Fascinating topic. It’s quite incredible, that most American cars had such advanced front suspension nearly 90 years ago. I’ve got several Bmw, some with sent trailing arm rear suspension and some with more modern design. My e28 has quite interesting front suspension too.
On that 1934 buick design, you're only drawing those lines when the suspension is static, at normal ride height. Draw the lines when it's compressed and the location of the virtual pivot dramatically changes. With unequal length arms, the location of the "virtual pivot" continuously changes as the suspension moves.
I remember back in the day feeling bad for people who couldn't put a lift kit on the old Ford trucks with their goofy swing arm suspension, the swing arms were like 4 ft (1.2m) long making a X where they crossed.
I dont understand why you said that 1934 Buick IFS have small camber increase. Bc it have upper arm much shorter it will gain lot of negative camber when suspension compress.
Because camber gain doesn't depend just on the length of the upper wishbone. It instead depends on the length of the virtual swing arm, found by drawing lines through both wishbone pivots.
@@JulianEdgar Well yeah... Its confusing to hear that it have small camber gain even tho it at the end have pretty big gain. It was unclear to me after i saw video. Just asking to be sure.
@@JulianEdgar Broadly speaking, and as demonstrated here yes. But towards the extremes of motion it gets less linear and the camber curve gets more aggressive. In droop you can see negative camber when the upper control arm goes over center. But again, these are extremes that are easily designed around. So for example in stuff like modified trucks this can happen, see S10s, the new Bronco, etc.
@@JulianEdgar track widening and wheel offset. They should affect the virtual swing-arm lenght, right? If they do, shouldn't suspension travel increase (marginally) the further the wheel is away from the virtual pivot?
![⭐ฮิตในTikTok!! ( หมูเด้ง MooDeng ) Ver. แดนซ์โจ๊ะๆ ReMix BY [ ดีเจกิต รีมิกซ์ ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3krsyfWUeHU/mqdefault.jpg)
Mr. Edgar your videos are brilliant and I love to see a Citroen DS on the book cover ♥️
Fascinating topic. It’s quite incredible, that most American cars had such advanced front suspension nearly 90 years ago.
I’ve got several Bmw, some with sent trailing arm rear suspension and some with more modern design. My e28 has quite interesting front suspension too.
On that 1934 buick design, you're only drawing those lines when the suspension is static, at normal ride height. Draw the lines when it's compressed and the location of the virtual pivot dramatically changes. With unequal length arms, the location of the "virtual pivot" continuously changes as the suspension moves.
Yes.
I remember back in the day feeling bad for people who couldn't put a lift kit on the old Ford trucks with their goofy swing arm suspension, the swing arms were like 4 ft (1.2m) long making a X where they crossed.
I cover that suspension in the book. More a semi-leading arm than swingarm design.
can you talk about the original mini cooper. some crazy hydraulic pneumatic or something?
It's covered in detail in my book.
I dont understand why you said that 1934 Buick IFS have small camber increase. Bc it have upper arm much shorter it will gain lot of negative camber when suspension compress.
Because camber gain doesn't depend just on the length of the upper wishbone. It instead depends on the length of the virtual swing arm, found by drawing lines through both wishbone pivots.
@@JulianEdgar Well yeah...
Its confusing to hear that it have small camber gain even tho it at the end have pretty big gain.
It was unclear to me after i saw video.
Just asking to be sure.
@@adamike9990 It *doesn't have* a pretty big camber gain at the end! That's the point - it has a relatively long virtual swing arm.
@@JulianEdgar Broadly speaking, and as demonstrated here yes. But towards the extremes of motion it gets less linear and the camber curve gets more aggressive. In droop you can see negative camber when the upper control arm goes over center. But again, these are extremes that are easily designed around. So for example in stuff like modified trucks this can happen, see S10s, the new Bronco, etc.
Do spaccers and ET affect it?
I don't understand the question.
@@JulianEdgar track widening and wheel offset. They should affect the virtual swing-arm lenght, right? If they do, shouldn't suspension travel increase (marginally) the further the wheel is away from the virtual pivot?
@@MajorSpam Yes, but I imagine it would be only to a very small degree. Just draw a scale diagram and you'll soon see.