Suspension Recruitment Task

Danilo Rameschandra
Ist104125
Contents

1. Introduction.................................................................... 3

2. Theory Questions............................................................4
2.1. Under What happens to camber change when you vary the height of
the Roll center and what are the advantages and drawback of having a
higher/lower RC?..........................................................................................4
2.2. What parameters in the suspension geometry are responsible for
altering the forces the driver must apply in the steering wheel?..................6
2.3. What Is Bumpsteer............................................................................7
2.4. What does it mean to have an Ackerman steering geometry? What
do you think would be the better type for a Formula Student car?...............9
2.5. How does camber change with variations in the Kingpin or caster
angles? What is the purpose of having a mechanical trail and scrub radius?
11
2.6. How do I determine vehicle’s Motion Ratio? Why should I know this
value, and how does his value impact car´s stiffness?...............................13
2.7. Explain the concepts of wheel rate, roll rate, pitch rate, and total roll
stiffness and how they’re calculated considering a system with tires,
springs, and anti-roll bars?.........................................................................15
2.8. Explain what is mechanical balance? In which ways can suspension
tuning affect the balance of a car?.............................................................18

3. Kinematics Simulation..................................................20
3.1. First Iteration...................................................................................20
3.2. Second iteration...............................................................................24

4. Dynamics Application...................................................26

5. Final Question...............................................................28

2
1. Introduction
The suspension system of a race car is one of the most critical
components for achieving optimal performance and handling. Its
geometry and dynamics significantly impact how the vehicle responds
to various track and road conditions, as well as its ability to maintain
grip and stability during high-speed maneuvers. As Tony Pashley aptly
puts it, "our purpose in designing the suspension and steering is to
attempt to maintain the wheels at the optimum angle to the road
surface at all times and under all conditions." In this paper, we aim to
delve into the complex world of suspension dynamics in a racing car,
exploring both dynamic suspension and dynamic importance. We will
cover various concepts related to suspension dynamics and
geometry, including parameters that affect handling, such as camber,
caster, and Pitch Rate, among others. Furthermore, we will analyse
the results obtained from an optimum kinematics and an Excel sheet
to achieve the proposed objectives. Our goal is to provide a
comprehensive understanding of suspension dynamics in a racing car
and to highlight the importance of optimizing suspension geometry to
achieve the best possible performance on the track.

3
2. Theory Questions

2.1. Under What happens to camber change when you vary the
height of the Roll center and what are the advantages and
drawback of having a higher/lower RC?

The figure below shows a double A-arm suspension, if we extend the

A-arms they coincide at the IC, a point at which the tire rotates at a
certain instant. If we draw a line between the center of the Contact
patch to the IC, we obtain the Roll center. The Roll axis can be
obtained by joining the rear and front which in turn indicates the axis
on which the car undergoes Roll movement. Considering its position
to the CG, we can see how the RC influences the magnitude of the
roll; an excessive lower RC increases the distance of the arm,
producing greater Roll Moment, inversely, decreasing this distance
decreases the Roll, but increases the Jacking effect, due to the
vertical component when a force is exerted on the tire. The Jacking
force, depending on its intensity, can have adverse effects -
increasing the CG, more load transfers.

Figura 1 - Roll Center

The RC height, as we saw, is built taking into account the position and
length of the A-arms, and as such, although it is not directly the RC
that influences camber change, its effect is associated with it due to
its connection with the intensity of Roll. Thus, we will study for two
cases, how by changing the RC we can vary the camber. For
clarification, it is important to recognize that the angle of the A-arms
is a direct indication of how high/low the Roll center is; for example, if
I raise or increase the inclination of my lower A-arm, my Roll center
height increases, and the opposite applies to the upper A-arm.

4
Camber change is the difference in angle between your upper and
lower A-arms. Let’s now analyze the relationship between Roll Center
height and Camber change by studying two cases where we consider
different A-arms set-up. In case 1, we will consider a scenario where
we simply increase the inclination and position of the A-arm, while in
case 2, we will lower the Lower A-arm and raise the upper A-arm. By
examining these two cases, we will demonstrate how variations in RC
height can lead to changes in camber.

Figura 2 - Camber for Case 1 (left) and Case 2 (right)

From the obtained graphs, we can observe that in Case 1, by raising

the lower A-arm and consequently the Roll Center, which leads to less
Roll, there is a variation of camber delta between the inside and
outside wheel of about |3.07|º degrees, for a maximum lateral g
force. In Case 2, where we lowered the lower A-arm and raised the
upper A-arm, we obtained a much lower Roll center and higher Roll
movement. This resulted in a negative camber gain, meaning that we
are not recovering camber anymore. Therefore, for the outside wheel,
we now have a camber of 0.08º (at peak grip), which is positive and
bad for cornering, while the inside wheel has -4.16º. It is worth noting
that the camber change is now|4.08|º, which represents an increase
in camber change between the outside and inside wheel, hence in
Case 2, where we have more Roll motion leads to an increase
difference between the camber of both tires as the chassis rolls,
producing more camber change. In conclusion, by changing the A-arm
set-up, we can vary the position of the Roll Center, which then
influences the magnitude of Roll. Thus, a lower Roll center height
produces more Roll, leading to more adverse camber and camber
change.

