Quote:
Originally Posted by mitch1971
You've got me thinking about the suspension again which is good. How much anti-camber is designed under reasonable cornering? Your top control arms seems quite short so camber change will be quite significant and sudden from looking at the photos. Have you stiffer springs in the front? If so then you'd need less of a change in camber. And have you designed in anti-dive, this is where I think the main improvement would be had over the original design. I'm struggling to see how such a short top control arm will be good. I'm no expert on the suspension but it looks like the design will result in a large and sudden negative camber when cornering and loosing full contact and this will be even worse with wide modern tyres. Wouldn't longer unequal control arms be better with a less agressive change in camber, especially if stiffening the suspension.
|
Mitch... One thing you are not considering is, the postion of the upper control arm.. It is actually in a more outward position, so it actually act like a longer arms would with the position of the lower.. I do have the Anti-Dive set at 4 degrees, which should would work out great... There isnt any negative camber movement at all.. The position of the Upper control arm is set to apply a realistic Postive Camber (Wheel in at the top) during hard suspension compression.
These components have been tested for decades.. Very Very few cars have equal length control arms, and even if they do, they leave deficiency's else where..