Suspension mod, what do you reckon?
Discussion
Have a look at this, saw it on another forum a couple of days ago.
http://www.fatcatfabrication.com/id3.html
I want to know what you think so I'll leave my own opinions out for now.
Cheers, John.
http://www.fatcatfabrication.com/id3.html
I want to know what you think so I'll leave my own opinions out for now.
Cheers, John.
Depends how much in depth you want, but there's no reason why that wouldn't work- the bell cranks are picking up the load from where the struts would normally be and transferring them into the suspension units. The main concern I can think of is the blue mounting bar being strong enough to take the load.
ETA:
The angle between the bell crank and the suspension unit does look a bit dubious though, as though it would want to transfer load across towards the centre of the car rather than vertically into the shocks. Still reckon it would work (to a reasonable extent), but could be better designed if it had been fully considered!
ETA:
The angle between the bell crank and the suspension unit does look a bit dubious though, as though it would want to transfer load across towards the centre of the car rather than vertically into the shocks. Still reckon it would work (to a reasonable extent), but could be better designed if it had been fully considered!
Edited by Twincharged on Wednesday 8th September 20:57
JohnnyJones said:
What do you think about the claim to reduce unsprung weight?
I'm not convinced - looking at the design of the crank, the bit connected to the suspension appears to have a mechanical advantage over the spring (so presumably a higher rate spring is required, albeit with less travel), and there's also the weight of the crank arrangement itself.The geometry of the crank also looks a bit odd to me - unless the strut from the wheel comes in at a funny angle, it looks like force compressing the spring wont be acting directly along its length. I suspect the top of the spring will be forced more downwards than inwards, meaning that the forces acting on the pivot bolt might be rather big.
Once uppon a time the original struts loads were reacted into the underside of the turrets - probably over most of the turret area - which is designed to take them.
Now all the suspension loads are taken in tension by those three weeny bolts per side - a mode in which the turret sheetmetal almost certainly wasn't designed for.
Hit a big bump and (unless there's more unseen work done below ) I reckon it'll rip out..
Now all the suspension loads are taken in tension by those three weeny bolts per side - a mode in which the turret sheetmetal almost certainly wasn't designed for.
Hit a big bump and (unless there's more unseen work done below ) I reckon it'll rip out..
Another typical aftermarket bit of kit constructed by people who have no engineering training!!
Reduced Unsprung mass: right, so i assume before the coil-over just sat vertically between the rear suspension transverse member (or the upright) and the turret in the body shell, that makes the unsprung weight = the mass of the damper piston assy + half the mass of the coil spring.
And now? that'll be the mass of the damper piston assy + half the mass of the spring + the mass of the pushrod that actuates it + a proportion of the mass of the rocker.....
Also as mentioned, depending on the exact geometery you can get a rising rate suspension design from rocker systems, but you can also get this easily with a taper (or uneven spaced coil) wound spring for a lot less hassle. (this rising rate also affects applied unsprung mass, as to get a higher velocity you have to accelerate the parts faster, so the transient loading goes up)
Added to which, the cars CoG must have gone upwards, god knows what (if any) stress calcs have been done to ensure the systems fatigue (and ultimate) strength, and they've added overall mass to the car.
But to be totaly rational, 1) it does look cool to the average baseball capper, 2)and it does make adjusting the damping rates easy
Reduced Unsprung mass: right, so i assume before the coil-over just sat vertically between the rear suspension transverse member (or the upright) and the turret in the body shell, that makes the unsprung weight = the mass of the damper piston assy + half the mass of the coil spring.
And now? that'll be the mass of the damper piston assy + half the mass of the spring + the mass of the pushrod that actuates it + a proportion of the mass of the rocker.....
Also as mentioned, depending on the exact geometery you can get a rising rate suspension design from rocker systems, but you can also get this easily with a taper (or uneven spaced coil) wound spring for a lot less hassle. (this rising rate also affects applied unsprung mass, as to get a higher velocity you have to accelerate the parts faster, so the transient loading goes up)
Added to which, the cars CoG must have gone upwards, god knows what (if any) stress calcs have been done to ensure the systems fatigue (and ultimate) strength, and they've added overall mass to the car.
But to be totaly rational, 1) it does look cool to the average baseball capper, 2)and it does make adjusting the damping rates easy
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 8th September 22:45
Max_Torque said:
Another typical aftermarket bit of kit constructed by people who have no engineering training!!
Reduced Unsprung mass: right, so i assume before the coil-over just sat vertically between the rear suspension transverse member (or the upright) and the turret in the body shell, that makes the unsprung weight = the mass of the damper piston assy + half the mass of the coil spring.
And now? that'll be the mass of the damper piston assy + half the mass of the spring + the mass of the pushrod that actuates it + a proportion of the mass of the rocker.....
Also as mentioned, depending on the exact geometery you can get a rising rate suspension design from rocker systems, but you can also get this easily with a taper (or uneven spaced coil) wound spring for a lot less hassle. (this rising rate also affects applied unsprung mass, as to get a higher velocity you have to accelerate the parts faster, so the transient loading goes up)
Added to which, the cars CoG must have gone upwards, god knows what (if any) stress calcs have been done to ensure the systems fatigue (and ultimate) strength, and they've added overall mass to the car.
But to be totaly rational, 1) it does look cool to the average baseball capper, 2)and it does make adjusting the damping rates easy
Posts like this make me feel very thick! Reduced Unsprung mass: right, so i assume before the coil-over just sat vertically between the rear suspension transverse member (or the upright) and the turret in the body shell, that makes the unsprung weight = the mass of the damper piston assy + half the mass of the coil spring.
And now? that'll be the mass of the damper piston assy + half the mass of the spring + the mass of the pushrod that actuates it + a proportion of the mass of the rocker.....
Also as mentioned, depending on the exact geometery you can get a rising rate suspension design from rocker systems, but you can also get this easily with a taper (or uneven spaced coil) wound spring for a lot less hassle. (this rising rate also affects applied unsprung mass, as to get a higher velocity you have to accelerate the parts faster, so the transient loading goes up)
Added to which, the cars CoG must have gone upwards, god knows what (if any) stress calcs have been done to ensure the systems fatigue (and ultimate) strength, and they've added overall mass to the car.
But to be totaly rational, 1) it does look cool to the average baseball capper, 2)and it does make adjusting the damping rates easy
Edited by Max_Torque on Wednesday 8th September 22:45
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff