Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
By
Nathan Mawhinney
B00184019
May 2013
DECLARATION
Dated:
Suspension Optimization
Nathan Mawhinney
Abstract
Desirable suspension attributes in order to optimize the vehicle for drifting were researched.
A literature review was conducted into aspects discussed within this project.
The main body of this dissertation features a breakdown of obtaining measurements, validation
of these measurements and vehicle attributes which were required to create the vehicle model
in WinGeo 3.
The conclusions drawn from simulation results allowed a number of suggested setting changes
to be stated, typically by changing how the tyre functioned predominantly at the front of the
vehicle. A comparison was drawn between the standard and optimized setups in a simulated
drift maneuver.
A project discussion was completed including details of limitations, conclusions and future
work. A project timeline and approximate costing were included within this discussion.
ii
Suspension Optimization
Nathan Mawhinney
Acknowledgements
Special Thanks to
iii
Suspension Optimization
Nathan Mawhinney
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Suspension Background ................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Research Aim ................................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Objectives ........................................................................................................................................ 4
1.4 Project Scope ................................................................................................................................... 4
iv
Suspension Optimization
Nathan Mawhinney
Suspension Optimization
Nathan Mawhinney
vi
Suspension Optimization
Nathan Mawhinney
Table of Figures
Figure 1.1: Nissan 200SX S14a .................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2.1(a): Positive camber figure 2.1(b): Negative camber ............................................... 6
Figure 2.2: Centre of gravity diagram Milliken (1995) .............................................................. 13
Figure 2.3: Centre of gravity height ........................................................................................... 14
Figure 2.4: Coordinate convention ............................................................................................. 17
Figure 2.5: Steady state drifting ................................................................................................. 18
Figure 2.6: Slip angle graph (Abdulrahim, 2006). ..................................................................... 19
Figure 3.1: Wheelbase measurement .......................................................................................... 23
Figure 3.2: Ride height measurement technique ........................................................................ 24
Figure 3.3: Ride height measurement ......................................................................................... 25
Figure 3.4: Camber measurement ............................................................................................... 26
Figure 3.5: Corner weight measurement .................................................................................... 26
Figure 3.6: Centre of gravity testing ........................................................................................... 28
Figure 3.7: X-Y Coordinate system ............................................................................................ 30
Figure 3.8: Camber change due to bump .................................................................................... 31
Figure 4.1: Tyre plot lateral force vs. slip angle ......................................................................... 36
Figure 5.1: Coordinate system .................................................................................................... 39
Figure 5.2: Origin adjustment ..................................................................................................... 39
Figure 5.3: Front suspension modelled....................................................................................... 41
Figure 5.4: Rear suspension model............................................................................................. 42
Figure 5.5: Front toe validation .................................................................................................. 43
Figure 5.6: Front camber validation ........................................................................................... 44
Figure 5.7: Rear toe validation ................................................................................................... 45
Figure 5.8: Rear camber validation ............................................................................................ 46
Figure 6.1: Castor angle effect ................................................................................................... 49
Figure 6.2: Camber effects ......................................................................................................... 50
Figure 6.3: Vehicle drifting (Visser, 2005) ................................................................................ 50
Figure 6.4: Scrub radius diagram ............................................................................................... 52
Figure 6.5: KPI Angle simulation result ..................................................................................... 53
Figure 6.6: LCA adjustment ....................................................................................................... 54
Figure 6.7: Toe effects ................................................................................................................ 55
Figure 6.8: Ackerman effects ..................................................................................................... 56
Figure 6.9: Rear suspension traction rod .................................................................................... 57
Figure 6.10: Rear traction rod..................................................................................................... 57
Figure 6.11: Loaded wheel ......................................................................................................... 58
Figure 6.12: Camber effects ....................................................................................................... 58
Figure 6.13: Path file .................................................................................................................. 59
Figure 6.14: Scrub radius comparison ........................................................................................ 60
Figure 6.15: Comparison of toe effects ...................................................................................... 61
Figure 6.16: Camber angle comparison ...................................................................................... 62
Figure 6.17: Toe change comparison ......................................................................................... 62
vii
Suspension Optimization
Nathan Mawhinney
List of Equations
Equation 2.1: Coefficient Formula ............................................................................................. 11
Equation 2.2: Lateral Force Coefficient formula ........................................................................ 11
Equation 2.3: Lateral slip............................................................................................................ 12
Equation 2.4: Z axis height ......................................................................................................... 15
Equation 2.5: Line height equation............................................................................................. 15
Equation 2.6: Rear height difference .......................................................................................... 16
Equation 5.1: Y point location front ........................................................................................... 40
Equation 5.2: Rear X co-ordinate location ................................................................................. 40
Equation 5.3: Rear Y axis position ............................................................................................. 40
List of Tables
Table 3.4: Vehicle Weights ........................................................................................................ 27
Table 3.5: Tension Effects .......................................................................................................... 28
Table 3.6: Centre of Gravity Location ........................................................................................ 32
Table 4.1: Standard Geometry .................................................................................................... 34
Table 4.2: Suggested Base Setup ................................................................................................ 37
Table 7.1: Costing Table ............................................................................................................ 68
Glossary of Terms
ARB
COG
Centre of gravity
KPI
SAT
Self-Aligning Torque
S14
Vehicle Model
viii
Suspension Optimization
Nathan Mawhinney
Nomenclature
Symbol or contraction of term
S.I. units
Slip angle
Lateral velocity at contact centre
m/s
m/s
Wheelbase length
Track Width
WF
KG
KG
KG
KG
ix
Chapter 1: Introduction
Nathan Mawhinney
1: Introduction
1.1 Suspension Background
This project was based on optimization of vehicle handling for drifting. The main focus of this
project will be around the suspension system of the Nissan 200SX S14, which is shown in
figure 1.1.
The front suspension system on the S14 consisted of a MacPherson strut, combined with a
lower control arm, tension rod and an antiroll bar. This design is a simple and compact package
with the ability to provide large steering angles if the correct changes are made. An overview of
the layout of this suspension can be found in appendix B.
The rear suspension fitted to this vehicle was first featured on the Nissan MID-4, this was a
concept car unveiled at the Frankfort motor show in 1985. The rear multilink setup design on
this vehicle did not reach production until four years later, when it was fitted to the Nissan
200sx S13 the predecessor to the S14.
2
Nathan Mawhinney
The same suspension arrangement was repeated on the updated S14 model, this model featured
revised body styling, a wider track width and a marginally longer wheel base amongst other
interior updates over its predecessor.
During the production run of the S14, the design was re-launched with the introduction of the
S14a in 1996. This revision featured updated body styling and various engine upgrades;
however the chassis and suspension remained the same. The model maintained the same
specification until 1999, which featured the release of the Nissan 200SX S15 which featured
thicker anti roll bars and a helical differential. An overview of the rear suspension layout can be
observed in appendix C.
The 200SX is suited to drifting due to its front engine rear wheel drive layout; this aspect
combined with a tuneable 2.0 Turbocharged engine which is widely supported by aftermarket
part companies makes it popular in this motorsport.
This concept of negotiating a corner using a high body slip angle originated from touring car
racing in Japan in the 1970s. Drivers would slide the vehicle through a corner to maintain exit
speed; this was found to be a more effective way of cornering on cross ply tyres of the era
while being spectacular for spectators.
From this origin Drifting has slowly developed into its own motor-sport with the first event
outside Japan being in held America in 1993, this has resulted in a number of championships
being created worldwide such as:
D1 series in Japan
Nathan Mawhinney
1.3 Objectives
The objectives of this project are listed below:
Make an educated decision on the optimal suspension setup based upon analysis and
simulation results while considering gathered research and literature.
