'd go with option 1. It is pretty much standard for road racing cars. If you do a lateral steady state analysis and determine how much your inside tires are contributing to overall lateral acceleration of your vehicle, you will probably find that it is a small amount. Sure if your kinematics were designed to postively increase camber on the inside wheel you would probably generate slightly higher cornering forces, however the trade-offs would probably not be worth it. You'd have issues such varying steering forces, bump steer, and other things to worry about.