I just saw a thread over at LS1Tech, thought I'd share it with you guys.

http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=955859
http://www.stranoparts.com/partdetai...D=67&ModelID=7

It looks pretty nice to me, but what do you suspension experts think about this? The good thing is better roll centers, the bad an extra 11 pounds of unsprung weight (along with a $700 lighter wallet).

 

700 is a bit steep

I just posted a few weeks ago about why no one made these after seeing one for a mustang.

I was just toying with the idea of making one, i just wasnt sure how to mount it to the axle, now i know.

 

I would also like to get one but it is just too much money for me right now. If you figure out how to make one, //<86TA>\\, please post dimensions so the rest of the thirdgen community can have this setup for a great price.
</div>

 

That is a really clever design. I like how the turnbuckles (lack of a better term) or links are tied in to the axle. Neat design. The thought process, functionality, materials, etc.....VERY NICE.

I wish I had 700 bux to blow.

 

Just when I thought I was done with my suspension

 

Bad design, I am surprised with strano marketing this. He is falling into the gimmick products list just to make a buck.The pivot has to be on the axle with a Watts link. This one is backwards and has the pivot on the chassis. The axle can not articulate without changing lateral position in travel.anyone can test this at home with a little popcicle test model.

 

i was wondering about that, good of you to chime in.

 

This product is basically a takeoff of the Wattslink design I engineered and posted on this website about 4 years ago. The cross section brace was my concept. The watts can not be used correctly with the pivot not on the axle (you can't get proper articulation with it on the cross section like this Watts link takeoff is showing- thats why I enginnered it with a Mumford link because the Mumford does not suffer from the articulation problems when mounted like this, but the watts does.I used to be names RTFC on here...https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/susp...hlight=mumford

 

I was hoping that you would reply Vetruck. That sucks that he released this then, everyone on that site goes to him for suspension. Think this design has any benefits over a PHB?

 

Dean, I love reading some of your posts because you're very knowledgable and I've gained quite a bit of info just from your banter between other suspension/brake/steering guys on here but that line just cracked me up. You say that like you're the only one to ever develop a Watts link. Nevermind they've been on sports cars for the last 30 years.

 

Waste of money

All you need is a good adjustable bar with the poly bushings or hiems.
Set up straight across with good springs and shocks
at ride hieght.

However if you need more wieght, a lighter wallet or
going for show with mirrors under the car, Go for it



Later

 

Double post.

 

I've known Sam for 10 years and there have been plenty of cases where he has steered me away from wasting money.

That being said, I certainly wouldn't run out and plunk down $700 yet. I'd recommend waiting until Sam (he said he's going to put one on his car) or someone of his caliber has actually tested it on an F Body. The thing with him, he actually races his car competitively and doesn't leave crap on his car if it doesn't work.

Pat

 

I just saw this exact same design piece on sale in the latest Jeg's catalog for Mustangs, but for like 4-5 hundred. I'd be interested in learning more on this design. I do agree 500% that this is a trick "looking" piece and definetly a point of interest for any car show with a underside mirror though

 

Yeah...My typing skills- or lack of for that matter have been known to be interpeted many ways. I gotta work on that. You know what I ment though, I designed a way to put a Mumford link into our cars. I did not design the watts, nor did I desgn the mumford, I enginnered a way to install one into a 3rd gen. Hope I was clear that time around, but hey, I can take good contructive critisim- Thank you
----------
Thats exactly why I wrote the word "Surprised" in my opening line.FACT: The Watts will not articulate properly keeping the reaend centered undere the chassis with the pivot on the chassis side. The pivot HAS to be on the axle.

 

Correct

We use to run them on our stock cars from time to
time. They didn't feel rite. Especially under compression
and rebound on rough tracks.

Later

 

I wonder if it really is a bad design, since ALL of the V8 Supercar field run them with the pivot on the chasis. This allows them to have an adjustable roll center.

 

The fourth gen guys constantly amaze me with how they love new things... Stuff that probably doesn't work all that well and costs a lot.

