Hey Guys,
I realise I posted this a while a go, but recently I've been seeing some traffic on ackermann steering. This will provide some food for thought,
http://www.chassissim.com/blog...and-food-for-thought
In the end I do set a challenge for you. Let me give you a hint. Take the car speed at say 30 km/h, 60 km/h and 100 km/h. Assume lateral acceleration at say 1g. Crunch the numbers at those speeds and see where it works out.
Enjoy Guys
Danny Nowlan
Director
ChassisSim Technologies
Hey Guys,
This week I had the pleasure of being schooled in one of my interests by the best in the world at what they do.
It really rammed home the importance of knowing your basics in order to succeed. In that vein I realise this is a retread but I think you guys might get some use out of this,
http://www.chassissim.com/blog...onnecting-the-dots-2
It's about connecting the dots with regards to simulation.
Enjoy
Danny Nowlan
Director
ChassisSim Technologies
Awesome! I love learning, please don't stop making these!
mono
Hey Guys,
Mono - many thanks for the compliment. I'll keep up the good work. Over the last couple of years I have been writing for Racecar Engineering and contributing to this forum. I have written on many aspects of race car vehicle dynamics and how you can use it. It's also something I have genuinely enjoyed doing.
Guys I have some exciting news for you. It's time for you to apply this knowledge and what better way of doing it then through a competition,
http://www.chassissim.com/blog...l-online-competition
We at ChassisSim are running a competition using ChassisSim Professional Online to model an F3 car. Also there's a pretty big carrot on offer here. You'll find more information on the link.
Registrations are due by March 1, Final submissions March 21. Knock yourselves out and I look forward to your entries.
All the Best
Danny Nowlan
Director
ChassisSim Technologies
Hey Guys,
From time to time you'll be presented with a scenario when you have incomplete data. This video tutorial offers some tips and tricks about what to do about it,
http://www.chassissim.com/blog...ings-dont-go-to-plan
Enjoy
Danny Nowlan
Director
ChassisSim Technologies
Hey Guys,
I'm just letting you all know that ChassisSim v3.20 has just been released. Click here to find out more,
http://www.chassissim.com/blog...-in-chassissim-v3-20
Also just a note. Quite a few of you have registered for the ChassisSim professional Online competition. Just to let everyone know I am cutting of entries after March 1. Consequently if you want to participate in the competition register sooner rather than later. Forgive me for the repetition but the details can be found here,
http://www.chassissim.com/blog...l-online-competition
All the Best
Danny Nowlan
Director
ChassisSim Technologies
Hey Guys,
I've just posted this video on tips and tricks on how to create aeromaps from race data,
http://www.chassissim.com/blog...ling-tips-and-tricks
It encapsulates what we at ChassisSim have learnt about aero modelling over the last couple of years. You'll get a lot out of this so enjoy.
Also just to give everyone a reminder, I'm cutting off entries for the ChassisSim competition on March 1! That is tomorrow aka Friday afternoon! However I will make Friday afternoon March 1 5:00pm Californian time. I look forward to your entries.
Enjoy
Danny Nowlan
Director
ChassisSim Technologies
Hey Guys,
Recently I've been getting alot of questions on aeromapping and how you represent the aero of a race car. I realise I've posted this before, however this is something you can still get quite a lot out of,
http://www.chassissim.com/blog...d-aero-in-chassissim
Also for those of you competing in the ChassisSim Online competition it might be of interest to you.
Enjoy
Danny Nowlan
Director
ChassisSim Technologies
Hey Guys,
This was an article I wrote for Racecar Engineering a few months a go,
http://www.chassissim.com/blog...of-hand-calculations
It's about how to do hand calculations and I have some worked examples. I wrote it for all of you so I hope you get something out of it.
Enjoy,
Danny Nowlan
Director
ChassisSim Technologies
Hey Guys,
Over the last couple of weeks I've been getting a lot of questions on how to get the most out of tyre rig test results. I hope the following is of some help,
http://www.chassissim.com/blog...yre-test-rig-results
Also I just wanted to take this opportunity to issue a congratulations to ChassisSim customers PR1 motorsports on their class victory at Sebring. You can find more details about this here,
http://www.chassissim.com/blog...gory-at-sebring-2013
Enjoy Guys
All the Best
Danny Nowlan
Director
ChassisSim Technologies
Hi Danny,
first of al thanks for your posts and the material you publish.
Would be nice to have something new more often, but i understand it's not good for your business to show your competitors what you do and how.
I have a question about your article on hand calculations, in particular regarding the approach you propose to build a first aproximated tire model.
After you have calculted vertical loads based on Downforce and Lateral Load Transfer, you increase that load by 20% to save for situation where you could potentially have more donwnforce. But the maximum load value is influencing also the shape of the parabola you build up based on ka and kb, right? So increasing it (or anyway changing the MAX LOAD value) lead to a different tire model...in particular to different intial Coefficient of Grip and load sensitivity.
So this way of proceeding seems to me a bit arbitrary...or maybe i am loosing something?
Thanks!
Silente,
Thank you for the compliment. It gives me a real thrill to see guys like you getting something out of this thread.
My apologies for the delay in answering your questions. I've been flat out developing new features for ChassisSim.
In terms of the extra 20% of the load that's there to cover you for bump load variation and as a safety margin. To put this in perspective look at a plot of tyre loads at a place like Sebring!
However the whole point of this is to create something to get you started. It's also a great educational tool because it gets you prepared for the loads you can expect. Then you use data and ChassisSim's toolboxes to refine the results.
I trust this makes things clear. If you have any more questions please don't hesitate in contacting me and sorry for the hold up.
All the Best
Danny Nowlan
Director
ChassisSim Technologies
Hey Guys,
I've just posted this video on how to make best use of the ChassisSim quick start features,
http://www.chassissim.com/blog...o-modelling-features
I've posted this because it puts into perspective how to use computational tools such as ChassisSim as calculators as opposed to blindly relying on the results.
This is something all engineers need to keep in mind and I hope you get something out of it.
All the Best
Danny Nowlan
Director
ChassisSim Technologies
Danny,
thanks for your reply.
i understand your point and this explanation was already pretty clear from your paper.
Anyway, what i meant is that, if you change the max load value, the complete Lateral (Longitudinal) Force vs Vertical Load curve is changing, leading at the end to a completely different tyre model.
So ok, we than take into account for bigger vertical loads, but which is then the "better" tire model to represents our tire?
I would post a picture of the two different curves i get changing maximum load, but i am not able to in this forum...
Silente,
Again my friend the apologies for the delay.
When starting a tyre model I always advocate a larger tyre load range. You lose sensitivity but it's the safer road to take. I've seen tyre loads from racecars in the order of 1000kgf! This is the key reason I put a safety factor on my tyre modelling.
Just remember this hand calculation gets you going. The key thing is you start on the hand calculation then you use tools such as the ChassisSim tyre force modelling toolbox to finish the job.
I hope this helps.
All the Best
Danny Nowlan
Director
ChassisSim Technologies
Hey Guys,
I've just put this post on my blog,
http://www.chassissim.com/blog...d-to-do-to-get-going
It's about how to get going when using simulation.
What this does is it articulates the process you need to get going with simulation. If you want to get started with simulation this is a great start point.
All the Best
Danny Nowlan
Director
ChassisSim Technologies
Hey Guys,
I was going through some of my old Racecar Engineering articles and I found this,
http://www.chassissim.com/blog.../the-damper-workbook
It's the damper workbook which outlines the basic calculations you need to get on top of your dampers. The equations and approaches in this article have saved my neck at the race track more times than I can remember. You'll find it a very useful tool.
