Wheel frequencies VS track surface

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
Rustem 1988
0
Joined: 05 Sep 2017, 11:38

Re: Wheel frequencies VS track surface

Post

If the wheel load is high, the damping coefficient may become too small. At low wheel load oscilations can become overdamping. I think playing with the load transfer on the axles, we also affect the damping coefficient.

Rustem 1988
0
Joined: 05 Sep 2017, 11:38

Re: Wheel frequencies VS track surface

Post

When the value of anti roll bars increases, I think that damping can also change because stabilizers do not have dampers. That is, about it said Carroll Smith in the "Tune to win". To determine the type of damping we need to know the difference in b^2 - 4 * k*m. Where в is the stiffness of the shock absorbers,k-spring rate, m-mass. I do not know how this difference can change with the use of stabilizers. So we need to use another equation for springs with stabilizers.

Rustem 1988
0
Joined: 05 Sep 2017, 11:38

Re: Wheel frequencies VS track surface

Post

When the car goes on the road, the frequency of road bumps equals the frequency of the sprung and unsprung weight?

User avatar
godlameroso
309
Joined: 16 Jan 2010, 21:27
Location: Miami FL

Re: Wheel frequencies VS track surface

Post

Wheel rate is spring rate+damper rate+bushing rate(if applicable(ie poly/rubber bushes, but not spherical bushes))+heave and/or roll rate divided by the control arm motion ratio?
Saishū kōnā

Rustem 1988
0
Joined: 05 Sep 2017, 11:38

Re: Wheel frequencies VS track surface

Post

How much is the ratio of the stiffness of the springs and tires affect the damping factor?

DaveW
239
Joined: 14 Apr 2009, 12:27

Re: Wheel frequencies VS track surface

Post

Definitions....

If you define damping factor as the ratio of damper force and damper velocity, then clearly not.

Otherwise....it might, see Milliken.

Rustem 1988
0
Joined: 05 Sep 2017, 11:38

Re: Wheel frequencies VS track surface

Post

I try to use as a simple model of the suspension base excited system. For example, from here

https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engin ... ations.pdf

DaveW
239
Joined: 14 Apr 2009, 12:27

Re: Wheel frequencies VS track surface

Post

Rustem: If you mean the model described at the bottom of page 30, then I think you will find it ineresting, but not for road vehicle responses.

Why: No weight, No tyres, No hubs (unpsung masses), and only one axle (normally at least two).

DaveW
239
Joined: 14 Apr 2009, 12:27

Re: Wheel frequencies VS track surface

Post

I recognise that the reference revealed by Rustem is an extract from course notes issued by one University, but for other people who might read this thread I should state that the contents represent one person's view (I guess). For example, from 5.1.1:

I don't think that "most buildings are mounted on top of special mounts".

The reference to Professor Smiths work suggests a lack of research, and the statement that "it is only a matter of time before it appears on vehicles available to the rest of us" is probably not true, mostly because of cost and reliability.

I will leave my contribution at that.

Rustem 1988
0
Joined: 05 Sep 2017, 11:38

Re: Wheel frequencies VS track surface

Post

DaveW wrote:
19 Feb 2018, 11:49
I recognise that the reference revealed by Rustem is an extract from course notes issued by one University, but for other people who might read this thread I should state that the contents represent one person's view (I guess). For example, from 5.1.1:
I began to doubt too.
Last edited by Rustem 1988 on 19 Feb 2018, 12:40, edited 1 time in total.

Rustem 1988
0
Joined: 05 Sep 2017, 11:38

Re: Wheel frequencies VS track surface

Post

Rustem 1988 wrote:
02 Feb 2018, 14:09
When the value of anti roll bars increases, I think that damping can also change because stabilizers do not have dampers.
Also, tires may have a damping rate less than springs with shock absorbers. The damping rate С should not be confused with damping ratio ζ (С/Сс). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damping_ratio

Rustem 1988
0
Joined: 05 Sep 2017, 11:38

Re: Wheel frequencies VS track surface

Post

Tim.Wright wrote:
24 Jul 2016, 21:25


And yes, a typical 'rule of thumb' is to start of at 70% of critical wheel damping because it gives a good balance between response speed and overshoot.
Is it the reaction of a spring with a shock absorber to a step input force?

User avatar
Tim.Wright
330
Joined: 13 Feb 2009, 06:29

Re: Wheel frequencies VS track surface

Post

Rustem 1988 wrote:
21 Feb 2018, 15:53
Tim.Wright wrote:
24 Jul 2016, 21:25


And yes, a typical 'rule of thumb' is to start of at 70% of critical wheel damping because it gives a good balance between response speed and overshoot.
Is it the reaction of a spring with a shock absorber to a step input force?
Yes but not just a step input. It's been shown to be a decent starting point for all vehicle loadcases. If you have no road input data it's all you can do. It's never going to be anything more than a sensible first iteration though.
Not the engineer at Force India

Greg Locock
233
Joined: 30 Jun 2012, 00:48

Re: Wheel frequencies VS track surface

Post

When I look at primary ride I have found no meaningful way of designing the shocks without real road inputs.Once you have those, and good data to correlate to, then life suddenly gets more interesting. One of the guys built 3 levels of shocks for each end of the car, and then ran the full matrix, ie 9 setups, on measured roads. We got R^2 of up to 0.9 for some (bandwidth limited) sensors, between the models and the real results. We also got R^2 of ~0.3 for one particular sensor/road combination, investigating that was informative. For the model you need all 4 wheels, and you need to know the road profile (not just its spectrum). This is a very similar test to a 4 poster, yet driving a real 4 poster with real road profiles needs a lot of tweaking to get the same results (I don't get involved with 4 posters, we knew /some/ of the reasons why 30 years ago).

Mind you this approach only seems to work for some cars, so far I am achieving no useful results for primary ride on my current project.

DaveW
239
Joined: 14 Apr 2009, 12:27

Re: Wheel frequencies VS track surface

Post

Greg Locock wrote:
21 Feb 2018, 20:20
When I look at primary ride I have found no meaningful way of designing the shocks without real road inputs.
What is "primary ride"?

Neglecting the influence of suspension isolators and power train mounts on road vehicles can lead to set-ups that are both uncomfortable and poorly controlled. Damper (and spring) set-ups can’t be neglected, but they are not necessarily "primary".

Perhaps that is the problem with your current project....

Post Reply