 

For $700.00 there are alot of suspension pieces you
could get that would really improve your handling

But they would'nt look as purdy
Add a couple 100 to that and you have a 1G or more
car.
Later

 

Some of you bring up some good points about how it "looks" like this won't work, but has anybody actually driven a car with this?

Pat

 

Yeah, that does seem to be the case sometimes - I know a few of them that are like that..lol

 

Might I suggest if anyone has any questions they pick up the phone and call?

There is nothing wrong with the design of the Fays2 Watts link. More to the point, that style is also in use by other companies with proven track records and technical support and information exchange with OEM's.

Suffice to say I have a reputation, I think it's well earned. You can find my results and plenty of happy folks if you just look around. Further I am not hard to find, and always answer questions to the best of my ability. Am I perfect or claim to know it all? I am not, and do not. Dean on the other hand often seems to.

These units, both Fays2 and designs similar to his have been used for years with great success in many aspects of competition. I would urge those of you willing to keep and open mind to educate yourself and not to simply rely on any internet expert, myself included.

If you go over to the Fays2 website there is much information about the way these work, and also a lot of info addressing some typical comments that folks make that are not only ill-advised but also just wrong.

The idea of a Watts link is simple. Get rid of the arc and lateral movement caused by a PHB, and to get rid of the roll center height changing due to the way a PHB must work. Basically a Watts is just two PHB's with a bellcrank to balance the work. Anything that is to locate the axle has to bolt to both is and the body. It doesn't really matter where as long as the mounts are strong. Certainly you all can't think the way some others do it by using a trick rear end cover is stronger than the axle clamps? Who am I kidding? Of course there are those that think what they want, and the sky is probably purple in their world as well.

A PHB is simple and works very well for what it is. But the location is not as good, and the fact the roll center moves up and down depending on which way you turn effects cars that turn both ways. jaykar talks about stock cars... if you turn only one way you can easily setup the roll center height to do what you want, etc., and who cares about the other direction. The fact is very, very simple. When allowed all solid axle cars will run a Watts link and not a PHB. This is why cars like SCCA GT1's and such do. Cup cars run a PHB because they are mandated to.

I was told about this by a customer. I had no idea this thread was happening, and it's a shame that not one person here thought it was a good idea to maybe pick up the phone and get the real scoop. I have one on order for my car. I don't make changes lightly. They don't give out National Championships to those that can't drive, and you can't take a car that doesn't work and win in it. I have 4 of them, 3 in f-bodies, ALL in PHB cars and I'm changing my car over.

Happy to discuss, will not get into a mug slinging match with a bunch of faceless folks on the web. I'll leave it to you all to decide based on a conversation.

My phone number is 814-849-3450

Sam Strano

 

Well said Sam. For all the people who say this is a bad design, I say again, ALL of the cars in the V8 Supercars catagory here in Australia run a very similar setup. Maybe it's because they need to turn in more than one direction.

 

Sam, In all respect, you need to do a simple popcicle stick model mock up of that reverse watts link design and watch for yourself how the lateral movement does NOT articulate the rear end stringht up and down, it in fact articulates the up and down movemnet in an angled lane going right on compressin and left on release. It is a direct aprox 8* angle on motion from the centerline 0* up and down.

The rear axle will STILL laterally move in travel. Now if the car is more ridgid in roll rates and travel, this will be left to a minimum just as the panhard setup is.

And in all due respect Sam, I am also currently setting in 3rd place for a championship my first year in NASCAR circletrrack racing -put right up to a crewcheif. Mason Britton ST 18.
http://www.toyotaspeedwayatirwindale...tand_suptr.asp

 

Well good for you...

I'd suggest you all take the time to check out some of the videos and links you can find all over regarding how watts links work. You'll even find more than few showing them in motion and will see, quite clearly that the bellcrank allows equal and opposite reaction as the axle moves up and down. That's what keeps it centered.

I'm not going to argue with you about circle track vs. road racing, they are different and what you do to a roundy-round car is not in any way the same as a car that you need to turn both ways. And you can't just think since it works going left it works going right. There is a reason Cup guys would build road course cars and they differ from short track cars, which differ from intermediate track cars, which differ from speedway cars.

The Aussie V8's are the most similar things to f-bodies running today. You need only watch them for a while to know they aren't half-assedly setup. And has been pointed out they run a similar setup, regardless of what the popsicle sticks lead you to feel. Until the suspension moves so far the movement is up and down. At the very extremes when the bellcrank is laid over you can get a shift. Too bad you don't have nearly that much suspension travel available in the back of an f-body. Maybe a rock-crawler, not here.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt's_linkage

Hell, just google "watts link" or something similar--there is not shortage of information to look at.

 

I have been reading this with great interest.

In this design, it seems that the roll center height will move up and down within the range of the vertical slot.

From what I have read about watts linkage the pivot point should be on the rear end hosing to keep the roll center constant, which from what I have read is one of the primary advantage of a watts linkage.

I can not really tell from the pictures, but is seems that a significant amount of stress would be applied to the clamps on the rear end housing in lateral load. I can not see how these would survive the forces.

I have broken the panhard bar mount on my rear end which is a 1/8 steel 3 sided box, which was also triangleulated into the rear end housing via round tubing. Every attempt was made to reduce the degrees of freedom still it failed.

Is the pivot mounted in single or double shear, I can not tell by the photos. If in single, I could see it wanting to twist.

The piece that replaces the stock panhard bar support looks strong, It is the rest of the design that puzzles me.

Please explain how this design, counters my perceptions. I am always looking for a better mousetrap and I am tired of breaking parts and rubbing fenderwells under hard lateral forces.

 

this is my last post here because I ave said it three times and its beating a dead horse now.

"thats a reverse watts link". You showed a link to a standard watts link with the pivot on the axle housing.....are we not getting it? A standard configuration articulates DIFFERENT than a reverse pivot mount due to the way the axle articulates.

And...I come from a road race upbringing and used to race for **** Guldstrand- and did quite well for the non dedicated 6 1/2 years of "1/2 broke, young family, showed up when I had free time" racing I did. No one could touch me and I have the charts to prove it. I never had the money nor the availability to travel to national events. The one time they came to me here in So Cal I ironically missed one of the two days racing event due to having to attend 'Traffic School' for a ticket in my younger days. the second day of the event I showed up and clean up BSP class by 1.32 seconds. Were going back 20 years.

I only post this because you challange my ability and I post facts. I was also the only guy to take down the late Mark Thorton in his highly modified carbon Fiber Corvette, I chased him down to Jack Murphy stadium in San diego one weekend where I found out he was running. I was in my "dinosaur" 1968 vette and clipped him by 3/10th of a second best for best.

 

You know, you show up from time to time in various places, like over on frrax.com and make all these claims and never have anything tangible to back it up.

I have a total of 7 SCCA National Championships. 4 National Titles, 3 ProSolo Series titles. And since you are from San Diego let me put that in perspective for you. Gary Thomason has a total of 8 between the two series and has been at this longer than I have. Gary is in this months Road & Track as one of the test drivers in a "track test". He's also the lead test driver for AMCI which is a the testing company that's used to independently verify various claims.

All my wins have been since 2002. They don't give those things away, and I've run FTD times at regional events in F-stock prepped cars, so I don't really care how well you did against someone in a "carbon" car at a local event. I won Solo Nationals last year by 1.9 seconds and indexed #1. I've had magazine articles done about me. I'm on the cover of this months SportsCar magazine. I've been on the cover of GM High Tech Performance, and done a suspension for one of their cars that went in total almost 7 seconds faster a lap than what began (and this is on a short 1.3 mile road course, not over a 4 mile track).

I'm not an engineer. Don't claim to be. Kick the crap out of plenty of folks who are, and put together fast cars. I learn by trial and error. I can't win a hypothetical argument with you, and frankly don't think I need to get into one. Because my results aren't hypothetical.
----------
For the record, I'm far too busy to play "what if" games on this board. If any of you really wanted information I suspect you'd have called myself or Fays2 regarding you questions. If it's not important enough for you to have picked up the phone before questioning things then it's not important enough for me to spend hours trying to convince the nay-sayers.