5
2.2. What parameters in the suspension geometry are responsible
for altering the forces the driver must apply in the steering wheel?

The suspension geometry of a vehicle plays a critical role in

determining how a driver experiences the handling and stability of the
car. Among other things, it can affect how much force the driver
needs to apply to the steering wheel to maneuver the vehicle in
different driving conditions. One of the most important factors that
affect the steering effort is the caster angle. This angle, which is
formed between the steering axis and the vertical axis of the wheel,
can make a significant difference in the effort required to turn the
steering wheel. A higher caster angle generates a self-centering
torque, which makes it easier to keep the vehicle moving straight.
Conversely, a lower caster angle can make the steering feel less
stable and require more effort to maintain a steady course. Another
critical factor in suspension geometry is the camber angle. The
camber angle is formed between the vertical axis of the wheel and
the plane of the wheel. Negative camber, which tilts the top of the
wheel inward towards the vehicle, provides more grip when cornering
but may require more effort to turn the wheel. A positive camber, on
the other hand, makes the steering feel lighter but reduces grip. Toe
angle is another factor that can affect the steering effort. This angle is
formed between the longitudinal axis of the vehicle and the plane of
the wheels. An improper toe angle can make the steering feel more
difficult, while a more neutral alignment can make it easier to steer.
Finally, the stiffness of the suspension also plays a significant role in
the steering effort required. Stiffer bushings provide better handling
but can make the steering feel heavier. By tuning these various
factors, engineers can optimize a vehicle's suspension geometry to
achieve the desired balance of handling, stability, and ease of

6
steering. This results in a more comfortable and enjoyable driving
experience, making it safer and more responsive overall.

7
2.3. What Is Bumpsteer

Bumpsteer is a phenomenon that can negatively affect a car's

handling by causing its wheels to steer themselves when they
encounter bumps or uneven surfaces. This occurs even when the
driver is not actively turning the steering wheel. To understand the
underlying mechanics of bumpsteer, consider a Double Wishbone
suspension type with both the outer and inner ball joints of the A-
arms connected to the knuckles and chassis, respectively. The outer
and inner joints of the Tie-rod are connected to the steering arm and
steering rack, respectively. The axis that passes through all the outer
joints is called the Kingpin axis, and the IC is the Instant Center, which
is the point where the wheel rotates about.

Kingpin
Axis

Figura 3 - Double A-arm representation

For example, when the car hits a bump, the A-arms and tie-rod are
lifted and rotated by a certain distance delta y. However, because the
tie-rod is shorter in length than the A-arms, the extension of the arms
means the tie-rod does not coincide with the Instant Center. As a
result, the tie-rod arm does not rotate about the IC, causing a
horizontal displacement that pushes the tire inward and causes steer.
It’s also worth notice that before bumpsteer occurs, the Kingpin axis
would cross all three ball joints. However, after bumpsteer occurs, the
outer joint of the Tie-rod is shifted from the Kingpin axis to a certain
distance x, stretching the steering arm.

Kingpin
Axis
IC

Figura 4 - Displacement on the Kingpin and Tie-rod inner joint

8
So, now we know how bumpsteer is caused to reduce it’s the negative
effects, it is crucial to adjust the length and angle of the tie-rod so
that it pivots about the same Instant Center as both A-arms when a
bump occurs. It is also important to position the steering rack so that
the angle that the Tie-rod is making follows the same path as the IC.
By doing so, we can effectively minimize the effects of bumpsteer and
improve the handling and stability of your car. In conclusion,
bumpsteer is generally considered to be a negative effect on a car's
handling. It is caused by the A-arms and tie-rod describing different
arcs, resulting in their extension not coinciding with the Instant
Center. This can cause the car to feel unstable and unpredictable,
which can be dangerous. Therefore, adjusting the length and angle of
the tie-rod correctly is an important step in reducing the effect of
bumpsteer and improving the overall handling of the car.

9
2.4. What does it mean to have an Ackerman steering geometry?
What do you think would be the better type for a Formula Student
car?

Consider that your car is going into a corner, notice using the first
figure below that all tires are turning about one center point, to this
geometry we called the Ackerman steering geometry, where basically
the inside tire tends to turn more, having a larger angle and therefore
less travel distance, when compared to the outer one - most normal
cars have this geometry, which helps to reduce tire scrubbing - tire
wear and improves predictable steering. On the other hand, there is
Anti-Ackerman or Reverse-Ackerman geometry that follows the
opposite of Ackerman i.e., where the outer wheel is turning more,
with a larger angle, than compared to the inner one, additionally, it’s
worth-notice that in the Anti-Ackerman geometry, the point where the
wheels rotate about it’s not the same, as we saw in Ackerman
geometry. Not so much used, due to its characteristics such as scrub
in low-speed corners, we have Parallel steering geometry, where both
front wheels will turn through roughly the same angle. It’s also
important to refer that we can easily change these types by changing
the tie-road position.

