Suspension geometry for GETIN IT! - Page 3 - Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum
 
Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum  

Go Back   Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum > General Tech > Desert Racing
Notices

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-28-2008, 12:56 PM   #51 (permalink)
Pirate4x4 Addict!
 
Weasel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Member # 5639
Location: Rapid City, SD
Posts: 16,595
Blog Entries: 1
well I'm going to be out of town for training the next few days I'll try to check in add anything else.

Did the VW's only race the 500? I thought it was the 1000, I wondered about their gas tanks but still didn't seem like it would have been that big of an advantage, could be though.
__________________

Kindness doesn't condemn or condone

Just Add Lightness
Weasel is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-28-2008, 01:47 PM   #52 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Member # 5110
Location: SoCal
Posts: 6,973
Only the B500. The B1000 is in Nov. which is cutting it close to race the same vehicle in Dakar in Jan.
__________________
Link to thread on my calculator https://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=204893
Triaged is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Old 07-28-2008, 08:20 PM   #53 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Member # 3483
Location: NC
Posts: 2,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weasel View Post
Roll centers is defined as the point at which lateral forces can be applied with no suspension roll, Gillespie and Smith state something similar correct?
I believe SAE did change their definition to that which, imo, is a good definition. However, that point is not the same as a geometric or force-based roll center!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weasel View Post
I don't have the Miklliken book yet (on order) but Smith covers the same thing in his books.

It's true that RC are not a true center and tend to move all over the place but that doesn't mean they are not useful. I would agree that Geometric RC's (GRC) are not the end all and Force Based RC's (FBRC) should be considered for a more detailed analysis. However FBRC have their own issues and it seem that once you get past the simple analysis the vehicle system gets very complex and can only really be handled by software.
First things first. I have never read Milliken or Smith. I have referenced both on occasion and own neither. I know there are blatant errors in Smith's book. Milliken is a pretty good reference book. Neither are perfect and some of the thought can now be classified as out of date. Still good to have books tho!

Rollcenters are ok for initial analyzing and pleasing some SAE judges, yes, but trying to accurately model what will actual happen in real life with the car is where it creates error. FBRC's aren't much better than GRC because they both suffer from an attempt to simply something which isn't so simple.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Weasel View Post
And what kind of suspension is not traditional? Most everything in desert and crawling suspension could be defined as traditional I would say?
Sure, most are. At least they are at static ride height. Anything that's not symmetrical side to side I'd classify as non-traditional. Anything that uses weird or different a-arm angles is non-traditional. Lots of suspensions reach non-traditional the second they begin to undergo roll and such because they lose symmetry, which is ok. This is why I get irritated when I see guys design for "roll center migration". Ugh.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weasel View Post
Sorry maybe I mis-stated what I was trying say. From what I understand and have discussed with other is that a more of the load transfer with a high RC is through the links and a low RC is through the springs.
Yes, that is normally true. It's what I like to think of as anti-roll and pro-roll. It's really related to the individual tire's instant center (which is the better way to analyze it) and the jacking force that's created. When load is "transferred" through suspension links it means that link is either pushing up or down on the chassis.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Weasel View Post
Which documents? I wouldn't mind reading up on this. Near the ground also means that you will get body roll which would use suspension travel, which again imo, should be used for ride. In the cars I have setup the only times we had issues with jacking is when the front roll center was quite a bit higher then the rear. Since raising up the rear so it is closer to the front and keeping them equal throughout the travel the cars handle quite a bit better. We also run a wider track then most of the competition and check that the roll moments work out correctly.
Mark Ortiz talks about his method where he takes into account the amount of cornering force generated by each tire. Then there are some others. I can look for them. There are also some good threads at fsae.com. Controlling roll moments with springs should not use up too much suspension travel, but that's part of designing and setting up a car. Once you spec out a roll gradient you should have plenty of suspension travel left for bump travel. High roll centers do mean jacking because of the high IC's it takes to get a high roll center. I don't like suspension pushing up and down on the chassis for the same reasons I dislike lots of AS. It disrupts the work of the springs and shocks when you have some kind of link force and then begin to encounter bumps, drops, etc. Of course from a dynamics standpoint wider track is ideal so I'm sure you guys benefit from that. It minimizes load transfer and increases roll stiffness for a given wheel rate. Both can really help the handling of a vehicle. So by widening your track width you're making it easier to control that roll moment!
__________________
Benny
350/350/205/60/60/linked/locked/lowered

Last edited by Bigger Valves; 07-28-2008 at 08:31 PM.
Bigger Valves is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2008, 08:28 PM   #54 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Member # 3483
Location: NC
Posts: 2,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bent Fabrications View Post
I agree, It's not something we should design around for our application... but it is still one of a combination of many small things that add up to a great suspension design. It's something I've been doing by coincidence too... but will be something to watch in future designs with a new found understanding of how it might affect the vehicle.


-Tim
I disagree. I think it's COMPLETELY something we should design our rigs around, especially if they're go-fast oriented but even if they're not. The reason I've paid lots of attention in the design of my crawler with respect to roll is because I want to drive it fast AND because I want to design it to perform kickass off camber. Off camber is directly analogous to cornering at speed. I want my truck to remain stable and planted under both circumstances and maintaining control when off camber makes for a top-dawg rockcrawler.
__________________
Benny
350/350/205/60/60/linked/locked/lowered

Last edited by Bigger Valves; 07-28-2008 at 08:29 PM.
Bigger Valves is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-29-2008, 06:07 AM   #55 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Member # 87218
Location: KENTUCKY
Posts: 1,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigger Valves View Post
The reason I've paid lots of attention in the design of my crawler with respect to roll is because I want to drive it fast AND because I want to design it to perform kickass off camber. Off camber is directly analogous to cornering at speed. I want my truck to remain stable and planted under both circumstances and maintaining control when off camber makes for a top-dawg rockcrawler.
Now we're getting somewhere... I needed someone to connect that "cornering is similar to off camber control". I don't know about others that are following along, but I can definitely say I'm gaining some insight on "suspension geometry for gettin it".


... In an effort to help the thread evolve into other aspects of suspension for gettin it, I pose another question. If there were another "main ingredient" to a set up for speed that should be very closely watched (after RC and AS), what would it be?

-Tim
__________________
CHECK OUT OUR NEW DIY CHASSIS KITS at
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Want to see what's going on in the shop?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Bent Fabrications is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-05-2008, 07:52 PM   #56 (permalink)
Registered User
 
needmocash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Member # 69858
Location: savannah, GA
Posts: 175
Great thread! I building my first buggy and this is giving me great insight.
__________________
12 Pack Fab! Drunken Engineering At Its Finest

Last edited by needmocash; 08-05-2008 at 07:59 PM.
needmocash is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-06-2008, 12:48 AM   #57 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Member # 8937
Location: Sparks, Nevada
Posts: 6,145
I was just running some numbers and was wondering what would be a good anti-dive number for the front end of rig built for some desert stuff? I know there aren't too many straight axle desert racers, but it would seem like a higher number (100%) could give you a better ride through the whoops?
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

September 24-25, Wild West Motorsports Park, Reno, NV

#199/4499 - Superchips, Maxxis, Trail Gear, Branik Machine Shop, Yukon, JE Reel, Rugged Radios, Lifetime LED, Sway-a-way.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
mudtruck44 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-06-2008, 01:00 AM   #58 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Member # 5110
Location: SoCal
Posts: 6,973
If you look at all the 2wd A-arm vehicles many have negative anti-dive aka pro-dive. I have seen goofy angling of the arms in order to negate the pro-dive or rake of the lower control arms (at least that is what it looked like to me), but I don't recall seeing any unlimited class off-road vehicle with much anti-dive. In 4wd you also have to factor in anti-lift unless you plan on "getin it" in 2wd and shifting into 4wd only when needed.

There are some good discussions to be found with a search for "wheel recession". You might even think of trailing links front and rear...
__________________
Link to thread on my calculator https://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=204893

Last edited by Triaged; 08-06-2008 at 01:31 AM.
Triaged is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-06-2008, 08:45 PM   #59 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Member # 3483
Location: NC
Posts: 2,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bent Fabrications View Post
... In an effort to help the thread evolve into other aspects of suspension for gettin it, I pose another question. If there were another "main ingredient" to a set up for speed that should be very closely watched (after RC and AS), what would it be?
-Tim
Truth is, geometry wise you can get by with almost anything even though some things are a bit of a handicap. It's the big picture things that make the big differences such as sprung mass cg location, amount of sprung and un-sprung masses, track width, and wheel base. Once you've got a setup that doesn't fight itself the key to speed is in the springs and shocks. AKA you want to find a compromise of the needed natural frequencies and damping ratios of both the sprung and unsprung masses in all modes of excitation that keeps the vehicle under maximum control for the driver at hand. May sound a little complicated, but when you test different shock and/or spring setups and drive the truck that's exactly what you're doing.
__________________
Benny
350/350/205/60/60/linked/locked/lowered

Last edited by Bigger Valves; 08-06-2008 at 08:46 PM.
Bigger Valves is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-07-2008, 12:29 AM   #60 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Member # 8937
Location: Sparks, Nevada
Posts: 6,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triaged View Post
If you look at all the 2wd A-arm vehicles many have negative anti-dive aka pro-dive. I have seen goofy angling of the arms in order to negate the pro-dive or rake of the lower control arms (at least that is what it looked like to me), but I don't recall seeing any unlimited class off-road vehicle with much anti-dive. In 4wd you also have to factor in anti-lift unless you plan on "getin it" in 2wd and shifting into 4wd only when needed.

There are some good discussions to be found with a search for "wheel recession". You might even think of trailing links front and rear...
Doesn't a radius arm give you high anti-dive numbers? It seems to be a pretty popular set up.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

September 24-25, Wild West Motorsports Park, Reno, NV

#199/4499 - Superchips, Maxxis, Trail Gear, Branik Machine Shop, Yukon, JE Reel, Rugged Radios, Lifetime LED, Sway-a-way.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
mudtruck44 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-07-2008, 01:07 AM   #61 (permalink)
Pirate4x4 Addict!
 
Weasel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Member # 5639
Location: Rapid City, SD
Posts: 16,595
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigger Valves View Post
Truth is, geometry wise you can get by with almost anything even though some things are a bit of a handicap. It's the big picture things that make the big differences such as sprung mass cg location, amount of sprung and un-sprung masses, track width, and wheel base. Once you've got a setup that doesn't fight itself the key to speed is in the springs and shocks. AKA you want to find a compromise of the needed natural frequencies and damping ratios of both the sprung and unsprung masses in all modes of excitation that keeps the vehicle under maximum control for the driver at hand. May sound a little complicated, but when you test different shock and/or spring setups and drive the truck that's exactly what you're doing.
This is true, really suspension design is getting everything to fit and work well given space constraints.

Really even race cars are designed to have a very specific set of suspension characteristics designed for one corner diameter at one given speed. The rest is hoping it works well enough.

For desert racing I would say damping and springs are the biggest, everything else is important to consider and how it effects the system but I'm not sure there is a silver bullet.

As for the AD, we run negative actually, the suspension moves in the direction of impacts, ie goes faster and smoother, but doesn't give ideal braking but that's ok. Trade off is worth it.
__________________

Kindness doesn't condemn or condone

Just Add Lightness
Weasel is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-07-2008, 01:22 AM   #62 (permalink)
Pirate4x4 Addict!
 
Weasel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Member # 5639
Location: Rapid City, SD
Posts: 16,595
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigger Valves View Post
Of course from a dynamics standpoint wider track is ideal so I'm sure you guys benefit from that. It minimizes load transfer and increases roll stiffness for a given wheel rate. Both can really help the handling of a vehicle. So by widening your track width you're making it easier to control that roll moment!
Yep, it's a balancing act. With a narrower track we can't run as high of RC's and jacking can be an issue, we design around it though.

And in a quick course or quick changes in direction is much better with our setups then previous years.
__________________

Kindness doesn't condemn or condone

Just Add Lightness
Weasel is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-07-2008, 06:07 AM   #63 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Member # 87218
Location: KENTUCKY
Posts: 1,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weasel View Post
Yep, it's a balancing act. With a narrower track we can't run as high of RC's and jacking can be an issue, we design around it though.

And in a quick course or quick changes in direction is much better with our setups then previous years.
Care to comment on what you can do or watch in the design to help minimize jacking?


-Tim
__________________
CHECK OUT OUR NEW DIY CHASSIS KITS at
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Want to see what's going on in the shop?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Bent Fabrications is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-07-2008, 08:11 AM   #64 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Member # 3483
Location: NC
Posts: 2,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bent Fabrications View Post
Care to comment on what you can do or watch in the design to help minimize jacking?
-Tim
Keep instant centers at or near the ground. Especially on the heaviest loaded tires for the circumstance (outside tires in a corner, downhill tires when off-camber, etc.).
__________________
Benny
350/350/205/60/60/linked/locked/lowered

Last edited by Bigger Valves; 08-07-2008 at 08:14 AM.
Bigger Valves is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-07-2008, 09:07 AM   #65 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Member # 5110
Location: SoCal
Posts: 6,973
Jacking is for independent suspensions. You really don't get jacking with a solid axle as long as you don't have a steeply sloping Panhard bar. With independent suspensions some jacking (aka anti-roll) can be a good thing because it won't use up as much bump travel on the outside wheel in a turn. Keeping the IC on or near the ground plane (throughout the suspension travel) is however desirable in order to minimize track width change (which some people call scrub which gets it confused with scrub radius). Twin I-Beam trucks have a very high IC and correspondingly high jacking forces and track width change (which is why it has gotten named "dirty hooker travel").

Radius arms are often extended quite far in desert trucks (on TTB, TIB, and solid axle) and when multiplied by % front braking I'm sure they would not be over 50% anti-dive (most likely closer to 25% would be my guess without running the numbers). Desert guys aren't worried that the mounts hang below the frame rails like rock crawlers as long as they are out of the dirt at full bump.

The balancing act really comes down to travel and sprung to un-sprung ratio being at the top of the list (good spring/shock tuning is considered a given). Simplicity, durability, and packaging are also, often put above geometry.
__________________
Link to thread on my calculator https://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=204893

Last edited by Triaged; 08-07-2008 at 09:08 AM.
Triaged is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-07-2008, 09:41 AM   #66 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Member # 6892
Location: Danville, CA
Posts: 2,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triaged View Post
Jacking is for independent suspensions. You really don't get jacking with a solid axle as long as you don't have a steeply sloping Panhard bar.
I was under the impression that jacking, on a solid axle, was the term used to describe what happens when your suspension either raises or dips heavily to one side of the vehicle during hard acceleration or braking. An example being what happens if you have a "wristed" radius arm and you slam on the brakes. (one side dipping heavily)
I could be wrong though.

*Edit: I didn't think that panhard angle had anything to do with jacking, I would think bumpsteer but???*
__________________
Yarr!
I've been to the Hammers... There in the tool section at Home Depot.
Rally for The Hammers post #141
Rally for Tellico post #100

Last edited by Blue-Beard; 08-07-2008 at 10:04 AM.
Blue-Beard is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-07-2008, 07:25 PM   #67 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Member # 3483
Location: NC
Posts: 2,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue-Beard View Post
I was under the impression that jacking, on a solid axle, was the term used to describe what happens when your suspension either raises or dips heavily to one side of the vehicle during hard acceleration or braking. An example being what happens if you have a "wristed" radius arm and you slam on the brakes. (one side dipping heavily)
I could be wrong though.

*Edit: I didn't think that panhard angle had anything to do with jacking, I would think bumpsteer but???*
Technically anti-squat and anti-dive are forms of suspension jacking just in the longitudinal and not lateral view. I don't think it's too often referred to as "jacking" but it is the same concept as the jacking of independent suspensions during lateral acceleration.

Panhard rods do create a jacking force during lateral acceleration and it can be very noticeable if the panhard angle is steep. A flat panhard means no jacking. The bump steer is a separate issue that goes along with panhard rod design.
__________________
Benny
350/350/205/60/60/linked/locked/lowered
Bigger Valves is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-28-2008, 12:34 AM   #68 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Member # 77930
Location: Sneads Ferry, NC
Posts: 1,118
Great discussion, definitely got me thinking....subscribed.
53guy is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-28-2008, 06:55 PM   #69 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Member # 4321
Location: Double Shoals, NC
Posts: 15,322
Send a message via ICQ to DEnd Send a message via AIM to DEnd Send a message via MSN to DEnd Send a message via Yahoo to DEnd
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigger Valves View Post
A flat panhard means no jacking.

umm.. not really. A flat panhard at 50% travel means low jacking forces, and the longer you get it the lower they go.
__________________
Lame Sig Line
DEnd is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-29-2008, 11:36 AM   #70 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Member # 3483
Location: NC
Posts: 2,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by DEnd View Post
umm.. not really. A flat panhard at 50% travel means low jacking forces, and the longer you get it the lower they go.
Ahhh.. It means no jacking only at the infinitesimal point where it's perfectly flat. How's that? Too bad this thread petered out.
__________________
Benny
350/350/205/60/60/linked/locked/lowered
Bigger Valves is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-29-2008, 12:13 PM   #71 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Member # 5110
Location: SoCal
Posts: 6,973
How about discussing the differences between a triangulated 4-link and a 3-link + Panhard for the front suspension.