Nathan Mawhinney
Nathan Mawhinney
2: Literature Review
2.1 Suspension
2.1.1 Camber Angle
Smith (1978) provided a brief but comprehensive insight into the objective of a vehicles
suspension system. He stated the design must allow four wheel independence, while allowing
enough vertical displacement that the vehicle can withstand bumps without adversely affecting
the geometry of the wheels while moving. The final requirement cited by Smith (1978) was that
no compliance was desirable, in order to maintain chassis rigidity primarily while retaining
stiffness. Stoll (1996) cited The chassis of a passenger car must be able to handle the engine
power installed, and ever-improving acceleration, higher peak and cornering speeds and
deceleration demand safer chassis Stoll (1996) disagrees to an extent with Smith (1978) by
having different requirements from the suspension system, although both parties agree that a
low weight is a strongly desirable characteristic. It could be observed that Smith (1978) is
correct requirements from a vehicle suspension system; however aspects such as ride,
durability and driveability are overlooked.
Stoll (1996) cited ISO 8855 (2011), camber is the angle between the wheel centre plan and a
vertical to the plane of the road. This description was also stated by Milliken (1995) , however
Stoll (1996) went further in explaining that tilting the top of the wheel out results in positive
camber Figure 2.1(a). Camber force stated by Stoll (1996) as being the lateral force in the
direction of the tilt, predominatly road cars have between zero to negative 1.5 degrees of
camber(Fig 2.1(b)), however on race cars 2 4 degrees was seen.It could be viewed that both
parties are correct in their description of camber with the acknowledgement of an ISO standard
in both works, both describing the effects of camber adjustment by including camber force.
This is based on tyre attributes,slip angles and camber angle amongst numerous other aspects.
Nathan Mawhinney
Nathan Mawhinney
Smith (1984) said the limitation of the Ackerman principle was that it does not acknowledge
the effect of the vehicles slip angle, and it presumes the geometrical turn centre is positioned on
a line which is projected from the rear axle of the vehicle. Smith (1984) went on to state
steering geometry in particular aims to reduce under steer, this under steer is caused by the
inside wheel being lightly loaded (in relation to the centre of a corner). This meant the outer
wheel is forced to provide 80-90% of the traction effort at the front of the vehicle at high lateral
acceleration. He said the benefit of increasing Ackerman angle was that both front tyres can be
maintained at their desired slip angles. This effect reduced the need for static toe out on the
front; however limitations were increased tyre temperatures due to scrubbing, instability during
braking and increased roll resistance on the front wheels. Smith completed his description with
a further benefit of increasing Ackerman angle involves the inside wheel continuously featuring
a greater steering angle than the outside wheel. It could be said that Smith provided a detailed
summary of the effects of adjustment of the Ackerman angle, outlining advantages and
disadvantages of Ackerman adjustment.
2.1.5 Castor
Milliken (1995) provided a insight into the effects of caster angle adjustment, he stated that
increasing caster angle will effect steering input force required to turn the wheels. Milliken
went on to importantly state when recoving from an oversteer situation, the steering camber
gained from opposite lock does not increase front grip, this is due to the camber gain gain being
in the wrong direction. It may be seen that Milliken(1995) was informative in his description of
the effects of caster, with particular insight into the effects during oversteer which is common
when drifting at high body slip angles.
Kojima (2012) stated castor has a self-steering effect on the front wheels while the vehicle
slides, castor not only helps self-centring steering it benefits the initial turn in of the vehicle by
creating negative camber on the outside wheel. Kojima went on to say as the vehicle turns the
outer wheel creates camber, this allows less negative camber to be run increasing straight line
stability. Staniforth (2010) backed up these statements saying Castor provides the self-centre
action that helps a car run true at high speed in a straight line, and will also pull the wheels
back to straight ahead coming out of a corner. Both parties agreed on the effects of castor
adjustment outlining the advantages of changing the castor angle.
Smith (1984) said that too little front castor would result in the vehicle being overly sensitive to
steering, it would lack of feedback and poor self-return steering characteristics. This further
backed up both Kojimas and Staniforths opinions on the subject.
Nathan Mawhinney
Nathan Mawhinney
Both parties give an important understanding of the tyre slip angle which plays a significant
part in drifting due to high tyre slip angles.
10
Nathan Mawhinney
Once the coefficient was known for a given tyre, the slip angle could potentially be plotted for
a number of loads which would provide improved correlation between loads on the tyre.
Milliken stated that the peak lateral force coefficient was typically lower for higher loads than
it would be for low tyre loads.
11
Nathan Mawhinney
SAE J670 (2008) referenced the tyre as steering through an axis at the centre of the contact
patch; Milliken (1995) stated that at medium to low slip angles the steered heading will be
followed by the tyre. Milliken went on to state the aligning torque through the steering was
caused at the outline of the contact patch; the distortion was stated to be in a triangular shape. It
was stated as being caused by the elastic distortion of the contact patch throughout its length as
it is not uniform.
Pacejka (2006) defined lateral slip as a ratio between, the longitudinal speeds of the tyre against
the velocity in the lateral direction which can be obtained by the following expression 2.3.
Milliken (1995) stated in order to have a competitive race car handling performance is vital, as
it is one of the main determinates in having success. Milliken (1995) then stated as centre of
gravity is the point at which the cars weight is working through, it has significant role in
attributing to increased achievable cornering speeds. This is due to COG governing the amount
of tyre cornering force which can be applied, by dictating the vertical load applied to the tyre.
Stoll (1996) said to generalise, the lower the centre of gravity the fewer dynamic driving
problems are created while increasing handling performance during braking and cornering.
Milliken (1995) in order to calculate the centre of gravity location moments were taken around
the rear axle as can be seen in figure 2.1. This showed the names of the dimensions used in the
following formulas; this figure can be used in conjunction with the expressions below.
12
Nathan Mawhinney
And
Milliken (1995) stated moments should be taken around the x1-x1 which can be seen in figure
2.1 above, that was the line which runs through the centre of the left rear tyre parallel to the
centreline. Calculation of the position on the Y axis location on the vehicle would then be
obtained
( )
13
Nathan Mawhinney
Milliken (1995) stated if the front and rear track widths are the same value a simplified version
of the formula may be used as seen below:
(
Finally Milliken cited if the track width is equal and the centre of gravity lies on the centre line
then w2 + w4 = with no lateral movement existing.
The calculation of the position on the z-axis would then be obtained, using the following
formulas, dimensions and names of lengths which can be viewed in figure 2.2.
14
Nathan Mawhinney
By taking moments about the point O allowed the vertical force caused by the hoist, and the
force acting on the vehicle by the chalks to be disregarded.
(
By taking c/h1
: as an assumption
The example then calculated the distance above the horizontal line connecting both wheel
centres as h1, with both wheel centres defined as RL, it is worth noting that if both front and rear
have the same height then you may add h1 and RL to calculate the height above the ground.
This is displayed in equation
Milliken (1995) said if there was a difference in RL from front to rear then the following
expression 2.5 must be used to locate the height of the line.
( )
( )
15
Nathan Mawhinney
If there was a difference between the front to rear height, then the centre of gravity height was
calculated using the following formula in expression 2.6.
16
Nathan Mawhinney
2.4.2 Drifting
Abdulrahim (2006) defined drifting as ... the art of exploiting dynamic nonlinearities to
balance forces and moments at large angles of sideslip. This was an accurate definition of
drifting as tyre grip was determined by the amount of vertical load acting on the tyre thus the
amount of available traction, while counter steer is applied to counter yawing moments
allowing large angle of body slip to be controlled.
Abdulrahim (2006) further stated that during drifting each tyre creates a number of forces, he
defined longitudinal force as
which was the force of acceleration and braking, lateral was
stated as being , and the moment trying to rate the vehicle as . Figure 2.4 below gives a
visual aid in understanding this convention.
As stated previously the force and moment acting on the tyre are determined by the
longitudinal slip and local sideslip angle ( ).
Abdulrahim (2006) said the total force acting though the centre of gravity was a sum of the
combined moments and forces acting on each tyre. The figure 2.5 outlined the important
dimensions as a,b and c, this diagram showed the vehicle in steady state drift depicting the
forces and moments acting on the centre of gravity of the vehicle though each tyre. The
distance to the centre of the contact patch is important in determining the agility of a vehicle
17
Nathan Mawhinney
(a,b) and the lateral distance (c) from the centre of the contact patch to the body centreline were
depicted.
Pacejka (2006) stated a formula to allow calculation of side force for both longitudinal slip (K)
and slip angle ( ), this expression was based on the forces
and
being determined by both
slip conditions. Abdulrahim (2006) used Pacejkas formulae, and stated that the force response
peaks beyond the near-linear range then declines towards a steady value at high slip angles
such as
which are seen in drifting. It was further cited that the force acting laterally
was anti-symmetric around
resulting in side forces acting in both ways, for this reason
camber can be negated from this equation. Figure 2.6 below shows a plot of slip angle against
longitudinal slip, with the effect on lateral force.
18
Nathan Mawhinney
Abdulrahim (2006) stated the front wheels act near the vicinity of the linear range at low slip
angles, tyres would operate at a range of values through a variation in braking and steering
inputs around
with any slip angle ( ). The rear wheel function was cited as operating in
the nonlinear plateau regime during a typical drift manoeuvre; these tyres operate in a wide
range of a slip angles well above the linear range while being controlled by braking and
acceleration torques.
Abdulrahim (2006) gave a rational description of the front tyre working with less than or equal
to zero longitudinal slip at a range body slip angles, the rear tyre however was described as
working in a nonlinear zone with a large variation in slip angles. Abdulrahims understanding
and description of the tyre slip angles seems reasonable, with less lateral force achievable at the
rear wheels due to the nonlinear working zone.
19
Nathan Mawhinney
20
Nathan Mawhinney
3: Primary Research
3.1 Planning and Technique
3.1.1 Experimental Centre of gravity
To allow optimization of the vehicle a variety of factors had to be found, one particular factor
was the location of the centre of gravity (COG) of the vehicle. This was required in WinGeo to
allow optimization of the vehicle model, this measurement was conducted under colleague
supervision, the requirement of supervision was outlined in the risk assessment found in
appendix E and suggested by the project supervisor prior to measurement.
In order to locate a vehicles COG it was primarily accepted that lifting the rear of the car,
while measuring the change in weight onto the front wheels was the standard method of
predicting where the COG is positioned. The rear of the vehicle must be lifted vertically in
order to give an accurate weight change; there are three primary methods of undertaking this
task.
An engine hoist could be used to lift the rear of the car vertically up as the front wheels rest on
the corner weight scales, however due to the Nissan 200sxs design locating the lifting strap to
obtain a vertical lift is almost impossible due to the body shape. A car jack could be used in
order to raise the rear of the vehicle however; complications would arise when jacking on the
differential as this mounts onto the rear sub frame of the vehicle. It is possible to use a car
trailer in order to find the point at which the car will balance, by balancing the weight on the
trailer the COG position could be calculated. In this case from reviewing the other
methodologies and drawing conclusions it was decided that the workshop four post ramps
would give the best repeatability and results.
21
Nathan Mawhinney
Rear
1480
1470
22
Nathan Mawhinney
The wheelbase was measured in a similar way to track width by measuring the location same
location on the wheel time from front and rear wheels. This measurement will be taken four
times at each side, the reason being if the vehicle has been in an accident each side will give
different lengths, which will impact geometry results if only one side is measured. Figure 3.1
shows the wheelbase measurement technique.
23
Nathan Mawhinney
Left
624
Rear
Right
622
Left
620
24
Nathan Mawhinney
The measured ride height was compared to manufacturer specifications in table 3.3, thus the
vehicle would be raised by 35mm in WinGeo to represent the standard height.
Difference(mm)
35
Now that the basic measurements were complete the current vehicle setup could be attained,
the first process of this stage was to obtain vehicle corner weights and other geometry settings.
A camber gauge was used to measure the camber in degrees, placing the gauge on the wheel in
the straight ahead position gave the following results for each corner seen in figure 3.4.
25
Nathan Mawhinney
26
Nathan Mawhinney
The results from weight measurement are shown below; these measurements were taken four
times. The averaged results are displayed in table 3.4.
Table 3.1: Vehicle Weights
Front left (kg)
352
Rear left
281
Total
Front right(kg)
364
Rear right
275.5
1272 kg
b = 1418.33 mm
The location could then be obtained from the front axle.
The location in the x direction from the front hub was found to be 1106mm; this location was
further validated once the model was created in WinGeo. This program had a built in COG
calculator which placed the centre of gravity at 1104mm from the front hub. This obtained the
centre of gravity location on the X axis based on the vehicles weight distribution and
wheelbase, an image of this calculator is located in appendix G.
27
Nathan Mawhinney
As outlined previously the centre of gravity test was conducted on the four post ramp in order
to obtain the centre of gravity height location, the vehicles rear wheels were placed on the four
post ramp with a ratchet strap constraining it. The vehicle was then set to a levelled height by
adjusting the ramp height, with this set the rear was then raised through a range of angles up to
6 degrees. Figure 3.6 shows the testing setup at 3 degrees.
The vehicle was raised in increments, with the tyre deflection being measured at each point on
the front wheel. The reason for measurement of wheel deflection is to account for the effects of
high profile tyres which deflect as the weight was transferred to the front wheels as this could
potentially have an effect on the centre of gravity location. The dial gauge was zeroed on the
corner weight scale with the vehicle at a level zero height; the tyre deflection was measured
at each two degree angle increment.
No tension
395.69
443.02
466.60
480.64
499.34
Tension
54.62517129
215.7579561
353.0449318
355.8494514
446.6069422
Percentage Difference
624.38%
105.33%
32.16%
35.07%
11.81%
The table of results from centre of gravity testing can be viewed in appendix H.
28
Nathan Mawhinney
To measure the vehicle initially the vehicle was placed on the two post ramp, the ramp arms
were adjusted until the vehicle was level on the ramp. As the suspension in drooped when
raised, support was placed underneath the front and rear tyres prior to lowering the vehicles
weight onto these plates. Measurements from the centre of the hub to the brow of the arch were
taken to ensure the vehicles height was equivalent to the vehicle being on the ground. A
potential area of risk could be found in this process due to the suspension lifting the vehicle
body from the ramp arms, this effect could result in the vehicle falling from the support plates.
With the vehicle levelled on the ramp it was possible to project the baselines in the X and Y
directions to enable measurements to be taken. This origin was set as in the WinGeo software,
using the centre of the front wheel as the origin. With the vehicle level and square on the ramp
a number of datum lines were drawn to base the suspension measurements from, the Y axis was
initially projected by measuring a set distance from the ramp base to the centre of each front
tyre. A datum line was projected between each of these points to obtain the Y axis datum; the X
axis was then obtained by projecting a line from the centre of the front tyre at a right angle
using a straight edge as shown in figure 3.7.
29
Nathan Mawhinney
30
Nathan Mawhinney
To allow validation of the simulation models accuracy the change in toe and camber through a
range of movement was recorded, by moving the wheel through a range of motion the effects
of bump on the front and rear of the vehicle were measured. To measure these values the wheel
was jacked through a range of motion, the vehicle was lifted on the two post ramp to allow for
any wheel droop. On this vehicle the suspension droop was negligible; the jack was placed
under the centre of the tyre then using the tape measure set to standard static ride height based
on the distance between the hub and eyebrow. The wheel suspension was then compressed in
inch increments; the change in toe was measured using a bump steer gauge.
The change in camber through suspension bump was measured using a similar method, in this
case a flat plate was placed against the face of the wheel to ensure a level surface to measure
from and reduce potential errors. A camber gauge was then placed on the face at each inch
increment throughout the suspension range until full bump had been reached, this was repeated
three times to reduce sources of error. The outline of this technique is shown in figure 3.8.
The results of both toe and camber testing are displayed in appendix I.
31
Nathan Mawhinney
Location (mm)
1106.67
738.15
378.9
Scale resolution was a limiting factor, as these scales have a resolution of 0.5kg a potential of
1kg difference in weight transferred could be measured, this would equate to a change in height
of 11mm from the addition of 1kg to the front weight. This would show a significant change in
cornering force as the vehicle rolls more and would considerably effect the roll moment.
The centre of gravity was located to allow the model to be created in WinGeo, improvements in
accuracy could be found by using a lower resolution scale or a COG pendulum rig designed for
this task, a significant limitation of this test was the angle the vehicle was raised too. Due to
limitations of the drivetrain the vehicle was lifted to a maximum of 6 degrees, this could be a
source of inaccuracy in results.
