Contact US

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.

Students Click Here

Asymmetric 2link setup

Asymmetric 2link setup

Asymmetric 2link setup

This will interest only a few of you and most of those will file it in their "If anybody ever asks" folder, but I have the setup equation for the asymmetric 2link rear suspension, for a live axle, that I mentioned in another thread and I thought I'd share it. This would be an "arm," solidly attached to the axle and probably on the right side, and a "link," with bushings at each end, on the left. There would be, of course, a Panhard bar to locate the axle, though, I suppose, the link might be triangulated to serve that purpose.

The pivot for the arm would lie on the no squat/no rise line, as based on the CG height of the sprung mass. The link would be in a plane parallel to the XZ plane and would point toward a line which is parallel to the Y axis and which passes through the arm's rotation point on the no squat/no rise line.

The equation to follow will provide equal rear tire loading during acceleration and no squat or rise.

This can be considered a special case of the asymmetric 3link suspension first used by Jaguar on the early C-type. A solution would be found, then, in the equation I supplied for the student workbook which accompanies the Millikens' Race Car Vehicle Dynamics (bottom of page 204). (Note, when using this equation, that it's an "Rsubl" in the numerator of the second term and not the product of "R" and "l.") Unfortunately, I did not take unsprung mass into account in the derivation of that equation. The following, then, constitutes an improvement on my earlier equation and you might wish to add it to your book, if you have a copy. If you do, you will need to multiply the second term by the "K" defined in the book.

tangent of the link angle = (Mh + mr)/(Ml) - R(M + m)/(yGM)

where "M" is the sprung mass, "m" the unsprung, "h" the height of the sprung mass, "r" the height of the unsprung, "l" the wheelbase, "R" the rear tire loaded radius, "G" the axle ratio, "y" the offset of the arm from the centerline of the car, and the angle is measured positive upward from the horizontal at the rear mounting point. In most cases, the equation will yield a negative number. It is assumed that the sprung and unsprung CG's are on the car's centerline.

It's interesting to note that the lateral location of the link "disappears" during the derivation.

I would consider this an  improvement over the 4link commonly used in drag race applications, both in its ability to achieve equal tire loading and in its simplicity, though it might be argued that the 4link's redundancy offers some safety benefits in case of a component failure.

But, it would be difficult to persuade a fabricator to switch from the 4link unless the superiority of another configuration could be proven. But, with all the parameters involved, small improvements are difficult to measure. I have, however, come up with a simple means to isolate these effects, which I intend to disclose in another thread for your comments.

RE: Asymmetric 2link setup

Am I correct in thinking that ". . . It is assumed that the sprung and unsprung CG's are on the car's centerline." also applies to your earlier offset 3-link equation derivation?  I have a feeling that understanding the 3-link math would help here, never mind that the offset 3-link is currently a somewhat tangential discussion on another forum.

Getting back to the 2-link, I wonder if its asymmetry could be used to any advantage in circle-track racing . . .


RE: Asymmetric 2link setup

Norm, yes, it was assumed, in all derivations, that the XZ plane was equidistant between right and left side tire pairs.

And, yes, it could be used in an oval track car, but I would recommend 2 symmetrically positioned lower links and a single offset upper link, with the amount of offset negative (left side) and infinitely adjustable. Such an adjustable offset would give the performance variations found in changes in what the oval track racers call "stagger." (For those not familiar with the term, "stagger" is a deliberate difference in size...i.e., revolutions per mile...between left and right rear tires, usually expressed in inches of circumference...or "rollout"...and considered positive when the right side circumference is larger than the left.)

RE: Asymmetric 2link setup

Should have mentioned that stagger is also used at the front of an oval track car to affect braking performance.

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! Already a Member? Login


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