Roll Center - Myths and Reality Wm. C.

Mitchell

Roll Center
Myths and Reality
by Wm. C. Mitchell
The Roll Center
“Roll Center” is the most misunderstood term in vehicle dynamics. A fairly simple
concept - how much lateral force applied at the tire contact patch is transformed into
vertical force - has generated a remarkable number of myths. The “roll center” is a simple
measure, derived from symmetric production car design, extrapolated to asymmetric
racing cars, which overwhelmed the underlying reality. The vary name “roll center”
implies much more than it delivers.

Tires generate forces which produce lateral and longitudinal acceleration. This process
involves complex concepts ranging from molecular adhesion to the conformity of a soft
tire to an irregular road surface. But the result is simple: a force in the plane of the road
surface and a vertical force perpendicular to the road surface. The best analogy, due to
tire author Paul Haney, involves a broom. If you hold the handle of the broom low it may
glide over a washer lying on the ground. If you raise the handle it becomes harder to push
but there is more vertical force pushing the bristles into the ground and more likely to
dislodge that washer.

The reality of this analogy is the angle of the broom handle, not the height of the end. Cut
the broom handle in half but maintain the angle and the effect is the same: the height of
the end is irrelevant. “Roll center” is a measure of the height of the broom handle, not the
angle. Reality is the angle snf the resulting forces.

The History
Most of vehicle dynamics theory was developed around production cars simply because
there were many more production car engineers than racing engineers (and there still
are). Production car suspensions are usually symmetric with the center of gravity near the
centerline of the car.

Production cars are rarely subject to large lateral forces (outside of racing applications).
Few drivers use more than 0.3g even in emergency situations. Consequently production
car analysis is usually limited to low lateral forces. Under this assumption chassis roll
and subsequent suspension movement can be ignored and the roll center is treated as a
static point. Good vehicle dynamics texts, including Dixon and Gillespie, mention this.

The roll center height is a useful concept because it defines the moment arm - the
distance from roll center to center of gravity - acting to overturn the car. John C. Dixon
writes: “… the roll-centre is a very useful idea, because the roll-centre height concisely
summarizes the effect of the links. With known roll-centre heights it is easy to calculate
the roll angle and the load transfer at each of the front and rear axles.”

Date 3/19/2007 1:55:39 PM Page 1

Roll Center - Myths and Reality Wm. C. Mitchell

<<< Illustration 1: The moment arm is the distance from RC to CG >>>

The Kinematic Instant Center

Kinematic analysis gives us the four bar theory of movement which defines instant
centers of motion. Applied to the double wishbone suspension four-bar theory
establishes an instant center. The four bars are the two wishbones, the chassis, and the
upright/hub/wheel/tire assembly. The upright/hub/wheel/tire assembly rotates about this
instant center. This is a very useful concept because it explains camber change (for small
displacements). We will later show it also explains jacking force. The instant center
corresponds to the end of the broom handle in the earlier analogy.

<<< Illustration 2: The Kinematic Instant center >>>

The Kinematic Roll Center

The familiar roll center, shown in Illustration 1, is the intersection of lines drawn from
the suspension instant centers to the tire contact patches. This is an application of 4-bar
theory applied twice. The second application treats the theoretical lines from the
kinematic instant centers to the tire contact patches as solid links. The other two links are
the chassis (connecting the two instant centers) and the ground. The instant center of this
mechanism gives the rotation point which minimizes tread change in reaction to chassis
roll. This would be important if we were rolling the chassis in the shop where every bit of
scrub would be expressed with the same screech you hear in car parks. But we are
dealing with moving vehicles where tread change becomes a small toe change. The
kinematic roll center is easily drawn (in two dimensions) and understood but analyzing
the resulting movement is complex and leads to myths which are often wrong.

Date 3/19/2007 1:55:39 PM Page 2

Roll Center - Myths and Reality Wm. C. Mitchell

Why a Roll Center?

Important vehicle dynamics quantities including the loads on individual tires, the chassis
roll angle, and roll couple depend on overturning moment. This depends on the forces
operating through the suspension links and is measured by the roll center. As Dixon says
“… the roll-centre height may be used as a summary of the load transfer characteristics of
a suspension found by a detailed suspension analysis, or as the input specification for a
simple handling simulation.” [1]

Load transfer, jacking forces and overturning moment are forces and moments, not
kinematics. Thus we should address the problem through forces and moments rather than
kinematics. This leads to the “Force-Based roll center”. This is calculated by solving a
series of force and moment equations usually expressed as a matrix. In two dimensions it
is a 3x3 matrix. In three dimensions it is a 6x6 matrix.

In the simple two dimensional case the kinematic roll center is identical to the force-
based roll center for symmetric suspensions. For more complex cases we use the Force
Application Point, which is the point on the line between the instant center and the tire
contact patch under the center of gravity. For a symmetric suspension with the CG on the
centerline of the vehicle the FAPs are identical to the kinematic roll center.

For an asymmetric suspension, and most symmetric suspensions became asymmetric

when the chassis rolls, we have distinct FAPs for each side of the suspension.

<< Illustration 3: The FAP of Force Application Points >>

Determining a Force-Based Roll Center height requires knowledge of how the tire force
is distributed between the two tires. This is unfortunate because it introduces an unknown
variable. But it is easier to analyze the vertical movement of the FAP, which is always
under the CG, for each side of the car than the kinematic roll center, which moves
vertically and laterally.

Date 3/19/2007 1:55:39 PM Page 3

Roll Center - Myths and Reality Wm. C. Mitchell

<<< Illustration 4: The Kinematic and Force-Based Roll Centers. >>>

The FAPs and the Force-Based Roll Center are important. The Kinematic Roll Center is
of little value.

But the roll center is a convenience, not a necessity. Dixon writes “With detailed
computer simulations that consider the forces in the individual suspension links it is not
necessary to use the roll-centre concept.”

The SAE Definition

SAE defines the roll center as “The point in the transverse vertical plane through any pair
of wheel centers at which lateral forces may be applied to the sprung mass without
producing suspension roll”. [2]. This sounds like a committee of academics
compromising on a single valid expression with minimal meaning.

Note that this really defines a height rather than a point since there is no reference to
lateral location. The roll center is often assumed to be on the centerline of the vehicle.
Placing it under the CG would make more sense.

The Force-Based Roll Center in Three Dimensions

In the three dimensions most of us live in the force-based roll center yields a 6x6 matrix.
Few of us can visualize a 6x6 matrix let alone it’s inverse. But with a little work we can
understand what we need to know. Determining the instant center is a bit more complex
because we must construct lines through the A-arms in the vertical transverse plane of the
tire contact point. Often the ball joints will not be on this line. But once we understand
the concept, and leaving the mathematical details to our ever-present computer, the
instant center can be determined.

But there are five links from upright to chassis: the four A-arms plus the steering tie-rod.
Some force, and more than many people expect, goes through the tie-rod. This
contributes to the roll moment. The amount of contribution depends on where the tie-rod
projected crosses the instant center axis which conects the standard instant center with
the side-view instant center. But since the steering tie-rod is usually aimed near the IC
axis the effect of the tie-rod is usually small. Those interested in the precise details may

Date 3/19/2007 1:55:39 PM Page 4

Roll Center - Myths and Reality Wm. C. Mitchell

consult the author’s SAE paper 2006-01-3617. But for most working engineers can
ignore the difference (as long as they understand what they are ignorng).

For the necessary sixth equation we consider a vertical force at the tire contact patch
which is often called the jacking force. As an alternative we can calculate the force going
through the spring. This ignores the compression of the spring as well as the contribution
of dampers, anti-roll bars and third springs.

What We Need to Know

The crucial concept is the FAP rather than the Kinematic Roll Center. This has the
advantage that an independent suspension yields independent analysis. We can study
each side independently. This is nice. The disadvantage is that we need to know the
distribution of force between the tires. With a symmetric car the left and right FAPs are at
the same point and the distribution of force drops out of the equation (though we still
need it to calculate net jacking force).

