1. 1.0 Background Research
In the earliest days of the telescopic damper design, the damper was spilt into two main design
paths in which would alter its internal workings. This was the case as it was important to deal with
the vital aspect of the oil inside of the damper. The initial design of the damper was that a piston rod
was created to slide in and out of the main body of the damper. However, this made it problematic
as a fixed quantity of oil would be present inside of a body which would ultimately change in
volume. There were two solutions created to answer this problem: the ‘twin tube’ and the
‘monotube’ (Staniforth, 2006). The twin tube had an inner and outer wall which could move parallel
to one another, this meant that the oil could pass through the gap separating the inner and outer
wall of the damper as the damper closed. The other solution was to use a compressible gas inside of
a remote chamber which resided next to the chamber which contained the oil and separated by a
piston. Nitrogen was used in this instance as it could be successfully compressed or decompressed
with piston movement. The use of valves which would control the flow rate were used for the oil as
well (Staniforth, 2006).
The method of using compressed nitrogen gas seemed short lived, and both methods included
answers such as trapping the nitrogen in a flexible bag, or moving the required ‘spare space’ to a
remote canister. The remote canister would then contain its own valve assemblies and fully floating
piston which would section of the gas cushion (Staniforth, 2006). Before the remote canister was
designed, manufactured and then created, engineers came across a number of problems with their
initial designs. These included: a large amount of heat was generated whilst the damper was
working, and valving issues. When the suspension spring was compressed by the wheel, it was
effectively turned into heat which would cause the paint of the damper to burn off, affect the oil
viscosity and alter the varying bleed hole sizes (Staniforth, 2006).
The problem which then came once the remote canister was created was how the damper would
seem to be working correctly for one speed and a certain road condition, and then completely
wrong for another. The solution to this problem was that internal valving could be made to provide a
modest ‘spread’ covering alternate speeds and road conditions. An adjustment knob was then
designed to alter the amount of strength on rebound and bound, but sometimes rebound only
(Staniforth, 2006). A step forward in the 1960’s came about when Koning in Holland produced the
‘double adjust’ originally with a bottom knob to adjust the amount of bound and a top slotted ring
for rebound (Type 8211/12). However, the ‘double adjust’ had an invisible third setting which could
be altered to control the valving strengths to 6 different ranges. Up to date dampers such as Penske
have a huge range of adjustments available to the user, both externally and internally, mechanically,
and with variable gas pressure adjustments are expensive and need highly skilled backup (Staniforth,
2006).

2. 2.0 Introduction to the Formula Renault damper
The Formula Renault damper that is currently used on the car is a gas pressure
damper which has a remote canister and is in mono-shock setup. It is also a flow
resistant damper such that it is equipped with damper valves which all work
inside an oil filled cylinder. The oil filled cylinder works in conjunction with a
nitrogen filled cylinder (Bilstein, 2014). The nitrogen resides in the cylinder
because it ensures that the oil is under constant pressure. This prevents any
cavitation within the oil which causes a reduction in the damping effect (Abdo,
2012). Gas pressure dampers are available as either a mono-shock or twin-shock
(Bilstein, 2014).
The type of damper which is currently being run on the Formula Renault is a
remote canister damper. This type of damper is currently the best on the market
for regulating heat. However, it is the most expensive damper on the market
and it requires the most maintenance. Remote canisters eradicate any problems
that are generally present in most dampers: Heat and Cavitation. The damper
stops any excessive heat from being generated by putting the gas into a separate
canister from the oil filled shock. This complete separation from the gas and oil
allows for a greater volume of oil, therefore the dissipation of heat is greater and there is a lot less
chance of any cavitation occurring. Another advantage is that the canister overcomes the
compressed to extended length trade off. As the floating piston is housed in a separate canister, a
longer piston rod can be used (ARB USA, 2010).
The inner makings of the damper can be seen below.
Figure 2 - Inner makings of damper (F1 Dictionary, 2014).
The inner makings of the damper consist of the following:
 Compression valving stack
 A piston band (Teflon)
 Linear compression face and linear rebound face
 Rebound valving stack
The Compression valving stack regulate the amount of oil flowing past them in the compression
cycle or bump. As can be seen, they are located at the topside of the piston. During bump, the
upward movement produced by the irregularities of the road surface are absorbed through the
damper and spring. It is important that the damper is set to have enough bump stiffness during this
faze as acceleration, braking or cornering will vary due to the changing download rates (F1
Dictionary, 2015). However, if there is too much damping set up on the vehicle, it is very similar to
running the vehicle without any suspension whatsoever. Thus, any upward motion produced due to
Figure 1 - Current
Mono tube shock
absorber setup on
the Formula
Renault