Figura 5 e 6 - Ackerman, Parallel, Reverse/anti-Ackerman geometry / Graph Slip angles vs Lateral Force

Even though Ackerman may be used in normal cars, the same does
not happen in motorsport, mostly high-speed corners, and the reason
why, relies on the concepts of Slip Angles and Vertical Loads. To
better understanding consider the plot: Slip angles vs Lateral Force
for different amounts of load - Grip will increase until a certain S.A
value, before starts to slip. It’s also visible by analyzing the same plot
that in each plot, a Maximum Grip value is reached, which tends to
increase even more for higher loads. Consequently, the Slip Angle
needs to be higher to extract the maximum lateral grip during a
corner. With that said, since in corners, due to weight transfer, the

10
outside tire carries most of the load, it needs more steering, i.e., a
higher Slip Angle to achieve maximum possible grip. Therefore, by
adopting an Anti-Ackerman geometry, racing cars can benefit from a
mechanism that provides even more steering – Slip Angles

However, although the most common geometry in motorsport is Anti-

Ackerman, we cannot generalize because the previous example
showed that this geometry does indeed benefit in high-speed corners.
However, for low speed short corners, such as those in Formula
Student, where most events are based on low-speed turns, the Anti-
Ackerman geometry would not work as well, firstly because there are
not many weight transfers or high speeds, and secondly because the
inside wheel is turned less than the outside wheel, which can cause it
to slip and lose traction more easily - oversteer. Therefore, for FSAE,
Ackerman geometry would be more suitable, since it provides a
better

Ackerman Calculations

For the follow figure that represents an Ackerman Steering we can

calculate Ackerman. To do that, we must find first the front inner and
outer angleδ iand δ o for a given turn radius R , wheelbase l , and track
width
In W fto
order /r : calculate the angleδ and δ
i o
we can use the equation below:

( )
l
δ front , i/ o=tan−1
W (1)
R− f /r
2

By substituting equation (1) in the

following expression we can obtain
Ackerman for the front axle

( )
l
Ackerman=tan−1
l (2)
−W f / r
tan δ f , o

Figura 7 - Ackerman Geometry

11
2.5. How does camber change with variations in the Kingpin or
caster angles? What is the purpose of having a mechanical trail
and scrub radius?

Considering Figure 5, we can observe that by joining the upper and

lower ball joints, an axis is created, the Kingpin axis, or simply
steering axis, which is the axis about which the wheel rotates. It is
noteworthy from the same figure that this axis has a certain
inclination (not directly vertical), and this inclination is called Kingpin
Inclination (KPI). KPI tends to be kept at a relatively low value, but
why? With the introduction of an inclination, a camber change is
induced in the front wheels, and thus, as the steering increases, the
front outer wheel, being the one with the most load, suffers from an
adverse positive camber gain, which we already know does not
contribute to better cornering performance. Another effect that KPI
generates is Jacking, responsible for the vertical lift of the car - more
unwanted load transfers. From Figure 5, we can also verify that with
the existence of KPI, there is a certain distance between the
intersection of the Steering axis/KP axis and the Centerline on the
asphalt. This distance is known as the scrub radius, which can
influence the way the contact patch interacts with the wheel during
cornering, braking/acceleration, in the sense that, for example, if the
Scrub Radius is too large (the distance between the Center-line and
Kingpin Axis is greater), the force generated by the tire will not be
aligned with the steering axis, hence this can create a moment that
causes the vehicle to pull to one side, which can lead to some
steering effort - a tiresome experience for the driver. Another
influence of scrub radius is on toe configuration. For example,
considering a positive scrub radius, as we brake (it generates a
"backward" force), it will create a moment that bends out the tire,
creating toe out. Similarly, when accelerating, that creates toe-in. The
opposite applies to negative scrub radius.

Figura 8 e 9 - Front and Side views of a tire / Tire's contact patch

12
Another important parameter is caster angle, which similarly to KPI,
represent the side-view angle between the tire centerline and
steering axis. When the caster increases, this increase induces
negative camber, because the top of the steering axis moves further
inward, causing an inward tilt, reducing positive camber. Thus,
according to what was previously said about KPI and Caster angle, it
can be seen that the positive camber previously added by KPI can be
canceled by the introduction of caster. Additionally, an important
advantage of having caster is the self-centering behavior of the
steering wheel, due to mechanical trail, which basically follows the
same principle as scrub radius, but from a side-view perspective. If we
consider Figure 6, which represents the tire's contact patch, and both
intersections of the Kingpin axis and Centerline with the contact
patch, it's clear that during cornering, a force is created, and
therefore a moment about the Kingpin axis intersection point, which
makes the tire return to its original position. This phenomenon is
called Self-centering Torque (it also exists due to scrub radius).
Generally, low mechanical trail can cause vibration in straight-line
acceleration, and high mechanical trail can lead to higher self-
centering torque, hence more tiresome to the driver as well. Lastly,
depending on the track/circuit or even the motorsport you’re in, I
don’t think there’s a single perfect answer. However, if we consider
for example F1 circuit with a lot of tight corners, like Monaco, I would
probably prioritize kingpin inclination over caster angles since it
directly affects the steering axis inclination angle, which can have a
significant impact on steering response, which is Monaco is something
you really need.

13
2.6. How do I determine vehicle’s Motion Ratio? Why should I know
this value, and how does his value impact car´s stiffness?

The motion ratio ( MR ) is a crucial parameter that describes the

relationship between the displacement of the spring/damper and the
displacement of the wheel center. For instance, if a wheel moves 1
cm while the spring moves 0.5 cm, then the MR is 0.5. Motion Ratio is
also often referred as the “leverage” the spring has when installed in
a particular suspension system, so if you compared an McPherson
Strut (figure 1) and a Double Wishbone (figure 2) it’s clear that the in
the McPherson one, the distance from the body support point to the
wheel center is the same as the distance from to the spring
attachment position → MR = 1. On the other hand, Double Wishbone
presents a MR = 0.5, which indicates that the spring rate working at
the center of the wheel will be much less than the actual spring rate
acting on the spring itself.

Figura 6 - Double A-arm (left) and McPherson Strut (right)

The value of MR has a significant influence on how much force is

required to compress and extend the suspension, and thus affects the
stiffness of the car. A higher motion ratio means that the spring has a
higher displacement for a certain wheel travel, indicating that the
spring has compressed more and is thus more suspension movement
which leads to a softer suspension. Conversely, a lower motion ratio
means that the spring has a lower compression movement for the
same wheel travel, requiring more force to compress it, resulting in a
stiffer suspension for the same K s (spring rate is basically a spring
constant that indicates the amount of force is needed to compress a
certain distance of the spring).

While car stiffness can depend on many other parameters, the motion
ratio impacts vehicle stiffness by being related to the Wheel rate ( W r )
 . Specifically, the Wheel Rate can W r =¿ K s × MR 2 × cos α . (1) Therefore
W r varies with MR and represents the effective stiffness of the spring

14
working at the center of the wheel, i.e., the “real” suspension ability
to resist more/less force before starts compressing. A lower Motion
Ratio leads to a lower Wheel rate (W r ), resulting in a softer suspension
– lower k ϕ This softness enhances ride comfort and cornering
performance but sacrifices high-speed stability on straight lines. This
stability is crucial since increasing downforce due to high speeds
requires a firm and stiff platform/chassis to avoid bottoming out.
However, in Formula Student competitions and its most events, low-
speed corners require a softer suspension (higher MR ) that allows
better handling and reduces the risk of understeer. On the other
hand, by having a lower motion ratio leads to a lower spring rate ( W r ),
resulting in a stiffer car that benefits high-speed straight roads, but
sacrifices the smoothness of the car mainly on corners, because a
stiffer suspension can make the vehicle behave like a single rigid
object, so that when passing over obstacles such as bumps, this
effect is felt throughout the car and therefore driver as well, as seen
bellow image.

Figura 11 - Effect of Stiff springs in corners

Now that we have discussed the effect of motion ratio on wheel rate
and consequently on car stiffness, it is important to recognize how to
calculate MR through two main methods. One way to calculate MR
has already been announced previously by equation 1, and typically
this approach involves knowledge of the spring rate. We can obtain
this relationship from the book – Performance Vehicle Dynamics
Engineering and Applications - James Balkwill - Page 226. We can also
calculate the Motion Ratio through mounting points. By considering
for example the above A-arm as in Figure 1, we can define two
distances a (which is...) and b (which is...), the Motion Ratio is given
a
by MR= , and by considering a certain inclination α of the spring in
b
a
relation to the vertical axis, we can define MR= × cos α . The mounting
b
distance of the spring to the tire is also an important factor that
affects the motion ratio. In conclusion, we have seen that Motion

15
Ratio is a suspension dynamics parameter that allows us to obtain
more understanding of how our spring is operating as well as its effect
on the overall suspension performance. By considering the
relationship between the wheel rate, spring rate, and motion ratio, we
can adjust the suspension setup to achieve the desired handling
characteristics, such as improved cornering, traction, and ride
comfort.

 I thought it was also worth mention that W r is used in Roll stiffness

calculations of Spring/ARB (k spring/ ARB). This relationship can be
expressed as:

2
W r ×track × ∅
k spring/ arb =
2

Where the symbol ∅ refers to the Roll angle, W r wheel rate and thus,
according with this equation so the higher the Wheel rate, higher is
the stiffness of a spring/ARB’s during roll motion.

2.7. Explain the concepts of wheel rate, roll rate, pitch rate, and
total roll stiffness and how they’re calculated considering a system
with tires, springs, and anti-roll bars?

Figura 12 - Referential of movement - Yaw, Pitch and Roll

When it comes to understanding the dynamic behavior of a vehicle,

several parameters need to be considered. Among them, wheel rate,
roll rate, pitch rate, and total roll stiffness are crucial in determining
the ride and handling characteristics of the vehicle. These parameters
are calculated based on the properties of the tires, springs, and anti-
roll bars in the vehicle's suspension system. So, in this context, we
can start introducing the Wheel rate (W r ) which effectively indicates
the work being done by the springs and ARBs at the center of the
wheel suspension. As we saw in the question, the W r is related to K s by
the motion ratio through the equation W r =¿ K s × MR 2 × cos α , and

16
therefore the higher the MR , the higher the W r i.e. the "real" work that
our springs and ARB’s are doing. Another important parameter is the
Ride rate, which is related to the ride frequencies by the equation:

ω=
1
2π
×
√
Ride Rate
Sprung . M
.

