[want33s]

That looks a lot better.
How much seperation between the uppers and lowers do you have?

Control/Print screen
Open paint and paste.

[94BAZOOKA]

Seperation

Chassis 152mm

Axle 280mm



I know of to screen print but my lap top isnt hooked up to the Internet

[appsie]

thats pretty big seperation at the diff.could bring both them figures down a bit if mounting would be any easier

[BlueSuzy]

GWAG

So far, From my playing with a block and tackle with my Lwb,

With a 3 link front, I dont like how the whole diff moves one way during drop. Bumps are offset to each other, swaybar links looks messy, But, i have to run a 3 link..Radius arms make it simpler again..But the movement isnt really there.

With a 4 link, full drop it moves central, when flexing, it moves the wheel away from the chassis, Yes rear steer makes it touch the chassis still, depending on wheel offsets. But moves much nicer.

[Fatzook]

This is always a problem with big travel rigs. Panhards work better for low to medium travel applications, where the range of movement is not as dramatic. 3 link A-frame or 4 link will always gibe better results for big travel.

Of course one thing that I do see alot of on buggies and custom coil setups, is very short panhards. The longer you can make the panhard, the less the diff will 'swing' under high articulation.

[BlueSuzy]

Fatzook wrote:

The longer you can make the panhard, the less the diff will 'swing' under high articulation.

I have tried to do this from research. I now have a new non bodged draglink also

There is probably 100mm length difference between the 2.

[Fatzook]

BlueSuzy wrote:

Fatzook wrote:

The longer you can make the panhard, the less the diff will 'swing' under high articulation.

I have tried to do this from research. I now have a new non bodged draglink also

There is probably 100mm length difference between the 2.

Nice.

Not much else you can do really. Keep them long and horizontal at ride height.

[want33s]

My buggy is 4 link rear and 3 link + panhard front.
Diff mount of panhard is higher than chassis at full compression. Panhard is 800mm long. This goes a long way to reducing the diff side travel as it articulates.

[SierraDan]

Check out Evan Staniland's Bundy. 3link + panhard front and rear. Has the chassis mount on his panhard dropped heaps and his axle mount/top link mount is raised a shit load too.

[Gwagensteve]

I think the thing is that everyone gets all hung up on huge travel and the axle path with a panhard, but travel is almost irrelevant in a lowish speed application. In articulation, which is critically important, the panhard should have no effect on axle path if its level at ride height and long enough.

Sure, my axle moves laterally under extreme droop, but from ride height to full compression the lateral movement is pretty limited and easy to design around.

IMHO it's also much easier to package a 3 link+panhard, and that's important when you are trying to package a car with a low COG - I can run weight lower in the car because I don't have to clear two triangulated upper links.

Also, roll centre can be independently adjusted without moving anything other than the panhard. I think for the ability to separately adjust roll centre and anti squat by moving one link at a time, without having any interrelated issues, 3-link+panhard is the winner. 3 Link+panhard also has the lowest bind of any suspension - I'm getting all my flex with stock rover/vitara bushes and one summit machine joint.

I also have identical lower links all round and identical panhards front to rear, and they are off the shelf Rover items. The only custom part is the upper rear link, and at the chassis end that's just a vitara control arm.

For me, it's hard to see how much better a double triangulated 4 link would be, however, I do know it would be much more expensive and be much more work. I'd also be relying on welded components much more. Right now, if my upper link breaks (the only fabricated link) I can re install the radius arm bolts and be back to relying on rover cast arms. I think that's better redundancy than being able to remove one link and limp of the trail, assuming there's enough triangulation between the 4 links.

I'm not knocking a 4 link per se, It's just interesting that 3 link+panhard get written off so quickly by most people with little consideration. I think it's the best setup for what I was trying to achieve.

Steve.

[Fatzook]

Gwagensteve wrote:

I'm not knocking a 4 link per se, It's just interesting that 3 link+panhard get written off so quickly by most people with little consideration. I think it's the best setup for what I was trying to achieve.

Steve.

I agree. I quite like the idea of 3+ panhard front. Thats how I did Rushos coily, and it work beautifully. The only fabricated link is the panhard, which is hugely over-engineered when compared to the OEM coily panhard. All other links are off the shelf.

Having said that, I do like the idea of triangulated uppers 4 link for the rear. In most cases, this packages far better than it will in the front, and with a little effort and design thought, you can build in redundancies for adjusting roll centre without the need for fabricating new mounts.

[remydog05]

Just been reading this thread as Ive always had an idea of building a coil seirra.

My idea was to try and replicate another car that was already adr, etc
EG I always wondered if you could replicate a Range Rover.discovery front and rear suspension system?
It would be big work of course but the biggest thing i could find would be the fact that all the links are mounted wider than what you could do on a Sierra
therfore Im guessing you would have a poor roll stiffness?
Also this way you would end up with front 3 link rear 4 link! But rangies have always been pretty loose in the rear at any decent speed from what I know.

Also maybe a jeep might be worth trying to replicate?

[SierraDan]

In the small suzuki platform, i've always seen 3link of all kinds to be best.
Radius arms.
3link+p
and A frame 3link.

[Fatzook]

I think you are looking at it the wrong way.

Instead of replicating the setup from another vehicle, which was designed specificly for THAT vehicle, look at using components from other ADR approved vehicles and setting them up to suit YOUR vehicle/application. What works on a rangie, may be no good on a sierra ( specifically dimensions/ proportions etc)

Atleast if you are using off the shelf OEM components, you will only need to prove your design and application of retrofit to an engineer. Getting custom links passed can be a bit dicey..

[remydog05]

Fatzook wrote:

I think you are looking at it the wrong way.

Instead of replicating the setup from another vehicle, which was designed specificly for THAT vehicle, look at using components from other ADR approved vehicles and setting them up to suit YOUR vehicle/application. What works on a rangie, may be no good on a sierra ( specifically dimensions/ proportions etc)

Atleast if you are using off the shelf OEM components, you will only need to prove your design and application of retrofit to an engineer. Getting custom links passed can be a bit dicey..

Agreed but I think I explained it the wrong way??

Could you work out the roll stiffness, anti squat etc etc or a rangie, vitara, and then aim for that with your car?

Or am I still in la la land???

Im also curious how you measure unsprung weight etc?? Anyone got any reading or comments about that and how it relates to setting up 4 or 3 links?

[remydog05]

remydog05 wrote:

Could you work out the roll stiffness, anti squat etc etc or a rangie, vitara, and then aim for that with your car?

Using the off the shelf/off the wreckers shelf stuff

[Fatzook]

yeah ok. Guess so. But you will most likely face packaging limitations that will prevent you from achieveing the same results. Its worth a shot though.

Unsprung weight is anything that is not suspended by the springs. So diffs, wheels, tyres, brakes etc.

[want33s]

Unsprung weight is usually axles/tyres etc and half of the link and spring weight.