32
Nathan Mawhinney
33
Nathan Mawhinney
Camber ( )
-0.7
-1
Toe In ( )
0.3
0.9
KPI( )
12.55-14.25
Castor( )
6.00 - 7.30
Chisholm (2013) went on to state that camber settings vary between drivers, some opt for
between 3-6 degrees negative camber on the front wheels. This based on the theory that at high
lock during a large body slip angled drift the tyre will have more contact with the road; this
would result in increased grip at the front.
Personal correspondence with Dennis OBrien, who has considerable experience setting up
geometry particularly performance vehicles, OBrien (2013) agreed with Chisholms
suggestion based on increasing the castor, as this would increase the self-centring effect when
drifting. OBrien (2013) further stated that camber was used to control traction; by reducing the
negative camber at the rear grip would be regained quicker as the throttle was lifted. Slight toe
out on the rear was suggested to aid transitions as the weight transfers. This adjustment meant
the vehicle would automatically want to steer continue sliding as the vehicle transitioned,
however this would decrease the transition and straight line grip.
34
Nathan Mawhinney
OBrien further stated a typical value of front camber is -3.5 to -4 degrees with 0.5 degrees toe
out. This toe out would result in a quick initial turn in however; he did state that drivers vary
considerably on their opinion on front toe settings dependant on driving style.
Importantly large steering lock was stated as being not essential to drifting, although the benefit
in competition would be considerable due to judging based on vehicle angle. Both Chisholm
(2013) and Graham (2013) agreed that having the ability to generate massive steering lock was
only useful if the setup provided grip at these massive angles.
All corresponding parties agreed that increasing the castor was a must to provide more steering
lock and SAT, this agrees with literature from Staniforth (2010) and Smith (1984) who agree
that the self-centring effect will be increased with more castor angle.
It was suggested that the rear should feature reduced rear camber when compared to the front
suspension, typically between zero and negative 1.5 degrees. The intention is to have the
maximum amount of tyre in contact with the road to prompt even tyre wear. (Chisholm, 2013)
Graham (2013) stated that typically the large value of negative camber at the front helps
improve the contact patch of the tyres while counter steering, further stating that an increase in
the lower control arm length would result in better stability and lock. Graham (2013) further
said this aids steering lock by spacing the wheel further from the inner arches and other
components, another benefit would be an increase in negative camber as the lower ball joint is
moved away from the centreline.
This correspondence agrees with Kojimas (2012) views that negative camber should be set to
between 3-4 degrees, this correspondence further agrees on the increase in lower control arm
length to increase static camber and improve clearance.
To allow the maintenance of the vehicle in over steer situation a considerably higher static
camber angle is required, the reason for this was as the vehicle rolls the inside of the tread, this
effect can be compensated for by the addition of negative camber. By increasing camber at the
front of the vehicle, the front grip during roll situations is increased, this results in decreased
under steer under when cornering. Typically a negative camber setting of 4 degrees will be
used on vehicles with a MacPherson strut, allowing the rear wheels to break away rather than
having the vehicle under steer. Another basic adjustment on a vehicle setup for drifting is to set
the front wheels to toe out slightly, the benefit of this being the front will turn in sharply which
is desirable when initiating a slide, if a large amount of toe out was set the vehicle will turn in
quickly but may be unpredictable when changing direction while maintaining a high yaw angle.
Camber at the rear is typically set between zero and negative one degree although this is
subjective to the driver and vehicle, this is where a drift setup differs from a grip setup as less
camber is required on the rear to allow it to over steer yet retain the ability to regain grip
quickly when the throttle is lifted. (Kojima, 2012)
35
Nathan Mawhinney
By relating these requirements to the ideal vehicle model, the increased toe out at the rear
would increase the vehicles tendency towards increased yaw velocity (Kennedy, 2013).
This would induce over steer at a lower speed which is desirable for drifting, toe settings at the
rear tend to be down to driver preference and vehicle power. A low power vehicle toe out may
be used to help the tyres loose traction with less effort from the driver, this would allow the
yawing to be maintained however, would reduce forward traction when trying to regain grip
and the straight line stability.
Opinion varies on rear toe settings, the notion of the effects of the toe adjustment at the rear
during drifting is correct. Graham (2013) view disagreed with the opinion that toe out should be
used on the rear, this may be due to the view of the vehicle having high power thus not
struggling to break traction meaning toe out was not so necessary. For this reason the toe was
set to parallel for the suggested base setup.
Increasing the KPI angle will increase the scrub radius; in turn this will create a larger moment
arm meaning an increase in self-aligning torque. This would result in the driver having more
feel and the steering having a considerably larger self-centring steering motion. KPI can only
be increased to an extent; relocation of the suspension top mount is prohibited under British
Drift Championship rule which was a limitation of this suggestion.
4.1.3 Limitation of Tyre Data
Another limitation of drifting information was how tyre performance was effected at large slip
angles, the best tyre test facilities can reach a maximum of around 20 degrees slip angle on
their test rigs. Approximation from projecting graphs for the nonlinear zone of the tyres
performance above 10 degrees is shown in figure 4.1. It can be observed that before 7 degrees
the graph is fairly linear with a peak lateral force for each tyre, however beyond this point as
the slip angle increases the achievable lateral force declines as the tyre begins to slide.
Unfortunately little data was known on how tyres react at angles above 15 degrees.
Nathan Mawhinney
As a drift is controlled by modulation of both the steering and longitudinal slip through control
of the throttle, the relationship between longitudinal slip and lateral force is of particular
importance. As tyre data at high slip angles is uncertainty within how the tyre acts at these
extreme angles, and the effect the change in tyre performance has on vehicle stability.
(Abdulrahim, 2006)
4.1.4 Conclusions
As the suspension setup was determined to be driver dependant a perfect setup simply cannot
be specified, there are too many variables as with conventional racing. Variables such as local
coefficient of friction, weather conditions, and track surface and tyre compounds will all play a
part in a setup for a given circuit, not to mention the drivers preference and the vehicle being
used.
From consideration of the literature review and discussion above a suggested base setup can be
observed in table 4.2.
Camber ( )
-3.5
-1.5
Toe In ( )
-0.5
0
KPI( )
15.25
Castor( )
8
The setup mentioned above will provide an excellent basis for a drift setup, giving good grip
regeneration at the rear when the throttle is lifted. The combination of increased KPI and castor
will increase available steering lock, with the increased negative static camber would reduce
the tendency for the loaded wheel which is counter steering to have positive camber. The lower
control arm should be lengthened to allow for increased component clearance, at the rear
Nathan Mawhinney
38
Nathan Mawhinney
Before inputting co-ordinates the track length, wheel base and tyre diameter were set as a basis
for the model. As the Y axis origin was measured from the centre of the front wheel opposed to
the centre of the vehicle as WinGeo states, it was necessary to calculate the Y axis results
before inputting values, by working with the following expression 5.1 the Y axis points were
obtainable for the front:
39
Nathan Mawhinney
This operation gives the distance from the centre of the wheel to position the members
correctly on in the program; a spread sheet was utilized to obtain these positions efficiently, an
overview of the model with the data input can be seen in figure 5.3. To obtain the rear points on
for use in WinGeo, 2525mm was added to each X co-ordinate location to account for the
wheelbase distance. Equation 5.3 calculates the rear X location, with equation 5.3 used for the
Y position.
40
Nathan Mawhinney
41
Nathan Mawhinney
By measurement of the vehicles change in toe and camber through typical suspension
movements, the model could be validated by showing correlation to real world vehicle results.
Figure 5.5 displays the correlation between the measured and simulated front toe. The ride in
the software was changed through the same range of motion as it was in the workshop, to
simulate the effects of bump steer on the suspension.
Simulation results showed an accurate correlation between results, showing the highest
percentile difference of 6.1%. This equated to a maximum difference of 0.01 degrees of toe,
when this value was compared vehicle alignment machines. The resolution of these machines is
0.1 which justified negating this angle. A table of the values used to create figure 5.5 can be
found in appendix I. The toe validation was successful showing excellent correlation
throughout the range of ride.
42
Nathan Mawhinney
0.25
0.2
0.15
Measured toe change
0.1
WinGeo
0.05
0
0
20
40
60
80
The same method of moving the suspension through a range of motion was utilized to obtain
the camber change caused by bump on the wheel, figure 5.6 below displays a plot of the
difference in camber change through a range of motion. On first glance the correlation of the
plots looks poor however a maximum of 1.2% difference was observed between the real world
and simulated values, to place a perspective on this the camber gauge used to obtain the values
was accurate to 0.25 degrees. The highest difference in values between the two plots was 0.03
degrees, thus the camber results were deemed to be of sufficient accuracy. The table of values
plotted in this graph including percentile difference can be located in appendix I. Camber
results displayed excellent correlation between measured and simulated results.
43
Nathan Mawhinney
10
20
30
40
50
60
Camber ()
-2.78
WinGeo
-2.8
-2.82
-2.84
-2.86
-2.88
-2.9
Distance (mm)
The rear suspension was validated using the same method of moving the suspension through a
range of motion measuring the change at each increment, figure 5.7 below shows the rear toe
results. This does not show an accurate representation beyond a 30mm compression, as the
measured values show significantly less toe change in compression than the simulated model.
The reason for the lack of correlation may have been due to measurement error or compliance
in the rear suspension bushes. To eliminate this error the toe could be retested with the spring
removed from the strut and suspension joints loosened to allow the suspension to move more
freely. In this case only the effect on change in toe is required, opposed to the toe value itself to
test the effect of adjustment through certain suspension members within the next section. The
values for toe at the rear can be found in appendix I. After discussion with the project
supervisor this toe change was deemed to be reasonable, thus validation was successful in this
respect.
44
Nathan Mawhinney
1
0.8
0.6
Measured
Wingeo
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Range of motion
Figure 5.8 below shows the rear WinGeo model, measured results show good camber
correlation with a difference of +/- 0.1 degree over the majority of the range, after 65mm the
WinGeo model deviated from the measured results this could be due compliance in the
suspension bushes. Numerous sources suggest that as standard the rear sub frame bushes
displayed 14mm of movement from standard, this may have contributed to the variation in
plots. The values for camber at the rear are displayed in appendix I.
By comparison of results at full bump the WinGeo model simulated 0.25 degrees more camber
change than measured results, the rear suspension setup reduces camber in bump which may
aid traction under hard acceleration by allowing more of the contact patch provide a tractive
force.
As toe and camber at the rear both reduce in accuracy as bump increased, this was an indicator
that the vehicle may have started to be lifted from the ramp. It could be due to compression of
the suspension, or compliance within the suspension bushes and linkages.
45
Nathan Mawhinney
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Camber ()
-0.5
-1
Camber (degrees)
WinGeo
-1.5
-2
-2.5
46
Nathan Mawhinney
47
Nathan Mawhinney
Caster angle
Ackerman Angle
The use of 3 degrees of roll is typical in a drift situation; this roll angle was obtained from
literature. (Abdulrahim, 2006)
6.1.1 Castor Angle
The reason Kojima suggests increasing the castor angle was to increase the self-centring
steering effect; this effect known as the steerings self-aligning torque is created by the distance
between a projected line from the steering axis and the contact patch of the tyre. The particular
benefit of increasing castor is the increase it has on self-aligning torque, during a drift
maneuver the driver will often be required to remove a large angle of steering quickly. By
setting up the vehicle to naturally want to have the steering in the straight ahead position it
actually can counter steer quicker than the driver may be able to, it is not uncommon when
observing drifting to see drivers briefly let go of the steering which allows the geometry setup
to bring the vehicle back into line. Adjusting the castor had a further effect on the negative
camber gain during cornering allowing a potential reduction in static camber allowing more
efficient braking. It would be suggested that no more than 8 degrees of castor should be used in
order to stop issues with bump steer and potential issues with wider wheels. Figure 6.1 shows
that adjustment of castor has little effect on camber; however the benefits entailed with the
increased steering lock justify this change.
48
Nathan Mawhinney
-1
-2
-3
-5
-6
-7
Roll angle ()
A comparison of standard ride height against a -35mm decrease in height is outlined in figure
6.2 below; this graph depicts the change in camber through a range of roll peaking at 4 degrees
with a counter steer of 500 at the wheel applied, in this case the right front wheel is unloaded it
can be seen that in both cases the negative camber on each wheel is increased. This is a
common effect caused by simply lowering the vehicle and not correcting the geometry, by
lowering the vehicle more negative static camber was induced which was maintained
throughout the roll angle. When opposite lock is applied to counter the yawing moment trying
to spin the car the inner wheel in relation to the corner will generate a significant increase in
negative camber, this manoeuvre has the opposite effect on the outer wheel due to a decrease in
negative camber as the vehicle rolls, this results in positive camber on the outer wheel which is
depicted in an overview of a drift depicted in figure 6.3. By lowering the vehicle by 35mm the
effects of positive and negative camber gain on each wheel are increased, the left (outer) wheel
recorded a greater positive camber with a crossover point from negative to positive camber
occurring at a lesser roll angle.
49
Nathan Mawhinney
Camber degree ()
0
-1
5
Camber left standard
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
Roll Angle ()
Yaw
moment
trying to rotate
the vehicle.
Outer
wheel:
experiencing
positive
camber
during over steer.
50
Nathan Mawhinney
Lateral load transfer is determined by a number of factors such as centre of gravity height, roll
centre and track width. Adjustments such as toe, camber, castor, and steering will not affect the
amount of lateral load transfer, and these will only change the effect this transfer causes. By
reducing ride height the centre of gravity will increase negative camber and toe in if
uncorrected after lowering, typically when lowering a vehicle a stiffer spring rate will be
utilized to cope with the reduction in ride. Another effect of lowering the vehicle would result
in a reduction in roll centre height; this roll centre is the point where the sprung and unsprung
mass. As the vehicle rolls the lateral force is applied through cornering a moment is created
using force times the distance between the centre of gravity and roll centre height.
A higher roll centre will result in lateral force being transferred quicker; however this rapid
transfer causes a margin of the force to be displaced through the suspension members rather
than the spring. By lowering this roll centre height the moment will be greater, however it will
act though the spring which controls this motion more effectively, another benefit of this would
be an increase in roll stiffness which may cause the rear of the vehicle to rotate at a faster yaw
rate than at standard height which is desirable in drifting. Roll centre height is dependent on the
vehicle in question and the effects of moving the height of this point can be adjusted through
tuning of the anti-roll bars.
Adjustment of the king pin inclination angle was achieved by moving the upper MacPherson
mounting location; this adjustment increased the scrub radius. This is the distance between the
centre line of the tyre and the projected pivot line between the upper mount and ball joint as
shown in figure 6.4 below. By increasing the scrub radius a larger self-aligning torque and thus
kickback through the steering system should be observed.
51
Nathan Mawhinney
The point where the projected king pin inclination axis contacts the ground acts as a fulcrum
point for the tyre. The location of this point determines the feel, effort and effectiveness of the
steering. Initially on the simulation model the scrub radius was 15.4 degrees creating a scrub
radius of 11.3 mm, a simulation was conducted to determine the effects of adjusting the
location of the upper strut mount. An iterative simulation was conducted to determine how
changing the KPI would affect the steering in and over steer situation; the upper mount was
then moved 20mm further away from the centre line of the vehicle and the simulation re-run.
The results of this change in mounting location resulted in a decrease in KPI angle to 13.4
degrees however this increased the scrub radius to 17mm; the effects of this adjustment are
displayed below in figure 6.5.
52
Nathan Mawhinney
350
300
250
200
Standard
150
100
50
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
It can be observed that the moment arm is increased consistently throughout the steering range
at 3 degrees roll; this would result in a larger turning moment if the force was equal in both
cases. This agrees with the expected results that increasing the scrub radius would effectively
increase the force at the tyre, in turn this would result in a higher self-centring force caused by
the longer moment.
