Formula Student innovations Lancaster Links

Lancaster Universitys recent Formula Student entries have all sported an unusual suspension layout. It is called Lancaster Links and is the work of Professor Derek Seward. According to its inventor, Links occupy the territory where a wishbone suspension meets a swing axle suspension. It consists of a wishbone suspension where the upper wishbone dives down to meet the lower wishbone at a common point on the vehicle chassis. I really went back to basics with what was happening with racing suspension, explains Sewerd. You start with your very simple parallel wishbone with that layout, the wheel goes vertical in relation to the bodywork. The Lancaster Links is kinematically the same as an old-fashioned swing axle, so the wheel does not move vertically in relation to the body, it goes in an arc. What this means is that as the body rolls, there is no change in camber. We have tried to remove the bump and droop for example, when you brake and accelerate by very aggressive anti-dive and anti-squat geometries. The suspension has always behaved exactly as we thought it would. Ive done a lot of work and cant see any fundamental flaw. The purpose of a car suspension system [for racing] is to maximise the contact between the tyre and the road. It is clear that independent suspension systems, where each wheel can move independently of the chassis, do this better than older live axle or beam axle systems. Control of wheel camber during movement, however, can be a problem for independent systems. The requirements, in probable order of importance, are: 1. Maintain good control of camber during roll 2. Provide a stable roll-centre position particularly vertically 3. Minimise wheel scrub in bump 4. Maintain good control of camber during bump (single and two-wheel)

In the purest form of Lancaster Links, where all the wishbones at one end of a car meet at a common axis on the centre of the car, camber is completely decoupled from chassis roll and the roll-centre is fixed, hence criteria 1 and 2 are fully satisfied. Criteria 3 is satisfied if the pivot axis is kept low. Criteria 1 and 4 are mutually opposed and hence control of camber in bump and rebound is not good. At critical bump and rebound periods, however, such as during hard braking and hard acceleration, it is easy to reduce the amount of movement through robust anti-squat and anti-dive, thus reducing the impact of criteria 4. This is achieved by simply inclining the pivot axis, as shown above, and has been shown to work very effectively. By separating the pivot points, it is possible to generate negative camber during roll, which compensates for the small amount of positive camber that results from compliance of the suspension components and tyre deflection. This version also aids packaging of the vehicle in most circumstances. During the 2010 event, the Lancaster car struggled in some of the dynamic events, although the problems were not suspension related. At an event where there are so many engineeringminded people in one place (upwards of 2,000), such a departure from the norm, however, is likely to raise questions. People have said that because you only have two suspension points on it, it would be very bad at reacting to brake torque, but thats wrong, says Seward. When you do the analysis, you see that if you get those points low enough, the brake torque is in fact very low as the force is coming in at ground level. Theres no torque to resist. But are the forces not greater on the chassis as there are only two points? The answer is no; one wishbone is in tension and one is in compression, so to some extent they cancel out. The forces on the chassis are less. I genuinely think this is better than double wishbone. I think this is the greatest innovation in the last 40 years of suspension design ever since Colin Chapman came up with the idea of using the engine as a stressed element of the chassis. This is the next big step.

Advantages of Lancaster Links

Superior camber control in roll (including the lightly loaded wheel) Good roll-centre control Easy addition of robust ant-dive and ant-squat Fewer suspension joints Fewer strong points on chassis required and lower forces Deformation of chassis under cornering loads does not change wheel camber No relative movement at the upright (except during steering) Less static camber required and hence better tyre wear Better camber during straight-line acceleration and braking i.e. zero! Lower braking torques transmitted to chassis Shorter pushrods Lower centre of gravity (including steering rack)

Disadvantages

Significant plunge (change of length) of the drive-shafts, but this can be coped with Significant variation in camber with ride height so care needed in setting up car for different weight drivers. Unlikely to be suitable for very rough circuits with a lot of dynamic bump and rebound. Not good for a corner at the crest of a hill, as wheel would go into positive camber.