How to Prevent Body Roll
By definition, body roll only occurs when one side of the suspension is
compressed (moves into "jounce") while the other extends (moves into
"rebound.") Therefore, we can limit body roll by making it harder for the driver
side and passenger side suspension to move in opposite directions.
One fairly obvious method to achieve this is through the use of stiffer
springs. After all, a stiffer spring will compress less than a softer spring when
subjected to an equal amount of force. And less compression of the suspension on the
outside edge will result in less body roll. However, stiffer springs require the use of
stronger dampers (struts) and have an immediate and substantial effect on ride quality. So
even though handling is improved, they may not be the easiest or most cost-effective way
to achieve the objective of reducing body roll.
For many enthusiasts, the use of anti-sway bars also known as
"anti-roll" bars, "roll" bars or "sway" bars provides
a more cost-effective reduction in body roll with minimal negative impacts upon ride
quality.
How an Anti-Sway Bar Works
Put simply, an anti-sway bar is a "U-shaped" metal bar that
connects to both wheels on opposite sides of the car at the ends and connects to the
chassis in the middle. Essentially, the ends of the bar are connected to the wheels while
the center of the bar is connected to the body of the car.
In order for body roll to occur, the suspension on the outside edge of the
car must compress while the suspension on the inside edge simultaneously extends. However,
since the anti-sway bar is attached to both wheels, such movement is only possible if the
metal bar is allowed to twist. (One side of the bar must twist upward while the other
twists downward.) So the bars "torsional stiffness" or resistance
to twist determines that bars ability to reduce body roll. Less twisting of
the bar results in less movement into jounce and rebound by the opposite ends of the
suspension which results in less body roll.
Factors that Determine Sway Bar Stiffness
There are two primary factors that determine an anti-sway bars
torsional stiffness: the diameter of the bar and the length of the bars "moment
arm" (more commonly known as the amount of leverage that the vehicle is able to apply
against the twisting motion of the bar.)
Diameter is generally the easiest concept to grasp, as it is somewhat
intuitive that a larger diameter bar would have greater torsional rigidity. Torsional (or
twisting) motion of the bar is actually governed by the equation:
twist = (2 x torque x length)/(p x diam4 x material modulus) |
And since "diameter" is in the denominator, as
diameter gets larger, the amount of twist gets smaller. Which, in a nutshell, means that
torsional rigidity is a function of the diameter to the fourth power! This is why a very
small increase in diameter makes a large increase in torsional rigidity.
To compare, for example, the rigidity of a Saturns stock rear 15.0mm
bar to a larger 16.5mm bar, simply use the equation, 16.54/154 which
yields 1.46. In other words, a 16.5mm bar is 1.46 times as stiff or 46% stiffer
than a 15.0mm bar of the same design.
Add just one more millimeter to the diameter of the bar for a total
of 17.5mm and the torsional strength skyrockets to 85% stiffer than the stock
15.0mm bar. (17.54/15.04=1.85.)
However, in addition to the diameter of a bar, there is another very
important factor that determines an anti-sway bars torsional rigidity. This factor
is known as the "length of the moment arm" or in common terms, the amount
of leverage between the vehicle and the bar.
As with anything, an increased amount of leverage makes it easier to do
work. This is governed by the "lever law," force x distance = torque. As
"distance" - or the length of the lever - increases, the resulting amount of
torque also increases. (This is why it was easier to move your big brother on the
teeter-totter when he moved into the middle and you stayed out on the end. You enjoyed
increased leverage at the end, while he suffered from reduced leverage in the middle.)
Because an anti-sway bar is shaped as a "U," the ends of the bar
that lead from the center of the bar to the end-link attachment serve as a lever. As the
distance from the straight part of the bar to the attachment at the end link becomes
longer, the torque applied against the bar increases making it easier for a given
amount of energy to twist the anti-sway bar. As this distance is reduced, torque is
reduced - making it more difficult for a given amount of energy to twist the anti-sway
bar.
It is the lever law that is applied during the design of an adjustable
anti-sway bar. By using multiple end link locations, the distance from the point of
attachment to the straight part of the bar can be altered. Or in engineers terms,
the length of "the moment arm" can be increased or reduced in order to make more
or less torque against the bar. Using a setting further from the center of the bar
increases the length of the moment arm, resulting in more torque against the bar, allowing
more twisting motion of the bar, creating more body roll. Using a setting closer to the
center of the bar reduces the length of the moment arm, resulting in less torque against
the bar, allowing less twisting motion of the bar, creating less body roll.
The actual impact upon torque can be compared by dividing the
center-to-center distances of the end-link attachment points. For example, the
center-to-center distance of the stock rear anti-sway bar is 200mm. We can compare this to
the 160mm distance of the firmest setting of the 4-way adjustable 17.5mm bar by simply
dividing the distances, 160/200 = .8. In other words, a 160mm center-to-center bar
produces only 80% of the torque that would be produced by a 200mm center-to-center bar of
the same diameter. Or simpler yet, by using the 160mm end-link attachment points, we
increase the stiffness of the anti-sway bar by an extra 20%.
(Note: by now you may have realized that the 17.5mm, 4-way adjustable bar
found on the scR ITA racecar in the example above is as much as 105% stiffer than stock.
85% of this is a result of diameter, while the remaining 20% is a result of moment arm
length. The dramatic increase in stiffness is why it is recommended for race-use only!)
So, in summary, less twist = less deflection = less body roll.
What the Heck is "TLLTD?"
TLLTD stands for Tire Lateral Load Transfer Distribution. While this term
may sound complex, it simply measures the front-to-rear balance of how lateral load is
transferred in a cornering maneuver and is commonly used to compare the rate of lateral
traction loss between the front and rear tires. You probably understand this already as
the concept of "understeer" and "oversteer."
Put simply, there is only so much force that a tire can handle. When we
ask more of the tire than the tire can deliver, it saturates and loses traction. If the
front tires saturate before the rear tires, then we call this "understeer" or
"push" which means that the car tends to continue moving in the original
direction, even though the wheels are turned. If the rear tires saturate before the front
tires, then we call this "oversteer" or "loose" which means
that the rear of the car tends to swing around faster than the front, causing a spin. When
neither of these conditions prevail consistently, then we describe the chassis as
"balanced."
We can measure and compare the steady-state understeer and oversteer
characteristics of a vehicle by assigning a lateral load transfer percentage of the front
relative to the rear. A TLLTD value equal to 50% indicates that the chassis is balanced
or both the front and rear tend to lose traction at roughly the same time. A front
TLLTD value greater than 50% indicates that the front tires lose traction more quickly
than the rear tires resulting in understeer. And a front TLLTD value lower than 50%
indicates that the rear tires tend to lose traction more quickly than the front -
resulting in oversteer.
(It is important to note that our discussion of TLLTD is only considering
steady-state cornering maneuvers, such as a long 270o on-ramp or off-ramp.
Moderate-to-aggressive throttle or brake application can upset this "balance"
during a transient condition, briefly transitioning a vehicle from understeer to
oversteer.)
The Effect of Anti-Sway Bars Upon TLLTD
You now understand how an anti-sway bar can be used to limit body roll.
And you understand that reduced body roll can lead to a reduction in adverse camber
changes for better tire traction. But what may not be obvious is the effect of anti-sway
bar changes upon TLLTD (understeer and oversteer.)
In fact, given the above information, one might even assume that a firmer
anti-sway bar, which leads to better camber control, would lead to better traction. So if
we add a firmer anti-sway bar to the front, traction loss diminishes, so understeer is
reduced, right?
Not quite. Lets evaluate more closely the meaning of TLLTD
tire lateral load transfer distribution. If said another way, we might describe TLLTD as
the relative demand of side-to-side energy control that is placed upon the tires. Because
a firmer anti-sway bar allows less deflection, it will transfer side-to-side energy
(lateral loads) at a faster rate. As the rate of lateral load transfer increases,
additional demands are placed upon the tire. So if we install a firmer anti-sway bar in
the front, then we increase the distribution of lateral load transfer toward the front
tires. This increases the front TLLTD value, which will result in additional understeer,
holding all else constant.
The same logic also holds true in the rear. A firmer anti-sway bar in the
rear will increase the rate of lateral load transfer, placing more demand upon the rear
tires, accelerating lateral traction loss, creating more oversteer, holding all else
constant.
"I want a 50% TLLTD on my car, right?"
For many enthusiasts, it is tempting to jump to the conclusion, since a
50% TLLTD indicates a "balanced" chassis on paper, that this is therefore
desirable. And all cars "should obviously come this way from the factory."
Unfortunately, this is not the case and the considerations are not that simple.
In reality, a car with a 50% TLLTD is literally on the constant brink of
oversteer. And there are many factors that can quickly and easily take the car from the
brink into a full-scale, out-of-control, spinning-in-circles disaster!
For starters, consider the effects of weather conditions that might create
a wet or icy road surface
or imagine that the driver happens to apply too much brake
late into a turn
or consider the effects of varying tire temperatures, tire
pressures, or tire wear all of which will have major impacts upon lateral traction
thresholds. And of course, varying weight distribution, as a result of changing fuel tank
levels, passengers, or the number of subwoofers in the trunk, will also impact TLLTD.
With all of these things to consider, the engineers are forced to create a
more conservative TLLTD. As a result, they intentionally target higher front TLLTD values
so that stock vehicles will be prone to understeer - the assumption being that understeer
is safer and more predictable for the average driver. For example, the stock Saturn SC2 is
tuned to produce a front TLLTD of approximately 63.4% - a relatively conservative target.
(But give Saturn some credit this is on the aggressive end of the conservative
spectrum, especially relative to other front-wheel-drive economy cars!)
As a general rule, an average street-driving enthusiast is probably
willing to accept some compromises within reason of a more aggressive TLLTD
in exchange for better handling. A suitable target is probably a front TLLTD value of
approximately 58% - a value that is considered "aggressive," but suitable for
street driving.
How do I Create the Handling Balance that is Best for Me?
Obviously, TLLTD and body roll will both be affected by changes to springs
and anti-sway bars. So understanding the effects of multiple changes can get confusing.
Fortunately, knowledgeable tuners (such as SPS) have access to basic chassis dynamic
calculation software that allows the simulation of various spring and sway bar
configurations upon the Saturn chassis.
One of the things that we have learned through experience and
through simulation is that the installation of a stiffer front sway bar may not be
best for many situations. One reason for this is that while the use of a stiffer front bar
effectively further reduces body roll, it also increases front TLLTD, inducing more
understeer. It also can reduce front traction while accelerating and turning
already a problem thanks to a lack of a limited slip differential. For