←back to thread

181 points EndXA | 5 comments | | HN request time: 1.209s | source
Show context
londons_explore ◴[] No.40727286[source]
I wish designers of vehicles - particularly cars, trains and busses, would work to minimize jerk, snap and crackle.

Turns out if you minimize those, you get a far more comfortable ride. It matters far more than acceleration.

Finite element models of the whole system (tyres and suspension components and flexing elements of the vehicle body and road/track) can quickly allow analysis of the jerk, snap and crackle, and allow tuning of damping and drive system control loops to make a far more comfortable ride.

replies(3): >>40727304 #>>40728030 #>>40730913 #
amelius ◴[] No.40727304[source]
Do you have proof for that, or is this like audiophiles asking for gold connectors because "they make the sound better"?
replies(7): >>40727367 #>>40727380 #>>40727443 #>>40727865 #>>40727925 #>>40727926 #>>40728053 #
1. analog31 ◴[] No.40727367[source]
Not proof, but jerk is a factor when bringing a car to a smooth stop. You have to learn how to brake smoothly in order to avoid the "drivers ed stop" where the car and its passengers lurch forward and then bounce back. But the controls for automated vehicles like airport trams have to be designed to avoid this. The underlying reason is that some components such as the tires and suspension are elastic.

This is in fact an issue for the designers of controls for mechanical systems. I learned about it in Process Control class, albeit 40 years ago.

replies(1): >>40727845 #
2. robertlagrant ◴[] No.40727845[source]
Cars 20+ years ago vs more recent cars - I've definitely noticed them auto-doing what I was taught to do with older cars: ease off the brakes right at the end.
replies(1): >>40729638 #
3. sokoloff ◴[] No.40729638[source]
I wonder if this is a change in braking material, specifically a reduction in difference between dynamic coefficient of friction and static coefficient of friction between the pad and rotor (or equivalently, the shoe and drum).

If older cars had a higher differential, you’d need to let up more as the brake finally locks up.

replies(1): >>40730273 #
4. lloeki ◴[] No.40730273{3}[source]
Don't forget vehicles got heavier, rims got bigger/rubber has thinner sides, suspensions geometry evolved and got stiffer (and possibly non-linear, at least on the high end) and so on and so forth, reducing the amount of elastic energy.

There's mechanical braking assistance (not just ABS) which means pressing the same pedal distance may produce different breaking strength depending on the speed at which the pedal is pressed; e.g pressing hard triggers force assistance from, say, a vacuum reservoir that reuses engine pump loss, which means conversely pressing lightly for a normal stop does not need to exert as much pressure, hence an eased in stop.

Also with more stable vehicles with better chassis, suspension, and overall balance, I feel like rear braking has been tuned upwards over time, making for a more stable stop: notice how lightly pulling the handbrake has a straight-rolling car "sitting" instead of "diving". More consistent use of disc brakes instead of drums on the rear end certainly helps, as well as the ability for the vehicle to remain stable even when braking while in a turn.

Regarding brake friction itself, I can think of at least one major change: the ban of materials such as copper or asbestos in brake pads.

replies(1): >>40731393 #
5. sokoloff ◴[] No.40731393{4}[source]
I was thinking of both the changing of material composition of existing organic or semi-metallic pads, but also the general drift towards ceramic pads for low-dust.

Some of the German marque factory pads have exceptional initial bite, coupled with exceptional high levels of dust.