The forgotten part of car suspension design - minimising pitch
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2024
- One reason why so many current cars have crap ride quality is that they pitch badly (the front goes up as the back goes down, and vice versa). But in the past, three different techniques have been used to reduce pitch and so give better ride. Examples of these suspension systems include the Citroen 2CV, BMC's Hydrolastic and Packard's Torsion-Level Ride. But you don't even need to use a complex suspension system - minimising pitch can be as simple as specifying the correct front/rear suspension stiffness! Discover the forgotten part of suspension design in this video.
Buy my book on the history of car suspension here - www.amazon.com... (or from Amazon in your country)
I design racing suspension for a living. The reason you see a stiffer front suspension than rear: Drivers struggle with traction loss. Vehicles with a stronger rear spring bias are more likely to oversteer, especially off throttle. The engineers have no forgotten about pitch, but rather, the whole car is designed to car nose-first into objects. The entire crash structure is designed under the assumption it will hit nose first, because the most common collision is a front end collision. So you ensure that the car is going to understeer and lose front traction first, they bias car suspension for stiffer front springs and softer rear so that the car is more likely to collide in a manner that the crash structures are designed to absorb energy, but also in a manner to push the drivers into the common direction of the airbags. This all comes at a sacrifice of sporty, oversteering handling, and at a sacrifice of pitch consideration. It's also part of the reason speedbumps are so effective at traffic calming as the pitch sensation is now a greater discomfort.
Love these videos and learned some great stuff.
Yes but underster is not hard to build in with appropriate front/rear roll stiffness - can still have higher rear natural frequency.
@@JulianEdgar Exactly was about to say biasing for understeer isn't limited to having an unrefined ride...
Excellent presentation! Very much appreciated.
I knew about GM’s research in the 1930’s and knew they had a famed researcher and now I know his name. Absolutely wonderful. I happened to read maybe 20 years ago that a Buick engineer was the first to systematically understand understeer/oversteer and it’s relationship to slip angles, suspension stiffness and roll bars (sway bar in the USA) maybe it was Maurice Olley as well?
Somehow I believe ride comfort (or boulevard ride as Cadillac named it) will be more popular in the future tha it has been in the recent past. Days when the highest aspiration for a daily motorist was to lap the Nürburgring at highest possible speed must be coming to an end! I have noticed that Citroën have decided to re find it’s roots and focus on more comfort oriented suspension setups. During this summer I managed to try a C4 e (electric) and it was a delight due to the calming effect of silent “engine” and supple suspension and good seats. Had it been built on a dedicated electric platform it could have been better still as it would have allowed a longer wheel base and a lower center of gravity.
Regarding the delights of interconnection of front to rear suspension I think it’s only going to happen with slightly more expensive cars because it most likely will require self leveling suspension. Another item which strangely have lost popularity. Somehow car producers must believe customers are more willing to pay for big diameter wheels with absurdly low profile tires than self leveling suspension. 🤔Strange.
Thanks once more for this uplifting presentation.
Yes Maurice Olley was responsible for a number of very important understandings in vehicle dynamics. However, as my book shows for the first time that I am aware, Frederick Lanchester understood some of the things that Olley was previously credited for, some 30 years earlier! I am sure you'd enjoy the book.
@@JulianEdgar I will definitely order your book! Tried to register on German Amazon this morning on my IPhone. Sadly they didn’t accept my postal code. But I will get it fixed 😃
Always enjoyed your articles on autospeed over the years. Looking forward to more of your TH-cam content!
Love these videos. I rented a Renault Alliance way back in the 80s, and despite its small size, it is the best riding car I've ever driven. No idea what kind of suspension it had, but it handled okay as well
You're making a good argument for me to find an engine conversion to put in my Morris 1100S! Hydrolastic and mini's rubber cones seem much undervalued, Moulton was a bit of a genius, it's a shame his contributions aren't a larger part of modern suspension.
Yes - Moulton, the Mini suspension, Hydrolastic and Hydragas are all covered in detail in my book.
@@JulianEdgar it keeps coming up as unavailable in Australia, is that likely to change or should I just order from the US?
www.amazon.com.au/Car-Suspension-over-years-handling/dp/B09CRNQB9P
@@JulianEdgar thanks, ordered, look forward to diving into further suspension theory and history.
I have found the videos nearly as good as the book for aerodynamics, but I will buy this one also. Thank you for your innovation and analysis of so much automotive and physics. I have enjoyed your works since the Autospeed days.
You are welcome!
