A few posts back you were whining about a beam axle not providing enough suspension travel when fitted to a standard Locost chassis.I was illustrating that the DUAL BEAM axle idea you presented would not have any additional king pin length over the old Ford single tube axle with similar suspension travel that a IRS Locost already has.
Now you claim that Lo cost cars hardly need any suspension travel at all.I did not claim that at all. I said, "I don't think that the stock Locost IFS suspension has a particular travel problem for the car's intended use." As we both know, a camber changing suspension NEEDs suspension travel to work.
All you do is rubbish and criticize without adding anything new, innovative, or positive to the discussion at all. Baloney.
Actually I gave some numbers to your dual beam axle idea. Here's what I said,
"On a "book" chassis there is 11" between the front frame rails. If we allow 1" of clearance for the minimum clearance between the top and bottom of the axle(s) so they don't hit the chassis, that leaves 9" max from the top of the upper tube to the bottom of the lower tube as the maximum axle(s) separation dimension. Whatever you can take out of the 9" will be the bump/droop the axle(s) can move. If you want 2-1/2" up/down as the max suspension movement (5" total) you are back to about the length of the Ford kingpin (4").
It just seems to be easier to use one tube and make the distance between the ball joints as large as you can to fit into the rims if that is the end result desired."
That certainly added a new dimension to the discussion. Otherwise why did you present the suicide front end? You could have presented YOUR data that a dual beam axle through the chassis proved my numbers wrong. Instead you presented another way to use a solid axle. And not even the dual beam one to boot (sort of like my VW inspired idea).
So my response must have presented something positive to the discussion.
The hot rod example in the above picture was only to show how a suspension may be extended beyond the ends of the chassis, to get around the often difficult problem of packaging and chassis clearance limitations.
And you start nit picking about Ackerman in the example, which is totally irrelevant to the discussion.
Having reversed Ackermann was a common problem on those show cars when the builders copied one another. I didn't want someone to copy your example too closely without considering another of it's bad points.
Besides, in responding to your example, I also pointed out that the wheel base would be extended, the weight transfer to the rear might be a problem. And by inference a person who has never built a car before would have to redesign a known to work IFS and chassis to a suicide front end.
Let's go back to the original poster's questions.
I know independent suspension is all sexy and all that but has anyone considered using a one piece front axle?
It would simplify the pieces involved in the suspension and in getting everything to align.
Some of the Locosts use a solid rear axle, why not a solid front axle?
I am thinking of a Locost as a daily drive and not as a perfoemance vehicle, something fun to drive back and forth to work. Reliability being the main idea.
One of his goals was to simplify
the building of the car to drive on the street.
Do you really think a dual beam axle with all it's apparent problems with clearance etc would be the way to go? Would having him redesign the chassis to accommodate a suicide axle be something he would want to do?
You said, "Sure, a shortie Locost chassis may look a bit unconventional without a body, but there is absolutely nothing preventing you from fitting a non structural nose cone (with radiator), or any type of front or rear extended bodywork you want, to improve aerodynamics or looks."
The wheel base would increase, not become shorter. Improved aerodynamics ..... sort of like the picture below?
I'm not trying to criticize your suggestions out of hand, more that I think they aren't suitable to the goal kf2qd had in mind.