Quote:
Hey, don't look at me! I read it on the internet so it's gotta be true, right?
Hi Jack, oops didn't mean to pick on you I just grabbed a sentence to use to ask the question.
So I like both these solutions compared to a Panhard bar because they very simply and obviously connect to the frame to places that are strong and should also be well triangulated by at least the floor if nothing else. The low as possible roll center is also a big advantage.
I was wondering what the roll center of the later version with the triangulated lower link would be. On the three link version it is like a Watt's linkage and the roll center would be at the diff pivot. I was unsure at first on the four link version, but I think it amounts to the same thing. The triangulated link provides the only transverse location of the axle and would also be the roll center, I think anyways...
An interesting point here is that previously we have had long discussions on wether the transverse or side to side location of the roll center amounts to anything. Here I think we see that it does not matter. The height of this roll center is the same ( about ) in the series 2 and 3 designs, but the roll center would move all the way to the outside where the pivot is in the 4 link version. I imagine the handling of these cars was not in fact radically different - so it is the height of the roll center that is important to us, not the transverse location.
When we are designing our front suspensions the fact the roll center is moving across the car or perhaps falls outside the wheelbase of the car on the inside or outside in a turn matters not. It is the height of the roll center that affects the distribution of weight transfer.
There would be some secondary effect in the case of these rear suspension because as the car corners the axle would develop a bit of a tilt due to the tires deforming. The triangulated 4 link would be more susceptible to this.