Originally Posted by
Granpa
HC:"If one end is raised and the other remains fixed in the height, then the CG is raised, and weight transfer is greater."
GP:No, actually the correct answer is that the CG remains the same. It changes in relation to each end of the rod, but remains the same overall. It becomes lower in relation to the end that was raised and higher to the static end.
I think you may have worded this incorrectly, or misunderstood what I said. I am referring to the distance of the CG above ground. The location of the CG is always fixed in relation to the masses of the system (since it is determined by those), and I think that's what you are referring to. However, raising any of the masses relative to the ground while leaving others in the same location will always raise the CG in relation to the ground, and increase weight transfer.
Let's illustrate the situation using your analogy of a rod with weights on each end (which I think is a very useful model), like a dumbbell. We will assume that the rod is uniform along its length, and the weights are equal and symmetrical. We'll use an imaginary felt-tip ("Magic") marker to place an "X" at the location of the CG, which I think you will agree is located in the center of the rod, equidistant from each weight.
We place the dumbbell so that it is level, with the center of each weight, and therefore the CG, 1 inch above the ground. Now we raise one end so the center of the weight on this end is 2 inches above the ground, leaving the center of the other weight at 1 inch above the ground. Has the CG moved? Well, it is still at the location marked with an "X", so in this sense it has not moved. But the "X" is now 1.5 inches above ground, which I will call "higher".
Originally Posted by
Granpa
HC:"A higher CG gives more weight transfer because it has more leverage around the tire contact patch. This occurs regardless of the spring rate, or even with no springs at all (infinite spring rate)"
GP:First sentence true. Second not so sure. If it were true, we should be able to largely ignore springs, shocks , but i'll still consider changing that kind of stuff cause it seems to make a difference.
If the second sentence were not true, then it would be impossible for a non-suspension car to traction roll. But they do. You've probably witnessed this yourself if you've watched old RC12E's on carpet, or go karts with big guys driving. (Or kids spilling their milk because their parents insisted on using tall, thin glasses, instead of short, fat ones. I'll never forgive my parents for not listening to my explanation: "The CG is too high"!)
As I stated, shocks and springs can change handling because they let us decide how we
split the weight transfer between tire contact patches, not because they
reduce it.
Originally Posted by
Granpa
Maybe I'm just being obdurate here, but I still stand by my original statement that raising the front ride height reduce the steering sensitivity on corner turn in. I said i thought it was due to controlling the weight transfer to the front.
I have no arguments with this. Your key word here is "controlling". This is a different selection of word than in your post #18847, where you stated "I still maintain that raising the front ride height as stated in the first sentence of my post does
reduce the amount of weight transfer to the front wheels." (Italics are mine.) That statement is the one I question.
On a different note, I have not felt at all that our conversation is "personal" in any way, and in either direction, and I have certainly not intended it as such. It seems like a calm, rational exchange of ideas.
Actually, your posts have been uniformly thoughtful and pleasant (even when you might have been tempted to be less cordial!) since I began reading this thread many months ago, and I have learned much from them.