erturbo, Joe- sorry to disappoint. No batteries, just louvers. I finally figured out how to copy in acad. Besides, if a few are good, more are better-right?
At great risk to my ego, here's what I'm planning. Actually, criticism is welcome.
satchell link
Moderators: dhempy, a.moore, horizenjob
-
sorta_se7en
- Posts: 101
- Joined: January 5, 2007, 6:23 pm
- Location: Charlotte, NC
-
jdgar0649
- Posts: 294
- Joined: July 16, 2007, 9:30 pm
- Building: locost
- Location: Broken Arrow, OK
-
sorta_se7en
- Posts: 101
- Joined: January 5, 2007, 6:23 pm
- Location: Charlotte, NC
Dan- the pitch (up or down) of the links determines whether the setup reduces, or contributes to, acceleration squat.
The slight sideways and twisting movement of the axle probably wouldn't break conventional bushing-type links, especially if they used rubber sleeves.
My objective is to eliminate any lateral link- panhard, watts, woblink, or mumford (yipes- 8 pivot points!).
Joe- excellent link. Satchell's email address is in there- I'll try to get him to post.
mr.peabody- try this
The slight sideways and twisting movement of the axle probably wouldn't break conventional bushing-type links, especially if they used rubber sleeves.
My objective is to eliminate any lateral link- panhard, watts, woblink, or mumford (yipes- 8 pivot points!).
Joe- excellent link. Satchell's email address is in there- I'll try to get him to post.
mr.peabody- try this
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
mr.peabody.d
- Locostering Information Liaison
- Posts: 2397
- Joined: August 17, 2005, 1:30 am
- Location: So CALIFORNIA
-
Terry Satchell
- Posts: 5
- Joined: September 12, 2007, 9:10 pm
-
Grintch
- Posts: 196
- Joined: September 16, 2005, 1:55 pm
I think the packaging is the biggest challenge with a 7, as we sit only a few inches from the rear axle.
Terry - are you familiar with the typical 7 frame? If not see it here, http://mcsorley.net/locost/ (see under 3d model & drawings). Are my packaging concerns off base?
Terry - are you familiar with the typical 7 frame? If not see it here, http://mcsorley.net/locost/ (see under 3d model & drawings). Are my packaging concerns off base?
-
Terry Satchell
- Posts: 5
- Joined: September 12, 2007, 9:10 pm
Satchell Link Packaging
Yes I am familiar with the 7 packaging. I have helped a man in England with this geometry applied to a deDion rear suspension. We did not have any major issues.
-
MoeBawlz
- Posts: 7
- Joined: October 28, 2007, 10:53 pm
you may want to check out this Jaguar over at C-C.com. He put a satchell in his tube frame car. lots of tech and good discussion on the topic. http://corner-carvers.com/forums/showth ... chell+link
-
Terry Satchell
- Posts: 5
- Joined: September 12, 2007, 9:10 pm
Satchell Link on a Jaguar
I tried to go to that site, but I was not allowed to see it. Can you cut and paste any pertinent info and post it here? I would like to see what they had to say. Thanks
-
MoeBawlz
- Posts: 7
- Joined: October 28, 2007, 10:53 pm
Keep in mind this is from a primarily mustang oriented road race site, although there are MANY other cars out there and a wealth of knowledge available on this site. (word to the wise) if you decide to join this site be sure to read the newbie rules and follow them to a "T".
RC height is 10 inches
Lower arms are 20.5 inches long
Upper arms are 16 inches long
SVSAL is 48 inches with about 100% anti-squat
What sort of roll steer numbers did you come up with?
Currently it is tuned to have roll understeer. I have the option of making the upper arms longer if I find that I have too much roll understeer. Also I have the option of tuning for neural roll steer if desired. The good news is I will not have roll oversteer problems, one of the benefits to a Satchell link.
____________________________
Now this may just be the angle of the pics, but those lowers seem to have a huge angle of convergence. The loads on them reacting axle torque are going to be extremely high by the looks of the pics.
They are angled at 45 deg, the pictures are deceiving. The brackets are pretty beefy, as I tend to over engineer stuff, which isn't always good, but is important in this case.
______________________________
From what I see there it looks like it is very similar to the rear suspension setup on the Fox-body Mustangs, but with the upper and lower links reversed.
Yes you are correct, except I will not be using rubber or poly bushings for obvious reasons.
_______________________________
If that is the case why would you select a setup like this when Mustang owners are changing to torque arm/panhard rod or 5-link style or <insert new nifty rear suspension of choice> all over the place?
Unlike a 3-link or 5-link, the Satchell link allows you to tune for roll understeer without decreasing anti-squat. Which also means it is easy to tune in neutral roll steer if desired.
_____________________________
Hate to follow up a post with another one, but I did some more midnight book-looking to try and figure out how this thing works, how to define the relevent terms, etc. Nothing specific in Milliken, and very little in Adam's book.
Still, looks like the way you determine the roll center height is to find the lateral restraint point, which is where the lower links converge in plan view. Since the uppers are parallel in plan view, they don't offer any lateral help, and the roll axis is defined to run parallel to them, in side view. RRCH is found by projecting the lat. point, along the roll axis, to the axle centerline. From the pictures, the uppers are slightly angled down in side view, so as you stated, the system is setup for roll understeer, and you posted the RRCH (10 inches). Did I figure this right?
The RRCH is pretty low relative to most of the other approaches for sedans, one notable exception is the infamous TCP setup with the Watt's pivot on the bottom of the differential. Obvious difference being that the roll axis on that setup is set up for significant roll oversteer because the lower links (in this case) are angled way up towards the front. Still, it begs the question, with such a low RRCH, and a correspondingly relatively high roll moment, are you planning on running a rear bar to help control roll in the rear?
Last question, for the lower links in particular, because they are angled, they will see a good amount of bending force (whereas the uppers will mainly see tension/compression). What size tubing did you use for the lowers? My setup will use 28" lowers, angled at about 15 or so degrees, so the bending force will be lower, but I'm curious to hear what you chose.
Both Fred Puhn and Milliken have diagrams explaining how to find the RC height on a triangulated 4-link. It sounds like you got it right. Unfortunatlely as you stated, very few books go much further than that when discussing these types of link type suspension systems.
Yes, I will be running an adjustable anti-sway bar.
The lower links are made from 1" x .156 wall D.O.M. tubing, which is threaded for 3/4" fine thread rod ends. The way I see it, the lower links will still see pure tension and compression, but the mounting brackets will need to be beefy to handle the loads. On a side note, your 28" lowers are nice and long, which should provide good roll steer charactisitics for your 3-link.
_____________________________
For anyone who is interested, I took the car to a local test&tune autocross this weekend. Between my brother and I we got 24 runs in. I had the sway bars set on the softest setting, so as not to hide any geometry issues. The satchell link showed no signs of snap oversteer. As the car rolled under hard cornering and the rear tires started to show signs of breaking loose, you could actually keep pushing the limit without any sudden loss of traction. No quadra bind here! It was so much fun driving a predictable car.
I currently have the links on the satchell link arranged for roll understeer. The more I think about it, the more I think this is the reason the rearend was very easy to control at and beyond the limit. But this is the first time that I have played around with tuning in roll understeer, so I don't know for sure. All I know is that you absolutly don't want roll oversteer.
______________________________
What difference is there in angling the upper vs. lower arms
Angling the upper arms will create a roll center height some where above the axle (bad). Angling the lower arms will create a roll center height some where below the axle (good).
_____________________________
My reasoning for the lowers converging on the axle is that it will be easier to loop the exhaust up and over the axle that way. Is there a design problem with this?
The only disadvantage that I am aware of is that the axle wont be supported as well if the lower arms converge toward the pumpkin. Supporting the axle near the tires by all 4-links is why the Satchell link works so well on a high HP heavy car.
_____________________________
I have about 100% anti-squat. One of the reasons I used the Satchell link was because it allowed me to get a lot of anti-squat with the option to play with tuning in a slight amount of roll understeer. If you are not in the anti-squat camp, then the Satchell link has one less advantage over the 3-link. It isn't easy to get both 100% anti-squat and roll understeer with the 3-link.
If you build a Satchell, were you planning on using a push-pull linkage system for the shock absorber, like you mentioned in an earlier thread? That was a neat idea.
Keep in mind that using rubber rod ends could create unwanted roll bind. A certain amount would be no different than an anti-sway bar, but too much could cause problems.
My upper arms are parallel to each other. The slope in the sideview play a part in determining the RC height, but if they also converged then they would effect the RC height even greater. Fred Puhn's book describes how they effect RC height if your curious. My RC height is at about 10".
I find it funny that I am the only one on this board with a working Satchell link. Plenty of 3-links,4-links and torque arms etc. It would be nice if you could get more opinions, before cutting your back half off.
________________________
Jag do you think that it is important that the lower arms be near 45 degrees in plan view to equalize the lateral and forward forces ?
I assumed it was for the same reasons you mentioned. But I never found any tech confirming or denying that. In order to maximize the lower arm length, my lower brackets at the axle actually mount partially inside the wheel. I am using 17" wheels. 16" wheels might have clearance problems, and I know 15" wheel will not work. If you are using 18" wheels you probably could tuck the bracket into the wheel nicely thus allowing for a longer lower arm.
__________________________
So is the idea that the lower arms contribute very little to roll steer, and roll steer is determined by the upper arm angle ? The idea being you can raise the front of the lower arms to maximize AS, but they don't contribute to roll steer ?
Correct, your software will confirm this and make it easier to come up with an ideal link location.
And there is other information that is more specific to his setup. Im sorry its jumbled up like that but I couldnt really make it clean from site to site, hope it helps.
RC height is 10 inches
Lower arms are 20.5 inches long
Upper arms are 16 inches long
SVSAL is 48 inches with about 100% anti-squat
What sort of roll steer numbers did you come up with?
Currently it is tuned to have roll understeer. I have the option of making the upper arms longer if I find that I have too much roll understeer. Also I have the option of tuning for neural roll steer if desired. The good news is I will not have roll oversteer problems, one of the benefits to a Satchell link.
____________________________
Now this may just be the angle of the pics, but those lowers seem to have a huge angle of convergence. The loads on them reacting axle torque are going to be extremely high by the looks of the pics.
They are angled at 45 deg, the pictures are deceiving. The brackets are pretty beefy, as I tend to over engineer stuff, which isn't always good, but is important in this case.
______________________________
From what I see there it looks like it is very similar to the rear suspension setup on the Fox-body Mustangs, but with the upper and lower links reversed.
Yes you are correct, except I will not be using rubber or poly bushings for obvious reasons.
_______________________________
If that is the case why would you select a setup like this when Mustang owners are changing to torque arm/panhard rod or 5-link style or <insert new nifty rear suspension of choice> all over the place?
Unlike a 3-link or 5-link, the Satchell link allows you to tune for roll understeer without decreasing anti-squat. Which also means it is easy to tune in neutral roll steer if desired.
_____________________________
Hate to follow up a post with another one, but I did some more midnight book-looking to try and figure out how this thing works, how to define the relevent terms, etc. Nothing specific in Milliken, and very little in Adam's book.
Still, looks like the way you determine the roll center height is to find the lateral restraint point, which is where the lower links converge in plan view. Since the uppers are parallel in plan view, they don't offer any lateral help, and the roll axis is defined to run parallel to them, in side view. RRCH is found by projecting the lat. point, along the roll axis, to the axle centerline. From the pictures, the uppers are slightly angled down in side view, so as you stated, the system is setup for roll understeer, and you posted the RRCH (10 inches). Did I figure this right?
The RRCH is pretty low relative to most of the other approaches for sedans, one notable exception is the infamous TCP setup with the Watt's pivot on the bottom of the differential. Obvious difference being that the roll axis on that setup is set up for significant roll oversteer because the lower links (in this case) are angled way up towards the front. Still, it begs the question, with such a low RRCH, and a correspondingly relatively high roll moment, are you planning on running a rear bar to help control roll in the rear?
Last question, for the lower links in particular, because they are angled, they will see a good amount of bending force (whereas the uppers will mainly see tension/compression). What size tubing did you use for the lowers? My setup will use 28" lowers, angled at about 15 or so degrees, so the bending force will be lower, but I'm curious to hear what you chose.
Both Fred Puhn and Milliken have diagrams explaining how to find the RC height on a triangulated 4-link. It sounds like you got it right. Unfortunatlely as you stated, very few books go much further than that when discussing these types of link type suspension systems.
Yes, I will be running an adjustable anti-sway bar.
The lower links are made from 1" x .156 wall D.O.M. tubing, which is threaded for 3/4" fine thread rod ends. The way I see it, the lower links will still see pure tension and compression, but the mounting brackets will need to be beefy to handle the loads. On a side note, your 28" lowers are nice and long, which should provide good roll steer charactisitics for your 3-link.
_____________________________
For anyone who is interested, I took the car to a local test&tune autocross this weekend. Between my brother and I we got 24 runs in. I had the sway bars set on the softest setting, so as not to hide any geometry issues. The satchell link showed no signs of snap oversteer. As the car rolled under hard cornering and the rear tires started to show signs of breaking loose, you could actually keep pushing the limit without any sudden loss of traction. No quadra bind here! It was so much fun driving a predictable car.
I currently have the links on the satchell link arranged for roll understeer. The more I think about it, the more I think this is the reason the rearend was very easy to control at and beyond the limit. But this is the first time that I have played around with tuning in roll understeer, so I don't know for sure. All I know is that you absolutly don't want roll oversteer.
______________________________
What difference is there in angling the upper vs. lower arms
Angling the upper arms will create a roll center height some where above the axle (bad). Angling the lower arms will create a roll center height some where below the axle (good).
_____________________________
My reasoning for the lowers converging on the axle is that it will be easier to loop the exhaust up and over the axle that way. Is there a design problem with this?
The only disadvantage that I am aware of is that the axle wont be supported as well if the lower arms converge toward the pumpkin. Supporting the axle near the tires by all 4-links is why the Satchell link works so well on a high HP heavy car.
_____________________________
I have about 100% anti-squat. One of the reasons I used the Satchell link was because it allowed me to get a lot of anti-squat with the option to play with tuning in a slight amount of roll understeer. If you are not in the anti-squat camp, then the Satchell link has one less advantage over the 3-link. It isn't easy to get both 100% anti-squat and roll understeer with the 3-link.
If you build a Satchell, were you planning on using a push-pull linkage system for the shock absorber, like you mentioned in an earlier thread? That was a neat idea.
Keep in mind that using rubber rod ends could create unwanted roll bind. A certain amount would be no different than an anti-sway bar, but too much could cause problems.
My upper arms are parallel to each other. The slope in the sideview play a part in determining the RC height, but if they also converged then they would effect the RC height even greater. Fred Puhn's book describes how they effect RC height if your curious. My RC height is at about 10".
I find it funny that I am the only one on this board with a working Satchell link. Plenty of 3-links,4-links and torque arms etc. It would be nice if you could get more opinions, before cutting your back half off.
________________________
Jag do you think that it is important that the lower arms be near 45 degrees in plan view to equalize the lateral and forward forces ?
I assumed it was for the same reasons you mentioned. But I never found any tech confirming or denying that. In order to maximize the lower arm length, my lower brackets at the axle actually mount partially inside the wheel. I am using 17" wheels. 16" wheels might have clearance problems, and I know 15" wheel will not work. If you are using 18" wheels you probably could tuck the bracket into the wheel nicely thus allowing for a longer lower arm.
__________________________
So is the idea that the lower arms contribute very little to roll steer, and roll steer is determined by the upper arm angle ? The idea being you can raise the front of the lower arms to maximize AS, but they don't contribute to roll steer ?
Correct, your software will confirm this and make it easier to come up with an ideal link location.
And there is other information that is more specific to his setup. Im sorry its jumbled up like that but I couldnt really make it clean from site to site, hope it helps.
-
Terry Satchell
- Posts: 5
- Joined: September 12, 2007, 9:10 pm
Satchell Link and how to control it.
The comments in that post are basically correct but not quite completely. Any time you use a live axle rear suspension you attach it to the chassis so that there are two basic motions allowed. Parallel jounce and roll. In engineering terms in a 3 dimensional world there are 6 degrees of freedom of motion of one body relative to another. To allow 2 degrees of freedom (jounce and roll) we must constrain 4 degrees of freedom. That can be accomplished with 4 tension compression links. Any more than that are redundant and could become a structure and any less and it is not fully constrained. When one uses a "3-link" there is another "link" for lateral control. Either a panhard bar or a Watts, so even the 3-link has 4 control links. The Satchell link is just a special case of a 4-link.
The orientation of the links controls the 5 major parameters of a rear axle suspension. They are: side view swing arm length, roll center height, roll steer, anti-squat, and anti-lift. Also the rate of change of these 5 parameters is important.
It is not correct to say that lower arms do not affect roll steer or roll center height, because it is a complete system and all the links must be in specific locations to control the variable. When the upper links are parallel to each other in the plan view, the angle in the side view is the roll steer slope. If the rise over run, or tangent of the angle, is set to 0.14, then you will have 14% roll steer. If the front is lower than the back it is roll understeer. As the suspension travels in parallel jounce the side view angle obviously changes. The rate of change is a function of the length of the upper link.
Roll Steer over or under, is not the same as limit handling balance oversteer or understeer. It has an effect on the transient handling. You always want some roll understeer in the rear of a car.
The post mentions a 48 inch side view swing arm length. This is borderline. It is my experience that it should be at least 60 inches. So if you start around 80 at ride height it will remain longer than 60 for most useable travels. The rate of change of the side view swing arm is a function of the relative lengths of the upper and lower arms in the side view. The 60 inch limit helps keep from getting into brake hop or power hop problems.
The lower arms are best mounted as close to 45 degrees in the plan view as possilble. These are the primary load paths for lateral control. However, the uppers are also involved in the lateral control of the axle. If you push sideways on the axle, without upper arms the whole axle would rotate about the front pivots of the lowers. The uppers stop this gross rotation by providing a fore-aft reaction taking out the moment generated by the lateral force. So all the links are involved
The lower arms should be as long as practical. So like the example states the axle end is on an axle bracket inside the wheel. This allows for a longer fore-aft effective length in side view when you go at a 45 degree angle in plan view. You can get away with less than 45 degrees but the loads go up in the links.
I hope this helps you out. If you have more questions, feel free to ask.
The orientation of the links controls the 5 major parameters of a rear axle suspension. They are: side view swing arm length, roll center height, roll steer, anti-squat, and anti-lift. Also the rate of change of these 5 parameters is important.
It is not correct to say that lower arms do not affect roll steer or roll center height, because it is a complete system and all the links must be in specific locations to control the variable. When the upper links are parallel to each other in the plan view, the angle in the side view is the roll steer slope. If the rise over run, or tangent of the angle, is set to 0.14, then you will have 14% roll steer. If the front is lower than the back it is roll understeer. As the suspension travels in parallel jounce the side view angle obviously changes. The rate of change is a function of the length of the upper link.
Roll Steer over or under, is not the same as limit handling balance oversteer or understeer. It has an effect on the transient handling. You always want some roll understeer in the rear of a car.
The post mentions a 48 inch side view swing arm length. This is borderline. It is my experience that it should be at least 60 inches. So if you start around 80 at ride height it will remain longer than 60 for most useable travels. The rate of change of the side view swing arm is a function of the relative lengths of the upper and lower arms in the side view. The 60 inch limit helps keep from getting into brake hop or power hop problems.
The lower arms are best mounted as close to 45 degrees in the plan view as possilble. These are the primary load paths for lateral control. However, the uppers are also involved in the lateral control of the axle. If you push sideways on the axle, without upper arms the whole axle would rotate about the front pivots of the lowers. The uppers stop this gross rotation by providing a fore-aft reaction taking out the moment generated by the lateral force. So all the links are involved
The lower arms should be as long as practical. So like the example states the axle end is on an axle bracket inside the wheel. This allows for a longer fore-aft effective length in side view when you go at a 45 degree angle in plan view. You can get away with less than 45 degrees but the loads go up in the links.
I hope this helps you out. If you have more questions, feel free to ask.
-
Terry Satchell
- Posts: 5
- Joined: September 12, 2007, 9:10 pm
Satchell Link Geometry
Here is the output from a geometry program. It shows the input points and the output parameters. Have a look and it might answer some of your questions.
FOR THIS PROGRAM, X = AFT, Y = RIGHT, Z = UP
Filename = C:\Program Files\RLSGEO\RLSGEOS\Locost05.dat
DATA IDENTIFICATION = rear from england udpdated 6/2005
LOWER ARM COORDINATES(X,Y,Z) FOR FRAME AND AXLE PIVOTS
-7.200 5.060 7.500 5.140 17.440 7.500
UPPER ARM COORDINATES(X,Y,Z) FOR FRAME AND AXLE PIVOTS
-12.340 22.890 14.990 0.000 22.890 15.490
STATIC LOADED RADIUS, C.G. HEIGHT, WHEELBASE AND FRT. BRAKING
11.375 16.000 97.870 65.000
GROUND LINE SLOPE IN DECIMAL DEGREES (UPWARD TO FRT. IS POSITIVE)
0.000
FULL JOUNCE AND REBOUND TRAVELS
2.500 -1.500
CENTER OF REAR WHEEL COORDINATES (X,Z)
0.000 11.375
ARE PROP SHAFT JOINT ANGLES DESIRED ? (1 = YES) ==> 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LOWER CONTROL ARM
TRUE LENGTH = 17.480
P.V. ANGLE = -45.093
S.V. ANGLE = 0.000
UPPER CONTROL ARM
TRUE LENGTH = 12.350
P.V. ANGLE = 0.000
S.V. ANGLE = 2.320
, PERCENT , SWING , ROLL , PERCENT
WHEEL , UNDER , ARM , CENTER , ANTI-
TRAVEL , STEER , LENGTH , HEIGHT , SQUAT
2.500 , 25.039 , -235.918 , 6.992 , -125.964
2.000 20.669 -230.078 7.179 -91.196
1.500 16.410 -223.195 7.375 -59.306
1.000 12.236 -215.362 7.577 -29.846
0.500 8.124 -206.676 7.785 -2.435
-----------------------------------------------------------------
0.000 4.052 -197.231 7.996 23.256
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-0.500 0.000 -187.127 8.210 47.516
-1.000 -4.052 -176.461 8.424 70.603
-1.500 -8.125 -165.333 8.639 92.753
NEGATIVE SWING ARM INDICATES FOREWARD OF AXLE
SWING SWING PERCENT SPRING SPRING
WHEEL ARM ARM ANTI- LENGTH LINKAGE
TRAVEL HEIGHT RADIUS LIFT RATIO
2.500 -43.491 241.910 46.565 11.352 0.987
2.000 -32.015 233.930 33.943 11.841 0.977
1.500 -21.111 225.424 22.304 12.321 0.961
1.000 -10.851 216.445 11.496 12.794 0.946
0.500 -1.297 207.043 1.387 13.260 0.932
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.000 7.498 197.269 8.139 13.720 0.920
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-0.500 15.490 187.171 17.185 14.175 0.909
-1.000 22.641 176.798 25.844 14.624 0.900