The steering would feel heavier which may equate to improved driver feel and stability, caused
by the increased distance between the KPI angle and the centre of the contact patch. Another
effect of scrub angle was the way it loads the tyre, with a positive scrub angle which this
vehicle has the tyre would be loaded towards toe out.
Smith (1984) stated The steering must offer enough feel to the driver so that he can sense
what is happening as he approaches the cornering limit of the front tires. Thus it would not be
unwise to state that by increasing the steering feel the driver would sense the limits of the tyres
earlier, and gain confidence within the vehicle. Smith further stated that increasing the scrub
angle by the addition of wheel spacers would increase the scrub radius by the thickness of the
spacer however will have little benefit on the steering.
53
Nathan Mawhinney
16.5
16
Standard vehicle
15.5
15
-75
-55
-35
14.5
-15
25
45
54
65
Nathan Mawhinney
Toe change()
25
Standard (Unloaded)
20
Modified by
20mm(Unloaded)
15
10
Modified by
30mm(Unloaded)
5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
55
Nathan Mawhinney
10
20
30
40
50
60
Toe change ()
-1
-2
Standard
-3
Modified by 20mm
-4
Modified by 30mm
-5
-6
-7
Through personal correspondence with David Kennedy (2013) the project supervisor it was
decided that moving the X coordinate of the upper ball joint would lengthen or shorten the
length of this component, thus give an indication of the effects, an iteration of roll was used to
allow a comparison to standard. The vehicle was simulated from zero to three degrees of roll;
figure 6.9 below shows this member.
56
Nathan Mawhinney
Toe in (Degrees)
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2
-1.4
Nathan Mawhinney
Toe in (Degrees)
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
This adjustment had a very slight effect on the camber, resulting in less camber change through
roll at the rear. By reducing the positive camber on the loaded wheel the tyre can work more
effectively, shown in figure 6.12.
Camber Change
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
Standard
0
4
Traction rod shortened
40mm
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
58
Nathan Mawhinney
In conclusion WinGeo allowed parameters such as roll rate, slip angles, the yaw rate and
camber amongst other factors to be computed efficiently within a short period of time. This
saved considerable time over real world testing as the results of adjustments can be observed in
seconds rather than minutes at a track.
Both setups were compared using this path file which simulates the vehicle braking turning in
and over steering around a corner.
The following
1. Full braking.
2. Half braking at drift initiation.
3. Full over steer with counter steer applied.
4. Power applied and counter steer reduced.
5. Full power and steering centred.
59
Nathan Mawhinney
The graph below plots the difference in scrub radius as the vehicle has lock applied, it can be
seen that the optimized setup creates a larger scrub radius.
This would provide a larger self-centring effect through the steering system, the vehicle would
tend towards correcting itself from the over steer situation which was desirable. A comparison
of simulated results can be seen in figure 6.14.
Scrub Radius
2
0
Scrub Radius
-2
-4
-6
Standard Setup
-8
Optimized Setup
-10
-12
-14
-16
The toe effects between both setups are shown in figure 6.15, the Y axis in this cash plots toe
against points in the simulation. On this axis system negative values are toe out, it can be said
that there is considerable difference in toe values. The standard vehicles limitation in respect to
drifting would be the overall toe in, on initial turn in the vehicle would be slow to react which
may lead to under steer and an unwillingness to turn in.
60
Nathan Mawhinney
0.5
Toe In
0
0
Standard
Optimized
-0.5
-1
-1.5
Simulation Points
By making adjustments to the lower control arm and static camber on the suspension, moved
that camber curve considerably as expected. The loaded outer tyre which was counter steering
features less positive camber, this would result in more of the tyre making contact with the road
at high steering angles.
The unloaded tyre featured an increase in negative camber throughout the range (shown in
figure 6.16, this could be attributed to the increase in castor angle. In this case the improved
performance on the loaded tyre may outweigh the negative effects caused on the unloaded
wheel.
61
Nathan Mawhinney
0
-2 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-4
-6
-8
-10
Toe in ()
0.5
Optimised Unloaded
0
-0.5
Optimised Loaded
Standard Loaded
-1
Standard Unloaded
-1.5
-2
Roll Angle ()
Nathan Mawhinney
63
Nathan Mawhinney
64
Nathan Mawhinney
65
Nathan Mawhinney
66
Nathan Mawhinney
7.2.3 Limitations
This project was limited by the lack of tyre data at large slip angles; tyre companies invest a
significant amount of expenditure into researching tyres. This resulted in a lack of accessible
information due to the unwillingness of companies to distribute tyre data, this was due to the
risks of competitors obtaining the data and the costs involved in recording tyre data.
To test this setup the vehicle would require adjustable suspension components which are listed
below:
A final limitation from this project would be the proposed increase in KPI, in the majority of
regulations such as the BDC the vehicle is not allowed suspension mounting point
modifications. This would mean the maximum increase in KPI would need to be found in
adjustability within the suspension system.
The project definition was changed to disregard the front knuckle design to allow the
Ackerman angle to be adjusted, by raising the wheel mounting spindle the vehicle could be
lowered which would allow the suspension to function within its standard arcs. The knuckle
design was removed due to time constraints.
67
Nathan Mawhinney
Type
Material
Material
Work
Material
Material
Work
Initials
W
W
L
O
O
S
Std. Rate
35.00
320.00
10.00/hr
2,000.00
280.00
100.00/hr
7.3 Conclusion
This project was successful as it met the main research aim by investigating desirable handling
characteristics for this vehicle model. The vehicle was successfully measured allowing the
validation of the vehicle model within the software; this allowed the analysis and simulation of
adjustment within a range of researched parameters.
Conclusions were drawn from personal correspondence on desired handling characteristics for
this vehicle, these suggestions were rationalised in respect to literature which could be related
to this subject.
68
Nathan Mawhinney
The measurement component of this project was planned and conducted efficiently, however if
the vehicle was to be re-measured it would be beneficial to use a coordinate measurement
machine. This would reduce the time taken to measure the vehicle considerably; furthermore it
would increase measurement accuracy which has been discussed further in the future work
section.
The benefit of using Mitchells software was that it allowed analysis of the vehicles handling
characteristics without costly testing at the track, the software required measurements from the
test vehicle in this case a Nissan 200SX.
With the recorded information input into the program it was possible to analyse how the
vehicles handing which can be simplified to steering and suspension reactions in relation to the
chassis.
By adjustment of the vehicle ride height it was possible to show the effects of lowering the
COG height, furthermore by rolling the vehicle to a typical angle and applying opposite lock it
was possible to observe how the vehicle would react in steady state drifting. The effects on
camber, slip angle and steering angle were displayed and discussed.
An indication of how well the vehicle would perform in a corner was simulated; with an added
benefit of validation of suggested adjustments to the vehicles setup. Using the measured
parameters the vehicle was successfully created in WinGeo, this met another objective of this
project. Research and literature allowed the model to be analysed and conclusions drawn on a
suggested base setup for this vehicle.
This project successfully created a validated base suspension setup; this could serve as a basis
for individual driver testing allowing tailoring to driver requirements through adjustability
within the system.
Results from this project could lead with further studies allowing authoritative literature and a
greater understanding of the subject to be complied.
A number of meetings were conducted with this projects supervisor, these can be found in
appendix N.
7.4 Future work
69
Nathan Mawhinney
Future work could involve testing these optimized front knuckles to validate their
effectiveness in comparison to a standard OEM item, this comparison would include theoretical
research into what effects these components are aiming to achieve with comparable simulation
and tested results. This aspect of improving the design of the front knuckle could lead to
potential improvement of the design of the knuckle to attain desirable suspension
characteristics to optimize the vehicle for Drifting.
If a new knuckle design was created in CAD it could be analysed using finite element analysis
to determine a suitable material, and highlight any issues with the design. A detailed product
design process could be created including initial concepts, a detailed product specification and
rapid prototyping with the potential to test fit the component to the Nissan 200sx.
