Suspension Design

Haha Z, how true.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OtvptC8k1Q...4mousetrap.jpg

An international design competition to better this simple device was run several months ago.

The judging panel, composed entirely of mice still cannot stop laughing....

Z's last post:

Mock someone for suggesting Wikipedia as a reference.

Link to Wikipedia article to support own view... ;-)

Ben

You know, the only people that cry foul at new and innovative suspension designs seem to be those who either don't understand the subject at all, or understand one type of setup and have no desire to learn about the other setups.

(I used to be one of these people... sorry)

Z thank you for covering so much history in suspension design. I have no clue why or how universities expect engineers to learn ANYTHING without history on what's already been done. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

The pattern seems to be that someone with a new suspension/chassis/packaging design gets berated by the world around them, and then eventually when they're old or dead someone figures out they were on the right track.

Quote:

---

...The pattern seems to be that someone with a new suspension/chassis/packaging design gets berated by the world around them, and then eventually when they're old or dead someone figures out they were on the right track.

---

Maurice Olley was kind enough to leave behind his Notes on Suspension and other related topics (written after his retirement). Unfortunately, the Corvair litigation was going on at the same time and General Motors embargoed his Notes. It took some time before Bill/Dad and I were able to finally get permission to publish them--which had always been Olley's wish. This became "Chassis Design". While Olley doesn't cover every conceivable type of suspension, he hits many of the popular ones with a lot of details. Our page includes a link to the SAE bookstore,
http://www.millikenresearch.com/olley.html

I literally read what you just told me in "Chassis Design" a week ago. I got the book for Christmas. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'm really enjoying the heck out of the book, and I really think it's fantastic the way you took his work and put in updated graphs and drawings as well as your own words. Also, the clarifications are quite nice where he quotes rules of thumb that are outdated.

I have read hundreds of books in my life, fiction and nonfiction, and this one is one of the highlights. Well done sir!

Doug,

When I run into a topic from RCVD that I feel should be filled out a little more on the background I turn to that book. Lately, I find myself falling back on Chassis Design to fill out the history. The work that Bill, Maurice, and the rest of the research group accomplished still quite surprises me. It does help give a much larger picture to reference when the two books are put together. And a much better perspective when someone comes in saying random stuff like, "Guys! We should run 4WD, leaf springs, and drum brakes! It worked it in the 50's!"


As a reader of Chassis Design, I would say it is one of the most comprehensive books on the history of suspension design for those interested. On top of that Olley notes the problems faced with the applications of each suspension type and how a solution came about (such as wheel shimmy in beam axles and excessive jacking in swing axles).

What MCoach said. It is still quite impressive how well-structured and defined is their work, and it helped me understanding many things RCVD left out. In a word, read it! http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Quote:

---

...it helped me understanding many things RCVD left out. In a word, read it!

---

+1

They are surely meant to compliment each other, as suggested. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Regarding Low-Pivot Lateral Swing-Arms.
===============================

Here is a picture of a 2004 double-wishbone car that recently appeared on another thread.

(Courtesy of James Waltman... "Univ Wisconsin-Madison, Another one of my favorites...")
http://dot.etec.wwu.edu/fsae/James/D...0rearsmall.jpg

I imagine that this was described by the team, and agreed upon by the judges and officials, as a sensible choice of "a short FVVSA that gives 100% camber compensation in roll", because this suits the FSAE conditions of predominantly lateral roll forces, with lesser occurance of longitudinal pitch, or vertical heave forces. That is, it gives the right wheel camber angles in the many corners, but less so when accelerating/braking hard, or over the very rare "bumps".

The kinematic properties of this car are all but IDENTICAL to the Lancaster Link car shown previously. The above layout also has very similar mass and CG height as the LL (ie. very similar layout of suspension tubes). However, the above car's cost and build time are significantly greater than the LL due to the extra 5 BJs required per corner, and their 5x attachments to chassis and upright. Plus it needs extra chassis nodes and tubes... Structurally (ie. strength and stiffness), this layout is considerably inferior to the LL because of the inherent play in the many BJs, and the strains due to the tortuous load paths through them.

Nevertheless, the Lancaster Link was almost universally condemned on its thread. A one time official (?) described it as a "disaster"!

WHERE IS THE REASON??? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoti...n_confused.gif

Are there any engineers on this forum? Does anybody think things through these days? Mutter, ... grumble ..... http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoti...n_rolleyes.gif

Z

Food for thought...

http://www.fsae.rmit.edu.au/rmit_rac...sae_a_2005.bmp

Comments coming