omega 24 v6
|
| posted on 22/5/05 at 11:05 AM |
|
|
Wishbone Cad
I am currently drawing the wishbone set up for the front of a 442 using Mcsorelys chassis plans and using FU tubes in line with the E tube and s,t
tube. It's all going well at the moment but something does not look visually correct.
Firstly i am designing with the bottom wish bone on the level is this correct and is this how it should run when on the road.
Secondly if the first point is correct this gives the top bone an upward angle of around 12 and 1/2 degrees. Is this right i am presuming so although
it does not look visually correct but does give the 22mm offset for 5.5 degrees castor.
And lastly if this is correct do i need to angle the top ball joint rod tube downwards to make it level?
Thanks in advance for the answers people and once its finished i will try and add it to my picture archive.
on the up side we had a good nights racing last night and a contact said he might soon have a crtina for me WHOO HOO
|
|
|
|
|
Mix
|
| posted on 22/5/05 at 03:37 PM |
|
|
Point one: Yes
Point two: Sounds corect though I can't verify the angles, the bones should diverge to give the desirable camber changes in bump and droop.
Point three: Only if it is running out of angular movement within the range of movement of the coilover/wishbone assy.
Mick
|
|
|
clbarclay
|
| posted on 22/5/05 at 03:46 PM |
|
|
Regards point one, it is not uncommon for the outer end of the lower wishbones to be lower than the chassis end (when car staionary). The result
suposedly is improved stability under braking. Ultimatly chassis ride hight and wheel rolling radious play a roll in wishbone angle.
|
|
|
omega 24 v6
|
| posted on 23/5/05 at 11:50 AM |
|
|
would expect wheel rolling radius to alter ride height but not wish bone angles as the weight will alwys be the same regardless of wheel radius.
Unless you meant ground clearance under braking they would alter that (relative to their size)
|
|
|