Ride rate and the values of the ride frequencies are usually defined
beforehand, taking into account the type of car, for example, a car
with high aerodynamics has around 3.5Hz-5.0Hz and therefore
requires stiffer springs → Higher K s , which are calculated by the
formulas of the Ride rate and MR through the Wheel Rate.

In the Roll movement, we already know that a Force is exerted, which

in turn causes the chassis to rotate around the roll axis, which
consequently causes an opposing moment or rotational stiffness in
response to the Roll. The way the suspension deals with this is
intrinsically linked to the concepts of Wr and Roll Rate, which then
provide us with the total roll stiffness offered by the car. To calculate
the total stiffness of a car, consider the following example, where the
first step is to calculate the wheel rate and ARB rate of the front axle,
for the springs and ARBs, respectively, using the equations:

W r =¿ K s × MR 2 × cos α (1.1) ARB r=¿ K s × MR 2 × cos α (1.2)

Since they are arranged in parallel, we can simply sum wheel rate and
ARB rate to obtain a total rate (W Total , f ¿ for the front axle. This process
is repeated for the rear axle, updating the values.

W Total , f =¿ W r ,f +¿ ARB r , f (1.3)

Once we know the total rate value for a certain axle, we can then
calculate the total stiffness of an axle. However, before that, we need
to consider the Roll rate. Roll rate can be considered as the total
stiffness of a car in a roll movement, and its value is an indicator of
the effect of all the stiffness involved in resisting roll during cornering.
This parameter can be calculated according to equation (2), and by
substituting equation (1.3) we can extract the total roll stiffness for
the front axle.

2
W Total, f /r × t
Roll Rate =
180 (2)
2×
π

17
Additionally, by knowing the rear Roll rate and adding it to the front
Roll rate, we can obtain the total roll stiffness of the car.

Total roll stiffness=Roll ratef + Roll rate r (3)

It is important to emphasize that these calculations were made

considering a parallel arrangement of the springs and ARBs. If they
were in series, we would have to resort to the equation (4):

1 1 1
= + (4)
K ϕ K φ + K ARB K T

In the same way that vehicle resists roll movement through springs
and ARBs, the car must also be adjusted to avoid pitch movement
about the y-axis (referential used in fig.1) To do so, and in a similar
manner to how we calculate the car's resistance/stiffness for roll
through the roll rate, we can define the pitch rate as the car's
resistance to pitch movement through the action of springs (ARBs
have no influence in pitch). Its value can be calculated by the
following equation K θ=k F l 21 + k R l 22 (5). where k F is the front wheel rate
and k Ris the rear wheel rate

.
Figura 13 - Pitch motion (springs effect)

It is also important to note that we can obtain the values of roll rate
and pitch rate by the G of acceleration. To this we call roll gradient
and pitch gradient. These pitch and roll gradient values are typically
defined in an initial phase and have major importance in the choice of
the different suspension components. When the pitch gradient target
value is determined, which represents the desired amount of pitch
per longitudinal acceleration, the team can then select appropriate
spring rates and other components to achieve the desired pitch
response. By understanding the impact of each component on the
pitch and roll gradients, the team can make better decisions about
which components to use in the suspension system. This helps ensure
18
that the vehicle performs as intended and meets the desired
performance targets.

19
2.8. Explain what is mechanical balance? In which ways can
suspension tuning affect the balance of a car?

Vehicle’s mechanical balance is a term used to evaluate the

distribution of total stiffness in roll and/or pitch movements, which
may impact the way load transfers are produced for these
movements. Normally, we can analyze the mechanical balance of the
car at low speed because we can understand, since aerodynamic
effect is negligible, what suspension parameters (more specifically,
springs and ARBs) can influence performance.

During pitch and roll movements, load transfers occur between axles,
and, in terms of sprung mass, these transfers can be of two types:
elastic and geometric. While geometric refers to transfers by
suspension linkages, elastic refers to transfers by springs (which
actually cause roll). Therefore, since the total load transfer in the
sprung mass is given by Δ W total=Δ W geometric + Δ W elastic it is important to
know the relationship and the proportion (ratio) of each one. To do
this, we must use the roll center height to analyze the ratio.
Depending on the roll center height, different intensities of roll
movement can be produced, and therefore, the amount of load
transfers can determine how much force goes through the springs or
through the suspension linkages.

Figura 14 - Geometric (left) and Elastic (right) Load Transfers

For example, if we lower the roll center to ground level (RC=0), since
the arm is bigger, the roll will be bigger, and therefore, that will lead
to more force acting through the springs and ARBs → Δ W elastic , which,
compared to Δ W geometric , is much slower. Since the roll moment is much
bigger, this also requires a much bigger roll stiffness provided by
springs and ARBs to achieve a desirable Roll gradient and vehicle
control. On the other hand, if we raise the roll center close to the
height of the CG (hCG=hRC), we achieve in this condition solely
geometric load transfers, i.e., the forces go into the suspension
linkages, and therefore, since they are stiffer, roll resistance will be

20
higher, leading to quicker load transfers and more responsiveness.
Although having less roll and much faster load transfers, due to the
increased distance between RC and ground, we also have more
jacking, which, if extreme, can make the tires lift which is undesirable.
Therefore, we should aim for a middle term for RC height, so that we
can have both geometric and elastic load transfers, i.e., it is not only
the suspension linkages or springs that support load transfers, and
there is no need to, for example, increase the total stiffness of the car
to a level that may compromise the overall performance of the car in
cornering.