Just purchased your new book. Excellent work!
Knew about this a little from watching FCM (fat cat motorsports) videos on YT. He mainly goes into detail about ‘flat tide’ and how to maximize it by making sure the rear is stiffer (#2 you went over).
Great, great video and presentation. Suspension comfort/ride has been an interest of mine since I was 6 years old (seriously) and the interest has never left me. On my 2012 Toyota Camry, I attached 6 concrete blocks (4'X4"X15") just behind the front radiator (within the engine bay) to try further reduce the natural frequency of the front. I quickly noticed the improved ride, it felt like I stepped up to a more plush luxurious riding car. I just don't get why people want a more "sporty" ride and more road feel. Tires can also make a big difference especially to the higher frequency bumps and quietness. I got Pirelli P7 ASPlus3 tires which I think just came out in early 2022 for my current 2018 Camry Hybrid XLE which made a nice improvement to the ride and reduced road noise. Now I'm planning on installing about 40 to 80 lbs of lead (Pb) in the front or near the radiator to try further reduce the natural frequency of the front of the car. I'd love if a car was made with 0.5 Hz natural frequency - it would be interesting to see how may are actually susceptible to motion sickness at that frequency and it would be fun to experience this frequency on challenging roads. The downside of the higher weight (if you don't get a longer spring) is the reduced suspension travel if you hit a really big bump.
I'm guessing the reason the car manufacturers don't reduce the natural frequency further is that they don't want to be scolded by motor journalists who in their quick test drive will report the ride as being floaty or soft which they have convinced motorist to be a negative. i.e. Stiff ride = Sporty and cool, Soft ride = out of style grandpa car that is a lot of emotion and little logic. You see this with all the aftermarket damper "shock absorber" ads where stiffer is better - They should rename the dampers "shock producers" with the stiff damping settings that seem to be the fashion nowadays.😀
Why don't you just fit softer springs rather than adding weight?
@@JulianEdgar It was probably cheaper. And I suspect there were no off-the-shelf aftermarket options that were softer than stock at the same ride height. Definitely stiffer AND lower, and possibly stiffer and stock height or stiffer and higher, but I've never for what little research I've done seen SOFTER than stock springs offered whatsoever in the aftermarket, barring special orders or air suspension, both of which are expensive.
Very interesting that the rule of thumb for coilovers is always to have stiffer front instead
Tesla could do with a lot of improvement in this area.
The Model 3 cars that I have seen certainly seem to pitch a lot.
My 2015 Mazda SP25 is a kooky example of WTF suspension thinking. The front has very little compression damping and lots of rebound damping. This makes the front freq appear to be very low, especially when compared to the rear end. It gives the front a slow 'wallowing' feel that is straight up nasty. It also has the effect of 'jacking down' the front end when subjected to repeated bumps - the suspension never gets a chance to recover from the previous bump. Going over a speed bump, the front wallows while the rear is very rapid.
Speaking of flat ride, FatCat Motorsports in the USA is a HUGE proponent of achieving this in your custom ride and he will work with you until the goal has been achieved. Not cheap, but very good. If I can get the $$$ together, I'll send my Bilsteins over there to be valved properly, because if you want to see what pitching is, come for a drive in my e30! Aye!! :-/
Toyota x-reas and KDSS come to mind when you say that no mass produced vehicles have connected front and rear suspension. Though x-reas was the only system that was used to reduce front/rear pitch.
Love your videos, thank!
According to www.top4runners.com/runhist/4thgen/2003_4runner_product_intro.pdf (page 14) Toyota X-reas is damping control system, not a pitch controller. (To reduce pitch it would need to change wheel spring extension, not damp it.) KDSS is a anti-roll bar disconnection system, so had no impact on vehicle pitch. If you can reference any technical papers that show otherwise, please let me know - both are interesting systems.
@@JulianEdgar Interesting, thanks for the response. I would think that the X-reas damping control system would be effective at controlling pitch. Is pitch control not possible with damping?
@@SpaceCowboy5555 I am not sure - I'd have to see a tech paper showing exactly how it works. eg probably front/rear damping would need to be out of phase initially if it were to reduce pitch. (And damping doesn't change natural frequency unless the damping is massive, so again I can't really seeing it reducing pitch.)
X-reas would qualify. Connected much like the Citroen system. Main difference is the connection between the two is a mechanical spring /slider instead of a sphere. Also is has helper springs (like the Mercedes ABC). Looked at a set for hydro pneumatic conversions in the USA since Citroens aren’t common. There are some videos out there for a quick overview if interested.
