Trailling A-arm design

[ironknot]

[smg id=1494]

http://www.dtsfab.com/index/MGalleryItem.php?id=1494

This is what happens when you stick with an idea too long. . . or just long enough.

Please tell me what you think.

The rear spool idea is a double single sprocket about 1 3/4 wide machined with six threaded holes and recess on both sides for plunge. 4.25 large thin section bearings on cv.

38 inch axles with bearings on cvs mounted in plate for hub and then double sheard mounts top and bottom 200mm apart and offset 68 mm front to back to match A-arm mounts 20 degrees offset.

Spool to jack, 1.38 jack with double single sprocket on brass bush in centre. Jack sprocket has slots and holes for nylon rod then slot then nylon rod, two of these top and bottom with holes for nylon rod going through from side to side and slot connecting hole about 1/2 inch deep: Coupler on both sides of jack sprocket with 1/2 pins (grub strews 1 1/2 long) sticking out 1/2 inch with thread machined off. Pins into slots, two slots a side four in total for flex drive.

Think I may have over cooked this one but it makes sense to me.

[dsrace]

for some reason i can't view the pic or file attached to the post?

[BDKW1]

Issues.

As viewed from the side, the tire will move in an arc as it goes up and down due to the angle of the A-arm mounts. Anything past level on the arms and the tire will actually start to move forward. This does not work well. Your wheel path should always move to the rear. You could angle the arms mounts as viewed from the side a little to negate this.

[ironknot]

Fixed pix I think and this is the side view.

<img src="http://www.dtsfab.com/index/MGalleryItem.php?id=1495" alt="" />

[Yummi]

Fast's car is set up somewhat like this.  His rear arms are back a bit further as mentioned above.  Results in axle being run through arms.  Maybe he can chime in.

[fabr]

Have you priced the bearings and long axles yet? If I understand this correct  you are ,in effect,building your own midboard hubs.

[ironknot]

Axles are around 580 and I just found the listing for the bearings. I wouldn't say its going anywhere yet, but I've been slowly getting things inorder.

The midboard with inboard brakes seems like a lot of guess work. I've got RCV's so I'll make a move on the bearings next. Could be a waste of time but I'm in not hurray and want the best I can come up with regarless of the way that it takes me.

[fastcorvairs]

Fast's car is set up somewhat like this.  His rear arms are back a bit further as mentioned above.  Results in axle being run through arms.  Maybe he can chime in.

Completely different ball of wax.  Mine is a five link and they swing the tire in a in and out movement rather then a front to back movement.  Most all trailing arm car's will pull the tire front to back some.  Can't see that it can hurt anything.  Don't see why his design will not work.

[dsrace]

5 link or 6 link are totally diff and like fast said plus wheel base does increase and decrease with lateral links as well too. I kind of like the design and the first pic would need the carriers welded at the end to be trued up so there wasn't an extreme angle on the cv or any left to right but the arc of the swing will be interesting to see how that works out. like bdwk said past parallel you will loose wheel base, not a horrible thing it will just make it an interesting design to bring to life. I think it's doable just have to try it. the first pic reminds me of the flux capacitor out of the delorian off back to the future lol. i like it though.

[fabr]

Axles are around 580 and I just found the listing for the bearings. I wouldn't say its going anywhere yet, but I've been slowly getting things inorder.

The midboard with inboard brakes seems like a lot of guess work. I've got RCV's so I'll make a move on the bearings next. Could be a waste of time but I'm in not hurray and want the best I can come up with regarless of the way that it takes me.

I was just curious. Seems like you are aware of the cost and willing to proceed. In general the idea is sound IMO.

[fabr]

I do agree that bdkw is correct about not wanting foreward movement of the arms. However the amount will be minimal. Try to tweak the design to bring it to an absolute minimum.

[BDKW1]

Fixed pix I think and this is the side view.

Ah, that makes more sense. That should be just fine.

[BDKW1]

Simpler, lighter, stronger.



I would also redo the X brace in the B-pillar. Some diagonals from the top link mounts to the center of the floor bar, then an X brace from those to the upper corners on the hoop. But that's just Me......

[Engineer]

If it has camber change as it cycles it will also have toe change.

[ironknot]

Simpler, lighter, stronger.



I would also redo the X brace in the B-pillar. Some diagonals from the top link mounts to the center of the floor bar, then an X brace from those to the upper corners on the hoop. But that's just Me......

Thanx Bdkw1, the front is long for a fuel tank infront of the pedal box and as the rear assembly has just come up so its a bit of a mess. Might take a good while to get some parts and start measuring. Everything is relient on something else its a jigsaw starting with the spool cv distance so I'll start with those parts and if that works move from there.

I post the progress down the track a bit.