Seike's almost every day column
Is weak under the wrong?
In magazine articles, etc., I sometimes see articles such as “Keep a weak under…” and hear their remarks. I wonder what keeps a weak under. If you keep it, it will bulge out ... Also, as long as you are understeer, you cannot turn on the accelerator.
In the first place, why is "weak under"? Focusing on this, I expanded my imagination wings and explored the suspension system and tires since the car was born. What I found there was that it was in the 1960s that I started to worry strongly about under and over steering. The car at that time was structurally "understeer". It is not cornering that is directly proportional to the turning angle of the steering wheel.
“Weak under” means that the under is suppressed as much as possible and it is close to neutral steer. So sports car engineers don't want to be good with a weak under, but want to keep looking for neutral steer.
The driver also struggled and derived the “front load”. Because the rudder is almost entirely borne by the front tires, we will work as a rudder by increasing the pressure with which the tire holds the ground.
Now, when you look at modern cars, the commercial vehicles are almost understeered. This is the idea of "preventing accidents with non-turnable cars". Because it doesn't turn, you have to slow down enough. Although the cause of an accident is not only a speed problem, it can remove at least one major accident factor. In this state, the expression “weak under” does not come at all. If you say “on the rails” while writing “weak under”, you can't tell the end. "On the rail" is neutral steer itself. First of all, I don't think the reason for mixing these contradictions. Second, have you forgotten that the car only runs in physics?