satchell link?

[hat1324]

Im starting my rear end swap into the Z..

was going with a 9 but a built 8.8 seams more likely of a canidate..

ive been searching and searching, and it seams that for a 4Link setup the satchell link design is the best option w/o bind..

Here is my understanding:

the setup is like a tradional setup, the top of the 4link bolts to the frame rail and stays parallel with the car, BUT the bottom extends to the center of the car as close as possible to the direct center of the car as possible..

the information online is sparse so Im wondering what those here think about it...

[ZROSSA]

Are you going around corners or in a straight line?

 

Douglas

[boodlefoof]

Information on this setup is sparse... go check out www.corner-carvers.com for more info on the setup. It has been discussed quite a bit.

 

From my own research, I've found the following information that might be of help to you...

 

• anti-squat is defined by the side view swing arm length, wheelbase, and center of gravity.
  
• The SVSAL is defined by the angles of the upper and lower arms. You can determine the SVSAL by drawing an imaginary line from the control arms toward the front of the car untill they intersect. The distance between the intersection point and the axle should normally be no less than 45" to prevent brake hop.
  
• The upper arm should be level or pointing down sllightly toward the front of the car, depending on whether you prefere neutral roll steer or a slight amount of roll understeer.
  
• Make the arms as long as possible.
  
• There is much discussion on the possibility of binding with a triangulated 4-link and spherical bearings at all 8 points. One person running a satchell responds "I drove the car without swaybars to exagerate body roll, there was no binding or snap oversteer, very predictable."
  
• One can tune with a swaybar instead of changing RC heights by using an adjustable bar.
  
• With parallel-in-plan-view uppers, the suspension's roll axis is defined by the point of intersection of the angled lowers (think plan view, then side view) and the slope of the uppers as seen in side view. In turn, the suspension roll axis defines the roll steer (that being the tangent of the suspension roll axis slope, expressed either as a decimal or a %). And the RC moves upward as the UCA down-angle is increased.
  
• You'll probably want a little static down angle on the uppers just to maintain a minimal amount of vehicle roll understeer around the static ride height (neutral throttle cornering) to slightly above that position. But you don't want to have a lot, because lots of roll U/S, say 10% or more, is clumsy during slalom maneuvers. Worse, it becomes a roll oversteer tendency should you ever lift off the throttle (or touch the brake) while cornering hard.
  

[dr_hunt]

Well the 8.8 or the 9 won't have an effect on corners, I'm sure they both will weigh in at about 160 pounds or so after being narrowed. traditional 4 link isn't usually used for corners so you are correct and the lower bar on a traditional 4 link is usually paralell with the ground and you lower the top bar to move the IC forward or back.

 

I'd like to see the satchell link design work.

[hat1324]

so would I, i have seen 2 pictures of a jag with the setup.. I need to learn more about suspension in general.. it seams as soon as I hit a wall in knowledge, I have to learn everything about it before I start any of it..

 

and as far as my plans, I plan on a stupid fast street car, with fun weekends at a dragstrip or a road race track.. Not autoX..