The "Lotus" link and the Satchell are quite similar. The difference is the roll center height on the Lotus link is fixed relative to the axle or the ground. The roll center on the Satchell link is fixed relative to the chassis. As the chassis goes through bounce and rebound the distance of the center of gravity to the roll center is constant, with the Lotus link this distance varies by the amount of suspension travel. You will get more consistent handling with the Satchell link. Both provide a relatively low roll center.
Whether you use two joints as in the Satchell link or one as in the Lotus link it will not affect the geometry much. Either could be done with one or two joints. Two joints are twice as strong as one, my choice.
This choice is similar on a "3 link design" with a watts linkage providing lateral location. If the center link of the watts is located on the chassis as in the "Lateral Dynamics" design the roll center is fixed relative to the chassis. If it is attached to the rear end, the roll center is fixed relative to the ground. If you use a panhard bar you half way in between the two.
I haven't heard much about Lateral Dynamics, I hope all is well with him. He is a smart guy and a skilled fabricator.
I haven't been to lateral-g in along time, a lot of fun stuff going on. From the project updates; Bad Penny and Stielow are making great cars.
I miss the SEMA party at Steve's lumber yard, a great event.
See you again.
Last edited by g-roadster; 03-24-2010 at 07:56 PM.
|