Stability results when the FAP-CG moment arm remains constant as the vehicle rolls.
The chassis “takes a set” rather than constantly seeking a new equilibrium. This can be
expressed by minimizing the lateral movement of the KRC as the vehicle rolls. But this is
an artifact: there are more direct ways to calculate this; namely with the change in FAP
height resulting from ride. It should be one-to-one. (An easier way to visualize this is
from the viewpoint of the chassis rather than the world. The FAP point should be
constant as the wheels and tires move up and down.)

Confounding the Confusion

Everything we have written about lateral forces and the roll center applies to longitudinal
forces and the pitch center. The principles and the analysis are identical except cars
symmetric front-to-rear are extremely rare and sometimes longitudinal forces are
generated at the axle rather than the ground. But engineers usually discuss anti-dive and
anti-squat in percentage whereas few discuss lateral forces as an anti-roll percentage.
Some even discuss acceleration as an angle rather than a percentage. The use of common
terms would eliminate a lot of confusion while emphasizing the common elements.

Myth #1 - The Kinematic Roll Center

Several myths exist about keeping the kinematic roll center in a certain area. It should not
be under the inside tire or not near the outside tire. It should be within the tires and not in
the infield. Based on the analysis above, I know of no validity to any of these theories.

Myth #2 - The Roll Center should not go through the ground plane.
When the chassis moves to place the instant centers near the ground the kinematic roll
center moves rapidly laterally. When one IC is above ground and one below ground the
KRC is outside the track. Before I understood the limited role of the KRC I thought this
was bad. One way to avoid it is to keep the ICs either above or below ground.

“Mea Culpa” (as the Romans said) or “My Bad” as the current generation say. Formula
SAE/Formula Students occasionally present this theory and I have to explain why it is
invalid while acknowledging my guilt in their error. Whoops.

Date 3/19/2007 1:55:39 PM Page 5

Roll Center - Myths and Reality Wm. C. Mitchell

Myth #3: The distance from the kinematic roll center to the CG is the moment arm.
If you believe in the kinematic roll center it is easy to consider the distance to the CG as a
moment arm. A long distance from KRC to CG produces lots of chassis roll. The
problem is that this line is not perpendicular to the lateral force. The FAPs, defined as
being under the CG, yield a moment arm perpendicular to the lateral force. The distance
from FAP to CG is a valid moment arm.

Myth #4 - The Chassis Rolls about the Roll Axis

The chassis moves in reaction to a lateral force: it does not roll about a point or axis. The
movement includes chassis roll as well as vertical movement. The kinematic roll center
concept clearly describes the roll yet neglects jacking force, which might be small for
symmetric cases where both tires contribute equal lateral force. But for racing cars the
majority of the lateral force comes from the outside tire. In some applications the inside
tire may even be off the ground.

Dixon writes “ … many authors introduce the roll-axis as an axis about which the vehicle
actually rolls during cornering, the roll axis being the line joining the front and rear roll-
centres. When a vehicle is actually moving on a road, the concept of a kinematic roll axis
is difficult to justify in a precise way, especially for large lateral accelerations. Therefore
the idea of the vehicle rolling about such an axis, although useful as a qualitative idea,
should be treated rather cautiously, except in the special case of a stationary vehicle
subject to loads in the laboratory.” [1]

Summary
The Roll Center is important but you have to separate reality from myth. Kinematics are
easy to visualize and that aids understanding. But forces move the race car.

References
1. Tyres, Suspension and Handling, John C. Dixon, Cambridge University Press (1991)
2. Vehicle Dynamics Terminology, SAE J670e, SAE, 1952, last revised 1976
3. Racing by the Numbers, Wm. C. Mitchell Software, 125 E. Plaza Drive, Suite 117,
Mooresville, NC 28115 USA

The end

Created Sunday, February 25, 2007

Saved as C:\ SAE \ RaceCarEng \ Article1.doc

Date 3/19/2007 1:55:39 PM Page 6