Bent Wrench wrote:
The problem with panhard's is that it does not work the same for turns in the opposite direction.
A Mumford or a Watts will have the same performance in right or left turn.
Unless the L/R weight distribution is 50/50, then the car (assuming equal L/R wheel rates) inherently does not turn identically both directions. With a longitudinally mounted engine, accelerating or decelerating has unequal L/R inertial effects. With a live axle, being on or off throttle also causes unequal L/R tire loading. And I have yet to run a circuit that has an equal amount of left and right turning, as there tends to be ~360* more of one than the other... So with all of this in mind, are we sure that equal L/R reactions through the axle's lateral locating device is even desirable? On the street might it be desirable to balance out another imbalance? On the track might it be fastest to favor one direction slightly over the other? Note that it wouldn't be hard to add a second set of mounting points, so that the Panhard could be flipped depending on which direction the track is being run.
Quote:
Perhaps most Locost designs do not normally need a lower roll center than a Watts can provide?
And those that cant tell the difference simply install a Panhard.
The main reason we don't want to run higher roll centers on independent suspensions is 'jacking'... However, solid (live and de Dion) axles do not suffer from jacking effects the way independent suspensions do. This means that solid axles are able to run significantly higher roll center heights without ill effect. So with all this in mind, are we sure that chasing independent-like (anti-jacking) roll centers are what we even want for solid axles? I've seen referenced where a race car was converted from a (Watts) live axle to independent, which and lowered only the rear roll center by more than half, and yet doing so with no change to the front suspension did not upset the previously achieved balance.