With travel the Panhard bar is going to make the front suspension travel in an arc (obviously). The reason people use it is so they can retain a mechanical linkage for the steering. MJ has proposed a few times that you could run a triangulated 4-link with a push-pull steering with an idler under your seat. Something like what Stephen Watson did on his ORD truggy but front to back rather then side to side.


Packaging would get tight...but wouldn't it be cool to use a stock D60 steering arm, have no bump steer, and no side to side movement of the axle?
Attached Images
 
__________________
Link to thread on my calculator https://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=204893
Triaged is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-29-2008, 01:47 PM   #72 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Member # 87218
Location: KENTUCKY
Posts: 1,782
Well, if you're following along in the build over in general, you know that I went with the 3 link. Here's a quick link for those that have not seen the buildup in general 4x4. I based my decision on 2 things. 1. It would simply fit better with the pulley setup on the engine (which I'm going to end up changing and it wouldn't have even been a factor). 2. I had not built a 3 link set up on the Cliffhanger style front end before, and I like the challenge. Having this same front end on several other buggies, I can compare performance between the 2 designs when I'm done. Unless you've ran one setup, then hacked up your junk and ran the other, it's hard to compare. I have the advantage of VERY similar chassis being produced to compare, and I'm trying to take advantage of it.

At first I thought setting up the 3 link would be quicker... maybe reproducing it again will be, but on this build the bracketry is taking much longer than anticipated. The link placement is however executed EXACTLY how I designed it.

I can tell you some big differences I'm noticing from my decision of going with a 3 link front over the typical 4 link setup... Seeing that I have reproduced this front end 8 times now, I have never had a clearance issue with the front shocks with it setup as a 4 link. I worked pretty hard on the front setup in both the 3 link calc and hand drafting. My final design has a total of .5" movement side to side through the range of travel. I considered this to be pretty acceptable. I'm using 14" shocks with 6" bump at ride. The pan hard bar sets .75" lower on the chassis end than the axle end at ride. Something was showing up in the hand drawings that I just didn't look at as much as I should have... I didn't realize I need to look at it, it had never been a problem before.

With the axle now pivoting off of the pan hard bar, it "swings" down on the droop side underneath the rig quite a bit more than the 4 link does (when one side is at full compression and the other is at full droop). This is due to the higher placement of the pan hard bar... but the end result is that the shock really pulls into the chassis a lot more than I'm use to. To the point that I'm going to be changing the location of the shocks from where I had planned them to be to get the needed clearance. I know that I could have lowered the pan hard location and made this not quite as bad... but it was a notable consequence of a design decision. Looking back at the drawings I can clearly see that the shocks were going to move that much.. I just didn't pay that much attention to it.





I'll admit, that even though the bracketry is taking a long time, I am enjoying building it...




-Tim
__________________
CHECK OUT OUR NEW DIY CHASSIS KITS at
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Want to see what's going on in the shop?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Bent Fabrications is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-31-2008, 07:28 PM   #73 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Member # 74576
Location: Fort Collins, CO
Posts: 1,884
I know this may seem a little bit off topic, but a friend of mine just showed me a video of a Bowler Wildcat and I couldn't help but notice a few things. I was very surprised to see it usually a solid axle up front and the way it handled. Body roll seemed almost non-existent compared to the way crawlers handle. Have you ever looked at one of these things? I tried to find some detailed pictures of the front suspension setup but came up short.

If you haven't seen it, watch the Top Gear on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLvlfAyduvA
tmorgan4 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-31-2008, 08:00 PM   #74 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Member # 5110
Location: SoCal
Posts: 6,973
I think this was a Bowler that I took a picture of at the 2007 Dakar. [edit]It says Wildcat by the rear view mirror so it is a Bowler.[/edit] They run radius arms front and rear w/ Panhard bar front and Watt's link rear.
Attached Images
   
__________________
Link to thread on my calculator https://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=204893

Last edited by Triaged; 08-31-2008 at 08:13 PM.
Triaged is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-01-2008, 07:02 AM   #75 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Member # 87218
Location: KENTUCKY
Posts: 1,782
That's one cool grocery getter for sure!

I like the skid/lift the best.

-Tim
__________________
CHECK OUT OUR NEW DIY CHASSIS KITS at
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Want to see what's going on in the shop?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Bent Fabrications is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

** A VERIFICATION EMAIL IS SENT TO THIS ADDRESS TO COMPLETE REGISTRATION!! **

Email Address:
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.