INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Jobs

revisiting anti-squat geometry on my mr2

revisiting anti-squat geometry on my mr2

(OP)
I'm gonna start with a basic question for you guys to see if it meshes with what I'm thinking. I understand that in a mcpherson strut arrangement antis are generally determined by tilting the lower a arm and that the upper strut mount is essentially considered the virtual upper a arm based perpendicular off the strut. That said, what if you don't have a lower a-arm, but instead have a single lateral lower control arm bar with an intersecting radius rod. This is a picture of the mr2 rear suspension? http://www.mr2turbo.info/pics/800x600/dcp_2099.jpg In this picture the foreground is the vehicle front and the background is rear. Since this is the rear suspension, I would assume that an increase in anti-squat would come via spacing the ball joint down or moving the front of the radius rod up. Is this correct?

RE: revisiting anti-squat geometry on my mr2

Draw a line in space between the center of the bushing where the lower lateral link is attached to the chassis, and the bushing where the radius rod attaches to the chassis. It acts like an A-arm with that same pivot axis. All the same principles apply.

The radius rod design allows some fore/aft compliance (for better ride quality) but that has no bearing on how the antisquat forces apply.

I don't see how tinkering with the height of the ball joint would change antisquat by any meaningful amount. You have to play with the chassis-end pivot axis of the lower arm / radius rod assembly.

RE: revisiting anti-squat geometry on my mr2

(OP)
Ok, So it is essentially acting as an A-arm on a diagonal. I was under the assumption that because the forward arm was basically parallel longitudinally with the car, that it was acting more like a trailing arm. Now what if the two arms were divorced from each other? That's how the awd Celicas were of the same era or a late Fiero for that matter. Something like this with a a fixed control arm, an adjustable toe control arm and a divorced forward radius rod. http://i426.photobucket.com/albums/pp343/kbeaty47/... In this case is the anti squat purely decided by the angle of the radius rod?

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close