0 static camber/camber gain, caster for body roll?

[g-force_addict]

Having 0 static camber and 0 camber gain by using equal length wishbones.
This way tires keep 0 camber during straights thus allowing softer rubber without unnecessary wear on the straights.
0 camber gain allows tires to remain vertical thus allowing best contact patch for braking.

When the steering wheel is turned (to the inside of the corner) a generous caster can incline the wheels to the inside of the corner thus compensating for body roll.

Excessive overall caster can be reduced by locating the caster axis behind the line crossing the wheel center.

Wondering why this hasn't been done for the front suspension?

Of course when the limit of adhesion is reached the car is gone.
Countersteering will make it worse as it inclines the wheels outside of the corner.

[flynfrog]

sidewall flex. Next question.

[Tommy Cookers]

@ g force
vehicle weight has an undesirable steering input doing this in the way you suggest
(people have made the same 'mistake' with hub-centre steering on motorcycles)

Millikan Snr built a wheel banking car around 1960
Mercedes bought in such a design recently

[Jersey Tom]

Wondering why this hasn't been done for the front suspension?

Because it's not fast

Things to consider...

1. F1 cars do tend to have fairly parallel control arms on the front suspension. Very much inclined, but fairly parallel to each other.

2. Suspension travel on a F1 car is relatively quite small with how stiff the platform is for aero. Or at least it's quite small relative to numbers I'm used to working with. So to some degree camber change with jounce is going to be small even with some non-parallelism.

3. Camber gain with steer is dependent on how much steer angle input you have. The hairpin at Monaco has a bunch. High speed corners - or really as a function of low yaw rates - result in fairly small wheel steer. So you'd be stuck making some big compromises with way more total camber gain with steer in low speed corners than high. Could be target camber at low speed and nowhere near enough high speed, or target camber high speed and way too much low speed. That and you'd need outrageous amounts of caster to achieve either.

4. You're assuming that there's a significant loss in braking performance at non-zero camber. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't.

[godlameroso]

From my experience breaking performance isn't really affected until you start going over thee degrees of negative camber, more or less. Even then you'd have to run like four degrees to notice a subjective difference.

[dynatune]

Actually this has been done on F1 cars. In the late 90s there was a bit of buzz about it. For instance the Stewart Ford SF1 was a car with a very high caster angle (basically all that the 13" wheel package would allow) and a Roll Center quite close to 0mm eliminating almost entirely any vertical/roll camber gains. The steering axis was well offset from the wheel center to make caster trail and steering efforts acceptable (those were the non power steering days in F1).
One other thing that one should not neglect is the fact that caster creates roll-angle with steering lock, since the outer wheel center will be pushed additionally up and the inner additionally down ... creating thus an additional delta roll angle. This roll angle does however on the front NOT lead to any additional loading of springs/arb but will certainly cause additional load transfer at the rear by additionally winding up the spring/arb.

Cheers,
dynatune, http://www.dynatune-xl.com

[-Felix-]

also consider the higher steering load, with excessive Castor you effectively jack up the front of the car with the steering wheel. Not having a servo-supported steering, like mandatory in some race classes, this might be not fun to drive...

[RR98ITR]

Actually this has been done on F1 cars. In the late 90s there was a bit of buzz about it. For instance the Stewart Ford SF1 was a car with a very high caster angle (basically all that the 13" wheel package would allow) and a Roll Center quite close to 0mm eliminating almost entirely any vertical/roll camber gains. The steering axis was well offset from the wheel center to make caster trail and steering efforts acceptable (those were the non power steering days in F1).
One other thing that one should not neglect is the fact that caster creates roll-angle with steering lock, since the outer wheel center will be pushed additionally up and the inner additionally down ... creating thus an additional delta roll angle. This roll angle does however on the front NOT lead to any additional loading of springs/arb but will certainly cause additional load transfer at the rear by additionally winding up the spring/arb.

Cheers,
dynatune, http://www.dynatune-xl.com

This is why I come here.

[mertol]

Because steering angle is not proportional to latteral G. You don't have much steering input in fast corners where you have the most latteral force.