This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.

they’d be the best, but I don’t have the visibility to confirm or dispute that. I do know that there is

lots of incorrect information published about anti-dive and related effects. I’ve seen one graphic recently that apparently has circulated quite a bit that purportedly shows geometry for 100 per cent anti-dive. It shows the control arm pivot axes in side view – the axes defined by the control arm attachment points to the tub – meeting at the sprung mass c of g in side view. This replicates illustrations that appear in a number of old chassis books, but it is incorrect in at least two ways. First, the side view geometric

properties depend on the actual side view projected control arms. These are the lines where the control arm planes intercept the wheel plane, not the control arm pivot axes as seen in side view. Second, we do not have 100

per cent anti-dive when the side-view projected control arms intersect at the c of g. We have 100 per cent anti-dive when the side view force line intercepts the side view resolution line at sprung mass c of g height. The side view force line is the

line from the contact patch centre through the side view instant centre. The side view resolution line is a vertical line located rearward from the front axle line by a percentage of the wheelbase equal to the percentage of ground plane retardation force exerted by the front wheel pair when braking. This will generally be a greater percentage than the static front weight percentage, so the resolution line will generally be aft of the c of g.

that sprung mass pitch, and front wing height, also depend on what the rear suspension does. 100 per cent anti-dive only results in zero pitch if the rear suspension has 100 per cent anti-lift. It is quite possible to provide that. There are many production cars that have more than 100 per cent anti-lift. Almost any car with trailing arm or semi-trailing arm rear suspension jacks the rear suspension down in braking. This potentially results in wheel hop but, in practice, as long as either

“It is possible that a designer

could deliberately make the front end lift in braking”

If the front suspension

meets this criterion, the front suspension will neither compress nor extend in braking, as the questioner correctly understands. If the front end is lifting in braking, that implies that the anti-dive is more than 100 per cent and that the force line slope and jacking coefficient are greater than described earlier. But it is important to note

ABS or the brake bias keeps the rear wheels from approaching lock up, such cars brake just fine. With SLA or double wishbone

rear suspension, 100 per cent anti-lift requires a lot of inclination of the side view projected control arms – more than is needed for 100 per cent anti-dive at the front. The need for extreme-looking geometry results from the fact that the

ground plane force we have to work with is smaller at the rear than at the front. So it is possible that a

designer could deliberately make the front end lift in braking because the rear lifts, or it is possible that even an F1 designer might have read the wrong literature… Is there a penalty in the car’s ability to absorb bumps while braking when there is that much anti-dive? Yes. However, when the track is very smooth, that may not matter so much. And when the alternative is to use stiffer springing instead, some anti-dive may be deemed preferable to that. My own default

recommendation regarding anti- dive lies somewhere between the recent former practice of using little or none, and the current fashion of using a huge amount. I generally suggest that the side view force line should have a slope at static of around four degrees, and no more than eight degrees in any condition. Depending on brake bias, wheelbase, and sprung mass c of g height, this will generally result in somewhere between 25 and 60 per cent anti-dive.

Some Formula 1 cars raise the nose under braking, but 100 per cent anti dive only results in zero pitch if there is also 100 per cent anti lift at the rear 44 • July 2012

Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89