data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ebb37/ebb370037b2720e7f1b28286cf40e615041a3432" alt="Image"
Here, the typo. In the potential energy function:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f7651/f7651ad6467ccba5f61bb0b3e0dde2bc32144f15" alt="Image"
What do you think ? Is it correct ? I don´t think so
Thank you very much
Just to spice things up a little, and to make the model more useful, you might think about adding an inerter to each corner suspension element, and then to isolate each using a series spring, representing "installation" compliance. A third suspension element at each axle, reacting heave & pitch (only), might also be useful....delacf wrote:This is the Lagragian of the system...
This might help, perhaps, courtesy of F1T's "tex" operator:delacf wrote:Yes, DaveW. That is my intention: Inerter, Roll damper, third spring-damper...
I thought the inerter connected both sides of the vehicleDaveW wrote: Ifis the force carried by a suspension module,
is the inertial displacement of the hub and
is the local inertial displacement of the sprung mass, then the transfer function of the suspension module is:
which is a first order lead filter withrepresenting the spring rate, and
representing the damping coefficient,
is
,
is the angular frequency.
If an inerter of massis placed in parallel with the damper, the transfer function becomes:
which is a second order lead filter.
No & Yes.... A 3rd mounted inerter is the most common arrangement in F1, but I believe the first car helped by inerters to a series championship (to be fair, not F1) used them on all four corners (it had no provision for 3rd inerters).delacf wrote: I thought the inerter connected both sides of the vehicle( at least I think it is the most widely used scheme), DaveW. am I wrong ?