Quote:
Originally Posted by plkracer\";p=\"
All the anti-squat I've ever encountered is measured in degrees. 3 degrees means that the lower arm is tilted back 3 degrees.
|
I've heard that nomenclature too, but, and no offence, it's usually employed by people as a relative descriptive term or by those who don't know how anti-dive and anti-squat are calculated. Of course there's nothing wrong with experimenting and expressing the angle of the pivot axis in degrees.
The method of calculation does involve angles, but the results are expressed as a percentage of the distance between the COG and the ground. I'm happy to discuss it if anyone wants, but I don't feel it's appropriate for this forum. [ducks for cover] Someone will pop their head up and argue why they think anti-squat does have relevance in an off-road buggy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by plkracer\";p=\"
I raced r/c cars, and found it beneficial on the 2wd's for jumping, and steering under power, but the tires slipped more. It helped a lot on 4wd cars as it kept a lot of the weight forward, and allowed the tires to bite more without the rear end sagging and pulling the front off. If you want good steering under power with a little loss in acceleration, it may be beneficial. I guess it could be done with the trailing arms if you mess with the pivots and the wheel camber.
|
Again, no offence, but the parallels between RC buggies and mini buggies would be limited; weight and the reaction of the dirt to that weight is probably the most obvious area they would differ in.
I see fundamental problems with anti-squat on the rear of a mini buggy; acceleration would be lost and the harder you mash the pedal, the worse it would get! The rear end would also be a lot more skittish in turns and the thing would be an evil beast at best. It would be a totally different subject if you were driving on bitumen where there's measurable amounts of grip.