To better understand how changing the roll stiffness can affect the
load distribution across axles, consider a cornering scenario. If you
have a stiffer front axle, when the load transfers onto it, the springs
will push back with a lot of force and that force will go into the
ground. This side with the stiffer spring will have more lateral load
transfer than the other side. So, we can say that the stiffer axle will
"take" lateral load transfers from the other axle, or in other words, the
axle with stiffer springs will have more grip (since more vertical load
means more grip until a certain limit of adhesion as we saw in the tire
task) than the axle with softer springs. Anything that affects the roll
resistance of the car against roll (or simply roll stiffness) will also
affect the handling of the car. Similarly, in cases of under/oversteer
resulting from front/rear traction loss, we can choose to soften/stiffen
the front/rear to address the issue.

Finally, dynamically, the distribution of stiffness is a factor that

determines how the car behaves on the track, and therefore, to
ensure a good mechanical balance, we can and should manipulate
the RC together with the stiffness on each axle to find a sweet spot
Compromise is fundamental.

21
3. Kinematics Simulation
In the second part of the task, the goal is to apply the concepts
learned related to suspension geometry to a simulator, the Optimum
Kinematics. Therefore, in the first iteration, we are given the
opportunity to evaluate how camber varies for a pre-defined set-up
given by the team - FST12. Next, based on the results obtained, we
were asked to optimize the camber change by 20%. In the second
part, the goal was to increase both anti-dive and anti-squat by 10%,
as well as the roll axis by 10%. Furthermore, based on the results
obtained from the previous simulations, it was part of the 2 nd iteration
to compare which set-up was better.

PS: It is important to consider that for both iterations, the left wheel
represents the inside wheel during the turn, while the right wheel
represents the outside wheel.

3.1. First Iteration

As said before in this 1st iteration the goal was to find firstly how, for a
pre-defined set-up, camber behaves for different turns with roll.
Therefore, to better understanding of this behave, it was compressed
into the following table the values of camber for different stages in a
corner: Entry, mid-corner, and apex:

Inside 5m turn 9.125 13m Outside 5m 9.125 13m

Tire m turn turn Tire turn m turn turn
Corner Corner
-1.500 -1.500 -1.500 -1.500 -1.500 -1.500
entry entry
Mid- Mid-
-0.924 -1.496 -1.620 -1.369 -1.353 -1.281
corner corner
Apex +0.596 -1.310 -1.622 Apex -0.661 -1.078 -0.981
% %
+139.7 +12.6 −8.13 +55.93 +28.13 +34.6
Differen Differen
3% 6% % % % %
ce C-A ce C-A

Camber analyses for 5m vs 9m vs 13m turn.

From the results obtained through the previous table, we can see that
for the 5m curve, the inside wheel shows a variation of +2.096, which
means a gain of +139.73% of positive camber. The outside wheel, on

22
the other hand, has a variation of 0.839, which means a gain of
53.3%. During the 5m curve, although both wheels gained positive
camber, it was the inside wheel that gained more, to the point of
having a positive camber value of +0.596, which depending on the
curve may not be an optimal inclination. For the 9.125m and 13m
curves, the behaviour is quite similar, at least for the outside wheel,
as both have a Δ outside_9 variation of +28.13% and Δ outside_13 of
34%, resulting in a not so significant gain in camber for the outside
when compared to the inside. However, this is not the case for the
inside wheel, with Δ inside_9 = +12.66% (gain of positive camber),
while Δ inside_13 = -9.13%, which means a loss of camber, which
depending on the type of curve can be beneficial if it is a fast curve.
Considering the values, we can see that there are indeed some
differences between the three curves, particularly in the % of camber
change that exists for each case. For example, for the 5m curve, the
fact that the camber on the inside varies from -1.50º to +0.596º ( Δ
inside_5 = 2.096º) suggests that more steering input was required
from the driver to deal with this curve, which may confirm that the
curve in question is a tight, low-speed curve, which compared to the
others indicates that the 9.125m and 13m curves, being of medium-
high speed and less tight, require less steering, so that the variation
in camber is not so intense. These results can be confirmed by the
camber change vs steering graph below; where it is visible that the
green curve, the 13 curve, has almost no variation for less steering,
while the 5m curve, for much higher steering input, also has a greater
variation in camber.

Gráfico 1 - Steering vs Camber Inside for inside (left) vs outside (right) tires.

