Dragonfly Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Here are some other pictures I have, I do not remember where I got them from but I think they came from Hybridz but I am not sure. Personaly I realy like the potential with this idea although I have a slightly different aproach in my mind for solidly holding everything in place. Dragonfly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olie05 Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 I wonder if that last suspension is designed to use a pull type bellcrank setup for the shock/spring. Doesn't look like they left much room for a pushrod the way the upper control arm is made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank280zx Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 that is awful thin metal to hang such a crucial part of your suspension from !! i would defiantly reinforce that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators RTz Posted October 29, 2007 Administrators Share Posted October 29, 2007 Here are some other pictures I have, I do not remember where I got them from but I think they came from Hybridz but I am not sure. Actually, they came from my website... its amazing what comes back to haunt you that is awful thin metal to hang such a crucial part of your suspension from !! i would defiantly reinforce that Of course there were provisions, if only in my head, to structurally reinforce... project was shelved before it materialized. There are a number of things 'wrong' with it... I would approach it differently if I were to do it again. For giggles, here is a 9.5" wheel mounted, that fit 'under' the fender... . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators RTz Posted October 29, 2007 Administrators Share Posted October 29, 2007 These uprights, for a mid-engine scracthbuilt car I was building, are a bit more suitable, and fit within a 16" wheel. Again, they use the C4 front spindle. . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
74_5.0L_Z Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 bjhines, I wasn't offended, just surprised. Why do you say that it is necessary to go with rear steer? Achieving 100% Ackerman is not one of my goals. There are many options as far as uprights that will work with a front steer set-up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZT-R Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 THATS SEXY RON ill try to post pics of what i have so far... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueovalz Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 I've always wanted to investigate an unequal-length front suspension as shown by Dragonfly. My goal was to make it "bolt on" in the sense of welding required reinforcement in place that would not interfere with the OEM set-up, and then bolt on the new set-up. The biggest issue was the upper arm support. I applaud the attempt with backup plates as shown, but I am concerned about the flexing that will take place under braking, and high lateral forces. I am not convinced there is enough support for the upper arms. My thoughts would be a 2 piece crossmember the bolts onto the OEM holes, but has (per side) and outboard part the bolts to the inboard part, and both of these sandwich the unibody between them. Then these two pieces are attached to the other side two pieces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZT-R Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 dont laugh i live in the south and only have a carport (not to mention i havent worked on it in like a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators RTz Posted October 29, 2007 Administrators Share Posted October 29, 2007 I am not convinced there is enough support for the upper arms. You're right, there isn't. Once again, the pictures, as you see them, are of an incomplete project. It would not work 'as shown'. Part of the missing piece is the crossmember. Built for a T-Bird Turbo Coupe power rack, it was intended that some of the loads of the upper mounts would be channeled to it (via triangulated tubing), and some of them would be transferred to the rest of the chassis via triangulated tubing. Sort of like a tube frame car, with an underlying unibody. Its clunky at best, but the idea was simply proof of concept. . . . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 The thing that I see as a problem with trying to get the wheels further underneath the car is that the frame rail is going to limit the turning radius. I think the goal should be to get the wheels out farther without having a huge scrub radius. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators RTz Posted October 29, 2007 Administrators Share Posted October 29, 2007 The thing that I see as a problem with trying to get the wheels further underneath the car is that the frame rail is going to limit the turning radius. I was able to get a tad more than 30 degrees steering angle (with 255/50/16 tires). Unfortunately, I hadn't built in any real ackerman. If I were doing it now, I would design for ackerman and that would reduce that angle (on the outboard wheel). I agree with the benefits of a wider track. At the time I was very opposed to flares of any sort. Today... I'd probably consider it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZT-R Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 ron's moving the the right direction it looks like. making a new xmember wouldnt be that bad i wouldnt think. i know some of you guys are fabers so surely we can find a cnc machine or a 3 axis mill or something. if its a must...im gonna use flares. not the really huge ones though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators RTz Posted October 29, 2007 Administrators Share Posted October 29, 2007 making a new xmember wouldnt be that bad i wouldnt think. i know some of you guys are fabers so surely we can find a cnc machine or a 3 axis mill or something. The crossmember is quite easy if you're remotely inclined. No CNC anything required... just basic fab tools. With your tube frame, you have a clean sheet. Now is when it would be prudent to define what you want and stick to it, else it becomes like my project and many others... never finished. Its far to easy to get caught up in exotic, when all you really want is reasonable improvement. If you don't define where to stop... you wont. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 boosted, I wanted to comment on your tube frame. I don't want to be too harsh, as I was just torn a new one and treated rather rudely on another forum myself and I really don't want this forum to be as nasty to people trying new things as that other one was to me. My comments are that it looks like your firewall tubes are pretty small in diameter. A larger diameter tube with a thinner wall thickness might be a better choice. Also this structure should be a single tube with bends rather than 3 separate tubes for strength. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZT-R Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 its the same stuff 74 5.0 used. im gonna gusset the hell outta everything im no where even remotely close to putting it on the ground yet.. everything is just tacked together for the moment.. critisism is good. keep it coming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 I guess if it is 1.625" then I stand corrected. Still the welded junctions are not ideal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZT-R Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 yes i just measured it again it is 1.65. all joints ground down at 45 degree and tig welded... i know welding isnt optimial but its all i have atm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZT-R Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 on a different note guys. do you think i should use the stock rack, lower control arm (maybe get the AZ one) and fab up an upper control arm and shock mount? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tube80z Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Why do you say that it is necessary to go with rear steer? Achieving 100% Ackerman is not one of my goals. There are many options as far as uprights that will work with a front steer set-up. The simple answer for rear steer is that it will probably be the only option for getting 100% ackerman steering. To get it in front steer would probably require that you raise the rack to the stop of the a-arm attachment point and that's probably going to be going right through a frame rail. I don't know how much ackerman is used on the R&S trans-am cars that have a low mounted rack but I can tell you that they have an interesting tie rod. It's sorta S-shaped to allow the wheel to get full lock. For a car that sees track or autox use 100% ackerman would be a good goal to shoot for. The tires that most of us have access to (slicks, etc.) are all designed to respond well to this. Cary 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.