@bzroom:
It's a full blown car (more than what you might think from the screenshot)

new mustang 2 spindles and brakes in.

solidoworks:

what's in the screenshot? the spindle and the brake? (sorry I really have no clue what's a solida work)

It's just the spindle and caliper bracket from this front suspension:



The brake disk will spin on the stub axel, and the brake caliper will mount to the C shaped bracket.

I'm trying to compute the geometry of my proposed suspension so i can run it through a calculator to see how it will perform and make adjustments where necessary. But at a first glance, my first stab looks pretty promising, the upper A-arm is about 4 inches shorter than the bottom and will start with a bit of an upward angle, so there will be nice roll camber. and my lower A arm and steering box will pretty much equal length, i'll just need to make sure their parallel.

I plan to have the bottom A-arm be a fixed configuration, the bushings will have a bit of length adjustment to them. Where as the upper A-arm is going to be a two piece for lots of adjustability. I'm probably going to get one of those lifetime alignment package with the tires so i can have them tweak the alignment once a week until i like it.*

edit: *I'd do it myself but you need lazors and shit.

Quote:

that's a cool piece of metal( reading the rest of the post ), is the brake part hidraulic?

[Edited by - Calin on May 13, 2009 4:45:23 PM]

Most definitely.

If i was smart i'd just use that suspension as-is. Right off the shelf and weld it to my frame where you see those square tubes. Unfortunately i'm a masochist.

It seems like you know what you're doing

Using Solidworks as a suspension calculator:





Should be pretty trivial to compute spring rates and roll centers with this sketch. I left off the roll centers for clarity.

Current chassis: Almost done, just need a couple more vertical supports between the 4 parrallel front suspension bars, gussets, and mounting brackets. Along with front and back control arm mounts. The drawings above are to generate the front one.



As cut, no welds or brackets, current weighs in at 380lbs.

[Edited by - bzroom on May 17, 2009 8:08:06 PM]

Hey thread, how'd you get all the way down here? Time for a bump.

Cause i fell asleep on the job :(

Update:
One day when preparing the design shown above for a quote from the tube company it hit me. I dont even like this design. It's grossly reliant on tube thickness for rigidity which makes it a beast. It had a solid rear axel (also a beast) and a primitive front engine with the dangers and complications of a drive shaft going through the center of the passenger cabin. Yuck.

so I came up with a new design, shown below. I thought this will be great it makes way more sense. Efficient space frame designed purely for performance (low mass, low inertia, less cost, easier construction, and WAY more structurely sound). On top of that the new design is a mid-engine LS1 mounted to a 944 porsche 5 speed sitting between C5 uprights.. The whole drive train weighs as much as the rear axel of the first design! (ok a bit of an exageration). I'd run C5 geometry up front too just for consistancy and it's such a proven performer / highly available parts.

Even more positive points, the design is made to be used with a body shell. You could drive this in the rain and/or not worry about getting pebbles up in your private parts / face. Though this will add considerable complexity to the project as a whole, and cost, and weight. But it's a feature which can be deffered, indefinitely even.

The bad news: I showed this design to a friend, one who had never seen the first design and he was like "cool" then i showed him the old one and he was like "WOW." and i'm like, yea you're right, the other one is so much cooler. Granted the cad drawings of the new frame were not to scale or even realistic, just a mock up. The old design is just "cooler." So now i'm torn, do i accept the downsides of the previous design to get a car rolling for low cost (i could make some improvements, like IRS, and shoot for better triangulation to keep the wall thickness down), or do i go full steam with the new rain proof mid engine design? Not sure yet..

Anyways heres the first sketches from the new design, i'll post cad drawings when i get home.


Just found this when looking for C5 details. This guy is building a GT90 from scratch, hawt (the pics of the wood body mold). http://www.gt40s.com/forum/gt40-build-logs/21349-gt90-ground-up-6.html

And Ravuya, i didnt understand the weight of your comment about harder to exit than a lotus elise.. Until i rode in one. My buddy has one and it's damn near impossible to get in or out of without totally kicking or scratching the dash, door sill, and everything in between. Unforunatley this new design, atm, is even harder to get out of. The only point of entry is rolling the window down :). I've been thinking about it and rather than putting no step stickers on the boddy and underskirt i'd just beef them up to be used for that purpose. But then there will be scratches and marks, so i've thought about including a standard issue entry/exit towel to lay down as your ass slides across the body. And every passenger would need a tutorial before their first ride. Fortunately that'd limit my passengers to physical fit intelligent women.

This guy's chassis looks hardly strong enough to drive.. Maybe i'm seriously over estimating my strength requirements. http://www.lambobuilder.com/edb/Chassis/Frame/pages/PA170012.htm

[Edited by - bzroom on September 8, 2009 3:58:18 PM]