A-Arm design

[deranged]

[dsrace]

they do feel more stable and provide a better take off imo. a rear a arm style does make it easy to add a sway bar if so desired too!

[dsrace]

if you were to continue using that style carrier, it would be possible to add a spacer to go to 2 heims top and bottom allowing tow. that tie rod like rod you have for forward support is welded into my lower a arm at a 45* angel forward. imo it does make a diff from personal view. i went with a diff style heim set to make alignment easier.

[dsrace]

so i use a 3/4" chromoly female heim and a 3/4" chromoly threaded shaft rh and lh on each side so like a small tie rod for easy toe adjustment. standard chromoly heims on the front.

[deranged]

That adjustment is very similar to the Edge rear end.

 I honestly am a fan of the setup on the new Can AM X3.  Trailing arm, upper and lower link with toe adjustment. Here is an example of what K-Fab is building for his Mini Raptor

[deranged]

I like that adjuster!  Now is KPI a factor in designing an a arm rear suspension?

[fabr]

GREAT Information!  I have been leaning toward the a arm design as you mentioned that it is easier to design in camber gain etc.  You are correct fabber, that was a Rorty car.  My new car will have rake built into the chassis and that is a very good point to make sure there is enough up travel clearance as that "hood" part of the chassis will be as low as I can make it as well as short as possible for visibility.  The old rorty car has piss poor front vision.

While we are talking car design, I will do some splain-nin' 
Rorty based chassis layout. 2 seat
Lengthen the wheelbase to 118 to 120 ish (the rorty was 102) too short IMO
Width 86" or so.
Plate control arms in the front with 7*ish of rake 2.5 IBP shocks 12" ish and tabbed for bypasses
33" tall tires
2.4 Ecotec
CVT to an RPM  A transaxle is out of the question LOL  I know how I drive and it's just not in the budget.
Entertaining the possibility of a arms in the rear but leaning more to trailing arms
2.5 coilovers/2.5 bypasses
20" travel in the front
18-20" travel in the rear
Kind of a cool radius roof line

So basically a class 10 car by design..lol

My second car was/is pretty much the same car with a few mods.Yep shitty front visibility for sure. I can't agree more.
Ditto!!
Lean back to a arms ,IMO. I'm a real fan but everyone has their own opinion and the masses still use TA's. I think that will slowly change. They just handle better,IMO.There are some uses that TA's would be better tho. I can go along with most of the rest.Just my worthless .02

[dsrace]

I like that adjuster!  Now is KPI a factor in designing an a arm rear suspension?

k fab does do some nice work for sure. still looks like a spin off of a 3 link rear end but with a tie rod. kpi isn't as an important factor as it is in the front end. i have 0 on my carrier but closed the gap at the frame to create a slight amount of neg camber. i actually pre fer to be able to break and drift the rear plus with more flat top 1450 #2 cut paddle tires, neg camber change plays less of a role if any imo. comes down to each persons preference in the end. my track width in the rear with those paddles at full droop is 96" and i have 23.5" true wheel travel in the rear with my a arm design running non plunge 930 cv's.

[fabr]

Kfabs design is definitely not a trailing arm . I agree with DS

[dsrace]

Kfabs design is definitely not a trailing arm . I agree with DS

with out a way to pivot how does that tie rod work? unless the bushings he's going to use on the forward (or lateral link arm) have some play or give i'm not sure how the tie rod would work??

[deranged]

I believe the aluminum spindle has uniballs top and bottom to gain the toe adjustment.

[dsrace]

that would make more sense.

[fabr]

It's not just the tie rod. I would need to see a lot more of it to understand it for sure.