Page 1 of 1

Front suspension challenge

Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 7:52 am
by badhand
OK Mr. Spanner Monkey - serious question.

MFUK's Hellraiser project is underway. An S550 IRS assembly has been sourced and very soon it will be assimilated into the rear end. Which leaves the front supension.

Now I know you favour McPherson struts for the project. The S550 uses McPherson struts. A lot of performance / touring cars use McPherson struts. BUT there is an awful lot of talk and 'evidence' for SLA or Double A arm suspension being more effective. More complicated, more costly yes, but these are not considerations for us. We want the best solution for hard track and road use.

Can you explain, in your usual easy to understand way, what the advantages are of both systems are and why you're so in favour of one of them? And which is going to be the best solution for Hellraiser ultimately?

Re: Front suspension challenge

Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 8:09 pm
by Spanner Monkey
Macpherson struts vs double wishbone:

There is no doubt that for out-and-out handling performance and adjustability the double wishbone system is the best.

BUT

Hellraiser has to be a compromise between cost/road use and competition use.
The Macpherson strut/lower wishbone system will still allow adjustment of camber and caster, will still allow anti-dive, and will probably be a bit lighter. It will certainly be less expensive to fit and set up.
I've watched the video you sent of how the unloaded wheel of a car reacts between the two systems. What you have to remember is that the video is designed to make you buy a double-wishbone set up. I'd be really interested to see how a well set up Macpherson car reacts in the same test.

One question that you haven't yet addressed is not 'will the car perform' but 'will I be able to drive the car to it's limit'. I'm not being nasty or sarcastic here, but could you or your cohort actually tell the difference between a well set-up Macpherson strut car vs a wishbone car if you haven't been told what it is? I doubt that I could.

Re: Front suspension challenge

Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2016 10:03 pm
by badhand
Merci Monsieur clé de singe. Always love your pragmatism. And your point re video. Which, for those interested, is here:



So true, neither Cati nor myself are race drivers, and we will not be competing in the car, so absolute perfection is not neccessary, although I want it as good as it can be. But what you're saying is, we will be able to achieve the same degree of effectiveness (as far as our level of ability is concerned) for less cost and with less weight by going for Mac Strut?

Basically McPherson struts are the best compromise of cost/weight/competence. But if you took cost out of that equation, would you still go the same route? Or would you build a double wishbone setup?

Re: Front suspension challenge

Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:51 pm
by Spanner Monkey
Money no object I'd go double-wishbone for a circuit car.

I notice in the video they have chosen to compare the SN95 with a Fox - two of the renowned best-handling cars in history..... :roll:

Re: Front suspension challenge

Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 11:56 pm
by badhand
OK. How about this theoretical scenario:

Option 1
Fabricated lower wishbones
Fabricated lower wishbone mounts
Fabricated top mounts
Removal of existing Mustang II mounts and tidy up chassis

Option 2
Fabricated lower wishbones
Fabricated upper wishbones
Fabricated top mounts
Utilise existing Mustang II mounts (with a bit of modification)

If we can use the Mustang II mounting points, and it's actually a good idea geometry wise, surely it's not a huge increase in cost?

In theory. ;)

Re: Front suspension challenge

Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2016 12:18 am
by Spanner Monkey
I've just reviewed the pictures of your existing front suspension.
If you're going to use a twin-wishbone set-up I'd advise you to cut off all of the existing mounts and start again, particularly if the new ride-height will be substantially less than it is at the moment. Not a problem to do that if that's the way you want to go.

Re: Front suspension challenge

Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2016 1:19 am
by badhand
Stuff it. Just an idea. Let's go Mac Strut as planned!

:rock

Re: Front suspension challenge

Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2016 7:10 pm
by Bearintown
badhand wrote:Stuff it. Just an idea. Let's go Mac Strut as planned!

:rock

Dont you just love time wasters :lol:

Re: Front suspension challenge

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:47 am
by Spanner Monkey
Bearintown wrote:
badhand wrote:Stuff it. Just an idea. Let's go Mac Strut as planned!

:rock

Dont you just love time wasters :lol:


You spelled 'wankers' wrong.....

Re: Front suspension challenge

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:53 am
by Manders Mustang
Spanner Monkey wrote:
Bearintown wrote:
badhand wrote:Stuff it. Just an idea. Let's go Mac Strut as planned!

:rock

Dont you just love time wasters :lol:


You spelled 'wankers' wrong.....

What's a time wanker :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Re: Front suspension challenge

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2016 11:36 pm
by Spanner Monkey
Manders Mustang wrote:What's a time w@nker :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:


About 12:30. Why do you ask?

Re: Front suspension challenge

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:12 am
by Manders Mustang
Spanner Monkey wrote:
Manders Mustang wrote:What's a time w@nker :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:


About 12:30. Why do you ask?

Sweet will do it on my lunch break then.

Re: Front suspension challenge

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:46 pm
by Bluestang
Is a time wanker sometimes who comes early.................. :o