Fuck Cars
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
view the rest of the comments
Nitpicks:
2 - Inertia doesn't help. It cancels out because the suspension must be equally stiffer to carry the added weight. There's a correlation, which is more because bigger cars are more expensive, which have better suspensions and stiffer bodies.
4 - Unsprung mass helps and hurts comfort. It filters out high frequency vibration, forcing the tyre to flex more, but the mass bounces higher up from bigger bumps, hitting the suspension harder.
could you elaborate on the cancelling out more? I'm not a suspension guy, but I am mech eng, and I am interested in knowing more about where specifically to look into that topic.
I didn't think that simply having stiffer suspension would result in that being cancelled out. mitigated, sure, but not cancelled
Thought experiment: weld two cars together side by side - double weight, double suspension stiffness carrying the weight. Why would there be any difference in vibration when they drive together over a double-wide speed bump?
It's the same as with dropping objects of different weights (in vacuum) - the feather falls as fast the hammer, because weight and inertia cancel each other out.
hmm, I guess if you assume each side of the axle is acting together as one paired unit, that works.
I'm just trying to reconcile this with my experience of "heavier vehicle feels better over bumps" regardless of age of vehicle, or even across multiple conditions for the same vehicle. for example, old van vs newer sedan. or if I'm loaded up with a bunch of bags of soil over my rear axle (stuff that stays in place and doesn't bounce around), as long as I'm not bottoming out the travel, it just feels smoother going over the bump, like the reaction of the wheels going up is dampened by the additional sprung mass.
I will admit that suspension design, like electrical stuff, is basically sorcery to me. not my kind of thing at all. also I could absolutely be misremembering scenarios.
Loading up weight does make the ride smoother because suspension stiffness stays the same, unlike when a heavier car is designed.
The newer sedan was likely designed to tolerate spirited driving. When designing a car, they're aiming for an appropriate resonant frequency for body up-down bounce, under 1 Hz for good comfort, more for sportier ride. Featherweight Citroën 2CV gives a very soft ride.