Quote:
Originally Posted by bbnks2
Just pointing it out that this isn't black magic. This is literally how every single car manufacturer engineers a car. How every vehicle engineering teaches the math behind the design. Obviously manufacturers are much more advanced in their analysis than basic 2d calculations as things do become dynamic as the chassis goes through its motions.
What published research can you link to about using higher front spring rates (relatively higher)? Have not been able to find much other than standardized testing like side step testing in vehicle dynamic showing that you want a higher rear rate in side step testing for what drivers call "better handling" or "responsiveness." quotes because it's a subjective topic as everyone has their own "feeling" or each setup.
|
I'm a bit confused as to why you bring this up again now. I've both publicly and privately (to yourself) stated that I've changed my opinion on flat-ride being a less optimal approach then the traditional method.
I believe that a flat-ride setup can just as good as a traditional approach - whether it's better or not will constantly be for debate until someone with the same car, with the same suspension, runs both traditional (front biased) and flat-ride setup (with the car being optimized and dialed in for each setup) to compare in an unbiased manner. I feel like a flat-ride approach can be very good, assuming the rest of the car is setup around it accordingly. I also know, from my own experience, that traditional front biased setups can also be very good - as I've experienced them on numerous race cars I've driven up until now.