-1.500 28.921 166.197 34.204 15.070 0.891
POSITIVE SWING ARM HEIGHT INDICATES ABOVE GROUND
LEFT RIGHT
WHEEL WHEEL WHEEL
TRAVEL RATE RATE
2.500 98.664 98.664
2.000 97.727 97.727
1.500 96.061 96.061
1.000 94.559 94.559
0.500 93.206 93.206
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.000 91.995 91.995
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-0.500 90.918 90.918
-1.000 89.970 89.970
-1.500 89.149 89.149
LEFT BUMP RATE = 76.788 lb/in RIGHT BUMP RATE = 76.788 lb/in
ROLL STIFFNESS DUE TO SPRINGS AT DESIGN = 126.570 FT-LB/DEG
FOR THIS PROGRAM, X = AFT, Y = RIGHT, Z = UP
Filename = C:\Program Files\RLSGEO\RLSGEOS\Locost05.dat
DATA IDENTIFICATION = rear from england udpdated 6/2005
LOWER ARM COORDINATES(X,Y,Z) FOR FRAME AND AXLE PIVOTS
-7.200 5.060 7.500 5.140 17.440 7.500
UPPER ARM COORDINATES(X,Y,Z) FOR FRAME AND AXLE PIVOTS
-12.340 22.890 14.990 0.000 22.890 15.490
STATIC LOADED RADIUS, C.G. HEIGHT, WHEELBASE AND FRT. BRAKING
11.375 16.000 97.870 65.000
GROUND LINE SLOPE IN DECIMAL DEGREES (UPWARD TO FRT. IS POSITIVE)
0.000
FULL JOUNCE AND REBOUND TRAVELS
2.500 -1.500
CENTER OF REAR WHEEL COORDINATES (X,Z)
0.000 11.375
ARE PROP SHAFT JOINT ANGLES DESIRED ? (1 = YES) ==> 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LOWER CONTROL ARM
TRUE LENGTH = 17.480
P.V. ANGLE = -45.093
S.V. ANGLE = 0.000
UPPER CONTROL ARM
TRUE LENGTH = 12.350
P.V. ANGLE = 0.000
S.V. ANGLE = 2.320
, PERCENT , SWING , ROLL , PERCENT
WHEEL , UNDER , ARM , CENTER , ANTI-
TRAVEL , STEER , LENGTH , HEIGHT , SQUAT
2.500 , 25.039 , -235.918 , 6.992 , -125.964
2.000 20.669 -230.078 7.179 -91.196
1.500 16.410 -223.195 7.375 -59.306
1.000 12.236 -215.362 7.577 -29.846
0.500 8.124 -206.676 7.785 -2.435
-----------------------------------------------------------------
0.000 4.052 -197.231 7.996 23.256
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-0.500 0.000 -187.127 8.210 47.516
-1.000 -4.052 -176.461 8.424 70.603
-1.500 -8.125 -165.333 8.639 92.753
NEGATIVE SWING ARM INDICATES FOREWARD OF AXLE
SWING SWING PERCENT SPRING SPRING
WHEEL ARM ARM ANTI- LENGTH LINKAGE
TRAVEL HEIGHT RADIUS LIFT RATIO
2.500 -43.491 241.910 46.565 11.352 0.987
2.000 -32.015 233.930 33.943 11.841 0.977
1.500 -21.111 225.424 22.304 12.321 0.961
1.000 -10.851 216.445 11.496 12.794 0.946
0.500 -1.297 207.043 1.387 13.260 0.932
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.000 7.498 197.269 8.139 13.720 0.920
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-0.500 15.490 187.171 17.185 14.175 0.909
-1.000 22.641 176.798 25.844 14.624 0.900
-1.500 28.921 166.197 34.204 15.070 0.891
POSITIVE SWING ARM HEIGHT INDICATES ABOVE GROUND
LEFT RIGHT
WHEEL WHEEL WHEEL
TRAVEL RATE RATE
2.500 98.664 98.664
2.000 97.727 97.727
1.500 96.061 96.061
1.000 94.559 94.559
0.500 93.206 93.206
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.000 91.995 91.995
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-0.500 90.918 90.918
-1.000 89.970 89.970
-1.500 89.149 89.149
LEFT BUMP RATE = 76.788 lb/in RIGHT BUMP RATE = 76.788 lb/in
ROLL STIFFNESS DUE TO SPRINGS AT DESIGN = 126.570 FT-LB/DEG
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests