Chassis Stiffness

Licensed to Chalmers University of Technology
Licensed from the SAE Digital Library Copyright 2010 SAE International
E-mailing, copying and internet posting are prohibited
Downloaded Friday, March 26, 2010 3:45:23 AM
SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES 2000-01-3554
The Effect of Chassis Stiffness on Race

Car Handling Balance
Andrew Deakin, David Crolla, Juan Pablo Ramirez and Ray Hanley
School of Mech. Eng., The University of Leeds
Reprinted From: Proceedings of the 2000 SAE Motorsports

Engineering Conference & Exposition
(P-361)
Motorsports Engineering Conference & Exposition

Dearborn, Michigan
November 13-16, 2000
400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760
Author:Gilligan-SID:3681-GUID:30311078-129.16.65.19
The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAE’s consent that copies of the
paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition,
however, that the copier pay a $7.00 per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
Operations Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sec-
tions 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as
copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works,
or for resale.
SAE routinely stocks printed papers for a period of three years following date of publication. Direct your
orders to SAE Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.
Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.
To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in
other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.
All SAE papers, standards, and selected

books are abstracted and indexed in the
Global Mobility Database
No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.
ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright 2000 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely
responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in
SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group.
Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300
word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.
Printed in USA
2000-01-3554
The Effect of Chassis Stiffness on Race

Car Handling Balance
Andrew Deakin, David Crolla, Juan Pablo Ramirez and Ray Hanley
School of Mech. Eng., The University of Leeds
Copyright © 2000 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
ABSTRACT ma Latacc hCG

LT = (1)
t
It is often quoted that to be able to make a race car
handle ‘properly’ by tuning the handling balance, the
where LT is the lateral load transfer for an axle, LATacc is
chassis should have a torsional stiffness of ‘X times the
the lateral acceleration, ma is the mass supported by that
suspension stiffness’ or ‘X times the difference between
relevant axle, hCG is the centre of gravity height and t is
front and rear suspension stiffness’ [1].
the track width. This assumes a flexible chassis.
This paper looks at the fundamental issues surrounding
3000
chassis stiffness. It discusses why a chassis should be
stiff, what increasing the chassis stiffness does to the
2500
Maximum lateral force generated, N
race engineer’s ability to change the handling balance of

the car and how much chassis stiffness is required. All 2000
the arguments are backed up with a detailed quasi static
analysis of the problem. 1500
1000
Furthermore, a dynamic analysis of the vehicle’s
handling using ADAMS Car and ADAMS Flex is
500
performed to verify the effect of chassis stiffness on a
race car’s handling balance through the simulation of 0
steady state handling manoeuvres. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Vertical load, N
Figure 1 – Non-linear behaviour of a typical Formula

INTRODUCTION SAE tyre, max. lateral force produced for a vertical load.
It is well known that to make a race car handle correctly, Therefore a car understeers (a car that has too little grip
it must be possible to tune the handling balance. Tuning at the front), the grip can be increased at the front by
the handling balance means adjusting the level of grip reducing the load transfer at the front and increasing the
available from either the front or the rear of the vehicle. load transfer at the rear.
When both the front and rear axles can produce a force
to give the same lateral acceleration, the chassis can be
said to be balanced.
Figure 1 illustrates the non-linear behaviour of a typical

tyre used with Formula SAE racing cars. Figure 2 shows
the Leeds University Formula SAE car. It can clearly be
seen that if a pair of tyres on an axle had the same
vertical load, then they could both produce the same
maximum lateral force. If for example, the vehicle was Figure 2 – Leeds University Formula 1999 SAE car
cornering, then the lateral acceleration would cause a
load transfer, equation 1. This lateral acceleration would Being able to control the load transfer distribution is
increase the vertical load on the outside tyre and therefore the key to being able to obtain a good handling
decrease the vertical load on the inside tyre by the same balance. The lateral load transfer distribution can only
quantity. The result of this load transfer is that the two be controlled however, if the chassis is stiff enough to
tyres combined can produce less lateral force. transmit the torques.
The question that is then raised is how stiff is stiff The real vehicle is much more equivalent to that shown
enough. The objective of this work was to go some way in figure 5, where the mass is evenly distributed along
towards answering that question. the body. As long as the chassis is equally torsionally
stiff at all points along the chassis then it can be shown
MODELLING that the idealised model still represents the actual
chassis.
There are two sections of modelling within this paper.
The first is a simple static analysis to determine the
effects of chassis torsional stiffness on being able to
maintain the desired lateral load transfer distribution.
The second is a dynamic analysis of the effect of a
flexible chassis using the ADAMS and ADAMS Flex.
Figure 5 – Chassis model with uniformly distributed
STATIC ANALYSIS OF CHASSIS STIFFNESS – A
mass
model calculating the static forces present in the chassis
under steady state conditions has been developed. This
The real vehicle however, does not have an evenly
considers the racing car to consist of two point masses,
distributed mass with all mass having the same moment
mf and mr for the front and rear respectively, connected
arm and each segment of the chassis having an equal
by a torsional spring, Kch, and a suspension at each end
torsional stiffness. In reality, figure 6 is something like
of the vehicle represented by a roll stiffness, Krollf and
an actual vehicle’s mass distribution. Heavier objects
Krollr, figure 3.
such as the engine, the driver safety cell and the driver
are located close to the centre of gravity of the car.
mr Also, the torsional springs may not be along the same
axis as shown in figure 6. Therefore there are likely to
Krollr be discrepancies between results from the idealised
model and a real vehicle.
mf
Kch
Krollf
Figure 3 – Static model of the effect of chassis torsional

Figure 6 – Mass distribution of real vehicle
stiffness on lateral load transfer distribution
Additionally, there are compliances in the suspension,
From this model, equations 2, 3 and 4 were derived. φ1,
commonly referred to as the installation stiffness, which
φ2 and φ3 are the front suspension roll angle, the rear reduce the chassis torsional stiffness as seen at the
suspension roll angle and the chassis torsional twist wheels. These should also be considered as possible
respectively. Mf and Mr are the front and rear moments errors between the idealised model which has been
due to the lateral acceleration of the body masses. proposed and the real vehicle.
Mf = Krollfφ1 − Kchφ 3 (2) MULTI-BODY HANDLING MODEL – A model of the

Leeds University Formula SAE car has been developed
Mr = Krollrφ 2 + Kchφ3 (3) in ADAMS to understand further the effect of a flexible
chassis on handling. The basic model configuration with
a rigid chassis is shown in figure 7. Two extensions to
φ1 + φ 3 = φ 2 (4) this model were created which included; a chassis
separated into a front and rear section joined by a
These equations represents a very much idealised torsional spring along an axis at the wheel centre height,
model of the vehicle as shown in figure 4. and a flexible chassis incorporated into the ADAMS
model using ADAMS Flex.
In theory, the model containing a torsional spring could

be used to validate the static model results. The results
from the model incorporating an ADAMS Flex, flexible
chassis, could be used to understand the effect on a real
vehicle.
Figure 4 – Idealised chassis model with two masses
connected by a torsional spring
The model with the torsional spring was developed to Subsystem Value
enable evaluation of multiple chassis torsional rear susp. 17.93 kg
stiffnesses on the vehicle’s handling performance, as front susp. 16.70 kg
this just requires a single model parameter to be
rr. antiroll 1.99 kg
changed.
frt. antiroll 1.99 kg
ADAMS Flex takes a modal neutral file format which is steering 5.90 kg
produced using the finite element method in a software frt. wheels 21.00 kg
package such as ANSYS, figure 8. This model is loaded rr. wheels 21.00 kg
such that a torsional force is put onto the chassis at the chassis with driver 250.00 kg
suspension rocker mounts. Ideally it should be loaded Chassis Inertias
such that all the suspension wishbone and track rod
Ixx (roll) 7.33E+06 [kg*mm^2]
forces load the ADAMS Flex model, however, this would
increase the complexity significantly. As it was, there Iyy (pitch) 3.56E+07 [kg*mm^2]
were 18 mode shapes represented in the model, eight of Izz (yaw) 3.94E+07 [kg*mm^2]
which were rigid body modes. The nominal torsional Chassis C.G. Location
stiffness of the ADAMS Flex model was 1,300 Nm/deg. frt. weight 46.5 %
rr. weight 53.5 %
height 300 mm
Spring Rates
frt. spring rate 61.5 [N/mm]
rr. spring rate 87.9 [N/mm]
frt. antiroll bar rate 150 [Nm/deg]
rr. antiroll bar rate 125 [Nm/deg]
Table 1 – Data for Formula SAE Car model
RESULTS
Results were produced to indicate how chassis stiffness

effects, set up of the desired lateral load transfer. This
was conducted both through static analysis and dynamic
analysis.
Figure 7 – ADAMS model of the Leeds University STATIC ANALYSIS RESULTS – The static analysis
Formula SAE Car. results were performed for a range of vehicle, total
suspension roll stiffnesses representing different
vehicles. Dixon [2], gives a range of data values, table
2, for different types of racing vehicle. Total roll
stiffnesses for typical Formula SAE cars are also
included.
Car type Total roll stiffness, Nm/deg

Saloon 300 – 800
Sports car 2000
Sports prototype 18,000
Formula One 20,000 – 25,000
Formula SAE 500 – 1,500
Table 2 – Typical total vehicle roll stiffness, Nm/deg
Figures 9, 10, 11 and 12 show the difference in front to

rear lateral load transfer distribution for different roll
stiffness distributions. This is calculated for a range of
chassis stiffnesses and for total roll stiffnesses of 500,
Figure – 8 ADAMS Flex chassis template.
1500, 5000 and 15000 Nm/deg respectively. All of these
results assume that both the static load distribution is
The overall vehicle parameter data used in the ADAMS 50:50 and the front and rear centre of gravity heights are
model is shown in table 1. the same.
The goal is to determine a chassis stiffness that ensures 100
the vehicle’s handling is sufficiently sensitive to changes 90
Front load transfer as % of total load transfer

in the roll stiffness distribution. A large percentage of the 80
difference in front to rear roll stiffness must therefore 70

result in a difference in front to rear lateral load transfer, 60
for example 80%. 50
Chassis stiffness 100 Nm/deg
40 Chassis stiffness 300 Nm/deg
Looking at figure 9, and the point where the roll stiffness Chassis stiffness 600 Nm/deg
distribution is 30:70, the lateral load transfer distribution Chassis stiffness 2000 Nm/deg
20
can be anything from 30:70 to 40:60. If the difference Chassis stiffness 4000 Nm/deg
10
between front and rear lateral load transfer is to be 80% Chassis stiffness 16000 Nm/deg
0
of the difference between front and rear roll stiffness, 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
then the lateral load transfer distribution must be at least Front roll stiffness as % of total roll stiffness
34:66. Figure 10 – Lateral load transfer from a racing car with

roll stiffness of 1500 Nm/deg
It is clear from figure 9 that all but the least stiff of
chassis shown, (100Nm/deg torsional stiffness), 100
produces a load transfer distribution of 34:66 or greater 90
at the point where the roll stiffness distribution is 30:70.

80
Therefore if the criterion is that the difference between
70
front and rear lateral load transfer is to be 80% of the
60
difference between front and rear roll stiffness, then for
50
softly sprung cars, (roll stiffness <500 Nm/deg), the Chassis stiffness 100 Nm/deg
40
torsional stiffness of the idealised chassis should be Chassis stiffness 300 Nm/deg
greater than 300 Nm/deg. 30 Chassis stiffness 1000 Nm/deg
20
100
90 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
80 Front roll stiffness as % of total roll stiffness
70
Figure 11 – Lateral load transfer from a racing car with
60
50
100
30 Chassis stiffness 1000 Nm/deg 90

20
Chassis stiffness 4000 Nm/deg 80
10
0
60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Front roll stiffness as % of total roll stiffness 50
40
Figure 9 – Lateral load transfer from a racing car with roll Chassis stiffness 300 Nm/deg
stiffness of 500 Nm/deg 30 Chassis stiffness 1000 Nm/deg
20
With a total suspension roll stiffness of 1,500 Nm/deg, 10
the modelled chassis stiffness required to produce a 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
front to rear lateral load difference of 80%, of the roll Front roll stiffness as % of total roll stiffness
stiffness distribution difference, is approximately 1000 –
2,000 Nm/deg, figure 10. Figure 12 – Lateral load transfer from a racing car with
Similarly, when the roll stiffness is increased to 5,000
Nm/deg, a modelled chassis torsional stiffness greater Figures 13 and 14 explore what happens if the static
than approximately 6000 Nm/deg is required, figure 11. load distribution is changed so more mass is supported
by the rear suspension. The load distributions chosen
For the vehicle with a roll stiffness of 15,000 Nm/deg, were 45:55 and 40:60.
using the same 80% guideline, a modelled chassis
stiffness of greater than 10,000 Nm/deg is required, In both cases, the point at which chassis stiffness has no
figure 12. effect on the lateral load transfer distribution is where the
ratio of front to rear roll stiffness is the same as front to
rear weight distribution.
When the weight is moved more to the rear and the roll
rate at the front is higher than the rear, less lateral load
transfer difference between front and rear is achieved for
the same roll stiffness distribution. Therefore a stiffer known, then this enables an approximate measure of
chassis is required. how sensitive the vehicle’s handling balance will be to
changes in roll stiffness distribution.
100
90 4.5
Ratio of total roll stiffness to chassis torsional stiffness

80 4
70
3.5
60
3
50
Chassis stiffness 100 Nm/deg 2.5
Chassis stiffness 2000 Nm/deg 1.5
20
10
0 0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
Front roll stiffness as % of total roll stiffness
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Roll stiffness difference not turned into lateral load transfer difference, %
Figure 13 – Lateral load transfer from a racing car with
roll stiffness of 1500 Nm/deg with 45:55 load distribution Figure 15 – Percent difference between lateral load
transfer distribution and roll stiffness distribution for
100 different ratios of roll to chassis stiffness
90
80 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS RESULTS – The dynamic

70 analysis presented uses steady state analysis features
60
contained within ADAMS. The vehicle was forced to
50
follow a constant path radius and the required steering
40
wheel angle and lateral acceleration generated for
30
Chassis stiffness 600 Nm/deg different speeds were determined.
20
Figure 16 shows the lateral acceleration vs. steering
10
Chassis stiffness 16000 Nm/deg wheel angle for the vehicle configurations considered.
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
These configurations include a stiff chassis, a chassis
Front roll stiffness as % of total roll stiffness with torsional stiffness of 250, 1300 and 2500 Nm/deg
Figure 14 – Lateral load transfer from a racing car with and the chassis from the ADAMS Flex model. All these
roll stiffness of 1500 Nm/deg with 40:60 load distribution results were generated with the same suspension roll
stiffness distribution.
Figure 15 summarises the results from figures 9, 10, 11
and 12 for a suspension roll stiffness distribution of For the chassis containing torsional springs to represent
60:40. From the graph it can be seen, for example, that chassis stiffness, it is clear that the more flexible a
if it is acceptable for the lateral load transfer difference to chassis is, the more the vehicle tends to understeer.
be only 80% of the roll stiffness difference, (lateral load
transfer distribution difference is 20% less than the roll Subsequently, the roll stiffness distributions were tuned
stiffness difference), then the ratio of total suspension such that each of the vehicle models with a flexible
roll stiffness to chassis torsional stiffness should be chassis had the same total roll stiffness and achieved
approximately 1. the same handling balance. The increase in the front to
rear roll stiffness difference to give this same handling
If the ratio of front to rear roll stiffness is reduced so that balance for each vehicle is shown in figure 17. This
it is closer to 50:50, then the chassis torsional stiffness is shows that the roll stiffness difference has to be
required to be slightly higher (up to 4% higher). increased for more flexible chassis in order to generate
Conversely, if the front to rear roll stiffness is increased the same lateral load transfer distribution. An attempt
above 60:40, a more flexible chassis can be used. was made to correlate these results with those obtained
from the static analysis. This was not found to be
If the engineer desires a loss of no more than X% of roll possible, the likely cause was attributed to large castor
stiffness distribution ratio into lateral load transfer angles on the front suspension which affect the height of
distribution, then as a rule of thumb, equation 5 can be the tyre contact patch centre when a significant steering
used. angle is applied. The result of this kinematic effect was
to change the front roll stiffness compared to that
X/20 = Ratio (5) calculated from conventional theory. This will be the
subject of future investigations.
where Ratio is the ratio of total chassis roll stiffness
distribution to chassis torsional stiffness. If chassis The ADAMS Flex model shows an oversteering
torsional stiffness and suspension roll stiffness are characteristic, figure 16. Looking closely at the torsional
stiffness distribution of the chassis, figure 18, it is 1

apparent that the front of the chassis is least stiff in this 0.9
mode. This weakness at the front of the chassis 0.8
effectively reduces the roll stiffness of the suspension at
Chassis twist angle, deg

0.7
Rear suspension mount point

the front, thus producing less front load transfer and the
Front suspension mount point

0.6
oversteering characteristic. To achieve the same
0.5
handling balance as the stiff chassis, the front
0.4
suspension roll stiffness had to be increased,
0.3
compensating for the weak area in the chassis, whilst
0.2
the rear was reduced, thus maintaining the same total
0.1
roll stiffness.
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-68 Longitudinal location, mm
-69
-70
Figure 18 – Chassis torsional deformation along length
-71 of chassis model used with ADAMS Flex, front = 0mm.
steering wheel angle [deg]
-72
-73
Equation 5, is very much a generalisation of the ratio of
-74
chassis torsional stiffness to total suspension roll
-75
-76
stiffness, to produce a certain load transfer distribution
-77 from a certain roll stiffness distribution. The calculations
-78 Rigid Chassis
250 N-m/deg
suggest that if the vehicle weight distribution is
-79 1300 N-m/deg approximately 50:50 then equation 5 can be used as a
-80 2500 N-m/deg
ADAMS/Flex guide to determine how stiff the chassis should be.
-81
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 However, in order to do this, an understanding of what
Lateral Acceleration, g constitutes an acceptable loss of roll stiffness distribution
Figure 16 – Lateral acceleration against steering angle into load transfer distribution is required.
for different ADAMS model configurations.
It has also been shown that more subtle effects from
250.00 changes in torsion stiffness along the chassis and
kinematic effects in the vehicle will influence the results.
Change in roll rate distribution from baseline,%
200.00
Thus the chassis stiffness required will differ from
vehicle to vehicle, however, this analysis gives an initial
insight into the problem.
150.00
100.00
CONCLUSION
Two modelling strategies have been developed. A static

50.00
analysis model can be used to calculate the effect of
chassis torsional stiffness on achieving a desired
0.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
handling balance. Also a dynamic handling model using
Chassis Torsional Stiffness, Nm/deg ADAMS can be used to predict the effect of chassis
Figure 17 – Difference in roll stiffness for flexible chassis torsional stiffness on dynamic handling manoeuvres.
to give the same handling balance compared to a stiff
chassis. It has been shown that to translate a certain percentage
of suspension roll stiffness distribution into a lateral load
DISCUSSION transfer distribution, the chassis torsional stiffness to
total suspension roll stiffness must be a certain ratio.
It is clear from the set of results presented that there are Therefore the chassis torsional stiffness must be a
discrepancies between the results obtained purely from multiple of total suspension roll stiffness and not the
static calculations to those that are obtained through difference between front and rear suspension stiffness
dynamic analysis. With regard to the chassis with as has previously been suggested. The chassis
different torsional stiffnesses, these differences have torsional stiffness referred to must include the installation
been attributed to kinematic effects in the vehicle model, stiffness of the suspension.
reducing the effective roll stiffness at one end of the
vehicle. With regard to the ADAMS model containing It has been shown that a Formula SAE car which has a
the ADAMS flex representation of the chassis, the total suspension roll stiffness of 500 – 1,500 Nm/deg
discrepancy is attributed to the distribution of chassis requires a chassis stiffness between 300 and 1,000
torsional stiffness along the vehicle length. Nm/deg to enable the handling to be tuned.
A Formula One car and vehicles with a similar roll

stiffness requires a chassis torsional stiffness in excess
of 10,000 Nm/deg to enable the handling to be tuned.
The dynamic results confirm that the stiffer the chassis,

the less the difference in roll stiffness distribution has to
be to achieve the same handling balance.
The ADAMS model demonstrates that the effective roll

stiffness distribution can be affected by kinematic
properties in the suspension which should be taken
account of in any analysis.
The distribution of chassis stiffness along the length of a

chassis also has an effect on the required roll stiffness
distribution to achieve a good handling balance. Indeed
a torsionally non-stiff region of a chassis close to the
front or rear suspension can effectively reduce the roll
stiffness of that suspension.
REFERENCES
1. Milliken, F.W.; Milliken, D.L.: ‘Race car vehicle

dynamics’, SAE Int’l, 1995
2. Dixon, J.C.: ‘Tyres, Suspension and Handling’,
Cambridge University Press, 1991.
CONTACT
Andrew Deakin
School of Mechanical Engineering
The University of Leeds
Leeds, LS2 9JT, England, UK
a.j.deakin@leeds.ac.uk

Chassis Stiffness

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Chassis Stiffness

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Licensed to Chalmers University of Technology

The Effect of Chassis Stiffness on Race

Reprinted From: Proceedings of the 2000 SAE Motorsports

Motorsports Engineering Conference & Exposition

All SAE papers, standards, and selected

The Effect of Chassis Stiffness on Race

Copyright © 2000 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

ABSTRACT ma Latacc hCG

race engineer’s ability to change the handling balance of

Figure 1 – Non-linear behaviour of a typical Formula

Figure 1 illustrates the non-linear behaviour of a typical

Figure 3 – Static model of the effect of chassis torsional

Mf = Krollfφ1 − Kchφ 3 (2) MULTI-BODY HANDLING MODEL – A model of the

In theory, the model containing a torsional spring could

Results were produced to indicate how chassis stiffness

Car type Total roll stiffness, Nm/deg

Figures 9, 10, 11 and 12 show the difference in front to

The goal is to determine a chassis stiffness that ensures 100

the vehicle’s handling is sufficiently sensitive to changes 90

Front load transfer as % of total load transfer

difference in front to rear roll stiffness must therefore 70

34:66. Figure 10 – Lateral load transfer from a racing car with

Front load transfer as % of total load transfer

Chassis stiffness 2000 Nm/deg

Ratio of total roll stiffness to chassis torsional stiffness

80 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS RESULTS – The dynamic

stiffness distribution of the chassis, figure 18, it is 1

Chassis twist angle, deg

Rear suspension mount point

Front suspension mount point

Two modelling strategies have been developed. A static

A Formula One car and vehicles with a similar roll

The dynamic results confirm that the stiffer the chassis,

The ADAMS model demonstrates that the effective roll

The distribution of chassis stiffness along the length of a

1. Milliken, F.W.; Milliken, D.L.: ‘Race car vehicle

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi