Marc sierra

iTrader: (1)

It's not only the camber changes from the rear beam that makes it handle badly. I think the toe changes are even worse than the camber changes. The toe changes on the rear during cornering make the car understeer.

But another bad thing from the toe changes is when the rear wheels are drifting and the steering is on opposite lock. If the drift suddenly stops it will try to throw the car in the opposite direction, making it spin quite easily.

A few years ago I also investigated the 6 degree beams that were available at the time. Some seemed very good but expensive, one other quite a bit cheaper but to my opinion it wasn't 6 degrees but more like 14. The fact that it would need to be shipped to Holland made me decide to have one made according to my own design. Was quite a bit cheaper in the end.

Psycho Warren

iTrader: (5)

Other than unsprung weight and physical limits on damper dimensions, what is the advantage of an inboard set up in geometry terms over a "typical" road car/kit car double wishbone set up with the damper going from lower arm to chassis??

MK, if you were designing a double wishbone system, would you go the traditional, make a jig and weld up the a arm route (simplest but quality dependant on expert jig and welding) or would billet alloy cut from CAD images be the only way to do it well??

markk

iTrader: (2)

Totally agree

markk

iTrader: (2)

Agree.

MK MOTORSPORT

iTrader: (1)

to keep the quality or alignment of the arms if fabbed would be to make all bosses etc undersize weld up then machine to final dimensions ,yo ucould make them out of ti which would be very light ,billet you could make from 7075 machine very light still but make any shape style you want as in tube you are limited to what is stocked unless you have some extruded

jsa

With a cantilever setup the motion ratio of the shock can be increased, so more shock movement for a given wheel movement. Makes shock tuning/control a lot better as more oil is displaced.

jsa

The car is road going primarily, but also doubles for a bit of motorsport, it came fitted with Konis and a set of springs of unknown spec.

The rear camber and toe need fixing, as the cost of tyres (ruined edges) will exceed a beam cost pretty smartly.

It feels like it has negligible or no anti squat. Maybe as a result of said springs lowering too much. Thanks to markk for the detail on the ahmeds, I have some homework to do there. Lowered with anti squat would be preferred.

Over and above the beam changes to reduce camber change, a set of camber wedges half way between road and track settings would make for really simple adjustment between both settings without the need for full wheel alignment. Flip the wedges over to give the other setting.

On the roll centre front I'm interested to know what, if any, changes are made to get the back working better with the front.

Once a double adjustable 6ş beam is chosen, there is not much more involved to make it roll centre adjustable. The benefit of going to the trouble is up for answering and knowing where the roll centre ended up on the various versions, from factory to WRC, would help.

Rear cradle is out, for me, I don't want to hack up the shell or start on fuel tanks.

jsa

Yeah I hear you.

I'm trying to avoid getting bogged down with a whole bespoke EsCos backend, I bought the EsCos because my bespoke project is not getting finished due to it's time demands.

I think Warren's project is already bespoke enough to go all out if time and money resources permit.