Additionally, the fact that they have different curvature radius leads
to different load distributions, which consequently, considering the
load applied, can compress the suspension system more or less,
causing the relative movement of the arms and possibly the camber.
Considering the graphs below, which show motion roll vs camber
angle on the inside and outside wheels respectively, we can also
verify some of the previous conclusions, such as the fact that for the
5m curve, in both graphs the slope is steeper, which means that as

23
the roll increases, the camber varies much more significantly.
Conversely, the 13m curve, although it does indeed have a lower
slope and therefore a lower camber change rate (almost constant) on
the inside, has a completely different behaviour for the outside wheel,
as this is approximately linearly increasing as the roll increases, which
can possibly be explained by the fact that it is a curve with a larger
radius of curvature, i.e., higher possible speeds…

Gráfico 2 - Roll vs camber for inside (left) vs outside (right)

Camber change improvement by 20%.

To solve the second part of the first iteration, we were asked to

improve the camber variation by 20%. For me this improvement was
interpreted as the percentage difference in camber gain between the
inside and outside wheel. For example, if we were to consider the first
iteration FST12 (given files), we would record the following values
between the inside and outside wheel:

Camber gain (See Roll Roll

Roll 5m
previous table) 9.125m 13m
% Inside camber change 139.73% 12.66% 34.6%
% Outside camber change 55.93% 28.13% -8.13%
% Difference Outside and
84.0% 15.47% 42.7%
Inside
64% (84%-
% Goal to achieve 20% 22.7%
20%)

Considering we needed to improve by 20%, the approach used to

achieve this was to subtract 20% from the values recorded in “%
Difference Outside and Inside”. This would give us a new column,
defined as “% Goal to achieve”, which represents the values we need
to obtain for each individual turn. Therefore, we will have to "play
around" with some suspension parameters such as static camber or
toe angles, or even arm position. Results are below:

24
For the 5m turn I just simply changed the static camber value from
the initial inside and outside -1.500º to -1.800º and -1.600º outside,
respectively, which means that increased my initial camber.:

Inside Outside
Roll 5
wheel wheel
Initial
-1.800º -1.600º
camber
Final
+0.298º -0.760º
Camber Inside Outside
Roll 13
% Dif. ini- wheel wheel
+116.6% 52.5%
fina Initial
-1.500º -1.495º
% Dif. out- camber
64%
ins Final
-1.520º -1.174º
Camber
Also, it can be seen in all of the roll % Dif. ini-
+1.33% 21.47%
5 that the value "Difference out-ins" fina
is equal to the "Goal to achieve" % Dif. out-
22.7%
ins
value, which allows us to conclude
that by slightly increasing (in modulus) the values of static camber,
we were able to record a difference between the inside and outside,
which, compared to the FST12 setup, varies by 20% in the 5m turn.

Inside Outside
Roll 9.125
wheel wheel
Initial
-1.500º -1.499º
camber
Final
-1.282º -0.979º
Camber
% Dif. ini-
+14.53% 34.69%
fina
% Dif. out-
20%
ins

For both the 9.125m and 13m curves, one of the methods used to
achieve the target value was simply to vary the toe angles for the
inside and outside wheels. For the 9.125m curve, the outside toe
angle value used was -2.0º and the inside toe angle was 0.5º. As for
the 13m curve: inside toe angle was 1.40º and outside toe angle was
4.50º.

25
 Figura 15 - Wheel change on the left Is for 13m turn and right for 9.125m turn.

26
3.2. Second iteration

In the second iteration, we were asked to use the FST12 (given files)
to increase anti-dive and squat by 10%. Although I was unable to
achieve this goal, I will explain my thought process:

Considering the math channels that we defined at the beginning of

the task, we could extract the values of anti-roll and anti-squat (max
absolute value) for the three roll movements, as well as the
corresponding improvement values recorded in Anti-dive and Anti-
squat.

Max Absolute
Roll 5 Roll 9.125 Roll 13
Value
Anti-dive default 37.031 38.681 38.142
Anti-dive goal 40.7341 42.54 41.956

Max Absolute
Roll 5 Roll 9.125 Roll 13
Value
Anti-squat
4.286 4.378 4.319
default
Anti-squat goal 4.7146 4.8158 4.7509

Output data
Roll axis default 80.8 mm
Roll axis inclination Goal 72.77mm

Since the inclination of the vehicle's roll axis depends on the instant
center, one approach we can take is to try to decrease the vertical
distance between the roll centers recorded in the default setup.
Therefore, one solution would be to slightly increase the upper arms
of the front suspension and lower arms of the rear suspension or vice
versa. As a result of this increase, the roll center height at the front
would decrease and the roll center at the rear would increase (as
shown in the 1st question from the theoretical part), resulting in less
inclination of the vehicle's roll axis and less roll.

Regarding the increase of anti-dive and anti-squat, since the formula

to calculate these parameters depends on the pitch center, which is
created by the longitudinal and vertical position of the arms, we can
rearrange the default setup to increase the pitch center. By
increasing the angle of the rear control arms, we can also increase

27
anti-dive, also, if we increase the angle of the front control arms, we
can increase anti-squat.