I only found out about this thread because I was told it was being discussed and might want to drop in. Not because anyone thought it necessary or wise to learn and ask questions. Far too easy to just pick something that's new and different apart.

What a shame

 

Then I think you need to work on your shock valving. You know, the things that control your compression and rebound damping. After all, if there is a tangible change in roll center height either statically or dynamically there will be other changes needed. And compared to a PHB, the roll center is not dynamically changing with a Watts setup. That can and will effect the feel of the car as it rolls and the body moves up and down. The change in roll center is a factor that goes to setup, so when you stop seeing that change the balance and/or driveability of the car and and does change become different.

 

Having won 2 track championships and finishing 2 and 3rd
in a couple of other years, I figure we had our setups pretty
well figured out as to springs and shocks.
My comments were directed at the (Cost) of the Watts setup
compared to well setup track bar.
I assumed the discussion centered around a street car and
not a race car.
Does look good, but difference between the two
Minimal: other than heavier, space, and cost.

Later

 

Well lets just take this year alone.Out of 11 races= have 9 top 10's, 5 top 5's, 3 top 3's all my rookie year in NASCAR.......Oh yeah, I was also placed directly into crewcheif position my rookie year. I had to get on a very fast learning curve, and I did. Want recent proof, Here is us on victory lane where I can boast the largest winning margin of the year in our series. Last week, we checked out and were gone with a 3.381 second full straightaway lead. Best of any race out of the 35 competitors in our feild.

So yeah, I pop in now and then. I pay you respect...maybe its about time you get off your high horse and pay me the same.

I come from a road racing background. Corcle track setups are far more complex with non symetrical setups than the basic road course car. I also happen to be the very first NON employee of Irwindale raceway to test drive a Super Latemodel on Irwindale for Everham doing testing along side of Clint Mears (Rick Mears kid) back in May of 1998. When I was a kid, late teens and early 20's, I raced Vettes for **** Guldstrand in autocross and vintage events. My racecar, which I still own today after all these years is still pictures on Dicks website (ps- I am now 41 yrs old for reference)
Thats my 540hp 68 vette on the left of the three pics- http://guldstrand.com/gallery_05.asp

 

Didn't realize we were playing one upmanship here

Thought this thread was about cost and practically
for street use versus track or panhard bar, however you
want to call it.

Watts
Cost- $700.00 or there abouts.
5 hinge points versus 2.
Going to take more fabbing($$) than Bar.
Heavier, if your into that sort of thing.
Takes up more space and exhaust options come into play.
Remember this is for a street car and not a race car setup
for this
Looks good.

Bar
Cost- $100..00 or so.
2 hiems plus tubing, do it yourself, $50.00.
Can be made completely adjustable, ala Nascar very simply
at (2) attachment points.
Doesn't look as impressive

Nice wins

Later

 

well some things need to be cleared up. whoever thinks that a "reverse" watts cant work IS wrong.

sorry buddy, with all due respect, that was pulled out of the air. even if it did have some movement, it would depend on the length of your parts. there is no way you can quote 8* because it would never be the same.

now you are correct that a watts has movement, but not until the bellcrank and the arm form a straight line. for a 6" bellcrank and 12" arms, you would have exactally 9" of travel up and 9" of travel down if the arms started at parallel to the ground. who has more than 18" of travel on our cars????

what is a watts? a watts is two PHB's attached with one on each side. just as a PHB has a swing (read migration from center), so does a watts (this includes the chassis, pinion and cover mounted!!!!!). if this was done without a bellcrank, it would bind since the arms would be fighting to pull the housing in EQUAL but opposite directions. but, with a bell crank, the movement is allowed to take place and is equal and opposite in EVERY point throughout the useable range. this means there is NO!!!! side to side movement!!!

does a PHB have a graphable arc for its entire range? yep
does a PHB's arc change with its distance from the ground if it is kept parallel to start (read RRCH adjustments)? nope!!!

so if a PHB doesnt care where it is, just how long it is and its relationship to the ground, how would two PHB's of the same length decide to move in two different arcs?

some things have to be done in order to assure proper use of a watts. first, both links have to be the same length. they also have to parallel to the ground at some point within the useable travel. so although they can be different, they need to be equal but opposite at ride height (parallel is easier to grasp). any variation from the above points and you WILL get bind and you WILL hate your watts. this is very likely the case for anyone who thinks a phb makes there car handle better than a watts.

i will completely agree that the two watts will feel different, but only on a minor level. the axle mounted watts keeps the roll center height constant, and therefore keeps the rear roll axis "more" constant. this keeps the migration of roll over/understeer "more" constant.

but, the chassis mounted watts does something more important; it keeps the roll couple constant. the roll couple is the distance btwn the roll center and the center of gravity. since the watts is mounted to the chassis, it moves with the cog. if it didnt, as in the axle watts, the "lever" would get longer and more force would be placed on the axle.

 

I thought this was a thread about a part that could make a car turn right and left faster. If you have a show car, oops, I mean, street car, why do you care how your car handles on the street? Or are you an extra for the next "Fast and Furious" movie?

Pat

 

Widowmaker, In all due respect, I can clearly see that you have advanced knowledge of understanding roll centers, migration, articulation, etc, ...but I can also see you are lacking understanding of more depth to the situation and are clouded in other details.

What you are missing? axle articulation in vertical travel range. With standard watts, the center point of the link system in monted center of the axle ......SO......when the axle articulates over bumps (meaning one side up, the other side down) the watts link keeps the chassis centered. NOW....

...on a 'reverse" mount watts, the center pivot is on the chassis...SO... when the axle is in verticale motion with both sides rasing and lowering over bumps equally all is fine...BUT when the axle articulates over bumps where one side of the axle is higher than the other, this leverages the bellcrank via the link arms and will push the chassis sideways (laterally) in motion travel.

Do the model, thrust me, I am correct on this conclusion. The 8* was in a sense pulled out of the air because the actuall angle I did not measure. It ranges somewhere between about 8* and 33*. Lets just use 8* still for reference. Now take an x,y grid with 4 quadrants. X line is straight up like a clock so above the intersection is 0* like 12 o'clock. Lower x line is 180* like six o'clock. The y line is the axle. The center line of y as the axle raises goes towards the assumed 8* mark (exact measurements need to be recorded, 8* is conservative) and the lower or drop out travel below y axis would be the 180* resiprication (180* + 8* = 188*). The motion of travel will pass on a somewhat straight line from upper right 8* to lower left 188*.
The standard watts travelks from 0* to 180* along the straight line path.
The reverse travels from 8* to 188* (aproximation) along its straight line path = lateral movement.

Sorry, no disrepect ment in this statement, just answering based on facts = you are wrong, not I.

 

Jaykar, To answer you in all due respect also, if you please reread what I wrote it is NOT to one up Sam Strano. He called me out, I merely paid him repect that I always have, and answered his slam against me and asked that he knock the crap off and be respectful to me deservingly also. He asked for proof, I answered with facts of my own- it was not to upstage him.

Now back to the point of Panhards. I a limited range of motion and a long enough bar? they are perfectly adequate and the 1/16th amount of lateral movement they produce in such a limited travel senerio is a mute point. Where they harm handling is in lateral geometry- basically how they load or unload the chassis in lateral forces. (thinks to self: breathe deep, here goes a novel to get the proper explination, my typing skills in translating my thoughts to words gets misinterpeted far too often if I don't- and sometimes even if I do write the novel)

Basically- with factory 3rd gen geometry, it will vary even with different suspension packages (ie- the ws6, the IROC, the GTA, the RS) all will have different vehicle weights and interior options etc that will all affect ride height and spring rates used on even factory cars. BUT IN GENERAL- a left turn the rear will squat, and a right turn the rear will lift. Right turns are generally slower tighter turns so the lifing will help the car rotate and turn easier into the tighter direction. GM chooses to rightfully engineeer the chassis that way for a basic street car because left turns are generally the faster side and when a hard left is done and the rear squats, the *** end stays tighter than it would if the chassis and axle mounts were reversed. It has to be one way or the other, they chose it that way because of this simple thought- Makes sense to everyone I hope...lets move on.