3. irregularities in the road surface will be transmitted directly to the chassis of the vehicle. This type of
setup will also result in an increased amount of load produced on the suspension and tyres. This will
therefore result in the ride being too harsh for the driver, and will have a ‘skittish’ effect (F1
Dictionary, 2015).
The piston of the mono-tube resides directly inside of the cylinder, the contact between the two
moving parts (the piston and the cylinder) is prevented by a Teflon band. The Teflon band, or piston
band is located within a groove inside of the piston and is supported by an O-ring. This preloads the
Teflon band against the cylinder walls, thus eradicating any friction between the two moving parts.
The guide has a Teflon coated bushing surrounding it which stops metal to metal contact between
the piston rod and guide (Zuijdijk, 2013). The piston face which sits inside of the Teflon band has a
linear compression face and a linear rebound face. An example of what the piston faces look like and
how they would behave when a force against velocity graph is created can be seen in the Figure
below.
Figure 3 - Showing a common force vs velocity graph for a linear/linear piston.
The rebound valving stack controls the amount of oil flowing past them in the decompression cycle.
As can also be seen, they are located on the underside of the piston. Prior to the compression phase,
the damper will extend back to its previous position. It will move back to this position since the
spring is pushing against it (using its stored energy) (F1 Dictionary, 2015). The rebound stiffness of
the damper needs to be set at a higher setting than the bound setting as the stored energy present
in the spring is being released. If the damping is not correctly set up on the rebound setting or too
low, the wheel of the vehicle will quickly return through its static level and start to bump again (F1
Dictionary, 2015). This will therefore result in a bouncing effect that will offset the suspension giving
the driver little control. On the other hand, if the rebound setting is set too high, the wheel could
lose contact with the road for longer than intended. This will happen as the force required to push
the wheel back down is slower to react than the changing road surface. This rebound setup is not an
ideal setup, it is best to ensure that there is an optimal amount of tyre contact with the road surface
(F1 Dictionary, 2015).

4. Refer to the Figure below to see the entire make-up of the damper.
2.1 Possible Damper Replacements
Following the initial research involving the damper currently running on the Formula Renault, it was
important to consider other types of dampers which could possibly act as a replacement. This was
essential as the group needed to find out how well the current mono-tube set up stacked up against
other types of dampers currently on the market. Although, the initial aim of the group was to
consider whether or not the current suspension setup was predictable by the means of obtaining
data from a track test using the current damper; it was considered important to research other types
of dampers as well. Thus further testing could take place using another damper, or a suspension
change could be made entirely, eradicating the damper completely. There are a few problems that
dampers can produce, so choosing the correct one is vital dependant on what the group wants from
the specific damper selected.
Initial problems to look out for
 Generation of heat – this is a result of overwork and it decreases the shocks life expectancy
considerably.
 Cavitation – Foaming happens and potential leaking through the valve and into the gas may
occur (ARB USA, 2010).
Benefits of having Gas Pressurisation
In a hydraulic damper, the oil inside the damper passes through the base or compression valve, and
from the outer tube which acts as a reservoir. The reservoir is partly filled with air as this allows
motion of the piston rod, hence the air is in contact with the oil. The air cannot prevent the oil from
foaming and thus causes a decrease in performance over time (Old Man Shocks, 2014).
The gas pressure shock absorber replaces the air in the reservoir with nitrogen gas. This eradicates
foaming and any decrease in efficiency over time, therefore providing a constant top of the range
performance (Old Man Shocks, 2014).
The types of dampers which could be used in the current mono-shock setup are listed and
researched below.
Figure 4 - Entire make-up of the damper (F1 Dictionary, 2015).

