BUGGAR
Structural
- Mar 14, 2014
- 1,732
This is relative to my investigation of the Ariel Atom chassis:
A Flexible Chassis is Slow.
In my quest to understand the importance of chassis stiffness of the Ariel Atom, I was talking with some off-road guys. We have a pretty big off-road community here in the desert and they’re a pretty open group. I was talking to them about chassis rigidity and they were talking about how much it slowed them down. What were they talking about? So here is a transcript of what I remember them saying, as best as I can remember and with some editing.
When you hit a bump, it’s like the bump is hitting your wheel with one of those little arrows that engineers use to show a force. It always points towards the center of the wheel because of the same laws that also keep people parallel to each other no matter where they are standing on the globe (sic).
Those force arrows pointing at the wheel can be broken down into two directions, one vertical and one horizontal. This is because engineers think in X and Y directions. In addition, those are the only directions that things can move when hitting a bump (called degrees of freedom by engineers – kind of like all the places where you can’t go if you’re under 21).
As noted, there will be an up arrow and a back arrow. The back arrow is related to and proportional to the up arrow. This proportionality changes as the wheel rolls over the bump but the back arrow is always going to be some proportion of the up arrow and it’s always going to be there until that bump is finished with the wheel. You can forget about the bump pushing back after cresting the bump because your car is flying off that bump without looking back for any help.
This back arrow forces back on the car’s suspension, and the car’s reaction is to slow down slightly. To reduce this slow-down arrow, we must reduce the up arrow, or more accurately, the vehicle’s reaction to the up arrow. This reaction to the up arrow comes from inelastic and elastic force/energy absorption: inelastic from the shock absorbers, elastic from the tires, springs and chassis flexibility.
For a given energy input from a given bump, the reaction force from the up arrow and its evil back arrow is less for an inelastic reaction than for an elastic reaction. Thus, the more energy absorbed inelastically by shock absorbers, the less the evil back arrow restraining force. If the chassis is flexible and does not permit the shock absorbers to absorb as much energy as they can, the resisting forces will be increased. That’s one reason to run multiple or progressive rate springs; they leave more work to be done by the damper than by the springs, and the slow-down arrows are smaller.
I think he’s right. I think. At least it was a great conversation!
Added by me: There are, however, minimum amounts of elastic energy that are required to restore the chassis and wheels to their neutral position. Also, experience shows that less than critical damping is “best”.
A Flexible Chassis is Slow.
In my quest to understand the importance of chassis stiffness of the Ariel Atom, I was talking with some off-road guys. We have a pretty big off-road community here in the desert and they’re a pretty open group. I was talking to them about chassis rigidity and they were talking about how much it slowed them down. What were they talking about? So here is a transcript of what I remember them saying, as best as I can remember and with some editing.
When you hit a bump, it’s like the bump is hitting your wheel with one of those little arrows that engineers use to show a force. It always points towards the center of the wheel because of the same laws that also keep people parallel to each other no matter where they are standing on the globe (sic).
Those force arrows pointing at the wheel can be broken down into two directions, one vertical and one horizontal. This is because engineers think in X and Y directions. In addition, those are the only directions that things can move when hitting a bump (called degrees of freedom by engineers – kind of like all the places where you can’t go if you’re under 21).
As noted, there will be an up arrow and a back arrow. The back arrow is related to and proportional to the up arrow. This proportionality changes as the wheel rolls over the bump but the back arrow is always going to be some proportion of the up arrow and it’s always going to be there until that bump is finished with the wheel. You can forget about the bump pushing back after cresting the bump because your car is flying off that bump without looking back for any help.
This back arrow forces back on the car’s suspension, and the car’s reaction is to slow down slightly. To reduce this slow-down arrow, we must reduce the up arrow, or more accurately, the vehicle’s reaction to the up arrow. This reaction to the up arrow comes from inelastic and elastic force/energy absorption: inelastic from the shock absorbers, elastic from the tires, springs and chassis flexibility.
For a given energy input from a given bump, the reaction force from the up arrow and its evil back arrow is less for an inelastic reaction than for an elastic reaction. Thus, the more energy absorbed inelastically by shock absorbers, the less the evil back arrow restraining force. If the chassis is flexible and does not permit the shock absorbers to absorb as much energy as they can, the resisting forces will be increased. That’s one reason to run multiple or progressive rate springs; they leave more work to be done by the damper than by the springs, and the slow-down arrows are smaller.
I think he’s right. I think. At least it was a great conversation!
Added by me: There are, however, minimum amounts of elastic energy that are required to restore the chassis and wheels to their neutral position. Also, experience shows that less than critical damping is “best”.