Enjoy
Danny Nowlan
Director
ChassisSim Technologies
Hey Guys,
I just posted this tutorial about the ChassisSim optimisation toolbox,
http://www.chassissim.com/blog...optimisation-toolbox
The reason I bring it up is I think it's a good lesson about how to use optimisation techniques. However I also mention when not to use it and that is something to keep in mind.
Enjoy
Danny Nowlan
Director
ChassisSim Technologies
Hey Guys,
I've just released ChassisSim v3.21. You can find out more details here,
http://www.chassissim.com/blog...m-v3-21-new-features
What is of particular interest to the FSAE community is the ability to run open loop simulation, being able to predict hot pressures from cold conditions and revised algorithms to deal with structural flexibility.
Enjoy
Danny Nowlan
Director
ChassisSim Technologies
Hey Guys,
I just posted this video on circuit modelling,
http://www.chassissim.com/blog...ing-chassissim-v3-21
It shows you how to create high fidelity circuit models that can really nail down bumps and other nuances of the circuit to really represent what is going on with the car.
I think you'll get a lot out of it.
Enjoy
Danny Nowlan
Director
ChassisSim Technologies
Hey Guys,
For those of you using ChassisSim the following is worth a look,
http://www.chassissim.com/blog...-lap-time-simulation
It's about how to dial in grip and bump scale factors manually. It's a really good guide to what to adjust and when to adjust it. It also walks you through the mechanics of how to do it.
I realise this tutorial is a bit long in the tooth and has been pushed to the side by the advances we have made with auto grip and the advances in bump profiling. That being said if you have a circuit that is difficult to model this tutorial will be of great help and there are some good insights you can learn from.
Enjoy
Danny Nowlan
Director
ChassisSim Technologies
Hey Guys,
I just posted this article on my blog,
http://www.chassissim.com/blog...a-to-refine-aeromaps
It's about how to refine aeromaps from pitch data from the racecar.
I realise this isn't ultra applicable for a FSAE car but its still a useful resource to have. I know some of you might be considering jobs in motor racing and this is a good thing to have in your back pocket.
Enjoy
Danny Nowlan
Director
ChassisSim Technologies
Hey Guys,
For the ChassisSim users in the FSAE community I've just posted this video on how to consolidate your circuit models,
http://www.chassissim.com/blog...-master-circuit-file
It's about how to use the Master circuit file which we have found to be a great tool.
I also realise that I've posted this before but this is a great guide to getting going with lap time simulation,
http://www.chassissim.com/blog...onnecting-the-dots-2
Enjoy
Danny Nowlan
Director
ChassisSim Technologies
Hey Guys,
I've just posted this article on how to use virtual shaker rigs,
http://www.chassissim.com/blog...lbox-tips-and-tricks
This has proven to be a very powerful tool in the ChassisSim community. In particular I think it is something the FSAE community could get quite a bit out.
Enjoy
Danny Nowlan
Director
ChassisSim Technologies
Hey Guys,
Over the last couple of weeks I've had a few people in the ChassisSim community asking me questions about the order in which they should dial in bump and grip scale factors when creating their circuit models.
I've seen the same theme's recurring and this tutorial addresses this,
http://www.chassissim.com/blog...ating-circuit-models
Think of it as the follow up to my post from a couple of weeks a go on the mechanics of dialling in bump and grip scale factors.
For those of you who are ChassisSim users you'll find this very useful.
Enjoy
Danny Nowlan
Director
ChassisSim Technologies
I'm obliged to tell you that your simple model equations are missig the 4 tire aligning moments. The net effect is a very large rigid body yaw moment as well as a likely understeering effect from steering compliance.
The net effect is the predicted total vehicle understeer will be far different than actual and the predicted system (steering) gain will be too high.
You can spend a lot of money buying or renting MTS or Michigan Scientific wheel force transducers to validate these conclusions. The parametric models provided with nonlinear tire data MUST include the MZ functions. MX functions can be important, too, if the car reacts badly to aligning torque camber inducements.