I remember those old cars with different rate suspensions front and rear. Yes they were smith riding over bumps, but the additional bouncing after the bump was traversed was annoying. That is where the term boat and float came from. The packard and citron suspension worked surprisingly well. The packard one was poorly received because it was too different and misunderstood. Plus’s it has a self leveling system which was prone to failure.
Different rate suspensions front/rear has nothing to do with bouncing after a bump has passed - that's damping.
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.
I think one of the reasons why there's less talk about this today is because damping probably has increased in cars across the board so even if the frequency response doesn't hold that perfect level-ride ratio, the damping kills the oscillations fast enough for you to not really care.
Maybe. But on a road with long waves, driven fast, you can easily see the cars that have appropriate f/r natural frequencies - and those that don't.
I knew something about this but not much when i got aftermarket springs for my truck they said "frequency tuned" now that i think about it i would pass a peice of undulating road and my truck would stay level while everyone else would be bouncing like a boat.
I feel like most consumers these day are so focused on all those silly electronic gadgets in cars and care so little about the way a car drives that most car manufacturers don't bother to put much effort into developing certain basic components of a car anymore, like a car's suspension. Not to mention the obsession to cost cut the hell out of everything and throw their cars together as quickly and easily as possible seems to be stronger than ever. Just my observation, but the ones that get negatively affected the most from this seem to be mostly regular cars.
Excellent channel, love the content.
I agree that car manufacturers now have a bias for firm suspensions, but there have been solutions for minimizing pitch and improving ride comfort. Improvement in electronics have made mechanical solutions for this problem obsolete. The Mercedes Magic body control or Audi's predictive active suspension are able to adjust springing and dumping to each wheel without any special mechanical link and with scanning the road surface they are even able to prepare the suspension for the road ahead.
But why do you have to buy an incredibly expensive car to get good ride quality, when in the past good ride quality was available in normal cars?
@@JulianEdgar Honestly I think buyers will settle for lower ride quality if it means the car is cheaper to buy and cheaper to run. Citroen's hydractive was offered in relatively cheap cars but they didn't fare so well compared to their German counterparts.
It's a false premise: as this video shows, minimising pitch doesn't need to cost a cent extra in purchase or running costs. (And you certainly don't need a complex Citroen-esque hydropneumatic system.)
@@AwesomePhysics The hydractive system is definetily very impressive, and not even too complicated. It of course did have its drawbacks, many of them similar to what’s present on air suspension. Nowadays Citroën has what they call ’progressive hydraulic cushions’ which scans the road ahead for bumps and then adjusts the suspension accordingly, gone are the spheres and a hydraulic cylinders for damping. Instead there’s regular springs but the shock absorbers are not traditional
Hi Julian, interesting video as always. I think you are correct that OEMs no longer have good suspension design as a priority. That said, do you have any factual evidence that OEMs are not utilising flat-ride in most modern cars? The pitching you observe could be caused by many things, for example:
1) The car may be set up to flat-ride at a certain speed, so going faster or slower than that target speed would impact how much flat-ride that particular vehicle has.
2) Another aspect could be the weight of the car, if it's fully loaded up with people in back seats, luggage in the boot etc then that predominantly increases the rear weight and so the rear axle suspension frequency would be lower. This would then mean the car flat-rides less than when it only has the driver in it.
Thanks for your comment. Yes, each of the two points that you mention will influence the amount of pitch that occurs, but if my observations indicate that at the speed limit on my local bumpy roads, nearly all modern cars pitch badly, then it comes back to the basics of design for the market in which the cars are being sold.
Watching this video at night on a 70 inch TV the image is brighter than 5 suns. Hopefully in the future a non-white background can be chosen.
Hi Julian, I recently discovered your channel. As a professional mechanical engineer with a youth spent undertaking automotive mechanical repairs,... I absolutely love your lessons.
I wanted to bring your attention to the 2010-2012 Mazda 6 (GH-series 2 Australian model). It's has Double wishbone front and multi link rear suspension,... but most importantly I believe it is a modern example of option 2 for pitch control with significantly softer front suspension than rear. I have the manual hatchback model, and it was the pitch, ride and roll control that I first noticed along with the low revving torquey engine. These were deciding factors for me, which my brother then tried and bought the same vehicle.
I have had the opportunity to test drive many different makes and models over the years before and after this Mazda, yet I plan to hang into this one for a very long time.
If you have the opportunity, I would appreciate your opinion on whether this truly is a modern example of this method of pitch control.
