Interesting Suspension Article

Welcome to RCTalk

Come join other RC enthusiasts! You'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Racer 1966

What are we doing today?
Supporter
Build Thread Contributor
Messages
8,235
Reaction score
264
Location
Joplin, MO
RC Driving Style
  1. Bashing
I'm not sure where the best place is for this but here is an article that I came across in one of our engineering magazines we get at the shop. Intersting concept,but I'm not sure it's practical or durable enough IMO. Read the article and let me now what you think.

article1.JPG

article2.JPG
 
Last edited:
Randy, you mistakingly posted the first page twice.

In the 4th paragraph he begins talking about his active link and metions that the position of the upper arm would be a product of the steering input, but, he does not make any reference to the fact that chassis roll needs to be a source of input into that equation as well. He wants the suspension to automatically add effective camber upon more steering input to incease the width of the contact patch when cornering, but to only rely on steering input would only be part of the equation as this does not take into account the actual amount of performance being applied. If the chassis is being put under strong lateral load then more effective camber may certainly be necessary in turning to maximize the contact patch, but if the chassis is NOT being pushed to that extent then at the same steering value may not require as much effective camber to maintain maximum tire contact with the ground.

:2cents:
 
This article reminds me of an idea I had years ago regarding active camber.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
 
Ill have to give that second page a read when I get home. I can see the pic, that's insanely complicated though.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
 
So what are you thoughts Randy? It's a very very complicated design. I can visualize it working and understand the general concept of it, but I'm not sure the gains equal the losses. There are no less than 9 pivot points for a rear wheel, then add in steering for the front.

A military Hummer? Why in the hell would you want something that complicated on something that's obviously going to be beat to death.

I do like the fact that bump steer is probably nearly zero because the steering linkage is not affected by chassis roll. Also the active camber affect would be awesome. I see this as being beneficial to racing and that's about it. I imagine it would have to be very heavy if made durable and I cannot imagine it being beneficial from a practicality standpoint on a road car. I mean, maybe you'd never have to rotate your tires from side to side but depending on driving style and vehicle layout one would still need to rotate from front to rear.
 
Okay heres my .02, I think that setup& design looks way too complex, expensive, and weak, one good hit on that design and there goes an ENTIRE suspension. IMO, that is no bueno.

Interesting reading though thanks for posting
 
I'm right there with HPI-Killer,at least as a monster truck design. The guy was after something for crawling,for that I think it's way too obtrusive.
 
Back
Top