Jump to content
HybridZ

Recommended Posts

Cary (tube80z) has been mentioning this idea of the dual ball joint front end off and on for the last couple years. I hadn't really given it too much thought until I autoxed my car and was really lifting the inside rear tire, and Dan (74_5.0L_Z) suggested that the problem might be scrub radius and caster related. I guess the idea is that the outside wheelbase increases significantly enough due to scrub that the car leans over in that direction and the inside rear comes off the ground.

Recently this thread popped up talking about swapping front suspensions and it quickly devolved into a pissing match for reasons beyond my comprehension, but it did get me thinking more seriously about the dual ball joint idea. 

Cary seems to think it's doable with the ball joints in the same plane, and had thought of a modified bumpsteer spacer as a possible way to do it. That got me thinking that it might be easier to just make a square tube knuckle and bumpsteer spacer combo, so that's where I'm at right now.  Thinking square tube with simple clevises welded to it for the ball joints, and then taper the front end and have it open and then use shims above and below the tie rod to adjust bumpsteer.

I have absolutely no idea how to figure out the spacing on the clevises to minimize scrub and that sort of thing but I'm very interested to see if I can make it work, and to see if it would be as easy as I think it should be. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he mentioned that to me in my control arm post as well, although I had no idea how that would work. 

 

Just to clarify, this would be for the rear correct? Or is this more for the front like the video you posted in the other thread?

 

I think I have a visual for it now though:

Stock upright

Weld two gusseted brackets under the hole for the spindle pin on either side

Replace the control arm attachments into two ball joints

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to believe I'm doing something seriously wrong here. Please tell me I am. 

Cary asked for measurements including scrub radius. I looked up how to measure it. Looks like imaginary line through upper strut mount and lower ball joint, and then wherever that meets the tire contact patch.

These are 15 x 14 wheels with 13.75" slicks. If I'm doing this right, and I think I am, I'm looking at about 13" of scrub radius. These wheels have 4.5" backspacing and 1/2" wheel spacer. So this means that a typical 15 x 8 with 0 offset and a 23" ish diameter tire is going to have about 7.5" scrub or so. 

If I have this correct, I will wait to see if Cary can figure out where the mounts would need to be to fix, but I suspect that it's not workable in any event, and the solution will be SLA suspension instead.

holyscrubradiusbatman.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can swap rear wheels to the front and the drop center on the wheels is different and won't need the spacers. I'd have to check but I believe those wheels are 5" back space, so that would lessen the scrub to closer to 5". Might have issues in the rear with hitting fenders, and possibly front wheels hitting splitter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical race car "10 lbs of shit in a 5 lb bag" stuff. Looked again, due to tie rod to rim, steering rack to alternator, and other space constraints I'm going to have to stick to this wheel offset to make everything work, or do a whole bunch of other work to make it all fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the t\c rod intersect at the ball joint if you draw a straight line? I think that is the point you use for you bottom measurement.  I wonder if there is a factory spindle that would reduce fabrication, the only front steer rear t\c rod spindle I can think of is a BMW e90 awd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it doesn't, but the angle of the TC rod doesn't change any of the geometry of the control arm though, having the arm in line with the ball joint just loads the TC rod straight instead of at an angle. You can look at a BMW or Porsche lower control arm and they are shaped kind of like a boomerang. More room for the tire, but the geometry is controlled by the pivot points, not the shape of the arm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geometrically, I don't have a clue how to make that work.  My suspension software does cover it, but it would take some thinking to understand what the trade offs are.  I guess BMW uses some version of that  Probably not that hard to implement.  Officially it is called a "virtual A-arm". The "virtual pivot point" is the imaginary point where an extended T/C rod and control arm would intersect.  Looks like you design for this to be close to the center of wheel to eliminate the scrub.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's all it takes it sounds pretty easy to do, but I feel like there have got to be some complications we're not factoring in.  Looking at that Pontiac video looks like the end links will have to be reworked and made as long as possible. Cary has some software that figures it out too. He's asked me for a few dimensions, but he's gone until next week, so I haven't gotten around to measuring yet. Thread should pick up next week.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Setting the geometry up to get what you want at nominal ride height and steer is simple enough but one of the big complications you're not factoring in is that the virtual pivot/kingpin axis moves around during steer, unlike the single arm setup. If you look back at the Pontiac video, this can be visualized really easily and you can see that scrub increases on the inside tire and decreases on the outside during steer, in this case. Also, caster drops on the outside and increases on the inside. The two things you don't want.

 

However, going to a split-lower arm on an S30 would result in a compression link setup instead of tension link, as Pontiac (Holden) has done, so I bet the resulting geometry would be more favorable regarding caster and scrub. Still, a full kinematic sweep is needed (ideally K&C) to be sure you're getting the effects you want.

 

As an aside, TC rod positioning on the control arm does have an effect on geometry, e.g. caster gain (therefore kinematic anti-dive) and bump steer. It can be seem as a sort-of front semi-trailing (leading) arm. This is minutia in the sandbox that we're playing in but worth noting that it does do something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Invincibleextremes said:

2015 mustangs use dual balljoint setups as well.  Which is the reason I went with the 2014 mustang spindle on my single ball joint setup.

 

Just something to look into if you're set on a set up.

