Jump to content

3 Link Questions, discussion and a brain dump


Recommended Posts

  • 4 weeks later...

Small update to progress on the 3-link.... Building the first full mockup.

Feel free to fire off any questions or suggestions on the design as normal :) 

file1-1.thumb.jpeg.53b6bc723647e705e56eb2c0085e2b35.jpeg

file2-1.thumb.jpeg.709dfb12723769fd2eb7fa8ee253ffde.jpeg

file3-1.thumb.jpeg.c4cc64b985d9d0acba79292d03fdf162.jpeg

file8.thumb.jpeg.2b6923dddf7090fadb33560182be3113.jpeg

file6-1.thumb.jpeg.d476a7ae3c558ec8efb7bbd2b9a5c7df.jpeg

file7-1.thumb.jpeg.713c96ff1176febb286b3a03497b1ebb.jpeg

file4-1.thumb.jpeg.59bcf01b62a53694adffc9108901e5d9.jpeg

file5-1.thumb.jpeg.ee679e7342ef59d2fe657372d1a2231a.jpeg

file9.thumb.jpeg.15d21ea4d45bf2ce24848ee4a1c69099.jpeg

file11.thumb.jpeg.07c84470df1ef342ce65f4cc76dcae0d.jpeg

file10.thumb.jpeg.22b66f2ad9c267a33901e4758faf3189.jpeg

 

Obviously at the moment the radius arms are still on there. I'm going to get the link lengths roughly right at ride height, strap them together to hold the length and then I'll strip and rebuild without the radius arms in there. Then I'll be able to test cycle the system and see what the clearances are actually like! 
One issue I came across is that I haven't put the 'shims' on the outside of the original radius arm brackets so the joints are hitting the insides of them at the moment, so I'll sort that when its apart later. Talking of which. One of the things I want to do when I build this is reinforce the radius arm brackets. As I need to make them slightly wider on the outside anyway (at the moment they're the same width as the joint, I need to allow for a 3mm weld washer each side) this is the perfect opportunity to make a spacer that's welded to them and get some attachment to the axle casing too. All the while retaining the option to remove the 3-link and revert to radius arms if needed.

file-1.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turning out really good Ross, you know I'm a sucker for K.I.S.S. so I really appreciate how you've incorporated the failsafe of being able to refit the RA's Not that I doubt what you are doing is going to be strong enough mind you! But sometime in the future when you're on a crazy adventure in the deep russian jungle with the missus and a link or bracket breaks, a stock LR RA will be much easier to find :) 

I know I'm being picky here, but wouldn't it be stronger to put a radius on the corners of the hole which the tierod travels in? Especially the rear upper corner where there's very Little material could be a stress riser?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That bottom bracket will have a tendency to buckle up especially with that large square hole in it. I am sure it still will get reinforcements, but it is still a very delicate way to transfer the force from the axle to the link. The bracket on the chassis has that very same problem, not to mention it hanging low down. The bottom M10 is going to take the majority of the forces, so a bit weak really. The other issue I can see is the bottom link to go up past the dead centre and the axle to toggle forwards in case of a big impact, as mentioned previously.

Not wishing to punch holes in the design, but since this thread is about discussing 3 links, It is the right place to vent my thoughts.

Daan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't need know if you've missed the bit I added after Soren's question but that's going to have a bit of S355 box running through the cutouts and across the car, plus there will be more gussets and playing to box in the brackets. The original axle end mount is never going to work as it's about 1" above the axle centreline. Add in that 4" above the centreline is the max I can go up with the upper link I'd only be left with 3" of separation which isn't going to work.

For the chassis bracket most of the forces will be going through the original chassis bracket. I've not done any work on that part yet but it will be tied back to the original radius arm mount on the chassis. The inside plate hasn't got anything like that it can be attached to but it will be tied into the opposite side with a slim crossmember (to fit under the LT230) and that will be tied in with the upper link crossmember. So that should spread the load a bit to the 8x M12 holding the upper link crossmember as well as the 3xM12 on each lower link bracket (6x total). 

Not sure what you're meaning with the movement Daan? The lower link axle end to go up above the axle centre line? That would need the link to fail wouldn't it?

As for punching holes in the design, it's all helpful discussion, especially if it means I post details I might not have previously mentioned! Brains are good at filling in the details in a post but only when they're in your head :lol:

Keep it coming :) .

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks nice... but... :unsure:

I would prefer that the joints of the lower arms would be located under the axle to make it more stable. Now they are so far backwards that the force in the arms will be enormous while stepping on the brakes: the axle wants to turn with the wheels. This because the upper en lower joints on axle are quite close on one line with the joints on the chassis.. At least it looks like that. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They just can't go there Carloz. They are as close to the axle as they can be without sacrificing another 4-5" of clearance under the axle. 

The separation from the upper link is more important than the distance from the axle. Unless I'm misunderstanding you I can't see the forces on the links when braking being any higher than standard. You might have to try and explain in more detail what you're meaning with the joints being on one line?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think of it as a triangle, is what Carlos is getting at, I think. What you've designed makes a very shallow one, which acts as a force multiplier when pressure is applied pushing the point between the short sides towards the longer one. The shallower it is, the more mechanical advantage it has. Whether that's a problem or not for the exact geometry and forces involved probably needs some calculation.

I'm sure you've covered this, so  apologies if I've no doubt missed it in long threads, but wouldn't 1 link have been a much simpler, more compact and easier way to go? Pick up on the original axle mounts to an A frame (which could itself have that cunning box section stiffener/steering guard built in) with a large spherical or multi axis joint at the chassis end? Ought to be skookum as frig as AvE would say...

Edited by lo-fi
More thoughts
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lo-fi said:

I'm sure you've covered this, so  apologies if I've no doubt missed it in long threads, but wouldn't 1 link have been a much simpler, more compact and easier way to go? Pick up on the original axle mounts to an A frame (which could itself have that cunning box section stiffener/steering guard built in) with a large spherical or multi axis joint at the chassis end? Ought to be skookum as frig as AvE would say...

Problem with one-link though, is it handles like cr@p :( Works average offroad, but terrible onroad. 4 link with a Panhard (5 link to some) works the best in every situation but is a PITA to package so 3-link is a decent compromise. But of course a proper setup one-link handles better than a poorly setup 4-link so as always comparing can be difficult

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26-2-2018 at 6:06 PM, lo-fi said:

Think of it as a triangle, is what Carlos is getting at, I think. What you've designed makes a very shallow one, which acts as a force multiplier when pressure is applied pushing the point between the short sides towards the longer one. The shallower it is, the more mechanical advantage it has.

That is exactly what I ment ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26-2-2018 at 7:23 PM, Soren Frimodt said:

Problem with one-link though, is it handles like cr@p :( Works average offroad, but terrible onroad.

What kinda carp does it handle? :P

Well... I would like to know what the drawbacks are compared to the original setup.

Basicaly it is the same apart from that it is connected at one point in the centre instead of on two points L&R.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Carloz said:

What kinda carp does it handle? :P

Well... I would like to know what the drawbacks are compared to the original setup.

Basicaly it is the same apart from that it is connected at one point in the centre instead of on two points L&R.. 

Yes and that is what makes all the difference. Its basically because its a big difference in roll centre. The vehicle will easily 'Flop over' when most of the weight is put on one wheel.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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