Rear Suspension Link

[masterfabr]

And much stronger.

[Doug Heim]

I am gald to see this thread going this route. Rick has done an incredible job with this new print tryint to simplify the explination of this link. I am also glad to see that some of you do understand it and its application. It really is the simplest design and Nor Rick or myself designed it. this design has been applied on cars that date way back. Rick knows more of the history of it but they were called "hound rods". As far as making the A-arms wider you definatly could to do that to gain more strength, or what I like to refer to as a wider "footprint". Like Pacman said though. There may not always be room for it. What I want is long travel and with long travel having a narrower rear housing is best. *With the narrow PIRCV housing, if the A-arms were wider then you would be into the engine. If you went toward the rear then your buggy is longer. I have about a 3 foot wide "footprint" for my rear suspension and in theory it cradles the engine. Lets keep this thread positive and not have a big pissing contest like my thread ended up as. Thanks guys. Doug Heim

[Bugpac]

Another question, how much travel is the link good for? eventully the length of it has to grow, or shorten compared to the arc of the arm? the cad shows the sweet spot arc to the side, but what about front to back...a arms have no arc front to back, the link has to have an arc....could the force the link exerts pulling and pushing as it moves prematurely wear the bushings?

[Doug Heim]

bugpac... I can move my rear upright up untill the A-arm fouls on the frame. This is at a hight that the shocks will never allow and also a hight that no CV angle will ever allow. The diflection can not be measured without a dial indicator as it is so small. I took a small video clip tonight of me cycling it. I will post it here as soon as it is uploaded.

[Bugpac]

Do you have travel numbers, i dont know what the baracuda claims for travel?

[RickS.]

Wow! *I thought for sure I'd be asking for trouble here.
I agree that with wide a arm mounts at the wheel it's probably not necessary.
But it also can't hurt. What it really does is spread the forces out over the length of the buggy. Even with wider mounts at the wheel the forces are constantly working on the mounts. (At the chassis and at the wheels.) The links take a certain ammount of this force and distribute it forward on the frame. I guarantee it will add more life to the bearings. It can also help in a crash as Doug found out.
But that was never anything that I considered when I added them on my 954.
My only concern was adding some strength to keep from oblonging the short bearings at the outer a arm pivots. I'm in no way saying that all designs need them. it's mainly to strengthen an a arm design with short outer pivots.

[Doug Heim]

The travel # for the PIRCV is 14.25". *Here is a link to my video of cycling the rear suspension. Please comment.

http://s39.photobucket.com/albums/e162/ ... 007027.flv

[Bugpac]

interesting...

[masterfabr]

Originally Posted by Bugpac\";p=\&quot

Another question, how much travel is the link good for? eventully the length of it has to grow, or shorten compared to the arc of the arm? the cad shows the sweet spot arc to the side, but what about front to back...a arms have no arc front to back, the link has to have an arc....could the force the link exerts pulling and pushing as it moves prematurely wear the bushings?

Compare this to front a-arms and tie rods.When the rack is perfectly positioned there is nearly zero bumpsteer.Same thing with this link.

[Doug Heim]

Thank you Masterfabr. Rick has also pointed that fact out and he was told he was wrong.