The watts prevents this left right difference. Not because of the need to do away with the minor 1/16" of lateral movement, its to do away with the jacking and squating affect. HOWEVER, the "reverse watts" as I describe will actually create a sufficiant amount of troublesome lateral movement- alot more than the factory panhard. You gain one good, but you also gain one evil. That lateral movement one way is good, that lateral movement the other way is bad...which is which? depends on the entirely other marraige of parts and weighs your particular car has whether left is good and right is bad, or right is good and left is bad (just like the senerio I listed above for the factory car) THere is no perfect answer. all senerios for the most part are individualist. you have to taylor you own marraige.

I will give you a very complex senerio (I just hope none of my competitors ever read this any time soon)
Most people in my racing series use a lightweight RR spring and a traditional panhard geometry used to most rqacing cars which tries to hit the range of maintaining ride height-to- promoting lift. Why lift you think?, At this point common sense says they are crazy, squat is better right? Yes and No. lift on the outside of a circle track car will help resist roll they think- yes true to a sense, but there are better ways to do this. OK How?

I invert the panhard and use a much stiffer RR spring. So now you say, "but you induce squat on that side and the body will roll over on it- NO, its all how you do it with NON symetrical spring rates. The roll center wil migrate towards the stiffer spring thus creating leverage on the inside of the car. Leverage is weight, weight will resist the inside of the car from lifing and will also create grip. Now there is also a major hidden factor that is VERY complex that comes into play (this will be way over 99.9 % of you heads of those reading this) There is a YAW factor on the roll axis which in very basic terms gets the cars polar weight going in the right directions as the car rolls- rathyer than the traditional way to get polar weight moving by simply turning the steering wheel.
I am going to stop here. It is very hard to discribe in typing, but you get a little taste of the bigtime suspension game in racing. This is a sdimple expination also as to why one driver may like a car and another not feel safe of comfortable. If you do not know why a car is doing what it does it will cause the mind to feel uneasy even when things are stable.

 

+1 http://forum.racesimcentral.com/showthread.php?t=321074

Sometimes it seems like there are more engineers than camaro or firebird owners on this forum. Most products don't make it big till they prove themselves. I think a watts link is a great idea for our car. Rather or not this product is worth the money can only be determind by the people who buy one, and the test results of the cars with them installed.

So instead of proclaiming credentials and arguing over the designs effectivness lets wait to pass judgement on the product till it has been on the market for over six months.

 

Oh boy, all of the talk about roll centers was over my head

So, that book you just wrote left me asking one question. Can you make a car turn left and right the same by using a PHB and different spring rates? It seems like that's what most people are after and this would be just as effective, right?

...and if I'm way off just tell me and I'll go try and learn more about suspension

 

No you can't. And yes you'll have to study more, thats not what I was refering to. I said above in plain english it was about chassis yaw with relation to roll axis. Maybe since you are so sarcastic, you would like to explain better?

The floor is your 87Formy, We all wait in eager anticipation for your explination.... Lets here about chassis yaw though roll center migration.

Your turn....

 

The only sarcastic comment I made was at your long explanation (which now looks rather brief ), where you admitted it would be a novel. Obviously, the only knowledge of chassis yaw I have is from your explanation. It just seemed to me that you were getting a similar turning ability as everyone else with your PHB reversed, and that led me to think that you would be able to set it up to turn both ways pretty similar...

 

Dean,

Why not start a new thread on Yaw. We call it yall down south.

I am trying to follow your post visually.

It seems that if running a relatively stiffer right rear spring with all else equal.

The car would not be as tight on mid corner to exit. The extra weight supported by the RR would be transfered diagonally to the LF and rescue the RF and increase the cornering capacity of the RF which is the most abused tire. This would also help unload the LR and make the car eaiser to rotate after it takes a set. I do not think corner entry would be changed as significantly since the front end initiates the turn in.