5.  The Mono Tube Shock
This is the type of shock which is currently being used on the Formula Renault. This has an initial
advantage over the twin tube such that it produces less heat, this is because the entire shock is in
contact with the air (ARB USA, 2010).
A downside to having the mono tube is the amount of extended length provided for a given
compression length. As the main tube of the shock houses the piston inside, there is less room for
any extended rod length. Therefore, the rod is shorter and hence the extended length becomes
shorter as well (ARB USA, 2010).
This type of shock uses a higher gas pressure when compared to a twin tube shock. The advantage of
this is that the shock is extremely responsive to road conditions, however if tuned incorrectly, it can
become harsh at low speeds causing poor performance, especially through corners (ARB USA, 2010).
 The Twin Tube Shock
These type of shock absorbers use heavy steel outer tube over a more fragile inner piston tube. This
has a couple of advantages over the mono tube design. It creates a chamber for gas and oil to
expand which allows for a larger volume for both. This gives the shock a good combination of heat
capacity and a surface to area heat dissipation value. However, this type of shock generally works at
a lower pressure than the mono tube and therefore is less suited to the Formula Renaults
requirements. The Formula Renault requires a large amount of pressure inside the damper as it
needs to be very responsive (quick compression and rebound characteristics) during a race (ARB
USA, 2010).
The current research suggests that the mono tube shock is the best damper currently on the market,
which the same damper is currently running on the Formula Renault at this present stage. Therefore
testing will have to take place to conclude whether that will influence the final decision made by the
group on what the next stage is in the development and testing of the Formula Renault. As
mentioned above, the conclusion to eradicate the mono-shock system could be made, therefore
there would be no need in looking for a suitable replacement for the current Formula Renault front
damper.
2.2 Damping Adjustments
The current Formula Renault front damper has three settings that can be changed to alter the way in
which it reacts to the forces generated from moving over the road surface. These settings are
revised and listed below:
 Low Speed Bound – This setting is located at the top end of the
remote canister of the damper (where a dial is located and numbers
displayed). The dial indicates the number of clicks that are available
and can be changed by turning the dial clockwise (increase low speed
bound) or anticlockwise (decrease low speed bound), the total
amount of clicks on this setting that are available is 5. 1 being the
lowest amount of high speed bound (full soft), and 5 being the
highest amount of high speed bound (full hard) (Penske Racing
Shocks, 2015). This setting works for low shaft movements, for
example: corner entry, exit and power down. The oil within the
damper is displaced into the reservoir and is proportional to the area
of shaft entering the damper body. An adjustable needle and jet assembly control the
Figure 5 - Positioning of
High Speed and Low
Speed Bound.

6. amount of oil that passes through on compression. From decreasing the flow of oil, it causes
a stiffer feel in low speed circumstances. The low speed adjuster works alongside the high
speed adjuster to delay the high speed circuit (Penske Racing Shocks, 2015).
 High Speed Bound – This setting can be located just below the top dial on the remote
canister. Again, this setting has a number of clicks which are available to the user which can
be altered dependent on their performance requirements. The total number of clicks
available is 14, 1 being the full soft and 14 being the firmest (clockwise and anticlockwise
adjustments remain the same for increasing and decreasing the magnitude of this setting)
(Penske Racing Shocks, 2015). This setting is used for fast shaft movement, for example;
bumps and track irregularities. This setting works by displacing oil into the reservoir at a fast
velocity. The oil is then forced to bypass the low speed needle and jet, forcing the oil to
move through another piston in which its orifices are covered by another shim stack. By
increasing the amount of clicks on this setting it makes it harder for the oil to flex the shims
and move past them. The high speed adjuster assembly is timed based on the setting that
the low speed needle is set to and the shaft velocity. For example, if the low speed needle is
set to full soft, at the higher speeds a larger amount of oil will move through the low speed
jet, thus delaying the operation of the high speed bypass mode. (Penske Racing Shocks,
2015).
 Rebound – This setting is located at the base of the main shaft of the damper. From looking
at the Figure below it shows that this adjustment can be altered by inserting a pin into one
of the dials holes and turning it. Turning the dial towards the positive value increases the
amount of damping and turning the dial towards the negative value decreases the amount
of damping. This setting has a total amount of 18 clicks. 1 being the lowest amount of
damping, and 18 being the highest amount of damping (Penske Racing Shocks, 2015). This
system works by using a jet and needle combination to give the user a more linear range of
adjustment for bleed past the piston rebound. The jet uses a spring loaded poppet valve to
check the amount of oil flow. This system provides a better seal against the flow and a
quicker response time as the shaft changes direction. The needle has a curved tip which
provides for small adjustments to be made for the amount of linear damping provided by
the jet (Penske Racing Shocks, 2015).
The shock currently on the Formula Renault has an option to increase the fine tuning ability of the
rebound setting (see Figure below) (Staniforth, 2006).
Figure 6 - Placement of adjustment pin/screw to increase or decrease the amount of damping
(Penske Racing Shocks, 2015).

7. Figure 7 - Showing the full rebound adjustment available on the damper as well as the needle (Staniforth, 2006).
3.0 Experiment and Analysis
After fully understanding how the damper works internally and externally, it was time to detach the
damper from the Formula Renault and test it using the damper dyno available to the group during
the duration of the project. The damper was tested on all clicks which included both high and low
speed bound, and all of the rebound settings. The damper was tested to show a force vs
displacement graph for each click on all three settings and a force vs velocity graph for each click on
all three settings. The readings of minimum and maximum forces and the number of clicks for that
particular setting were measured during the test. All readings are displayed below in tables. A full
analysis of the results will be performed to conclude whether the specific damper settings show any
correlation.
Minimum and Maximum Force Values
Rebound Click Min Force (N) Max Force (N)
1 -1424.98 782.80
2 -1462.48 771.08
3 -1497.64 778.11
4 -1539.82 794.52
5 -1570.29 810.93
6 -1612.48 815.61
7 -1678.10 832.02
8 -1729.66 869.52
9 -1795.29 881.24
10 -1839.82 935.14
11 -1877.32 965.61
12 -1966.38 979.67
13 -2064.82 1007.80
14 -1293.73 2453.87
15 -1335.92 2392.94
16 -1328.89 2383.56
17 -1333.59 2385.91
18 -1331.68 2391.29
Table 1 - Measurements of Force VS Displacement recorded for when the damper was tested on all rebound clicks.

8. The above table shows the minimum and maximum force that was applied on the damper and its
relative click setting. In this case, the damper was tested on all rebound clicks. The results prove to
be correct as the amount of damping force increases as the clicks on the rebound setting increase as
well. This shows that the damper works correctly as when referring to the Penske Racing Shocks
Technical Manual, by turning the rebound dial towards the positive value (increasing the amount of
clicks) the amount of damping force increases (Penske Racing Shocks, 2015). However, when
referring to the rebound click settings from 14 to 18, the maximum amount of force enforced onto
the damper increases drastically (244%). From clicks 14 to 18, the maximum amount of force
required to displace the damper stays pretty constant. These readings show some correlation as the
amount of damper force required increases up to click 13, but stays around a constant force reading
from 14 to 18.
Minimum and Maximum Force Values
High Speed
Bound Click
Min Force (N) Max Force (N)
1 -1333.58 806.24
2 -1338.26 813.27
3 -1324.20 864.83
4 -1324.20 904.68
5 -1321.86 946.86
6 -1321.86 974.99
7 -1335.92 991.39
8 -1326.54 1033.58
9 -1319.51 1061.70
10 -1352.33 1101.55
11 -1352.33 1101.55
12 -1338.26 1127.33
13 -1342.96 1143.73
14 -1335.92 1148.42
Table 2 - Showing the minimum and maximum force values required to displace the damper relative to its high speed bound
click setting.
The above table shows a positive correlation for the maximum amount of force required to displace
the damper and the click setting that the damper was on. The maximum amount of force required to
displace the damper is shown to increase as the click setting for the high speed bound increases as
well. Again, referring to the Penske Racing Shocks Technical Manual, this is correct as when the
amount of clicks increase, so should the amount of damping force required to displace the damper
(Penske Racing Shocks, 2015).
Table 3 - Showing the minimum and
maximum force values for the relative
low speed bound clicks.
Again, the above table shows
the maximum amount of force
required to displace the
damper relative to the low
speed click value that the
damper is set to. The values do not show a clear positive correlation relative to the click settings in
this case. The values are firstly shown to decrease from click 1 to click 2 and then slowly increase
Minimum and Maximum Force Values
High Speed
Bound Click
Low Speed
Bound Click
Min Force (N) Max Force (N)
14 1 -1333.58 1171.86
14 2 -1345.29 1160.14
14 3 -1307.79 1181.23
14 4 -1317.17 1183.59
14 5 -1317.17 1188.27

9. from click 2 up to click 5. This may be due to a slight maintenance issue as the valve shims have not
been replaced on the damper recently and it is required that they, as well as some other internal
components (shaft seal O-ring, shaft bearing O-ring, Piston O-ring et cetera) are replaced yearly or
for every 30 hours of track time (Penske Racing Shocks, 2015). When comparing the bump and
rebound settings on the damper, it shows that the maximum amount of force required to displace
the damper on the rebound setting is 2392.94N, and the maximum amount of force required to
displace the damper on the bound setting is 1188.27N. This is a correct correlation as according to
Staniforth (2006, p.170) it states that the rebound setting on a damper is two to four times the
strength of the bump. Although in some competition settings the readings may be a 1:1 ratio.
For a full explanation of a Force VS Displacement graph and the transient response of the damper
when force is applied to it, refer to the Figure and explanation below.
The above graph shows the minimum and maximum amount of force applied on the damper and its
full range of displacement. The damper has a full displacement range of 25.6mm. The minimum
amount of force was measured, the minimum amount of force on a Force VS Displacement graph is
when the damper is moving through rebound. Therefore, the rebound shims would be reacting and
the damper would be moving towards its maximum range of displacement (negative displacement in
this instance) (Staniforth, 2006). When the damper is in a maximum negative value of displacement,
at bottom dead centre (BDC) the rebound shims close and the compression shims begin to react.
The damper would then be moving through bound (bump) as the amount of force required to move
the damper increases. When the damper moves through bump and reaches the maximum amount
of force required to displace the damper the compression shims will be reacting. At the point where
the maximum amount of force is applied on the damper, the displacement will be equal to zero.
When the displacement is equal to zero, it is known that the damper is moving through its point of
Figure 8 - Showing a Force VS Displacement graph for the damper when tested
on the damper dyno.

10. equilibrium (or natural ride height). Following this, the damper will still be tested in bound but will
be moving towards its maximum displacement value. At the maximum displacement value, the
compression shims will close and the rebound shims will begin to react. To see how the damper
oscillates and how it links to the above graph in terms of the quadrant it is in, refer to the Figure
below.
The next objective whilst using the damper dyno was to extract the data for Velocity VS Force. See
the tables below for the minimum and maximum force values and relative click settings for the high
speed and low speed bound, and rebound.
Minimum and Maximum Force Values
Rebound Click Min Force (N) Max Force (N)
1 -1462.48 771.08
2 -1678.10 832.02
3 -1539.82 794.52
4 -1678.10 832.02
Figure 9 - Showing the oscillation of the piston inside of the damper walls relative to
the force vs displacement graph (Staniforth, 2006).

11. 5 -1612.48 815.61
6 -1754.23 876.54
7 -1839.82 935.14
8 -1795.29 881.24
9 -1839.82 935.14
10 -1877.32 965.61
11 -1966.38 979.67
12 -1966.38 979.67
13 -917.05 981.56
14 -1335.92 985.17
15 -1328.89 985.92
16 -1729.66 869.52
17 -1321.86 998.11
18 -1358.32 997.23
Table 4 - Showing the minimum and maximum values for when the damper was tested on all clicks in the rebound setting.
The above table shows similar values to the force values gathered when testing the amount of force
required to displace the damper when the damper was set up on all rebound clicks. The data cannot
be said to have a positive correlation (force increasing as the clicks increase) even though the results
of the amount of force are generally increasing, there are some mixed values. An anomaly can be
seen to be present for the maximum force value on click 16. Although the damper has a linear
compression face, the values of the maximum force should increase quickly for possible low speed
damping and then slowly increase. However, this is not the case. It can be concluded that this may
be down to a maintenance issue as the shims in the damper have remained inside of the damper for
a longer period of time than recommended by Penske (Penske Racing Shocks, 2015).
Minimum and Maximum Force Values
High Speed Bound Click Min Force (N) Max Force (N)
1 -1319.51 1061.70
2 -1324.20 864.83
3 -1342.95 1143.73
4 -1321.86 946.86
5 -1321.86 974.99
6 -1321.86 974.99
7 -1321.86 974.99
8 -1326.54 1033.58
9 -1352.33 1101.55
10 -1321.86 1087.49
11 -1338.26 1127.33
12 -1338.26 1127.33
13 -1342.95 1143.73
14 -1342.95 1143.73
Table 5 - Showing the minimum and maximum force readings gathered for when the damper was tested on all high speed
bound clicks.
The above table shows that the maximum force values generally increase as the clicks increase.
Although this is the case, again there cannot possibly be any positive correlation between the
increasing amounts of clicks set on the damper relative to the maximum force readings gathered for
that specific setting.