7.4.2 Real World Testing
A common design of revised mounting design was produced by Drift works known as the
Geomaster 2. Figure 7.1 below shows this orange knuckle fitted to a vehicle, this gives an
indication of the increased lock over a standard vehicle. Future work may involve testing the
effects of lateral G and achievable angle, between a standard vehicle and one fitted with these
knuckles. By fitting acceleration to the front and rear of the car the lateral acceleration could be
logged. This could then be compared to the angle achieved during testing round a circuit; the
angle would be logged using GPS logging software.
Nathan Mawhinney
71
Nathan Mawhinney
Chapter 8: Appendix
72
Nathan Mawhinney
73
Nathan Mawhinney
74
Nathan Mawhinney
75
Nathan Mawhinney
76
Nathan Mawhinney
Overview:
This project is of interest to me as the Nissan 200sx is a popular choice in the continually
growing form of motor sport known as Drifting, this is where predominantly rear wheel cars
aim to drive at high yaw and slip angles through a given course at the highest angle possible
while maintaining control. This requires the vehicles to have specific suspension setup
characteristics to be able to control the car at high speed in an over steer situation, I also have
the added benefit of owning the vehicle in question which adds to my interest in this project.
The aim of the project is to investigate the standard suspension geometry, hopefully resulting in
a set-up which has desirable handling characteristics for drifting while reducing any detrimental
characteristics which are induced by changing the cars suspension.
Equipment and resources required for this project are:
Access to the UWS motor sport workshop to allow measurement of the car (both front
and rear) and fitment of any manufactured parts
Access to Pro Engineer and WinGeo for simulation and design of parts
Digital callipers
Tape Measure
Steel Rule
Motor sport Workshop tools (jack, axel stands, ramps etc.)
Technicians time
Stakeholders
Technicians
Supervisors
Myself
77
Nathan Mawhinney
Activities required
Research into what is a desired setup or vehicle handling characteristics for Drifting
Measurement of Nissan 200sx hard points front and rear
Input measurements into WinGeo software
Analyse current suspension setup in a variety of conditions
Research a desirable suspension setup for drifting
Improve suspension setup potentially with new parts allowing more desirable
geometry and potential for adjustment
Draw conclusions from project
Objectives / Outcomes:
Scope of Project :
Included in this project is measurement and analysis of the front suspension setup on the Nissan
200sx, the software suspension models will be steady state due to software limitations. The toe,
bump, droop and camber will be measured however castor and KPI will not be included. The
suspension hard points will be measured and input into Win Geo for analysis. Excluded is
fatigue testing and destructive testing of the part which could be part of the future work on the
component.
78
Nathan Mawhinney
79
Nathan Mawhinney
How bad
By when?
Be harmed?
is the risk?
Spillages
All
workshop
staff
and
students
All
workshop
staff
and
students
All
workshop
staff
and
students
80
LOW
LOW
LOW
On-going
Before
starting/
On-going
As soon as they
are created or
found when in the
workshop
Nathan Mawhinney
Jacking car
Trapping fingers
Persons jacking
vehicle
LOW
LOW
Persons working
on
car
and
jacking vehicle
All persons
workshop
Supervision,
assessment to
testing is safe.
deem
risk
if
HIGH
81
During
measurement
in
Supervision
During
testing
COG
Nathan Mawhinney
Fire or Explosion?
No smoking in workshop
MEDIUM
On-going
All persons in
building
Persons lifting
vehicle
82
LOW
When lifting
vehicle
Nathan Mawhinney
Electric Shock?
Persons using
corner weight
machine
83
On-going
through
testing
periods
Activities/Hazards
Nathan Mawhinney
Who/what may be
harmed?
Everyone
in
vicinity
and
vehicle could be
damaged
Hoist will
falling
stop
vehicle
HIGH
Wheels chalked
By when?
ASAP/when
doing
activity
Strap Failure
Everyone
in
vicinity
and
vehicle could be
damaged
Wheels chalked
HIGHs
84
Before/ when
conducting
experiment
Nathan Mawhinney
Before measuring corner weights the suspension was allowed to settle on the flat workshop
floor, the vehicle was then pushed onto the four post lift. The rear of the Locust was placed on
the lift in order to locate the CG it was positioned as close to the edge as possible to permit a
greater achievable angle.
Safety must be considered when conducting this experiment, therefore in order to reduce the
chance of the vehicle falling off the ramp a ratchet strap was used to stop the vehicle moving
forward, which could result in injury to participants and damage to the vehicle. Initially the roll
cage was considered as the mounting point for the strap; however the Nissan 200sx does not
feature a roll cage as standard. The tow hook was deemed a more appropriate solution on the
Locust as the same constraint can be used on the test vehicle. Once the location for mounting
was selected the strap was attached to the tow hook and the other end clipped onto the four post
ramp with tension applied to stop the vehicle moving, two straps were used to improve safety.
Figure 8.1 shows the vehicle being lifted without the front scales to test vehicle constraints.
Nathan Mawhinney
As stated previously the front wheels must be free to move, to allow this the both front scales
were placed on top of automotive wheel dollies. In order to place the Locust on these scales a
trolley jack was used to lift the front of the vehicle, the same method was used at the rear
allowing all scales to be zeroed at once. From testing it was shown that when lifting the locust
to 39 degrees the weight on the scale actually decreased, and after consideration it was found
that the strap was in fact holding the vehicles weight.
This issue was resolved by loosening the tension on the ratchet strap at each angle, this allowed
the weight to transfer onto the front wheels resulting in an expected weight increase on the
scale. A limitation of this technique involves the drivetrain of the test vehicle, due to the
vehicle being rear wheel drive it was only possible to lock the rear wheels. The limitation of
this was that the front wheels could roll as the rear was raised; this caused a potential danger as
the vehicle could possibility roll from the wheel dollies resulting in vehicle damage and danger
to participants. This danger was outlined in the risk assessment, figure 8.2 outlines the
equipment required to conduct this testing.
By setting the ramp elevation to the same height as the front wheels, the weights could be taken
before and after lifting the car. Inclining the vehicle 5 degrees at a time it was possible to
determine that the strap was excessively tight, this caused error in the results by the strap
applying a restrictive pulling force on the car as the angle increased.
86
Nathan Mawhinney
87
Nathan Mawhinney
Zero
FL
359
2 degrees
FL
361
2 degrees
FL
363.5
3 degrees
FL
359
3 degrees
FL
364
4 degrees
FL
361
4 degrees
FL
363.5
5 degrees
FL
360.5
5 degrees
FL
365
6 degrees
FL
363.5
6 degrees
FL
366
tension on
tension off
tension on
tension off
tension on
tension off
tension on
tension off
tension on
tension off
Tyre Deflection
FR
355.5
Tyre Deflection
FR
351
Tyre Deflection
FR
353
Tyre Deflection
FR
353
Tyre Deflection
FR
354.5
Tyre Deflection
FR
355
Tyre Deflection
FR
356
Tyre Deflection
FR
355.5
Tyre Deflection
FR
365.5
Tyre Deflection
FR
357.5
Tyre Deflection
FR
353
88
0.865mm
Total
715
0.865mm
Total
710
0.865mm
Total
716
0.87mm
Total
712
0.87mm
Total
718
0.88mm
Total
716
0.879mm
Total
720
0.879mm
Total
716.5
0.92mm
Total
722
Total
720.5
Total
724.5
Nathan Mawhinney
0.11
0.19
0.18
0.15
0.15
0.14
Percentage Difference
0.84%
-0.18%
-0.21%
-6.12%
-4.76%
-1.38%
Measured Camber
Angle()
-2.75
-2.8
-2.85
-2.85
-2.85
WinGeo Camber
angle
-2.75
-2.834
-2.88
-2.884
-2.884
Percentage difference
0.00%
1.21%
1.05%
1.19%
1.19%
0
0.21
0.38
0.52
0.6
Percentage Difference
0.00%
5.53%
24.74%
46.54%
66.67%
Measured Camber
Angle()
WinGeo Camber
angle
-2.2
-1.845
-2.2
-1.75
-1.5
-0.9
-0.75
-1.348
-0.89
-0.474
89
Percentage difference
0.00%
5.43%
11.28%
1.12%
58.23%
Nathan Mawhinney
90
Nathan Mawhinney
Nathan Mawhinney
Alistair Graham
Hi Nathan,
Thanks for your message - I must say that's a bit more complex than most of the messages we
get.