Since a 'race' car has low, but measureable total vehicle understeer (SAE definition as the difference between the front and rear axle sideslip gradients), the tire MZ terms are a very large fraction of this value. Getting that right will alter any simulated track or test results, as you can imagine...
Hey Guys,
Just fixed the link for the latest video tutorial. I hit the publish too soon! Sorry about that.
Bill - with regards to the concern that you raised, self aligning torque primarily makes its presence felt with regards to steering feed back. In particular it's really important for driver in the loop simulation.
However with regards to vehicle performance prediction it's impact is minor. Hence why I didn't include it. This allows the reader to get straight to what really counts. This isn't just based on hearsay. The ChassisSim community covers categories as diverse as GP2, F3, V8 Supercars, DTM, Sports prototypes, GT and the FSAE community to name a few. These cars are very heavily instrumented and all of them have outstanding correlation. Bottom line if this was an issue I would have heard about it a very long time a go.
However don't take my word for it, do some numbers on it. Take a FSAE car weighing 250kg in a 1g turn with a 50/50 weight distribution and a 1.7m wheelbase. Also assume the peak trailing arm of the self aligning torque is say 50mm. Calculate the moment arm from the front axle to the c.g and do the same for the self aligning torque. The numbers are very revealing.
Enjoy Guys
Danny Nowlan
Director
ChassisSim Technologies
Of the above two posts (Bill's and Danny's), I feel Bill's is closer to the truth, but I don't know by how much.
So, for any FSAE-VDer's who might be interested...
Under/oversteer can be thought of in terms of "static margin". Roughly speaking, this is the plan-view-longitudinal-distance between the car's CG and the (roughly lateral) Line-of-Action of the resultant force vector from all four wheels (Edit! -> ), when this force vector is that which gives neutral steer (<- EndEdit). If the CG is in front of neutral-steer-force-LoA, then understeer. If CG behind LoA, then oversteer. If CG right on LoA, then neutral steer. (MoreEdit. See Tim's post below for better definition...)
Anyway, for a reasonably handling car the static-margin is only a few inches/cm. This is a similar distance to the "Pneumatic Trail" of typical tyres. And since Mz of a tyre can be thought of as the Fy force multiplied by the PT distance (ie. Mz = Fy x PT = Fy force acting PT behind tyre centre), then ignoring Mz can give an error that has similar magnitude to the static-margin.
BUT! Mz is typically zero at zero slip-angle, rises to its peak at about half peak-Fy-slip-angle, then drops back to about zero at peak-Fy-slip-angle (roughly speaking). This is because the pneumatic trail starts at maximum at zero slip-angle and ~zero Fy (so Mz = 0 x PT = 0), and PT then drops to ~zero at peak-Fy (so Mz = Peak-Fy x 0 = 0), but inbetween, at ~half-peak-slip-angle, there is some Fy and some PT, so some Mz. So the above paragraph makes sense at low and half-peak cornering forces when the PT is of similar magnitude to the static margin. But at peak cornering forces the Mz effect may be negligible, because PT = ~0???
I haven't seen enough of the curves of real tyres to know just how big Mz is at typical peak-Fys. My guess is that the Mz curves move about quite a bit depending on all the other factors (longitudinal forces, camber, tyre pressure, etc...).
So, for the numbers, it is over to you guys, Bill and Danny..... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Z
Hey Guys,
The number's speaks for themselves,
*Moment arm from tyre to c.g 800mm - 1500mm depending on the car.
*Self aligning torque moment arm in the tyres are in the order of 20mm - 50mm. Also this bleeds off as we hit peak slip angle.
Self aligning torque can be visualised as a result of the lateral force applying a moment arm about the centre of the contact patch. Consequently when you do the numbers for the static margin it's effectively swamped by the moment arm of the axle to the c.g. Also this moment arm bleeds off as we hit peak slip angle.
