Jump to content

four link or Watts linkage?


dollythelw
 Share

Recommended Posts

are you saying my tyres look big in this Steve?

I only a have passing knowledge of these things but did consider both for my Range Rover. IIRC you're looking to use more speed on your events.

My conclusion was Yanks, who use big tyres, seem to favour 4 link for speed events. This could be because it's best or beacause they don't understand a Watts linkage :unsure:

I suspect the Watts linkage requires better design to be effective and this would be particularly evident at speed. If it's not spot on I think you'll find it would do unpredicatable things at speed in the rough, especially with your (cars) significant unsprung weight.

Unfortuantely most suspension gurus I have spoken to/read articles are dealing with less than 4" of travel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve is right, Watt linkage stops the ars end kicking at speed and easyer to control landings at speed but aparently eats bushes so I was told when I asked about fitting D2 axles to the Tomcat which is why I didn't bother in the end.

I'm just fitting a anard rod and hocky sticks on the back.

We may still fit the watts linkage as the parts are not that dear new but the D2 rear arms are out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its a teaser, I cant see a huge prob in getting a watts to work providing the relationship between the arc of the side bars and the diameter of the centre pivot is consistant. Ive got a friend desert racing beam axles in the US - I'll ask him why they dont use watts (he's on 4 link), as you said Steve it might be a lack of exposure/understanding to them over there? a reliable 10" of compression would be handy and I think that may prove a prob as the side arms would have to be on the long side.. hmm, more thinking/coffee/fags/sleep needed.. :unsure:

Panhard and hockeys is simple Jules - well proven and reliable, Im just looking for alternatives :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its the best way to control side forces, the 4 link, especially with longer arms is less than ideal for this. Also roll centre of watts linkage is obvious and predictable on every position of axle. Also, packaging will be much easyer.

In my opinion 3 link + wats is more desirable than 4 link. Whether the disco 2 parts are prone to wear is a different matter, but Bowler is using the disco pivot on the dakar cars. The links are custom

My future project will potentially feature this, whenever this is (ever?). Currently I use radiusarms with panhard, which I am very happy with.

Daan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you think Bind would be an issue? I can see that with 5 link, but a bush and heim combo served on family sized platter of Watts linkage with a side order of optimised watts crank should negate the panhard arc bind of a 5 link? or have I now overdosed on coffee :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

possibly - it would depend on the size of the bellcrank and the length of the side arms, there would be a theoretical maximum travel in relation to the longest side arms you could find a home for I guess... if that would be reached before the bellcrank ran out of articulation or not needs some input from the magic crayon and abacus. Now I can see why the septics like 4 link :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I throw some more logs on the fire, what about a 'woblink' does the same as watts linkage but I think it has better packaging, especially with the offset diff of a Land Rover. Originally designed to keep the roll centre very low ie. ground level but can be turned upside down etc the links would then be up out of harms way and you can dial the roll centre in any where you like. I've built a mock up in MDF down the garage I can take a photo later if require, just type woblink into Google.

Andy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinks on this some more I suspect our trans Atlantic friends may be using 4 link due to the amount of travel they have. Would a Watts start to lose the plot at 30"?

I dont think its a major issue as long as bump and droop are equally distributed. just run a drooplimiter in the centre of the axle and you solved the problem, while maintaining loads of articulation

With the watts system would you get into an issue with the fact that the watts needs to be central but the drive shaft is not, would they act against each other encouraging movement on the short side reducing it on the longer side?

Mark

Shouldn't make a difference, a torque is a torque, regardless were you aply it on the axle

Can I throw some more logs on the fire, what about a 'woblink' does the same as watts linkage but I think it has better packaging, especially with the offset diff of a Land Rover. Originally designed to keep the roll centre very low ie. ground level but can be turned upside down etc the links would then be up out of harms way and you can dial the roll centre in any where you like. I've built a mock up in MDF down the garage I can take a photo later if require, just type woblink into Google.

Andy

I wouldn't consider that one, because realy a lower rollcentre in combination with soft springs would make the car very unstable on side slopes. turning upside down? maybe but at that stage packaging becomes interesting to say the least. Anyway, show us your mock up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience. By using our website you agree to our Cookie Policy