Since there are no explicit data available, we can try to predict which
setup might be a better choice. The FST setup we created provides a
10% increase in anti-dive and anti-squat, which will reduce weight
transfer during hard acceleration and braking. This means that the
car's front end won't dive as much under braking, and the rear won't
squat as much under acceleration. However, since the kinematic pitch
center depends on the position of the A-arms, changing the
suspension geometry could potentially affect other parameters like
camber or toe, which are crucial for grip in corners. Moreover, the
increased anti-squat and anti-dive could lead to traction loss, which
could cause oversteer or understeer. Therefore, it's important to
consider all the factors and carefully test and tune the setup to
achieve the desired results.

Considering the context, the second setup could potentially provide

better performance during braking and acceleration while reducing
roll. Therefore, this would be my choice. However, it's important to
keep in mind that there are other factors to consider, such as the
potential impact on other parameters like camber and toe.

28
4. Dynamics Application
In this third part of the task, we were given an Excel file with some
parameters to reach a fixed range and value of roll and pitch
gradient, and to do so, it was necessary to change some dynamic
parameters such as the stiffness of the springs and ARBs and the
motion ratio of each one. In order to proceed with the calculations, we
need the values of Track, Wheelbase and hCG (considering the FST11
car data given in the simulation task), as well as the Roll and Pitch
moment. The results of these moments are represented below:

FST11 Car data

 ms =232 kg
2
 a lateral =9.81 m/s
2
 a longitudinal=−9.81 m/s
 hCG =0.312 m
 W Distribution=0.48

Optimum Kinematics given files set-up.

 h RC ,f ront=0.0800 m
 h RC ,rear =0.0368 m
 h P .Center =0.0663 m
 Pitch center (x) = 0.67m

Roll moment calculation:

M Roll =F y × ( hCG −h R .Center )(1)
Since h RC =h RC ,front W Distribution +(1−W Distribution) h RC ,r ear ¿
M Roll =ms ×a lateral × ( hCG −h R .Center )
M Roll =¿579.14 Nm

Pitch Moment calculation

M pitc h=F y × ( hCG −h P .Center ) (2)
M pitc h=ms ×a longitudinal ( hCG −h P .Center )
M pitc h=¿-559.19 Nm

After calculating the values of M pitc h=¿= -559.19 Nm and M roll =¿=
579.14 Nm, some of the values from the FST11 data sheet were
iterated, namely the Tire Stiffness and the Front and Rear Spring MR.
It was found that despite achieving the goal of pitch gradient =

29
0.45ºdeg, the range of Roll gradient values was below what was
intended. The results and corresponding inputs are indicated below.

Excel Results 1 - First iteration

In order to achieve the desired range of Roll gradient values while

maintaining a constant pitch gradient target, adjustments were made
to the Motion Ratio (MR) of the Anti-Roll Bars (ARBs). After several
trial-and-error attempts to find a compromise, it was realized that
once the desired pitch gradient value was achieved, the MR of the
springs would not have a significant impact on the Roll gradient
result. By iterating some values of MR for the ARBs, the desired range
of Roll gradient values was eventually achieved. It is worth noting that
the MR values for the front tend to be in the range of [1.0-2.0] Nm/º,
while the rear MR values tend to be in the range of [0.2-0.3] Nm/º.This
observation is somewhat supported by the Excel results 1, where the
MR values that successfully achieved the desired Roll gradient values
are close to be found to in the specific MR ranges of [1.0-2.0] Nm/º for
the front and [0.2-0.3] Nm/º for the rear, as mentioned previously.

Excel Results 2 - Correct parameters used.

30
 Excel Results 3 - Range for Roll Gradient

31
5. Final Question

For this last question, the pilot has given us feedback that the car is
unresponsive and also suffers from roll, dive, and squat. My initial
thought is that if the car is unresponsive, we need to make it stiffer.
Similarly, if it has too much dive and squat, the solution would be to
implement a stiffer car. However, this approach could lead to an over-
sprung car, which is probably not desirable as it can be harsh on the
tires and unstable over bumps and curbs. Additionally, since the car is
intended for Formula student competitions, which consist mostly of
corners rather than straightaways and therefore have less
aerodynamic effect compared to Formula 1, having a very stiff car
may not be the best solution to the problem. Therefore, we need to
find a compromise between having a responsive car, which implies
changing some of its stiffness, and also having a stable car in corners
under roll effect. One possible approach to avoiding an over-sprung
car is to use stiffer anti-roll bars (ARBs) in the front and softer ARBs in
the rear. This way, we can give the pilot the responsiveness he wants
while also ensuring rear traction, which is essential, especially on
corner exit. Additionally, to balance the overall stiffness of the car and
address the dive and squat issues, we can implement a “not-so-stiff”
spring in the front to address the dive and a “not-so-stiff” spring in
the rear for squat. It's important to note that the stiffness of the
springs should not be too excessive, as this could compromise the
rear traction gained with the ARBs. Another parameter that might
help to solve this problem is also to adjust the ride height, since ride
height has influence on roll and pitch centers, therefore, based on the
distance of those center to the CG, we can have higher or lower
movements. However, with this last approach, since you also depend
on the roll and pitch center, and those points are dependent on the
position of the a-arms, I believe that implementing method you would
also change a lot of the geometric parameters such as camber, toe,
caster and other, which can complicate the problem even more.

PS: It's also important to pay attention to the dampers, as they ensure
quick response of the car to body movement.

32