There is also the potential for a push, or pull, rod linkage where the coil-over is located apart from the actual suspension and operated via linkages - while popular in some series, some thought has to be put into the loadings of the components, especially the pushrods as they will tend to flex and even buckle under high loads. An intermediate option may be to fabricate a triangulated "cage" with a braced, vertical extension to which a coil-over can be fitted, probably in a horizontal orientation, and acting against suitably re-inforced parts of the roll cage structure. Unless you wish to convert to a "double wishbone", or multi-link design, that isn't really an option. There may be some confusion in the suspension options being discussed - a true cantilever suspension normally uses a longer top arm/wishbone extension with the pivot point being somewhere in the middle and the inboard extension compresses a 'coil-over' spring-damper assembly. The usual 'cure' would be to use a high spring rate to minimise the travel - which you've found unacceptable. IIRC, the non-M3 E30 used a semi-trailing arm rear suspension which causes toe variation during it's travel, which together with the camber change, caused some 'interesting' handling characteristics - as you've found out. You didn't mention if you are required to use the basic OEM rear suspension design and are working around it's limitations, or if you are free to modify it as desired?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |