Thanks to Aeronautica86 for hosting these spreadsheets they are from my chassis dynamics class that looked at my 951 suspension. I also have another spreadsheet that has even more content but it is for an Eagle Talon, the format and other information can be helpful.
Both spreadsheets may need (depending on how well you know chassis engineering) the SAE book "the Automotive Chassis" by Reimpell, Stoll, and Betzler to help understand them.

I would like these to be made public and hopefully people can get some benifit from them.

951 chassis workbook https://bearspace.baylor.edu/James_R...ls?uniq=-qovpx

Eagle Talon workbook https://bearspace.baylor.edu/James_R...ls?uniq=-qovpr

 

I dont understand much of that, but now I have motivation to read the book you mentioned.

Awesome job and thanks for sharing this.

 

This is a huge time saver for me
I can just plug this info into our software for calulations. The measuring is always the pita.

 

Your welcome, Glad it can help. Just keep passing it along. What software do you have?

 

Wow lots of numbers

 

Excellent work!!!!

I have one small question, I was looking through your numbers and found the CG is listed as ~430mm. I doulble checked the calculations, (had to rederive it as I don't have RCVD on my shelf right now), but it looks right. However when I drew it onto a car (shiners780's because it was a good profile and I like the colors) it looks a little low. Especially as his car is running a leda setup.

So was the car you were testing stock ride height?

Maybe I am wrong, but ~16-17 inches seems too low for this car. I would have guessed closer to 18-19"

Please don't consider this as an insult or a question of the validity of the tremendous data you have collected. Maybe I am just disbelieving how well this car was designed.

Thanks,
Geoff

 

The CG-H number is a bit low for stock. the book recomends a total CG-H of .36 for extreme sports cars to .40 for trucks. the value given was calculted on my car using a set of Longacre scales with the elevated axle method somewhere around 9 inches elevation. I chose to use real world data since it is most likely more acurate than a text book approximation. However, there is some error that could have been introduced. The stock CG using .36*(overall height) is 18.0 inches. My car is lowered but I'm not sure the exact amount, at least an inch. so the given value is within reason but could be a bit optimistic.
Keen eye for seeing that and let me know if I can answer any more questions.

 

Also to note, any calculation that has lateral accaleration in it is subject to error. I had to take a realistic guess at a skidpad number since I had no idea what it would be for my car with some suspension upgrades and on modern wider tires.
The braking performace is based on some braking test I found on a UK 944 forum and an approximate Mu value for a track oriented brake pad, so again that can have some error but not as much as the lateral acceleration number.
I would like to see the spreadsheet with the calcutions for a real car that has some data aquisition equipment.