Enter your username:
Do you want to login or register?
  • Forgot your password?

    Login / Register




    Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
    Results 21 to 33 of 33
    1. #21
      Join Date
      Nov 2007
      Location
      crossville,tn
      Posts
      74
      Truck Arms.



    2. #22
      Join Date
      May 2010
      Location
      Orange, CA
      Posts
      456
      Not a fan of Truck Arms. Tons of unsprung weight, in the way for exhaust, The arms themselves by nature have to twist (which is why they should ONLY be made from I Beam design) etc.
      Yeah I know that NASCAR guys use them, but that's because they have for years and Everyone HAS to run them by the rules. You will notice that NASCAR also requires them to be I Beams.
      Just not for me.

    3. #23
      Join Date
      Nov 2005
      Location
      Auburn, WA
      Posts
      1,360
      I agree, no truck arms.
      Matt Jones
      Mechanical Engineer
      Art Morrison Enterprises

    4. #24
      Join Date
      Nov 2005
      Location
      Auburn, WA
      Posts
      1,360
      Quote Originally Posted by AMC Racer View Post
      Why does the triangulated 4-link bind? It shouldn't bind unless using rigid bushings instead of sphericals?
      Thats correct. A well-designed triangulated 4-bar/link shouldn't bind until 5 or more degrees.
      Matt Jones
      Mechanical Engineer
      Art Morrison Enterprises

    5. #25
      Join Date
      Apr 2009
      Location
      san diego
      Posts
      5,101
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by AMC Racer View Post
      Why does the triangulated 4-link bind? It shouldn't bind unless using rigid bushings instead of sphericals?
      It wont bind during a normal roll in a turn if you run some type of swivel at both ends of the bar. Take a look at Fox and SN95 mustang rear suspension. They have lots of issues with their quadra-bind. Mostly those issues are compromises due to packaging and driver comfort.

    6. #26
      Join Date
      Sep 2009
      Location
      Ontario, Canada
      Posts
      167
      Thanks! Was working on a T4L design and wasn't sure if I was missing something that caused bind. Doing layouts on the different link arrangements using Solidworks, and all seem to bind in roll without some sperical joint at the ends of the links. With sphericals, the limits seem to be only the limits of the rod ends themselves and expect with bushings it is the elastic limit of the material, so maybe the 5 deg. limit is a good design choice for reasonable loads with typical rubber or urethane bushings?

      Thanks!
      Duane
      '74 AMC Javelin AMX

    7. #27
      Join Date
      Nov 2005
      Location
      Auburn, WA
      Posts
      1,360
      Quote Originally Posted by AMC Racer View Post
      Thanks! Was working on a T4L design and wasn't sure if I was missing something that caused bind. Doing layouts on the different link arrangements using Solidworks, and all seem to bind in roll without some sperical joint at the ends of the links. With sphericals, the limits seem to be only the limits of the rod ends themselves and expect with bushings it is the elastic limit of the material, so maybe the 5 deg. limit is a good design choice for reasonable loads with typical rubber or urethane bushings?

      Thanks!
      6* is about the limit for urethane, but you could get by with more using rubber...but the body shouldn't roll more than 3 degrees anyway.
      Matt Jones
      Mechanical Engineer
      Art Morrison Enterprises

    8. #28
      Join Date
      Nov 2007
      Location
      crossville,tn
      Posts
      74
      Tune me in, what's the un sprung weight of a truck arm!

    9. #29
      Join Date
      Oct 2009
      Location
      New Derry, PA
      Posts
      1,265
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by zerotofear View Post
      Tune me in, what's the un sprung weight of a truck arm!
      How about explaining your suggestion for truck arms, Mark. Sounds like you deal with them a lot there at Metalcraft...

