DaveH wrote:
Putting some quick and dirty arrows on the diagram tells me it's increasing weight transfer between the tires, sort of acting like an anti roll bar.
Correct, but unlike a traditional anti-roll bar, this only acts only when there is an applied lateral load. In a straight line there would be no appreciable increase in wheel rate for a single wheel bump.
DaveH wrote:
If this suspension reduces the effect of body roll on caster, do you need less caster (not good) or less inherent camber gain?
I don't follow. What 'effect of body roll on caster' is being reduced, and why is needing less caster not good? Caster is actually not the best way to achieve camber gain, since it's steering angle dependent rather than lateral load dependent. Technically, as long as you have the freedom of design to achieve the other geometric requirements and have another means of driving camber gain under lateral load, then caster in and of itself is not actually necessary.
DaveH wrote:
Also, this seems like scrub radius would move all over the place.
Again, I don't follow. I wouldn't expect the dynamic scrub radius changes due to movement of the center of pressure of the tire to be substantially greater than that of a more conventional geometry. Or do you maybe mean lateral tire scrub? Yeah, there would be some of that with my lowered roll center type geometry.
Bent Wrench wrote:
Seems to me it will bind up as the geometry changes will require forces greater than the actuating forces available?
How so? I'd actually argue that this 'should' (at least in theory) let the suspension work
more than a conventional geometry of similar capabilities.
RichardSIA wrote:
Hoping to find time to make a mock-up to test it out on a table.
Go for it! Although I wouldn't recommend copying the image of 'my' geometry to test...While it's representative of the general concept, it's not exactly 'correct'.