Yes, many cars use softer front suspension than rear to reduce pitch. But many do not. Why don't you measure the front and rear natural frequencies, then you'll be able to see exactly what is happening? (Covered in my suspension books.)
Really informative video, as always!
Not sure how others feel about it, but looking at a videos of yours really hurts eyes because of the white background 😆 Maybe you could choose one that is a little darker.
Background to the slides? (The background to the image of me is silver, not white.) Black on white is by far the best for legibility and understanding, so that's what I use for the slides.
@@JulianEdgar yes sorry, I meant the background of the slides. I am seeing alot of people using a dark background with lighter letters so that the slides don't scream at your eyes that much.
@@Marvin-sl4fu I'm guessing eye comfort is a whole different topic from suspension comfort 😀
@@briank10101 You hit the nail on the head 😄
Todays car manufacturers would love to add pitch control etc, the problem is the sheeple do not understand how this improves the ride and handeling, hence they are not going to add the advancements to the vehicles due to the pass on costs to the consumer, as they will not want to pay for something they do not understand.
There are no costs in specifying the correct front/rear natural frequency relationship.
Also diagonal pitch. Take a 4 wheel IRS SUV off-road and you will spend a lot of time on three wheels. This is not stable. On the street when an diagonal pitch situation arises they tend to hunt for stability across their diagonal axis. In these situations I prefer my 4 link coil sprung live axle. The rear axle articulation allows much closer to a 3 point suspension that is stable in diagonal pitch.
Its probably just a side effect, but in my shelby with magnetic ride dampens i had nearly the same feeling as level ride.
Its just stopping dampening when i hit a speed bump and then firms up again as soon as the wheel is over it.
The 350 and 500 are sprung at roughly flat-ride values. They're better with a softer rear spring, like the Mach 1. Flat Ride is *not* the Holy Grail.
If someone made a car today with a suspension you talked about it would make speed bumps useless
The spring rate idea sounds great until you realize that a properly damped car should only cycle once when going over a bump. Not only that, but how different can the McLaren F1's front and rear frequencies really be if the occupants all sit roughly in the middle and therefore don't change the weight distribution that much. What I'm saying is, does the F1 have the 70% thing or not, since passengers and fuel won't change that 70% to be equal regardless of whether the car is full up or only with the driver.
And aside from that, how would a front that's 30% softer than the rear affect handling in general on any car? Seems like that's a high enough discrepancy to lead to a lot of strange and unoptimized handling characteristics. Like I said, if a car is properly damped, it shouldn't be "pitching" a lot anyway since the suspension will only complete one half to one whole cycle with optimum damping, anyway.
A lot there which is supposition and confusion I am afraid. Read the tech paper on the McLaren (Randle, S.J., Concept and Design of the McLaren F1 Suspension Systems, C466/007/93, I. Mech. E, 1993) and any current textbook on vehicle dynamics.
awesome!
Maybe you can shed some light on this. I am planning on using some nice Ohlins shocks to get the adjustability and a quality product but I want to convert the front McPherson struts to air suspension specifically a sleeve rolling air spring type. The rears are standalone shock with another larger rolling lobe air spring as well. This is for a Tesla model 3 btw. Effectively if I understood your video on air suspension based off of my larger rear air spring and smaller front air spring I should have already inherently softer spring rate for the front and larger for the rear which would reduce pitch.
I would just need to adjust damping to smooth out the oscillation after the bump hit etc. Any recommendations on how to properly set up damping?
www.amazon.com/Custom-Air-Suspension-suspension-SpeedPro-ebook/dp/B086GWTWDQ It won't answer all your questions but it is miles ahead of the other resources on air suspension.
mid engined cars like the F1 or an Elise do hardly change weight distribution over load. The varying load is mainly near the centre of gravity of the car. With such cars the focus is one handling and feel, less on comfort. In therms of feel, different natural frequencies front and rear lead to a feel of disconnection. The rear of the car feels different to the front. It does not drive as one car, but two. You turn in, the front turns and you get the feeling of the rear following moments later if the rear frequency is lower than the front. On the road during mundane driving, this is hardly an issue, but on track or spirited road driving it is very annoying.
Lots of errors in what you have written here. Do you have any technical references to support what you are saying?
I asked for technical references that supported what you said. You have provided none. To see how differing F/R natural frequencies are used to reduce pitch, yes even on mid-engine road cars, have a read of Randle, S. J., Concept and Design of the McLaren F1 Suspension Systems, C466/007/93, IME, 1993. Note that the video is NOT about roll stiffness, but about bounce stiffness - the two are utterly different.
You keep moving the goal posts. In this video I am talking specifically, and only, about bounce frequencies. You said: "In therms [sic] of feel, different natural frequencies front and rear lead to a feel of disconnection. The rear of the car feels different to the front. It does not drive as one car, but two. You turn in, the front turns and you get the feeling of the rear following moments later if the rear frequency is lower than the front. On the road during mundane driving, this is hardly an issue, but on track or spirited road driving it is very annoying." That is all quite wrong! Complete and utter BS. If you still believe it to be right, please list your technical references that support such statements. It's posts like yours that lead people so badly astray. If you want to talk about *roll* frequencies, perhaps comment on a video where I discuss these? Suspension theory is difficult enough without people writing complete rubbish in their comments.
@@JulianEdgar OK, you win. I'll delete my comments seemingly complete unrelated to what you're all about and won't waste my and your time any further. Thanks.
Not many people seem to understand bounce frequencies. It's why I have done so much coverage on them in videos and books. Basically, f/r *bounce* = straightline anti-pitch and ride comfort, and f/r *roll* frequencies = cornering handling balance. Both are very interesting, and (as you say) are interconnected. I wouldn't get disinclined and leave, just realise that we're talking about different things.
OH my God .... what a channel!
Damn.. that is amazing...
F..ck... I've been looking for that on youtube...
That is real level up in comparison with eng.explained.
Thanks!
Glad you enjoy it!
Hi Julian, may I have an OT question: Are you familiar with 1st generation Honda CRX (front torsion bar MacPherson)?
In your opinion, is there any benefit to adding a strut brace here? I know in a convetion macpherson strut there is, but here since the struts are only there for shock absorbing and don't carry the weight of the car, I feel like it might not be very benficial and might as well save the weight. Thank you in advace!
Probably not.
@@JulianEdgar great, thank you! I'll sleep well now :)
Good vid
I wonder how much those systems would worsen the pitch under heavy breaking.
All cars with interconnected suspension have devices/approaches that control pitch under braking eg anti-dive front geometry, etc.
Julian, what about the McLaren 720S and their interconnected suspension system? I know you point out no cars with significant production numbers, but the 720S is not that low of a production vehicle.
It's a *damper* interconnection, not a spring interconnection, isn't it?
@@JulianEdgar yes, ok I see. But would it not reduce pitch?
@@GustavoDVillarreal Yes I would think so. To be honest, I don't care much about hyper/super cars. They're accessible to basically nobody, and if there is no limit on the selling price of the car, engineering is much easier. Compare that to cars that have to be kept within a tight development and build budget, and have sold millions.
You're just wrong on this. EVERYONE still uses Flat Ride on road cars, mostly to their detriment. Your conclusion just isn't supported by the cars on the road. Actually calculate the ride frequencies of most modern road cars. They are almost *all* with the rear ride freq. ~10% higher than the front. This *destroys* the handling of the car because it paints you in a corner with supporting driver-induced chassis motion. Flat Ride only calms down the passive pitchy nibble you get cruising on the freeway. It makes pitch due to braking events worse and induces rear instability while braking.
I wish everyone still did use flat ride frequencies on road cars!
@@JulianEdgar You've made a statement which is completely unsupported. Actually get the ride frequencies of several contemporary cars. There's about a 90% chance they will be flat-ride sprung. Whatever pitching you're seeing on the road has the influence of tire and damper, often chosen for cost and tuned poorly using arbitrary rules of thumb, included. F.R. is still ubiquitous among OE's.
The bigger question is should they be. Flat Ride destroys the handling of the car. It *does not* reduce any driver induced pitch events. It only reduces the pitch events induced by a regular pattern of full width road seams at a consistent speed. That's it. It turns what would be "pitchy" bounce into a "bouncy" pitch. That's everything. It's not bloody magic.
The problem is, it over-constrains the tuning. You either end up with a front which is too soft to control the driver brake inputs, a rear which is too stiff to have acceptable bump compliance/traction or a combination of both. To get acceptable bump compliance, you don't have to run the entire car soft, you can usually do it primarily on one end. If that end is the front, you'll have flat ride and nothing else. If that end is the rear, you'll have a much better handling car, but on certain rough freeways, you'll notice a tiny pitching motion.
If you really understand flat ride, then it's easy to see why Olley used it and it's easy to see why it's much less applicable in contemporary cars.
If you want, we could discuss the ultimate Flat Ride vehicle. A pickup truck with a towing package and nothing in the bed. What good has ever been said the ride characteristics of this combo? Not much. Why? Because the rear is too stiff and it bounces around due to a lack of compliance. The same thing happens with everything else tuned this way, just to a lesser extent.
the higher class of current mclarens interconnect the front and rear suspension. or cross ways i remember
That front rear hydraulic is fundamentally not true lexus landcruiser uses it. It's just not in the manner your talking about along with Lamborghini. Lexus uses a hydraulic piston attached to the front and rear sway bars.
Completely different thing!
Are these factors be applicable to performance-oriented cars, particularly when it comes to tarmac motorsports?
No I don't think so.
Shaikh @ FatCat Motorsports touts this design approach for track-oriented cars as well, and has testimonies from track enthusiasts and racers who have praised the changes that these design concepts have made to improve track performance.
To many horse power does not allow cars to have soft suspension, so manufacturers have to choose between stay on the road and comfort. Sadly.
That doesn't explain why nearly all current low power cars have hard suspension and damping!
@@JulianEdgar They just too small. Everybody wants power, so it cost in comfort. I was astonished when my uncle drove me in citroen GS. It was like flying in a balloon, but today there isnt anything like it.
@@JulianEdgar or is it just as simple as magazines putting value in the handling of cars and not the ride comfort
@@onelyone6976 Yes, it's a point I address in the Epilogue of the book.
Africar = Wrongthink.? . Then ? NOW ?. plyhduralasticity in a suspender unit ?.. the fluid got stoopid hot.. needed a suspension cooler ? or better/newer .. materials.
Doesn't the still in use Hydractive (tm) suspension connect the front to rear?
Not in the information I could find on the system - side to side with an additional nitrogen spring. (But I had difficulty in finding engineering-level information on it.)
@@JulianEdgar Well, it surely behaves like it. Used to have an XM and driving over speed bumps was almost fun. All the corners are connected to the same HP system, the differences between the different revisions is how the global pressure is controlled and bias (the newer systems have active bias based on steering wheel angle for example).
@@brynyard No I think it is a different system. Hydropneumatic Citroens always run very low frequencies and so I'd expect them to be good over speed bumps.
@@JulianEdgar Different how? I know for a fact that they're both connected (like any good Citroen it needed repairs every 5 Km). And it not just the frequency that's low, if you watch from the side you can clearly see that the rear wheels also lift when the front wheels hit a large bump (unless they have a negative phase offset - which would mean the rear springs predict the bump independently).
@@brynyard I don't have the space or time to go into detail here (it's all in the book!) but the fact that a system has pipes that link all wheels doesn't mean it's an interconnected suspension in the way that is being described in this video. (eg any car with *air* suspension has pipes that connect all the wheels to a common reservoir, but they're not interconnected as such.) There is nothing in any Citroen hydropneumatic system, that I am aware of, that causes the interconnection behaviour described in this video - that is, one wheel's behaviour directly influences the behaviour of another wheel at the opposite end of the car. I cover the Citroen hydropneumatic system in my book and it's very impressive, but not front/rear interconnected as such.
Cheers for your vids!
Another YT channel called Suspension Truth by Fat Cats Motorsports is a huge proponent of this, very much worth checking out.
So that's why hitting a bump in my RAV4 is so jarring compared to what it was in my Focus.
this was just been discussed in the (german) auto-motor-sport review of the model y: th-cam.com/video/-orKmOSYErA/w-d-xo.html
What is a summary of what they are saying?
Please don't advocate driving off road vehicles. Thanks to Chrysler's marketing team, they convince the American populace that Jeeps are the off road king and the last thing we need is even MORE Jeeps coming in the shop since they're giant piles of junk. Other than that, great video.
I didn't advocate driving off road vehicles. I said that these days, they typically have a better ride quality than conventional cars. As I say in the Epilogue to the book, that's just a tragedy when good ride quality could easily be engineered into normal cars.
@@JulianEdgar It truly is a tragedy. Since I became a mechanic, the numbers of cars has died down to where everything that comes in the shop is a truck, SUV, or Jeep and it has made me regret ever starting in this line of work. Cars are much easier to work on and lifting the parts don't break your back.
I think it's the other way around though. Since people are flocking to the $100,000 trucks, manufacturers just don't try to put development into their cars anymore besides trying to find more ways to put another touch screen monitor in there to justify selling a 20 year old chassis with an updated body.