INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Member Login

Come Join Us!

Are you a
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips now!
  • 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!

E-mail*
Handle

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

Partner With Us!

"Best Of Breed" Forums Add Stickiness To Your Site
Partner Button
(Download This Button Today!)

Member Feedback

"...What a great service! This is the best site I've ever seen!!! It totally restores my faith in humanity when people take time out to help other people..."

Geography

Where in the world do Eng-Tips members come from?
iamuwere (Automotive)
18 Jul 04 9:03
I am considering implementing a woblink to replace the panhard rod on my SCCA F500 car.  Yes, those cars that really don't have much in the way of a real suspension, but I do get close to three inches of travel at all corners.  It really works well, despite the lack of real springs or shocks.

The problem:
Susp3D calculations put my front roll center at close to 5 inches below ground.  The rear with a panhard rod is at about five-six inches above ground, depending on wheel, tire, and ride height changes.   That is a big roll inclination.

I think a Woblink would work to better balance the car with a lower rear roll center.  I would like to try to run some tests with a Woblink, but I cannot find construction info on one.  The only online diagram I have found seems to be incorret, as the formula provided does not match the design in the picture.

http://www.rx7.se/Bilder/snordatorn/Woblink.jpg

Anyone with construction advice?  
jim
GregLocock (Automotive)
18 Jul 04 20:36
What's wrong with the picture?

Cheers

Greg Locock

iamuwere (Automotive)
18 Jul 04 21:30
the upper diagrams show lengths that are really not proportional as the formula would show.  I wanted to be sure that there is not some other bits that they were not including.

jim
GregLocock (Automotive)
18 Jul 04 22:41
Looks fine to me.

Cheers

Greg Locock

GregLocock (Automotive)
19 Jul 04 20:41
Incidentally why not use a Mumford linkage instead? It would be much easier to package I think. It is more complex, but there is a great deal to be said for symmetry in suspension designs.

Cheers

Greg Locock

iamuwere (Automotive)
19 Jul 04 20:50
not enough room for a mumford link.  I will barely have room for a woblink.  The panhard rod barely fits as it is.  I do agree that it is a superior design.

jim

Start A New Thread

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

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

Promoting, selling, recruiting and student posting
are not allowed in the forums.
Posting Policies

LINK TO THIS FORUM!
(Add Stickiness To Your Site By Linking To This Professionally Managed Technical Forum)
TITLE: Automotive suspension engineering Forum at Eng-Tips
URL: http://www.eng-tips.com/threadminder.cfm?pid=800
DESCRIPTION: Automotive suspension engineering technical support forum and mutual help system for engineering professionals. Selling and recruiting forbidden.