Would this also be eaiser on tires and require a lesser operating front tire slip angle to negotiate the turn? If so should also make the car faster on exit with the tires rolling vs skidding.

Why does the competition want to limit the rear roll so much? What are they trying to gain with the "lift"? Seems they would only be delaying the car taking its set and applying more initial lateral force to the RR by delaying the roll. Car would take two sets. One to lift the RR and one to compress it. What way does the panhard bar run? Would they be trying to get rear steer when the bar got level?

What are the strategies?

I have never race an oval except for karts. I think I am experiencing this yaw on road courses.

When "I get into the rythem" It seem like I have to turn the front tires less and can unwind them quicker. I may need to as the rear of the car is turning itself.(not like drifting, this would be felt but never seen) "An unobserved 4 wheel drift"

How can I use a better understanding of yaw angle to go faster on a road course?

 

A good link, just underlines what I was saying, this is a proven design in one of the most competitive racing catagories in the world, are you guys saying that this doesn't work, that the guys in the V8s are all wrong?. I don't need to spout facts and figures to show I know what I am talking about. Sorry, but I think all the proof that is needed is there in the V8 supercars. I take the word of top race engineers ( several have come from F1) over some internet guys.

 

Sdif (hey Cash), I will need to answer this over the weekend when I have more time. Can't do the novel right now, takes alot of thought how to type the visual.

VAN, No doubt a watts is great. No arguement there. EVERYBODY keeps missing my point about this "Reverse link design and the adverse affect it has as opposed to a watts in the mpdel links posted. SHow me a model of the reverse watts mount through axle articulation and see what the chassis does different that the standard watts. Every answer skirts away from what I have been saying all along, nobody has posted a response deling with this issue.
Gotta go, more later.

 

What the V8 Supercars use IS a "reverse watts", so this exact design is proven to work very well.

 

Just because they or anyone else uses it doesnt make it right, nor does it make it better. It just means they use it. Who cares.

 

I would like to see a picture of one of the Austrailian racecars- Can you please post the watts link on them?

 

I'll see what I can find, but it is often shown during the TV coverage of the racing, they show the suspension and other key componants using computer modeling. I had a quick look on the V8 supercars site, but they don't show any real detail there. As for the guy who says just because they use it, doesn't mean its good/better, you might want to have a look at the racing and the level of professionalism before you say something that stupid.

 

Stupid? I've seen racecars. Just an example was a spring adjuster that was a craftsman extension cut off and welded to a threaded rod. Dont talk to me about stupid, or I'll continue with other prime examples. As I said, just because someone uses a part in a particular fashion even in racing does not make that the end all be all of right. Thats why they are continually in development, because in case you missed the boat, everything is a compromise.

I tried to stay out of this post for a long time because I was certain as soon as I replied some worthless idiot like you would come up with some insinuative remark about my level of intelligence, and what do you know, I was not let down.

 

Well, as I said, this is not a bunch of club level hacks. Are you saying that EVERY team and engineer in a series that has been developing for 16 years has it wrong? Mate you should get yourself one of those high paying engineer jobs with one of the top teams. BTW, I didn't say you were stupid, just that what you had to say was, but I maybe I was stupid thinking you would understand the difference.

On another not, I have had a bit of a search for pics/specs of the rear suspension of a V8 Supercar, all I can find are site were it is described as "4 link with adjustable watts link". I'm sure there will be pics somewhere, it is shown during the telecasts quite often, but I had no luck, sorry. BTW I am aware that there are downsides to this design, mainly that your roll center hieght changes with suspension travel (although the increase in roll center hieght would inprove turn-in under brakes) but they are more than outwieghed by the positives. Remember guys, we don't have huge travel so geometry changes are minimal.

 

I am a high paid engineer. Any other assumptions about me you'd like to make?

You didnt get what I said either, must be an Austrailian misinterpretation thing. Just because these guys use it, does not make it correct or the best. I know all sort of high dollar items that arent worth a damn, making the assumption that cubic dollars and multiple PHd's makes a perfect item is a perfect way to get yourself into trouble.