land-speed
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: rear suspention

To: "John Burk" <joyseydevil@comcast.net>, <land-speed@autox.team.net>
Subject: Re: rear suspention
From: "bennevl" <bennevl@netzero.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 20:36:38 -0400
John,
Sounds to me what you are describing is similar to the 3rd generation F Body
GM cars. Nice to know about the offset, Now just need a way to modify the
original mount.
Bill

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Burk" <joyseydevil@comcast.net>
To: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 3:38 PM
Subject: rear suspention


> Most cars with sprung rears have one or both of these problems . (1) Too
much
> rear roll stiffness (to overcome the effects of drive shaft torque) or (2)
> unequal rear wheel loading under acceleration (due to drive shaft torque)
.
> Both problems make a car more spin prone . Normally the remedy for
oversteer
> is add front roll stiffness or reduce it in the rear , not easy when rear
roll
> needs to be high . Independent rear suspension is one solution . A simpler
fix
> ; use a single torque arm a little to the right of the drive shaft .The
offset
> needs to be the torque arm length divided by the ring & pinion ratio .
With
> this design the torque arm exactly cancels the undesirable effects of
drive
> shaft torque , wheel loading stays equal under acceleration or
deceleration
> and roll stiffness can be as desired . The only drawback is  wheel loading
is
> unequal under braking . Only the torque arm should resist axel torque
(single
> link on each side) and only the single links should locate the rear front
to
> rear . The front of the torque arm  needs to be free front to rear (slot
or
> vertical link) so there is no torque arm arc to fight with the side link
arcs
> . Hope my description is clear enough . John





<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>