Suspension Theory

Speed makes every "quirk" or problem a lot more visible.
Something that may work good at 10mph crawling around may not work worth a shit at 50mph bombing down a destroyed trail.
You really have to decide what you want in a car.

As a general rule, I found that low CG / long / wide cars are a lot more stable and predictable than shorter/more nimble units.
I know ground breaking, right ?

But a lot of folks want something short (110"ish WB), narrow (87"ish width), tall so they can crawl good (20-22"ish of belly) but at the same time are wanting Ultra4 level handling.
I know @Scottal and I had the discussion. His new rig is 18" belly and while very stable, it is a hinderance in the boulder fields. Mine is even lower and I hate big rock gardens.

My POV is that numbers matter, but the general CG / car height has a huge impact that people tend to overlook.
 
Bebop said:
Speed makes every "quirk" or problem a lot more visible.
Something that may work good at 10mph crawling around may not work worth a shit at 50mph bombing down a destroyed trail.
You really have to decide what you want in a car.

As a general rule, I found that low CG / long / wide cars are a lot more stable and predictable than shorter/more nimble units.
I know ground breaking, right ?

But a lot of folks want something short (110"ish WB), narrow (87"ish width), tall so they can crawl good (20-22"ish of belly) but at the same time are wanting Ultra4 level handling.
I know @Scottal and I had the discussion. His new rig is 18" belly and while very stable, it is a hinderance in the boulder fields. Mine is even lower and I hate big rock gardens.

My POV is that numbers matter, but the general CG / car height has a huge impact that people tend to overlook.
Click to expand...
What i'd give for another inch or two... of belly height... and maybe in a another place.

Skid plates matter also. So many people stick with aluminum which sticks into rocks. Ar plate or uhmw is the better choice. My case being uhmw because it slides super easy. #becauselowrider
 
Mac5005 said:
Another thought about this:

If I had to pick, I’d pick maximizing articulation timing front vs rear thru the use of sway bar(s)(or weight distribution/spring rate) over any specific geometry number.

Same with flatter longer links vs steep short ones.

Some of that just pay dividends in the seat, comfort, and capability.

Often more so than “man 80% AS is just too much but I just can’t get it to 68%”.

Back to my initial

“do the best you can, with what you have, and the baked in constraints, and go wheel and have fun”.

That’s far more rewarding that beating yourself out of not making it out of the garage bc of some random person on the Interweb suggestion on general theory.

To give you some context, my first links were terrible in droop and I didn’t understand why. I had to redesign to try to fix that, and it took several years of wheeling harder and harder stuff before I ever pushed it hard enough to see the flaw.

Then it became a quest for knowledge and I could only afford enough to teach myself.

It takes hours of deciphering forum posts, engineering articles and textbooks to glean helpful insight. That was the whole reason for the thread in the beginning and still today.

So if someone is searching, they can get some ballpark numbers to shoot for, and compromise the rest, without having to spend years researching.

I just want to backup my theories with real world proven rigs and experiences to confirm, and correct them.
Click to expand...
You spend more time typing an explanation than I do building my suspensions.
And it shows :laughing:
 
Back
Top