Suspension Design 5

New to the game? This is the board for you!
User avatar
tfaith08
Average DCR member
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:38 pm

Suspension Design 5

Postby tfaith08 » Wed Jul 08, 2015 2:08 am

I have a ton of ideas that I'd like to eventually cover, but I'm putting that on hold for a few reasons.

The most important reason that I see is jsut how often basic suspension fundamentals are ignored and cars can't make it down a track and negotiate somewhat technical sections.

Take this car for example: http://dreamcarracing.com/dcr3-index.html?carid=77866

NOTE: We'll be working with it to improve the design and capabilities of the suspension. Please test drive each one to see the limitations of each. This one started as Malan's truck and I all but erased every piece over time.

With this version, I was unable to make it more than 606m before the suspension buckled. The reason for this is because the upper shock mounts are improperly palced. No amount of shock adjustment will fix it; they need to be moved.

Something like this will work: http://dreamcarracing.com/dcr3-index.html?carid=77865 *****REMEMBER TO TEST DRIVE THEM*****

This is much more stable and the suspension is very unlikely to buckle unless you hit the face of a hill dead-on.


The largest problem is fixed, but more arise. The vehicle has virtually no sag, thereby making it too top-heavy and unstable. Fixing this is done by 2 basic ideas: soften the suspension or redesigning it altogether.

http://dreamcarracing.com/dcr3-index.html?carid=77870 This is redesigned slightly. The only real change was to reduce the angle between the frame and swingarms. The upper shock mount was unaltered, however. This reduces travel and again causes the vehicle to feel top-heavy, although somewhat less than before.

http://dreamcarracing.com/dcr3-index.html?carid=77873 This version uses the same angle, yet uses a second beam parallel to the primary beam that acts as the lower hsock mount. The upper shock mount was moved to allow for a severe increase in travel, but the shock rebound rate is too low (how fast it returns toward the fully extended position) for this heavy of a swingarm.

http://dreamcarracing.com/dcr3-index.html?carid=77879 This rear end works surprisingly well though you wouldn't think so after driving it. The issue now is that the front/rear rebound is out of balance. You can tell by how well it takes a landing on only the rear tires as opposed to how it dives when coming off of small hills (notice how fast the front tire flies downward). The only way to alter this that I've found is to add weight to the front swingarm.

http://dreamcarracing.com/dcr3-index.html?carid=77881 This has weight added, but it doesn't do too well if things get pretty technical. This is why I started using the front suspension setup that I currently use.

http://dreamcarracing.com/dcr3-index.html?carid=77882 This is a version of how I do my front ends, but it still isn't as good as it can be. It lacks any sort of stiffness in the front end and again throws the front/rear spring rates out of whack. The ticket is to dial the front stiffness up, but there is a hurdle. In a previousl version of this truck, I used a parallel arm setup that the lower shock mount was placed on. The rebound rates are far too slow for this sort of design. The ticket?

http://dreamcarracing.com/dcr3-index.html?carid=77884 I added the front end that I normally use and altered the rear suspension. I also fixed that flappy front end just a bit. I also maxed the tire pressure as it translates more force to the suspension and shows more responsive tuning. It still isn't perfect, but the rest comes with trial and error.

Let's see the changes you can make to this design. Color any extra parts green and color any points adjusted baby blue.
OP was drunk. All is forgiven.

Xgage1
New DCR Member
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 11:22 pm

Re: Suspension Design 5

Postby Xgage1 » Sun Jul 12, 2015 10:13 pm

Your design does soak up bumps and float like a dream. But I'm afraid to me it doesn't seem too practical for speed or for endurance/(whatever you wanna call it). The center of gravity is high as it is sacrificed for travel, and the car is relatively heavy- (partly) in order to compensate for the large unsprung weight. It's also hard to accelerate quickly without flipping over. You did a great job but the whole initial car is likely flawed. I've found that designing a flexible chassis solves the problem with the unsprung weight as multiple swing arms aren't as necessary. And I've also found that progressive suspension reduces the need for alot of travel, so you can have a low center of g. Again, I know you're shooting for plush, smooth suspension (and you have accomplished that), but it doesn't seem like it would be very practical in the game.
Curiosity killed the stupid cat,
But saved the smarter.

User avatar
tfaith08
Average DCR member
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:38 pm

Re: Suspension Design 5

Postby tfaith08 » Mon Jul 13, 2015 12:59 pm

My intent was to go through the design process and show considerations. While I do have my own personal goals with the game, I don't mean to press the way I apply suspension concepts onto anyone else. I only meant to convey the things that I've always seen as the "given" rules of thumb (rising rates, leverage ratios, setup, etc.). I used my vehicles in these because I was familiar with them, not because I beleive they are superior. Do I believe that my designs outperform others in the light of chasing the goals that I've set for myself? Absolutely. Do I have the same goals as everyone else? No.

The needs of each vehicle are as wildly different as the vehicles themselves. To blindly apply the specifics of how I do mine to another is absurd, though I firmly believe that to consider the basic concepts is necessary to achieve a decent design and setup on anything, no matter the size or design. There again, I aim to show the existence of those topics and the means to derive specific conclusions, not that I feel my approach is best.

I do feel that a progressively increasing rate suspension system is far superior to a more linear setup, and drastically superior to a decreasing rate suspension, but I have to disagree that countering the need for travel by means of reducing chassis rigidity is a feasible solution in the majority of cases. On the other hand, I also believe that the initial car is flawed which is a big reason as to why I chose it as an example. If I chose a vehicle that was near-perfect, there would have been little room for improvement and the benefits would have gone unseen by most. Even to experienced players, average gains would likely go unnoticed until they became familiar with the vehicle.

Again, I don't mean to push my principals onto others. I only aim to identify the considerations that need to be taken when designing a capable suspension system.
OP was drunk. All is forgiven.

Xgage1
New DCR Member
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 11:22 pm

Re: Suspension Design 5

Postby Xgage1 » Mon Jul 13, 2015 6:55 pm

I am simply giving your suspension setup some constructive criticism and sharing what I have learned. Both in the attempt to better anyone who views this topic and more specifically you. I wrote it in a way that I hoped would convey my good intentions. This is the beginners guide after all
Curiosity killed the stupid cat,
But saved the smarter.


Return to “Beginner's Guide”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest