Originally posted by modellor
Yes, I totally agree with everything you have said. Too much chassis flex will make the cars handling worse. This is why some of the current 200mm cars are not great for racing. I didnt mean having a huge amount of chassis flex that the chassis can bend down about 5mm to bottom out. But a slight flex of .5mm - 1mm is controllable and gives the adequate effect to allow for better control over bumpier tracks (By bumpier tracks I mean the whole track being bumpy and not just parts of it).
Yep, I wasn't trying to suggest huge chassis flex and my example of the bump was really to illustrate a snap shot of a typical suspension event.
I'm not able to test the actual dynamic chassis flex we currently endure and it might well be up to 1mm as you say. If you mean by "controllable", that we put up with it, then, yeah. When you say it "gives the adequate effect to allow for better control over bumpier tracks" then we get back to my original point, surely. That is . . the effect you mention is uncontrolled, and as such, I can't see how we might attach a benefit to it.
Essentially, I'm saying that in any
chassis design, be it for off-road or on-road, any flex is uncontrolled and therefore any attempted compensation with suspension settings must be (directly and proportionally) limited by the inherent uncontrolled nature of the flex.
Ahhh . . I guess this is largely of academic interest, eh. Maybe we need to book some time on a NASA computer and get this thing modelled.
But for the flex to be effective I agree that it needs to be linear and managing this without allowing torsional flex is the fun part.
Oh, you've driven a NEO T21, then?
That thing would change it settings sitting on the starter box.