Miatav8,MstrASE,A&P,F wrote:
Thanks for the link. I understand it may not be an accurate representation of the westfield dims.
For a more direct comparison, I adjusted the static neg camber at the UCA to a 1/2 inch, added the other specs to the chart, converted to customary units, and added a 1/2 inch tire compression. RC moves quite a bit from side to side and is very low with less camber gain, though that may be a good match for the rear.
Heres the source for info
locostbuilders.co.uk;
So I think it is not a facorybuilt Westfield.
AdamR20 at locostbuilders.co.uk wrote:
The next one is my Westfield and this actually ties in quite nicely with some of Sam's points (thanks a lot for your input by the way, you're one of the chaps I hoped would pass comment!). The wishbones are nice and long and there is very little RC migration under bump (single or double wheel) or roll in either X or Y directions - but - the camber correction is quite poor, and I found myself having to run huge amounts of static camber to prevent munching the outside edges of the tyres. I ended up over 3.5deg front and 3deg rear and needed more if the adjustments on the car would allow. This obviously impacts straight line grip (both braking and throttle) which is why I wanted something a bit more MX-5-y in terms of camber correction (so I could run less static camber). Using the uprights, diff, half shafts and steering rack kinda nailed down quite a few of the potential 'dots' fairly quickly, so I was left with limited options. Having noticed the RCs migrating around when playing with the MX-5 model I decided to pretty much copy how they acted rather than trying to be clever and using this to control body roll, as I knew it already worked I didn't even consider that Sam but you have just given me some extra stuff to look into I think! Haha.
On a similar subject, I like the car to be pretty compliant as you can probably tell from the wheel rates, in the region of 1.3-1.4deg/g of body roll, so there is actually reasonable amount of wheel movement going on, which is why I've spent a bit of time researching this. Again it comes back to there being no perfect solution as phelpsa said, just the best compromise for you preferences and physical limitations. Looking at it again, I can maybe widen the rear track a little, so the longer wishbones may help keep the RC more static.
Chassis design - I had actually read that it's a good idea to start with rough suspension locations first and then design the chassis around them, which made sense to me, especially as I 'value' how the car drives - especially in the transitions - so much. I figured I could always get the chassis to support the pickups sufficiently, even if it involved a little extra weight. Given the budget I'm setting myself, if it comes in under 450kg, I'll be well chuffed.