It's also similar to how you design for cornering, it's just a different direction. With anti squat you need to move ( lift against the car against it's inertia ) the car forward a bit in order to get it to squat because the hubs move backwards as they rise upwards. This is why the suspension feels like it's not really working. Imagine having to change the length of the wheelbase of the car when you tilt the car ( squat, dive, lift etc. The most basic is that you can measure or double check this by seeing how much the hub moves forward and backward as it it move up and down. Especially when you'are adding more travel to the suspension.Īnother two ways to look at this. Just like your other suspension arms you don't want short instant centers. I don't understand your comment above about moving the link. On Car9 I decided to use trailing arms that were level and about parallel. I just hadn't seen anyone that was doing IRS talk about anti-squat at all, let alone how much they were dialing in. moore, I saw that I probably did need some anti-squat, and that by adding a couple of extra holes to drop the upper dog bones down, I could basically cut it in half from the original 63% to about 30%, and from there to about 15%, so I have a pretty good range to choose from. On one hand you're asking about going parallel, which would mean lowering the lower or raising the upper link mounts on the chassis, but then mention adding holes to lower the anti-squat by dropping the upper link mount on the chassis?Īfter seeing the comments from NGPMIKE, Sean in CT, and a. I'm a little lost on your intention too though. The IC line just comes off at the angle of the parallel links. However, contrary to how I read your question about going parallel, doing so won't give you 0 anti-squat either. So if you start with 0, once the weight shifts, you'll actually end up pro-squat. However, as the weight transfers and the rear suspension compresses, you're going to lose anti-squat. To your original question, you don't "need" any anti-squat at all. You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post. I have mine setup with 3" of compression, 2.5" or so of droop, so I am not too concerned with bottoming the suspension, only how the car behaves with a spirited launch from a standstill, or exiting a corner under power.įound a copy of the factory setup online: I know that GM set up the C4 for that 63% Anti-Squat to avoid bottoming the suspension in bump as there is only about 1-1/2" of compression in the shocks. She's going to be a Highway Flyer, maybe a bit of Autocross or Track days, but basically a Street car. Antisquad line plus#Plus I still don't have all of the numbers to calculate what it will be if I go with a particular set of angles and lengths. Would I be better off setting up the dog bones as a parallel four link? I've seen some of the math used to calculate it, and it makes my head hurt. My question is not so much what my Anti-Squat would end up at using the factory dog bone angles, but do I need any anti-squat at all? Car should come in around 1,800 lbs. My CG is probably three or four inches lower than the stock C4, and I have pulled the engine back 14" from the C4 location with the same wheelbase. With the length and angles set to factory, in theory I would have 63% Anti-Squat. I'm running the C4 Corvette rear suspension.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |