Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 36 of 36

Thread: load = ride comfort = what spring rate?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Melbourn(ish)
    Posts
    26,499
    Total Downloaded
    0
    opening guess..

    about 140 would have been over the rear, maybe 10 on the front.
    Dave

    "In a Landrover the other vehicle is your crumple zone."

    For spelling call Rogets, for mechanicing call me.

    Fozzy, 2.25D SIII Ex DCA Ute
    Tdi autoManual d1 (gave it to the Mupion)
    Archaeoptersix 1990 6x6 dual cab(This things staying)


    If you've benefited from one or more of my posts please remember, your taxes paid for my skill sets, I'm just trying to make sure you get your monies worth.
    If you think you're in front on the deal, pay it forwards.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    'The Creek' Captain Creek, QLD
    Posts
    3,724
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Bush65 View Post
    IMHO the ride you felt with the heavier load can be replicated by changing the spring rate to achieve the same natural frequency.

    Natural frequency is proportional to square root (spring rate / weight)

    From this you can determine the required spring rate knowing the rate of your current springs and the weight on the springs when you were loaded and normal.

    i.e. sqrt(K1/W1) = sqrt(K2/W2) where:
    K1 is your current spring rate
    K2 is the rate that you want for better ride with normal load
    W1 is the weight on the spring when you were loaded
    W2 is your normal load

    The natural frequency (normally measured in Hz which is cycles per second) for rear springs should be a little less than that for the front springs. This is because the front wheels hit the bump before the rears but you want the motion caused by each to finish at close to the same time - obviously different speed and wheel base affect this.
    Now your comfortable ride was achived with rear spring rate of 250 lb/in and weight on rear wheels is 940 kg plus 150 kg of steel (assume the 250 kg is carried entirely by the rear springs) then:

    Neglecting unsprung weight (rear axle and wheels, etc)
    sqrt(250/940+150) = sqrt(216/940) therefore use 216 lb/in spring rate for comfort with no load.

    Now assume unsprung weight is 200 kg
    sqrt(250/(940-200+150)) = sqrt(208/(940-200)) therefore use 208 lb/in spring rate for comfort with no load.

    Now assume unsprung weight is 250 kg
    sqrt(250/(940-250+150)) = sqrt(205/(940-250)) therefore use 205 lb/in spring rate for comfort with no load.

    Recommended natural frequencies are:
    For rock crawling: 0.75 Hz front, 0.93 Hz rear
    For off road tracks up to 40 or 50 kph: 1.1 Hz front, 1.375 Hz rear
    For general on and off road driving: 1.35 Hz front, 1.688 Hz rear

    Now for spring rate K in lb/in and weight on springs W in lb, natural frequency f in Hz is:
    f = 3.1269 sqrt(K/W)

    As a very rough guess assume unsprung weight is 250 kg front and rear.

    For weight on front wheels of 1300 kg, then load on each front spring is:
    (1300 kg – 250 kg) / 2 = 525 kg (1157 lb)

    For weight on rear wheels of 940 kg, then load on each rear spring is:
    (940 kg – 250 kg) / 2 = 345 kg (761 lb)

    For front spring rate 210 lb/in, rear spring rate 250 lb/in and comfort rear spring rate 200 lb/in

    Front natural frequency = 3.1269 sqrt(210 / 1157) = 1.332 Hz

    Rear natural frequency = 3.1269 sqrt(250 / 761) = 1.792 Hz (with 250 lb/in spring rate)

    Rear natural frequency = 3.1269 sqrt(200 / 761) = 1.603 Hz (with 180 lb/in spring rate)

    Required free-length for a new spring with different spring rate is:
    desired static ride height + static deflection
    where static deflection = load (lb) / spring rate (lb/in) i.e. 761 lb / 200 lb/in = 3.8 inch

    (edit) sorry I stuffed up by confusing the numbers for your load of steel I used 250 kg should have been 150 kg. So spring rate will be 205 lb/in if the unsprung rate is assumed to be 250 kg. (end edit)
    Last edited by Bush65; 21st November 2012 at 01:00 PM. Reason: additional stuff + fix mistakes shown in red

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    'The Creek' Captain Creek, QLD
    Posts
    3,724
    Total Downloaded
    0
    In my previous posts I focused on natural frequency. IMHO it is the most appropriate measure for selecting spring rate or comparing spring rates for different road surface and load conditions.

    Natural Frequency is the term used in engineering and science for the un-damped frequency of vibration of a mass supported by a spring, etc. For vehicles, suspension frequency is commonly used in place of natural frequency.

    If you bounce a corner of a car without shockies up and down then release it, you could measure the frequency (number of cycles per second (Hz) or minute), or the period (time for one complete cycle) for the spring.

    The table below summarises recommended suspension frequencies for a few different applications.

    The spring rate required for a particular load and frequency is:
    K = L x (SF / 3.1269)^2
    K is spring rate in lb/in
    L is load on spring in lb
    SF is suspension frequency in Hz (cycles per sec)
    3.1269 is a constant to take care of the units given

    This can be re-arranged as:
    SF = 3.1269 x sqrt(K / L)

    The period is: T (sec) = 1 / SF (Hz)
    Attached Images Attached Images

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    5,101
    Total Downloaded
    0
    I have been told that you dont want the spring frequency to be the same as the tyre frequency....maybe its not an issue due to the fact they would be so different in our vehicles.

    the million dollar question though, is my butt tuned to the same frequency as yours John

    you have again provided great material for me to play with and make a decision on. Then its a matter of suck it and see (what will the compromise be???)

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    NSW far north coast
    Posts
    17,285
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Bush65 View Post
    In my previous posts I focused on natural frequency. IMHO it is the most appropriate measure for selecting spring rate or comparing spring rates for different road surface and load conditions.

    Natural Frequency is the term used in engineering and science for the un-damped frequency of vibration of a mass supported by a spring, etc. For vehicles, suspension frequency is commonly used in place of natural frequency.


    [snip]
    Natural frequency is a starting point but with something as dynamic as a car, and as there are so many variables involved nothing beats just trying different spring rates to see what feels the best, and often what feels nice in ride is too compromised in rate for actual use in load carrying/pitch/squat/roll/road holding.

    This is why car companies spend huge $ and sometimes years on test drivers pounding around test tracks and differing road surfaces/environments around the world, coupled with LVDT's on the suspension wired back to a data logger to come up with the best compromise, and why race teams go to race tracks with a pile of springs with varying rates, and sometimes can change them by several hundred lb's to get the ride rate suitable.

    And yes, as mentioned you don't want the springs natural frequency to match the tyre's natural frequency.
    It's usually hard to do but can happen, speaking from experience
    With underdamped dampers you will bounce clean off the road.

    Trying to find out the tyres natural frequency from a manufacturer is all but impossible and in practical terms something we wouldn't normally have to worry about.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Kiwiland
    Posts
    7,246
    Total Downloaded
    0
    For what it's worth, I measured the natural frequency of my rangies front end a few years back.
    This was 180 lb/in springs, 4BD1T etc. I unbolted the front shocks and videod the car while I bounced the front end and let it oscillate.
    I then stepped through the video to pick out the high points and the time they occured.

    I got around 1.1Hz. Which agreed well with calculations I performed later. Approx 1Hz is the point humans are most comfortable, some say it's because it matches the frequency we move at when walking.
    Higher frequencies (stiffer springs) provide performance advantages at the expense of comfort.

    There is also a school of thought that rear spring frequencies should be higher than the front. This means when a vehicles passes the same bump, the faster returning rear suspension will catch up with the oscillation of the front and provide a more even rise/fall feeling.
    It all depends on the speed you travel too.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search AULRO.com ONLY!
Search All the Web!