I must confess that I built my 4-link more based on what fit than by calculation of what would work best...........
Though I'm generally happy with the result, there are two things that I'd like to improve.
1) Traction on the front axle during climbs
2) Reduced wheel hop, also during climbs.
From what I've gathered in reading, it would be desireable for AS to go down with droop and be higher in bump. Using the 4-link calculator, I find the curious situation in that AS increased on both sides of static.
- droop = 150%
- static = 110%
- bump = 150%
I've messed with the link positions within the spreadsheet, but this relationship continues. What should I move around to get better AS numbers?? I'm thinking maybe that I've got to get the IC more out in front by making the links more parallel. But this only changes the values, the relationship of both droop and bump being larger than static remains??
My design is nothing extraordinary, so I don't understand why I should have this strange behaviour. Any help would be most appreciated.
EDIT: BTW, the weight and CG values are WAG..........
1) Traction on the front axle during climbs
2) Reduced wheel hop, also during climbs.
From what I've gathered in reading, it would be desireable for AS to go down with droop and be higher in bump. Using the 4-link calculator, I find the curious situation in that AS increased on both sides of static.
- droop = 150%
- static = 110%
- bump = 150%
I've messed with the link positions within the spreadsheet, but this relationship continues. What should I move around to get better AS numbers?? I'm thinking maybe that I've got to get the IC more out in front by making the links more parallel. But this only changes the values, the relationship of both droop and bump being larger than static remains??
My design is nothing extraordinary, so I don't understand why I should have this strange behaviour. Any help would be most appreciated.
EDIT: BTW, the weight and CG values are WAG..........
Attachments
-
55.7 KB Views: 538