Discrepancies in Lateral Load Transfers

[swong46]

Anyone notice big changes in LLT values depending on what reference you are using?

I have used the following methods and here are the results (F/R):

Competition Car Suspension: 85
RCVD: 83.84/132.87
Tire Book: 77.98
Claude's Optimum G Seminar: 106.25/114.53

Claude's counts geometric and elastic WT and the other three methods is only elastic I believe. Am I missing something really simple here?

[swong46]

Anyone notice big changes in LLT values depending on what reference you are using?

I have used the following methods and here are the results (F/R):

Competition Car Suspension: 85
RCVD: 83.84/132.87
Tire Book: 77.98
Claude's Optimum G Seminar: 106.25/114.53

Claude's counts geometric and elastic WT and the other three methods is only elastic I believe. Am I missing something really simple here?

[CameronBeaton]

Why don´t you just draw a force diagram and solve it using moments. No need for refences this sould be a simple problem that requiers only the weights, wheelbase and CoG

[Vittorio]

Could you provide the formulae used?

[JDS]

The geometric and elastic weight transfer should combine to equal the total weight transfer. The other books, if they are not differentiating between the type of weight transfer are probably just referring to total weight transfer. I know that is how Milliken does it.

[Silente]

One thing i have seen can change in a quite sensitive way the results are also unsprung mass cg height and it is normally an information that no one has exactly.

When you split between sprung and unsprung mass WT you should have to change both sprung and unsprung mass CG height. With my calculation based on Milliken Book i have seen the results change from what they should be (WT=M*H/Track) just of 1 or 2 kilograms.

Another thing when you calculate total WT with the basic formula (MH/track) is also which value you give to the track..