The late Mustang uses it in the rear also. Not sure why. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So hypothetically you put two new joints/your fabbed knuckle/arms in that suspension - spread to intersect and give the zero scrub. What will that do to the kingpin angle? Does the wheel/tire end up flopping back and forth because it's steep? Does having the two joints add to a steering load especially the further they are spread or just act like a single longer arm pivoting out at the "imaginary" intersection? Looking at that photo your car has a serious scrub radius. Is the steering super heavy at low speeds? Sorry if I'm missing some technical terms here just trying to grasp how all this relates together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/22/2018 at 4:19 PM, clarkspeed said:

Geometrically, I don't have a clue how to make that work.  My suspension software does cover it, but it would take some thinking to understand what the trade offs are.  I guess BMW uses some version of that  Probably not that hard to implement.  Officially it is called a "virtual A-arm". The "virtual pivot point" is the imaginary point where an extended T/C rod and control arm would intersect.  Looks like you design for this to be close to the center of wheel to eliminate the scrub.

If those are the official terms I will try and get that right from now on.

 

As far as "virtual pivot point" you would want that located a bit inboard  of center so that the line like you drew here would go through upper pivot then "virtual pivot point" and land ideally at the center of the tire contact patch for zero scrub.

 

With the strut it might just act more like a SLA with shorter upper arm/longer lower rather than a horrendous kingpin. 

holyscrubradiusbatman.thumb.jpg.12cd8df8afdfff5dd47077549c2330da.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If I was thinking this there would be two viable options. One, transplant a suitable suspension from another car or, two, get a suspension program that allows you to explore in a practical way what does what. Unless it can be done geometrically on paper a good program is the only real option for this DIY stuff. When designing the trailing arm lateral links rear suspension for my Z31 project a double wishbone (think about it) program was used, no way would any alternative method be considered.

Edited by 260DET

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any suggestions for the "good program" anyone - particularly one that would allow the double joint lower? I've played with the cardstock models that the suspension design references suggest and they help to get an idea of 2 dimensional dinamics but 3d is lacking and changes to pickup points and lengths are tedious. I'd rather not drop thousands on a single car design but would certainly pay a resonable amount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2018 at 1:40 PM, jpndave said:

So hypothetically you put two new joints/your fabbed knuckle/arms in that suspension - spread to intersect and give the zero scrub. What will that do to the kingpin angle? Does the wheel/tire end up flopping back and forth because it's steep? Does having the two joints add to a steering load especially the further they are spread or just act like a single longer arm pivoting out at the "imaginary" intersection? Looking at that photo your car has a serious scrub radius. Is the steering super heavy at low speeds? Sorry if I'm missing some technical terms here just trying to grasp how all this relates together.

The way the wheel moves is the part that kinda blows my mind. It moves back and forth a little bit, and you would think that would be really bad for steering feel or make the handling wonky, but new Mustangs are really good autoxers, so they must have something right. Same with the single ball joint BMWs. Many (all?) of the newer ones have the ball joint offset forward from the bottom of the strut. Again, this is going to mean that the wheel isn't going it pivot around that lower ball joint, so that should cause some weirdness in the feel, but they're very successful autoxers.

I have power steering so I can't tell you how heavy it would be without. I know it was pretty hard to turn at low speeds with 10" slicks on it, so it's probably not good with 14s... 

If I was thinking this there would be two viable options. One, transplant a suitable suspension from another car or, two, get a suspension program that allows you to explore in a practical way what does what. Unless it can be done geometrically on paper a good program is the only real option for this DIY stuff. When designing the trailing arm lateral links rear suspension for my Z31 project a double wishbone (think about it) program was used, no way would any alternative method be considered.

There is a lot more to transplanting another strut system than it seems like. Angle of the struts and spindles, steer knuckle length, brakes, etc. If I were going to do that I'd rather figure out SLA. Probably same effort and if done correctly, better end result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/29/2018 at 7:02 AM, jpndave said:

Any suggestions for the "good program" anyone - particularly one that would allow the double joint lower? I've played with the cardstock models that the suspension design references suggest and they help to get an idea of 2 dimensional dinamics but 3d is lacking and changes to pickup points and lengths are tedious. I'd rather not drop thousands on a single car design but would certainly pay a resonable amount.

 

I'd recommend Susprog3D.  It's nothing fancy but gives you all you need to solve the DIY pick-a-part suspension designs.  That's what I'm using to see if we can figure out a simple approach to reduce scrub on Jon's car.

 

Cary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I ordered up the Susprog3d which allows 2 computers to be used so JD @69Honda and I can use it to coordinate our suspension. We're close enough on builds that combining efforts really makes sense. I'll definitely look into the double joint lower at least in the front. Not sure if we'll need it but it might buy that extra little bit of distance to zero out the scrub should that be a problem.

Edited by jpndave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I told Cary I would get some more measurements. The rack on mine is 5.5" in front of the LCA pivot. Tried to measure the height of the inner and outer pivots but car is on jackstands now and I didn't want to take it off just for that measurement. Stock steer knuckles and rack moved forward and up and tie rods are using .9125" bumpsteer shim. Bumpsteer is minimized.

Hopefully that gives you enough to go on. If not it will have to wait until next week most likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×