12. Minimum and Maximum Force Values
High Speed
Bound Click
Low Speed
Bound Click
Min Force (N) Max Force (N)
14 1 -1345.29 1160.14
14 2 -1350.11 1090.78
14 3 -1335.92 991.39
14 4 -1352.33 1101.55
14 5 -1342.95 1143.73
Table 6 - Showing the minimum and maximum force values for when the damper was tested on all 5 clicks on the low speed
bound setting and at the highest amount of clicks for the high speed bound setting.
The table above again shows no correlation between the values obtained for the maximum amount
of force gathered from the various click settings gathered from the test. Due to mixed results and
many results being concluded to be wrong due to maintenance issues, the damper will need a
complete service to change all of its inner components which effect the results obtained from the
damper dyno. The components that will need maintenance, or replacing are as follows:
 Oil
 Shaft seal
 O-ring
 Wiper
 Shaft bearing O-ring
 Reservoir cap O-ring
 Piston ring O-ring
 Valve shims
(Penske Racing Shocks, 2015).
Further tests would then be required for all click settings when comparing Force VS Displacement
and Force VS Velocity.
When analysing the Force VS Velocity graph it can be seen that the compression and rebound face of
the piston is a linear/linear piston. Both parts of the curve can be tuned dependant on the
requirements of the user. A comparison on the maximum and minimum adjustment settings can be
seen in the following Figure.

13. Figure 10 - Comparison between total amount of 'elbow-room' of force between adjustments on bound and rebound.
As can be seen from the above figure, the maximum force (when the damper is in bound) for the low
speed bound (click 1) setting is 1160.14N and the maximum force for the rebound setting (click 1) is
771.08N. The minimum force (when the damper is in rebound) for the low speed bound (click 1)
setting is -1345.29N and the minimum force for the rebound setting (click 1) is -1462.48N. Therefore,
the total ‘elbow-room’ for the bound adjustment is a total of 1160.14N - 771.08N = 389.06N; and
the total ‘elbow-room’ for the rebound adjustment is a total of 1462.48N – 1345.29N = 117.19N.
Hence, the adjustment of the bound available to the user is greater than the adjustment of the
rebound. Refer to the table below for the percentage of adjustments available to the user for the
bound and rebound of the damper.
Percentage of Adjustment Available to the User
Bound 33.5%
Rebound 8%
Table 7 - Adjustment percentage of bound and rebound available to the user.
4.0 Final Proposal
Due to the reliability of the damper being poor, the final proposal will be to fully service the damper.
As the damper used on the Formula Renault is currently the best on the market for regulating heat
and responding to changes in road conditions such as bumps or irregularities, the cost of fully
replacing the damper would not be a clever option since the vital parts (which need to be replaced)
can be purchased online. By following the Penske Racing Shocks Technical Manual and by replacing
the necessary components, the damper would be working as expected and the group could furtherly
test the car.
References
Abdo, E., 2012. Modern Motorcycle Technology. 2nd ed. New York: Cengage Learning.
ARB USA, 2010. Selecting Shocks. [Online]
Available at: http://arbusa.com/Getting-Started/Selecting-Shocks.aspx
[Accessed 28 November 2014].

14. Bilstein, 2014. Technology: basic suspension know how made easy. [Online]
Available at: http://www.bilstein.de/en-uk/technology/basic-know-how/
[Accessed 26 November 2014].
F1 Dictionary, 2014. Shock Absorbers. [Online]
Available at: http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/damper_shock_absorber.html
[Accessed 21 November 2014].
F1 Dictionary, 2015. Shock Absorbers. [Online]
Available at: http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/damper_shock_absorber.html
[Accessed 21 April 2015].
Penske Racing Shocks, 2015. Technical Manual Adjustable Shocks (8100, 8660, 8760 Series). [Online]
Available at: http://www.penskeshocks.co.uk/downloads/AdjustableTechManual.pdf
[Accessed 20 April 2015].
Staniforth, A., 2006. Competition Car Suspension. 4th ed. Yeovil: Haynes Publishing.
Zuijdijk, J., 2013. Vehicle Dynamics and Damping. 1st ed. Bloomington: AuthorHouse.