The document discusses a passive lateral load redistribution device (PLLR) designed to stabilize a vehicle during turns. Static, motion, and stress analyses were performed on the PLLR using manual calculations, Excel, and SolidWorks. Results show the PLLR is useful for cornering as it allows adjustment through springs and dampers. Further refinement is needed to optimize the design for specific vehicles by reducing weight while maintaining stiffness. The document lays the foundation for continued improvement but further investigation is still required regarding implementation and legal status.

1. Passive Lateral Load Redistribution
A passive lateral load redistribution device (PLLR) is designed with the help of concepts and is discussed by means of
static, motion and stress and sustainability analysis. The properties of the simplified pendulum have been calculated
using the aid of manual calculations, Microsoft Excel and SolidWorks. Legal aspects of implementing the device are
examined in terms of racing regulations as well as possible patent infringement. Results from the investigations show the
device is useful in many cornering situations due to possibility of adjustment through its comprising springs and dampers.
It is possible to use and manufacture the device through some additional refinement aimed at suiting it for specific
vehicles and reducing weight while maintaining stiffness. A methodology foundation for further improvement has been
laid out, although the complete implementations and the legal status have further scope for investigation.
1. Abstract
There needs to be a method for stabilizing a vehicle in left and right turns as well as in the straights.
Active mass distribution devices are explicitly banned from racing
Offering the possibility of having different roll stiffnesses in both roll directions without impacting stiffness on straights
To create a foundation for further improvement in terms of aerodynamics.
2. Rationale
Dynamic performance assessment
Static performance assessment
Second order integral equations and superimposition of driving forces
3. Nature of the problem
Increasing the similarity between a double wishbone suspension and a
simulation
Addressing implementation issues
Reduction in complexity for build and simulation purposes
Design a method for checking the presence of benefits of having a passively actuated mass
Determine a maximum load a chassis and spring configuration can move to stabilise itself
Design a mechanism which can achieve this
Evaluate the practical constraints associated under which the mechanism is useful
4. Aims and objectives
Achieving the aims and objectives
Modelling a single axle representation (modelling a full vehicle simulation given enough time)
Using a variety of new software skills
Performing a dynamic suspension simulation in excel
5. Scope of the investigation
Inherent size requirement of the mechanism
High stress areas
Crash safety not investigated
Very high resistance to single wheel bump
6. Limitations of the investigation
Slider design incompleteness
Shear forces on fasteners not tested
Testing not accurate enough
Lack of practical testing
1. Desired system response
2. Calculation of motion ratios
3. Solid design and adaptation to practical
constraints
4. FEA testing and improvement
5. Sustainability assessment and improvement
7. Methodology
Improvement of time taken for system to
come to rest
Improvement of centre of gravity
8. Results
Plot of double mass simulation with sudden force application Plot of the single mass simulation with sudden force application
Plot of double mass simulation with example cornering forces Plot of single mass simulation with example cornering forces
Simulation
Time until
rest
(seconds)
Constant force with sudden
application and halt (PLLR)
12.282 s
Gradual force application and halt
in a racing condition (PLLR) 14.683 s
Constant force with sudden
application and halt (single mass)
16.122 s
Gradual force application and halt
in a racing condition (single mass)
16.881 s
Vertical forces on wheel
closest to the apex
Cornering wheel normal force
with PLLR
471.972 N
Cornering wheel normal force
without PLLR
422.997 N
Normal force improvement
48.975 NThe system allows the use of softer coil springs and anti roll bar in roll
The system may allow two directional damping and spring resistance in roll
Wheel loading improvement under cornering is marginal
Improvement of wheel loading may allow the use of more body roll for the
driver, making the vehicle more predictable
Current size and packaging is an issue
Possibility of improving aerodynamic performance using the mechanism
9. Conclusions
Time taken to reach stable equilibrium after two types of excitations
Normal forces on tyre closest to apex during steady cornering
Upper section of the suspension simplification
pendulum. The purple plane is the equilibrium
Part of the strength, weight and sustainability optimisation is
stress testing using FEA. At 3000N load the maximum stress is 233
Mega Pascals which guarantees a safety factor of nearly 3.
Consequently, the deflection is marginal
Basic design suggestion for the
device. Movement is limited on
the side of the diagonal
member between the second
cantilever and the centre part
Metodi Tsvetanov Netzev
Bolton, D., 2006. Mechanical Science. 3rd ed. Chennai: Blackwell Publishing.
Oberg E, J.F.H.H.R.H., 2004. Machinery's Handbook. 27th ed. New York: Industrial Press Inc.
S, K. & S, S., 2009. Manufacturing Engineering and Technology. 6th ed. Indianapolis: Pearson.
Smith, C., 1978. Tune to Win. 1st ed. Fallbrook: Aero Publishers Inc.
Cited work