Dude, I like the stabilizing arms being attached to the mustache bar. Much more stable. Having a shallow triangle by attaching the trailing arms to the inside pickup point on the cross member does give wide open space for a massive rear tire, but why not have a large notch setback in the arm attached to the outside pickup for a broader triangle and greater strength?
We modeled it that way at first. To make it work without limiting clearance it ends up being a "Z" arm and looks dumb and weak. Here is a picture.
My mind is blown with those 3d modeling skills... dang
Sam gets it done! I help where I can. Assemblies go over my head.
I told you the inner mount was good
If you use the outer mounting point this would be a copy (in function) of a common and proven design and woud have less toe change under deflection.
Not saying your's wont work good. Love your skills.
Looking at it more if the hub carrier is rigid to the forward arm it's going have a camber arch like a swing axle and will bind with the two track bars.
One track bar would work but the camber change would be a problem
If the two rear track bars are to control the camber the forward mount will need to be outward
Sorry for being a nerd
It's not rigid it's a spherical bearing.
What is going to stop the wheel from moving front to back?
I would think using your first a-arm design, but with the diff mounted adjustment rods would be good, but as stated above, I dont think camber will be able to adjust/compensate/move, with up and down travel, as shown.
Unless the outer rod mounts were also both able to pivot as one, as the suspension travels.
The whole hub needs to be able to pivot, not be welded as one with the main a arm.
It works we can post camber and toe progressions. The main arm is on a spherical bearing which allows it to twist and move anywhere it wants. The 2 "race rods" (making a total of 3 points, which define a plane) then capture it and allow us to adjust the toe and camber curve.
Hopefully this helps you see how it works.
SolidWorks would be the first to let us know it won't work. Trust us there!
Been a while since we updated. As per normal we've changed the design a few times, Sam is a picky bastard.... My response is usually "But I just want to drive my car!!!" Well here is what we have now... The version above didn't allow us to change the suspension characteristics like we wanted.We decided to use the inner pivot which makes it more of an "A" arm. Plus we ditched the odd loaded heim joint for a weld in spherical bearing. Next we are going to run it through FEA and weld up a prototype. Who knows when we will have a set in my car or be able to sell any.
Part of your problem is that you won't ever achieve better steering feel without giving something up in return. For instance, you can achieve optimal feel and directness of input by replacing your tie rod ends with spherical bearing rod ends (solid end links is what some people call them I think), but in return you feel EVERY bump, nook, cranny, and rock in the road.
Rack and pinion set ups are similar. While you're going to get a better steering feel, the amount of fab work and headache that goes along with it is sizable. Even with the crossmember kit mentioned earlier you'll run into problems, as it will limit you to front sump engine configurations.
Tie rods are swapped to heim joints by companies like T3 and others not for less deflection but so you can "adjust" out the bump steer. People like shinny bits so I'm sure most cars don't even have them adjusted correctly.
In my experience with stock suspension bandaid to the max (steering box brace, heim, joints, etc) it doesn't even compare to having one of our rack conversion crossmembers in a 510. I don't even say that in hopes to sell one, I say it because I daily drive and race my car and have driven ton's of 510's. For 5 years I worked with a good buddy building nothing but 510's and I can say I've driven my share of 510's setup in different ways. Steering boxes just equal so much less feedback.
Why does everyone hate front sump? In all my years I've only ever had one issue and it won't have mattered if it was front or rear sump. Rear sump pans are a false sense of security!!
I will agree it is a pain to install our crossmember if you don't like a little bit of fab work and some tinkering around. Also the exhaust sucks to deal with on an L series. But I avoid L's at all costs.
Reminds me of my cousin telling me "the way things are going pretty soon old cars like your 510 won't be allowed on the road" He said this almost 20 years ago. Tabs this year for our Nissan Leaf were $475 dollars compared to $62 bucks for my 510. They can put a digital plate on my 510 or whatever they want, I could care less. As long as I can drive it around.
Another fun day at the track. It was looking like I was going to get 5th place overall but on my last session I was able to pull of an amazing time. Mind of matter is all it takes. The way they had the coarse start you had to turn a pretty sharp 45 degree angle. I kept hitting it faster and faster until I realized I think I could just hit it at full throttle in second and take the corner at 60MPH WOW! Kinda scary but it gained me .70 seconds on my less than a minute lap time! It was my first event with my new R888R's which seem way better than the older ones. I feel they heat up faster and have a stiffer sidewall. The only car to beat me is a S2000 with a E85 turbo setup, he laid down 701HP on the dyno! It has staged boost so he can get traction. Here is a pic of his engine. Rad car and a super nice guy. So I basically need a turbo setup haha!