Separating ride from roll...?

[exwestracer]

Hi Ray,
I'm new to this site and actually found it because I was searching for info as I design the chassis and suspension of my project vehicle. I am intrigued by the concept you have posted here. I know that this is an old post and I am wondering if you finished and tested your design. I am currently modeling my design in 3D, (Solidworks to be more specific). My project is not a Pro-Touring car, but more along the lines of Pro-Street. I'm intrigued because the packaging of the suspension could possibly work for me. I have a very narrow rear frame set 25" outside to outside on the rear frame and I currently have a parallel 4 link with a watts setup and 2 coil-overs in a vertical arrangement. Feel free to contact me directly if you like. Thanks! -Jay

Jay,
Thanks for the interest. This project is stalled for a couple of reasons... Due to packaging constraints in this chassis, I am using a through rod type spring/shock assembly (not exactly a coil over). I had been working with the lead development engineer at Penske, but a lot of the info is proprietary to MotoGP and F1 teams. I think I found out some stuff i shouldn't have because he isn't returning my emails anymore...

I also purchased another supermodified which was supposed to be a bolt it together and run it deal. Turned out to be a junk pile, but I'm in it now and need to get it finished.


We will get the new car (on the bench at rear of this photo) done next year, and I'm confident that the suspension will work the way it should.

As to your question, there really isn't a lot of benefit in your application. Unless you are really running 10/10ths through the corners, your pro-link with watts setup should be just fine. You would have to reverse the Mumford link (pivots attached to housing) with that narrow a chassis. The unsprung weight goes up with no real performance advantage.