      Ray Kaufman - Wyotech Chassis Fab and High Performance Instructor. Words of Wisdom from an old master... at Asylum Custom Interiors website

    10. #30
      Join Date
      Nov 2007
      Location
      crossville,tn
      Posts
      74
      The "Truck Arm" supension model has a pretty impressive history. Since 1963, the design has won or placed in more sanctioned performance events than other rear set-up. Contrary too popular belief, not all were NASCAR events, on asphalt, or turning left.
      The design that originated from early model Chevy trucks, but doesn't lend itself to the fact that the system is simple and effective. Many jump to the conclusion that Barney Fife hides these antiqated dinosaurs in a barn in NC, but the truth is the current generation of NASCAR style truck arms are a trick piece. The system is made up of two 48" torque arms, yes, torque arms, that under extreme acceleration uses the forward weight of the car to anchor and absorb energy then transfer that energy in the form of forward bite. Under braking the arms again absorb and transfer energy thats settles the car, and systematically transfers weight on to the front suspension making the car turn better. The center pivot design perimeter allows the car roll freely , forward or back, on entry or exit, right or left. The long track bar limits rear end steer but also allows control of the effective mechanical avantage of the springs by changing the roll center height. In the 80's NASCAR shortened the wheel base , narrowed the tread width, along with areo issues, the cars were a hand full. Rule changes allowed us to explore many different rear geometrys, but the results were less than impressive, cars were out of control, and NASCAR quickly returned to the Truck Arms to assure safety. Many factory engineers have challenged the Truck Arm model but after reviewing they quickly realized that the truck arms are extremely forgiving.

    11. #31
      Join Date
      Dec 2010
      Posts
      709
      I don't mean to be a dork, but grab a triangle and move it up and down on a diagonal axis (note the front fixed point). The thing changes shape, meaning with some triangulated suspension thing, you're going to multiply your spring rate at the wrong time in a turn (under compression), and your car will go skipping away like a flat rock. You'll also effectively shorten your suspension travel, which is bad for any kind of practical usage (2-3 inches means broken parts on the street, at embarrasing times). There are many good ideas surrounding the parallel leaf spring arrangement that people are forgetting here...

      On the weight side of things, compare the weight of two two-inch wide, 28-inch long leafs with tube shocks to a couple of burly coilovers (with brackets and rods made of more burly material), and you get nearly nowhere. Let it flex, without body roll...

      Just two cents on an issue that can pointlessly cost far more than it's worth...

    12. #32
      Join Date
      May 2002
      Location
      Northern California
      Posts
      10,716
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by rustomatic View Post
      I don't mean to be a dork, but grab a triangle and move it up and down on a diagonal axis (note the front fixed point). The thing changes shape, meaning with some triangulated suspension thing, you're going to multiply your spring rate at the wrong time in a turn (under compression), and your car will go skipping away like a flat rock. You'll also effectively shorten your suspension travel, which is bad for any kind of practical usage (2-3 inches means broken parts on the street, at embarrasing times). There are many good ideas surrounding the parallel leaf spring arrangement that people are forgetting here...

      On the weight side of things, compare the weight of two two-inch wide, 28-inch long leafs with tube shocks to a couple of burly coilovers (with brackets and rods made of more burly material), and you get nearly nowhere. Let it flex, without body roll...

      Just two cents on an issue that can pointlessly cost far more than it's worth...

      I believe Don ended up with a 4 link set up.

      rusty, although I love leafs, are you trying to compare the difference is the spring weights? shocks should be the same....leafs are 42 lbs each side. im sure you can do better than that.


      advantage....adjustability, slight weight loss and moveable roll center height.
      MrQuick ΜΟΛ'ΩΝ ΛΑΒ'Ε


    13. #33
      Join Date
      Sep 2009
      Location
      Ontario, Canada
      Posts
      167
      Old thread, but curious on the truck arms? Stock car products lists their truck arms at 19 lbs. each at 51" long. They require a simple mounting bracket to bolt to the axle, much like a leaf spring mounting pad, a cross member up front for mounting plus panhard for lateral location. Is the unsprung weight really much more than a torque arm or other multi-link suspension? Is the binding in say a 3 degree max roll really any worse than a multi-link suspension with urethane bushings instead of heims? Understanding is the truck arms act as both a locating member and as a torsion bar or anti-roll bar. Assume the cross section is designed to suit these functions? Don't leaf springs with rubber or urethane bushings in the eyes work in a similar manner (plus act as the spring)?
      Just curious as still trying to decide on rear suspension. Thanks!
      Duane
      '74 AMC Javelin AMX

    Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2



    Advertise on Pro-Touring.com