Results 41 to 44 of 44
Thread: Anti-Squat Physics
-
02-15-2008 #41
Registered User
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
- Posts
- 19
does anyone know of a similar calculator for front suspensions?
-
02-17-2008 #42
Registered User
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Location
- Pittsburgh, PA
- Posts
- 132
I don't think there is any "anti-squat" persay, for the front suspension. Because the rear suspension gets that characteristic from the rotation of the rear axle. The front would gain "anti-squat" from trick springs, or a stiffer shock rebound.
If you are looking for a term to describe the relation between the angle of the front control arms, "Roll Center Height" is what you are looking for.
02-17-2008 #43
Registered User
- Join Date
- Nov 2002
- Location
- state of confusion
- Posts
- 1,499
Actually, what happens in a front suspension might be termed 'anti-rise'. The math would generally follow the same constructions as anti-squat, i.e. the side view 'anti' line being referenced to axle height for IRS situations (most common) or from the ground (if you've got a live axle up front as well as in the back). How much you'd want, or if you even want any at all, is a separate (but pertinent) question. Off the top of my head, I'd guess that rapid initial load transfer off the front wheels from geometric effects in a FWD application would not be the hot tip. Best to remember that body/chassis front and rear ride heights are at best the visible effects of load transfer, not the causes of them.
Roll center height is associated with front view geometry and is a separate animal.
Norm'08 GT coupe, 5M, suspension unstockish (the occasional track toy)
'19 WRX, Turbo-H4/6M (the family sedan . . . seriously)
Gone but not forgotten dep't:
'01 Maxima 20AE 5M, '10 LGT 6M, '95 626, V6/5M; '79 Malibu, V8/4M-5M; '87 Maxima, V6/5M; '72 Pinto, I4/4M; '64 Dodge V8/3A
04-13-2009 #44
Registered User
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Orlando, FL
- Posts
- 215
I've been reading through some old threads (boy, do I need a life!) and ran across this comment.
Originally Posted by johnny rockett
I would consider this a DEvolution. As the front of the car rises on launch, the antisquat changes. As the front end rises, the IC location rises with the car, but the array of constant percent antisquat lines lags behind. Norm mentions this effect in the next post. So, there should be an ideal ratio of upper link length to lower link length which...for a given car...retains the original antisquat. I'm certain there is a satisfactory compromise ratio which the manufacturers could provide. Is it worth looking into? Probably not.
http://home.earthlink.net/~whshope
over 140,000 page views
Reply With Quote
