Lason Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 VERY good info boodlefoof!!!! Im a noob at chassis work so right now Im trying to keep it as basic as I can without re-inventing the wheel. I never would have thought about moving the mounting points at the axle back, thats a really good idea!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boodlefoof Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 Getting closer... I got the rear axle housing in yesterday and fabricated all of the frame mounts for the trailing arms. Today, I fab up the axle mounts! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boodlefoof Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 Here are some pictures of the Satchell link for those who are interested... http://www.geocities.com/boodlefoof/Project_Racer-Zsuspension6.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lason Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 interesting! Looks like a 79-up mustang rear suspension except the straight arms are up top instead of down low like on a stang. Only thing that would worry me is the bottom links and tabs they mount to distorting because the axle will naturally want to pull back on them under acceleration. I believe thats why the stangs use straight bars on the bottom as the angled arms will be a lot more effient to push against instead of being pulled against. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boodlefoof Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 The Mustang uses kind of the inverse design, yes. The upper arms are the angled arms, but they converge at the axle housing rather than at the frame. This gives less axle support in lateral motion. Having the upper arms angled also results in a roll center height above the axle centerline. By angling the lower arms, your roll center height will be below the axle centerline. By having the arms connect at the ends of the axle and point in towards the center of the frame, you get better lateral support. Yeah, the lower arms are doing double duty as both the lateral location device and helping control axle windup tendencies. On accelleration the lower links will actually be in compression (pushing on the frame). I haven't built it yet, but the lower frame mounts will tie into the structural transmission tunnel for added strength. I should have mentioned that before... without extra bracing those mounts do look a little flimsy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lason Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 The Mustang uses kind of the inverse design' date=' yes. The upper arms are the angled arms, but they converge at the axle housing rather than at the frame. This gives less axle support in lateral motion. Having the upper arms angled also results in a roll center height above the axle centerline. By angling the lower arms, your roll center height will be below the axle centerline. By having the arms connect at the ends of the axle and point in towards the center of the frame, you get better lateral support. Yeah, the lower arms are doing double duty as both the lateral location device and helping control axle windup tendencies. [b']On accelleration the lower links will actually be in compression (pushing on the frame).[/b] I haven't built it yet, but the lower frame mounts will tie into the structural transmission tunnel for added strength. I should have mentioned that before... without extra bracing those mounts do look a little flimsy! Woops I had a brain fart when I wrote that above. You are correct. Looks like a slick setup! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.