...R-type MG Midget...
The MG R-Type is actually a nearly perfect analogy to my point. It had a lot of potential, was praised by the racers who drove it, and saw some success on a small scale, but was obviously deemed not worth risking the added complexity and cost to develop by any other manufacturers relative to more 'conventional' designs that were actively winning bigger races at the higher levels. While the suspension may have been thought to be better than the Q-Type by those who were using it in competition, in reality its overall race performance did not result in appreciably better finishes than the the other cars it was competing against at the time. It would be numerous years later, before double wishbones on both ends of the car were developed to a point of providing enough demonstrable advantage to gain widespread acceptance. Maybe it would have been a different story if they had been allowed to fix the (known) flaws in the suspension design, but alas the entire program was scuttled before that could happen...At least, that's my understanding of it.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that CC&AR is actually the next double wishbone suspension that (with enough development) will take the world by storm. Especially not with the electrical wizzardry going into high end suspensions these days. But I also don't think enough people have put enough effort into finding the limit of its potential to so easily be able to off-handedly dismiss its potential either. Without people interested in challenging convention, and not being afraid to fail in the process, the world would be a pretty boring place.
And in all fairness, I still not sure I'll be able to get to where I need to be with it either, to even try implementing on my car. As I've begun digging deeper into the geometric anti-roll (roll center) forces, it's often not a pretty picture, So even after finally finding a geometry that provides the desired combination of contact patch and anti-roll/jacking properties, you suddenly find that the 'roll center' movement kicks you square in the plums.
I previously acknowledged not being convinced by DAX/Walker noting the roll center as being at the intersection of the lower control arm lines of action. I'm now more convinced than ever that they're either wrong, or being intentionally misleading. Sure that may be 'close' in a static position, but it does not quite move accordingly. In fact, it appears it might actually move up as the suspension compresses and down as the suspension extends. Not exactly intuitive...Or desirable. Although, admittedly I've only eyeballed it on theirs, and its range of motion appears to possibly stay fairly constrained at least. However I have been able to do a more accurate analysis of my own 'best' geometry to this point, that would have also solved much of the packaging shortcomings, and I have found this same problem occurring.
So I'm going back to the drawing board...Again. I've already found some potential improvement, but the manual iterations are also rather slow going. Like you said, luckily it's fun to play with though. However, I may yet still ultimately shelve this idea, if I am not able to get any closer to a solution that passes muster on all fronts relatively soon.
Any math or known samples available to help figure the ratios of the varied arms and fulcrum points?
Also seems it ought to be possible to use this to do inboard shocks at the same time?
Sorry, as you may have already read, I don't have any easy answers on ratios and fulcrum points yet. I did originally start with a design that integrated with an inboard suspension as well, but does also result in two rockers per side. I'm not sure how one would get the anti-jacking effect to work on a swing axle though. You need a mechanism that can translate the lateral force at one wheel into a vertical force at the other wheel. As it would seem to work in my head, I don't see how you could do so on an actual swing axle.
Also follow my build on blogspot
, or instagram and twitter (GarageOdyssey)