0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Red is lower arm and this shows upper in whatever the hell that color is.
Thats it, I'm backroading it tonight to check this out..Whether yer home or not.. I know how to crawl through your cat door
i could mount the shock on the outside of the frame but.....that poses a problem with wheel travel as it is a 14" stroke shock.Cut those babies down. I think Fox and King both offer that service still. Maybe not but if so,you could get just what you need and likely make mounting them a LOT easier. however i will go look at that as it is an interesting thought. as far as the spread number/ratio's you posted i agree. those numbers work great for the front and have proved to work well on the rear in your busa rail. i know you have applied them to you offroad v8 build as well. i have always liked the look and principal of the formula 1 lower control arms and if you look at the pic i included they are close to a 45* angle.Yes,45* is optimal for strength-agreed. now the later years don't use a 3 point at the frame design. i have seen that design however but i believe it's an older design however they don't hit or up root trees lol i am not using rear steer either however interesting thought lol The middle link does very little actually,IMOthe lower control arm i have built has a 45* third arm going forward. it does not look proportionately correct with the rest of it. my rod length is 28" on the main link which is almost straight out and 1.5" od .25" wall, the rest is 1.25" od .120 wall. that is what i called gawdy looking but that load is what i was aiming for. I see your point and don't disagree with your thinking but I do believe it is a bit overkillas it has proven to work well on enemy's and carls rails. now as you can see in the pics........my upper has a narrower mounting point at the frame because of the starter. the upper arm is my true concern-I think you need to find a way to widen the frame mounting points somehow. if i had a mendi with a starter on top of the bell housing i would have a much larger stance. i admit that bracing on the top is excessive bracing is not really excessive as it will make a strong arm but the frame mounting points have me concerned.but i like the way it looks and because of the narrower stance i figured it needed a little extra bracing. i decided to try this rear end using 3/4" chromoly heims. those double adjusters are called jack screws. they too are 3/4" chromoly and i really wanted to be able to make quick and easy adjustments. without those double adjusters it would be a bear to attach the hub plate and they will allow very eay toe adjustments. I like it! but a double heim bottom arm with a single heim on the top does the same thing and is also amply strong. when i build the next chassis i prob will be using a trans with a top mount starter giving me plenty of room! now from all my years of designing and using multi link rear ends i have learned ( the hard way once lol) that the lower lateral rods take more load than the upper lateral rod. as you can see in the one pic it folded however it folded up not down. so i have always taken that as the carrier wants to rotate opposite of the wheel. I don't believe there are any rotational forces acting on it unless a link bends that was the last time i used aluminum lateral rods btw. this is diff from a multi link. i am def open to ideas and this is the chassis to try them out on as it is a guinea pig lolalso i have worked on car suspension for about 26 years now. the interesting thing i have always noticed is with 4 cyl cars the lower control arm stance is narrower than a v6 or v8 front wheel drive. on the v8 or v6 the frame stance is actually much wider than the arm is long and there is a 45* or 40* pitch for lateral support.I agree with your thinking on this pretty much i always assumed that was also because the upper was a strut.