Consequently in terms of car handling and static margins it's a mild second order effect. However it makes its presence felt in the torque the driver feels through the steering wheel. This is where the good drivers earn their money.
However guys - work through the example I presented above in my previous post. To really ram home the point calculate the typical contact patch length for a given load, tyre pressure and area. The conclusions are pretty obvious.
Enjoy
Danny Nowlan
Director
ChassisSim Technologies
Danny,
The large moments about the CG from the front and rear tyre forces largely cancel out (hopefully!), leaving only the small moment of the resultant force from all four tyres multiplied by <STRIKE>the static margin</STRIKE> its offset from the CG. ( <- Edit.)
If the effect of pneumatic trail (or Mz) moves all four tyre forces backwards by your quoted "20mm - 50mm", then that is a significant first-order effect, because that distance is similar to the static margin.
So that leaves the question of how small does Mz/pneumatic-trail become as Fy reaches peak? Bill??
Z
PS. The decreasing pneumatic trail (or Mz) as Fy approaches peak moves the handling balance towards more oversteer, so it is worth keeping in mind...
Not sure that's right. In a steady corner, the tyre resultant force is going to go through the CG isn't it?Quote:
Originally posted by Z:
Under/oversteer can be thought of in terms of "static margin". Roughly speaking, this is the plan-view-longitudinal-distance between the car's CG and the (roughly lateral) Line-of-Action of the resultant force vector from all four wheels. If the CG is in front of wheel-force-LoA, then understeer. If CG behind LoA, then oversteer. If CG right on LoA, then neutral.
My understanding of the static margin is that its the distance from the CG to the neutral steer point. The neutral steer point is the longitudinal location which will give a neutral response if you apply a lateral force there. I.e. the slip angle response will be the same front and rear.
I have just done a quick calc on a bicycle model with 50% mass dist and an understeer (measured as delta of front to rear slip angles) of 3deg/g which I think is probably closer to a road car but anyway... I've calculated the neutral steer point and found that the static margin is in the order of 400mm. Obviously, the more neutral the car is, the smaller the static margin is and then a higher percentage of the balance is coming from the tyre Mz. However, at this point you are really trying to pick very small changes in balance so it doesn't really make sense to be speaking in terms of percent.
So, my feeling then is that the Mz would be interesting if you are really trying to accurately represent your slip angles to within a few percent. But for sure I wouldn't go as far as saying its a first order effect. At least not in steady state.
I think it would be important when assessing the response of road cars because people are interested in small changes of balance which are giving tactile feedback to the driver. But in this case, you are talking very small values.
Hey Guys,
Tim - your on the right track on that one - 400mm for a static margin is a tad high but in terms of some rough rules of thumb it's not that far out. That being said you've got the heart of this nailed.
Z - Here's some food for though my friend. The self aligning torque is intrinsically linked to the force being generated by the tyre. If we are going to do some rough rules of thumb of calculation the static margin we have,
SM = (mom_arm_f*C_f - mom_arm_r*C_r)/(C_f + C_r)
Here we have,
SM = static margin
mom_arm_f = Front moment arm to the c.g
mom_arm_r = Rear moment arm to the c.g
C_f = Change in front tyre force/change in slip angle
C_r = Change in rear tyre force/change in slip angle
Giving the self aligning torque the considerable benefit of the doubt we can write for the moment arms front and rear
mom_arm_f = a + self_aligning_torque_arm_f
mom_arm_r = b + self_aligning_torque_arm_r
Remember the numbers we discussed before, on a FSAE car, 800mm plays 50mm, and that's being pretty generous. Also remember as we get close to the peak grip of the tyre the self aligning torque moment arm falls away. Consequently as I stated before the moment arm effect of the axle blows away the self aligning torque.
To put this in perspective let's revisit some moment arms from our previous example.
Axle moment from lateral force to c.g = 125*9.8*0.8 = 980 Nm
Moment arm self aligning torque = 125*9.8*50e-3 =61.25 Nm
The difference in the moments speaks for themselves. Also that self aligning torque will drop away as we hit the maximum force of the tyre.
Where the self aligning torque will make its presence felt as the car gets close to a static margin of zero. A static margin close to 0 should not be confused with neutral steer. When we hit a static margin of 0, you’re right on the borderline of being able to control the car. The concept of static margin was originally developed by the aerospace industry to quantify pitch stability. I can tell you from experience that long before you hit a static margin of 0 the driver will be totally spooked, and the effects of self aligning torque is the equivalent of shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic. I learnt this one the hard way.
Anyway Guys I hope this clears a few things up.
All the Best
Danny Nowlan
Director
ChassisSim Technologies
Danny, I agree regarding the drop off in controlability, though I would have thought that a static margin of zero is theoretically neutral steer.
It might not be what a driver would feel or describe as neutral, but from a vehicle dynamics point of view, at a static margin of zero, the front and rear slip angles are the same. to me thats a neutral car.
Tim,Quote:
Originally posted by Tim.Wright:
Not sure that's right. In a steady corner, the tyre resultant force is going to go through the CG isn't it?
My understanding of the static margin is that its the distance from the CG to the neutral steer point. The neutral steer point is the longitudinal location which will give a neutral response if you apply a lateral force there. I.e. the slip angle response will be the same front and rear.
Oops! Yes, I worded that poorly (should have checked my definitions!). I have editted my above posts to make more sense.
Also, I prefer to think in terms of unsteady conditions. So if a car is cornering neutrally around a skid-pad (say), then it has the inwardly directed resultant tyre force LoA (from all four tyres) passing through the NSP, and this is in balance with the outwardly directed centrifugal force from the CG, which is also at the NSP. Now if the driver gradually increases speed (with same steer angle), then both the centrifugal and tyre forces also increase. But if, as the tyres approach "saturation", the pneumatic trail decreases, then the resultant of the tyre forces moves forward, and this together with the centrifugal force forms an over-steering yaw couple. So the tail starts sliding outward.
~~~~~o0o~~~~~
Danny,
You have;
"mom_arm_f = a + self_aligning_torque_arm_f
mom_arm_r = b + self_aligning_torque_arm_r"
I would say; mom_arm_f = a minus self_aligning_torque_arm_f.
Putting this into your equation for Static Margin has the a and b subtracting, while the two self-aligning-torque-arms add together.
Also, there is nothing impossible about a CG behind the NSP. In fact, can be common on holidays when the boot is fully loaded! Thankfully, yaw-damping and low speeds can make it controllable.
Z
Z,
My friend a couple of things,
*The moment arm definition I've just put in as a general plus. It's up to the end user to put in the sign they want. If I was going to be fussy about it I would have it in as a minus but I was using it as a point of illustration. Anyway the numbers due to self aligning torque are still very small.
If anything to give it a proper treatment I'd have to include the self aligning torque as its own derivative in the Static Margin equation. This is where things get real interesting. Looking at say some F3 tyre results for various cambers you are looking at peak tyre forces of 5000 N with the corresponding self aligning torque peaks being at about 100 Nm. Where things take a particular twist is after the slip angles have passed the peak self aligning torque. The lateral forces still have a bit of gradient left in them, but the self aligning torque curves have flattened out. This in concert with the small numbers of the self aligning torque pretty much renders the self aligning torque as a passenger for the Static Margin particularly as we get close to the peak grip of the tyre.
*The yaw damping is actually part of the Static Margin. Both Milliken and I gave very detailed treatments of this in our respective books. This also has its background in aviation stability and control which is our respective backgrounds.
When you’re close to the static margin being 0 you’re at the cusp of unstable behaviour. I've flown aircraft with low and positive values of static margin and as a race/data engineer I've seen cars with low values of static margin and it is ugly. For the automotive case when you at this point as I stated in my last post the self aligning torque will have some impact but it's like shuffling deck chairs on the titanic.
All the Best
Danny Nowlan
Director
ChassisSim Technologies
Hey Guys,
In light of what has been discussed here recently I think you should get an awful lot out of this,
http://www.chassissim.com/blog...c-race-car-stability
It's about transient racecar stability and the static margin in particular.
Enjoy
Danny Nowlan
Director
ChassisSim Technologies
I follow you, and I do agree that the Mz would make up a large percentage of the understeer for a neutral or near neutral car, but my argument (and I think also Danny's) is that a large percentage of (practically) nothing is still nothing. Or at least safe to neglect.Quote:
Originally posted by Z:
Also, I prefer to think in terms of unsteady conditions. So if a car is cornering neutrally around a skid-pad (say), then it has the inwardly directed resultant tyre force LoA (from all four tyres) passing through the NSP, and this is in balance with the outwardly directed centrifugal force from the CG, which is also at the NSP. Now if the driver gradually increases speed (with same steer angle), then both the centrifugal and tyre forces also increase. But if, as the tyres approach "saturation", the pneumatic trail decreases, then the resultant of the tyre forces moves forward, and this together with the centrifugal force forms an over-steering yaw couple. So the tail starts sliding outward.
Granted that neglecting or including Mz for a neutral tending car might change the sign of the calculated understeer, but if you think what this means in terms of alfa_front - alfa_rear, you are talking decimals of a degree and probably not detectable by the driver.
To come back to Danny's point too, you are already up shit creek if you are operating in this region anyway so to me its not important to know if your balance is +0.2deg/g (calculated with Mz) or -0.2deg/g (calculated without Mz). Either calculation (and probably your driver too) is going to tell you that you are too close to neutral steer.
This is also true in your example of the road car with a lot of rear mass. There is not going to be a lot of difference in the vehicle response if the neutral steer point is 20mm in front of the CG or 20mm behind it. Only that one is mathematically understeering, the other is mathematically oversteering. If you were to drive or simulate both cases I wouldn't expect you to see much of a difference.
Hey Guys,
A couple of things for this week.
First things first I'd like to acknowledge the life of Allan Simonsen who was killed at the LeMans 24 Hour race on Saturday. I knew Allan, but more importantly other members of the ChassisSim community knew him better than I. Not only did they rate him as a driver, but he was well respected as a man. This is something that should be remembered and celebrated.
Also I think it is a timely reminder, that even though what killed him was a bad combination of circumstances it really re-iterates the point of safety when designing your cars. Ladies and Gentleman the price your pay for driving at the edge of a vehicle's performance envelope is that occasionally you'll fall off and someone may get hurt or even killed. If you can't make you peace with this you are in the wrong business. That being said as engineers we must take every precaution to ensure we have done everything we can to protect the drivers. There are no shortcuts in this business.
The other thing I wanted to touch is I've just put a post on my blog that consolidates the ChassisSim circuit modelling process,
http://www.chassissim.com/blog...s-the-complete-guide
What this post does is it puts under one roof all the video tutorials and documents you'll need to create a high fidelity circuit model for lap time simulation. It's all based on what has been done in the field so it should be a great resource for all of you.
All the Best
Danny Nowlan
Director
ChassisSim Technologies
Hey Guys,
I've been seeing a lot of traffic recently about dampers and how to crunch the numbers. The following is good food for thought,
http://www.chassissim.com/blog...using-damping-ratios
It was a series of articles that was originally published in Racecar Engineering. It was about what to look for in damping rates and how to calculate them.
Next week I'll post some state space analysis stuff.
Enjoy
Danny Nowlan
Director
ChassisSim Technologies
Hey Guys,
I realise I'm preaching to the choir on this one, but check this out,
http://www.chassissim.com/blog...-you-need-simulation
It outlines why you need to use simulation.
Enjoy
Danny Nowlan
Director
ChassisSim Technologies