Drift car setups (as I'm sure you've realized by this point) are a lot more complicated than most
people would imagine, but once you've got behind the wheel of a drift car you quickly realize
how essential it is.
Lots of attention is focused on getting the maximum amount of steering lock out of a car, but in
all honesty lock is only a small part of the overall package as it is useless without grip.
At the front, the standard procedure is to run a decent amount of front camber, not only to
improve the contact patch of the tyres while on lock but also to help increase the amount of
lock available. Extended lower arms are also common place in order to increase the front track
width, another trick used to aid stability and lock (as it moves the wheels further away from key
components such as the brake lines and also the inner arches). A high amount of caster is also
preferable.
Ackermann is a whole other kettle of fish and is very important in drifting - unfortunately it
could take all day to go through the ins and outs as I'm sure you know, but how the leading and
trailing wheels react when on lock is obviously very important, as is bump steer (which needs
to be ironed out to make a car predictable to drift).
Rear suspension setup is also very important; with the main aspect being to run as little camber
as possible (anything between 0 and -1.5 degrees is commonplace, with some drivers even
preferring positive camber). The idea is to have as much of the tyres in contact with the ground
and to spread the wear load across the width of the whole tyre. Anything above 2degrees and
you will begin to see uneven wear.
Toe-in is also used to adjust the amount of forward traction the car has - the more toe-in, the
more the rear of the car tends to "bind", improving forward traction but reducing the flow of
sideways movement.
Hopefully that information is of some use to you and if you have any more questions please do
not hesitate to ask.
Alistair Graham
Hi Nathan,
With regards to camber, the more you run the further you can push the wheels outwards
without fouling the arches, aiding clearance within the arch cavity and preventing any issues
with scrubbing.
92
Nathan Mawhinney
I can't really speak specifics for the JapSpeed cars, but on my own personal car I run around 7.4
caster (7 degrees 4 minutes), 3 degree front camber, 1 degree rear camber and the rear toe in
escapes me about the moment but it is a minimal amount. As you have correctly stated though,
rear toe in is very much down to personal preference - I know drivers that have reduced their
rear toe in an aid to loosen the rear end feel and absolutely hated it.
The problem with moving top mounts is, aside from adjusting coil over top mounts, any
adjustments to the car's original strut towers would render the car unable to compete in the vast
majority of drift competitions due to rules and regulations against doing this.
My full name is Alistair Graham - please let me know if you need any more help.
93
Nathan Mawhinney
94
Nathan Mawhinney
95
Nathan Mawhinney
Discussed with supervisor the car details from vehicle manufacturer documentation
obtained from Nissan Dealer and owners club
Discussion of centre of gravity test, comparison of accuracy on the corner weight scales
Test experiment conducted with Locust
Test vehicle not to be knife edged
Poor resolution of test due to accuracy of corner weight scales
Discussion of knife edging technique failures
Discussion of knife edging test car via projecting chassis point with bracket to lift the
car
Coil over does not need restricted or constrained
Previous testing showed deflection in damper was negligible
What will give me the car that will behave in the way I want it to behave?
Handling requirements-event I am aiming for
Circuit racing: positive neutral
Road: under steer
Drifting: over steer but good traction
Talk to driver but look at data about setup
Discuss difference in event setups
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
96
Nathan Mawhinney
Vehicle should be modelled with roll and steering lock applied in the opposite direction
to replicate over steer with counter steer.
Lengthening lower LCA will increase static negative camber stated by Kojima
Lowering COG, supervisor agreed
Discussion of the effects of lengthening traction rod at the rear of vehicle, suggested
that it would jack the front section of the rear suspension. This would be achieved in
WinGeo by adjusting the x coordinate location for the top upright towards the rear,
supervisor was unsure of the effect of this adjustment.
Limitation of WinGeo being that it would not generate toe out, instead it compensates
for this within the upright, by moving toe arm half as far back as x distance.
Adjustment of roll centre: Raising the roll centre will reduce roll angle which will allow
control of the geometry in a more desirable manner.
Different effects at different phases of a drift.
Supervisor suggested starting with standard setup then work from there to achieve a
desirable setup.
Self-aligning torque plays a significant part on driver feel and kickback effect of the
steering, due to high slip angles tyre data is difficult to obtain after 20 degrees.
Nathan Mawhinney
Actions to be undertaken
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
98
Nathan Mawhinney
Bibliography
Blundell, M. V., Nov, 1997. The Influence of Suspension and Tyre modelling on vehicle
handling simulation, Coventry: Coventry University .
Efstathios Velenis a, D. b. E. c. P. d. R., 2011. Steady state drifting stabilization of RWD
vehicles. Control Engineering Practice, Volume 19, p. 13631376.
ISO 8855 , 2012. Road vehicles. Vehicle dynamics and road-holding ability. Vocabulary.
s.l.:BSI.
Milliken, D., 1986. Anaylst Learning Guide, Ohio: Valentine Research Inc.
Milliken, W. M. a. D., 1995 . Race Car Vehicle Dynamics. Warrendale U.S.A : Thirteenth
Printing.
P.A. Simionescu, D. B., 2002. Mechanism and Machine Theory 37. Synthesis and analysis of
the five-link rear suspension, Issue 37, p. 815832.
Smith, C., 1978. Tune to Win. United States: Aero Publishers inc .
Stoll, J. R. &. H., 1996. The Automotive Chassis: Engineering Principles. London: Arnold,A
member of the Hodder Headline Group.
200SX Owners Club, 2013. [Online]
[Accessed 2013].
Abdulrahim, M., 2006. On the Dynamics of Automobile Drifting. Detriot: SAE international.
Chisholm, K., 2013. Drift Setup discussion [Interview] (04 28 2013).
Donalds Bastow, G. H. J. P. W., 1993. Car suspension and handling. London: Professional
Engineering Publishing.
Graham, A., 2013. Drift Setup Discussion [Interview] (29 04 2013).
ISO 4138, 2004. Passenger cars - Steady-state circular driving behaviour - Open-loop test
methods(ISO 4138), Switzerland : ISO Publishing.
Jornsen Reimpell, H. S. ,. J. B., 2001. The Automotive Chassis: Engineering Principle. Oxford:
Hodder headline group.
Kennedy, D., 2013. Vehicle Dynamics: Steady State Response notes. Hamilton: s.n.
Kojima, M., 2012. Basic Drift Chassis Setup. [Online]
Available at: http://www.motoiq.com/magazine_articles/id/2382/basic-drift-chassis-setup-part3.aspx
[Accessed 31 01 2013].
99
Nathan Mawhinney
Kojima, M., 2012. The Ultimate guide to Suspension and Handling Part 2, Controlling Body
Motion. [Online]
Available at: http://www.motoiq.com/magazine_articles/id/1491/pageid/1880/the-ultimateguide-to-suspension-and-handling-part-2-controlling-body-motion.aspx
[Accessed 2 02 2013].
Milliken, W. F. M. a. D. L., 1995. Race Car Vehicle Dynamics. Warrendale: SAE publications.
Nissan, 1999. 200sx Owners Manual. [Online]
Available at: http://www.kuddy.net/200sx/vehicle_specs.html
[Accessed 06 12 2012].
O'brien, D., 2013. Geometery Discussion [Interview] (01 05 2013).
Pacejka, H. B., 2006. Tyre and Vehicle dynamics. Oxford: Elseviers Science and Technology .
SAE, 2008. SAE J670- Vehicle dynamics terminology, Warrendale PA, USA: Society of
Automotive Engineers.
Smith, C., 1984. Engineer to Win. 1st ed. Ocseola, Wisconsin: Motorbooks international.
Staniforth, A., 2010. Competition car Suspension. Yeovil,Somerset: Haynes Publishing.
Visser, P., 2005. s.l.:Visser.cx.
Zuijdijk, J., 2009. Vehicle Dynamics and Damping. Milton Keynes: AutorHouse UK Ltd..
100