sytyguy
Moderated User
Has anyone considered the use of a Satchell Link setup (or any type of angled arm or triangulated 4 link setup) for the rear suspension on our trucks? The more I look at it, the more I want to attempt it.
For those who are unfamiliar with a Satchell link, it's a variation of a four link where two of the links point inward towards the center of the car (usually at a 20-45 deg angle and mounting to a point ahead of the lateral center of the rear mounting points) instead of running parallel (longitudinally) with the other two links. This setup is more ideal for handling since it provides an "infinite" possibility of flexibility (due to arm placement), is more compact than the Hotchkiss suspension, can accomodate roll understeer and anti-squat, and requires no laternal axle location device (such as panhard rod or Watt's link).
It also doesn't suffer the same level of cornering bind that a 4 link does (4 link is limited geometrically as the bars must remain parallel) and gives the ability to tune in neutral roll steer if desired. Additionally, it should be "kinematically free" and not require weird axle movements (think Mustangs).
I plan to get the truck in the air this weekend and take some measurements, but the setup (aside from the lower two links) will be akin to the 4 links already out there. Why the hassle? I'd like to optimize the truck for autocross while retaining the live rear axle. There just aren't any other options that have fewer drawbacks than this design (that I've found thus far).
One question, due to the lower arms (the angled ones) and their mounting points having to deal with some bending force as well as pure tension/compression forces, what size bar should I use to ensure enough strength there (for reliability and rigidity in maintaining geometry)? There's a guy out there using 1" x .156 wall D.O.M. tubing on his Satchell Link setup Jaguar with good results.
TIA
Hood
For those who are unfamiliar with a Satchell link, it's a variation of a four link where two of the links point inward towards the center of the car (usually at a 20-45 deg angle and mounting to a point ahead of the lateral center of the rear mounting points) instead of running parallel (longitudinally) with the other two links. This setup is more ideal for handling since it provides an "infinite" possibility of flexibility (due to arm placement), is more compact than the Hotchkiss suspension, can accomodate roll understeer and anti-squat, and requires no laternal axle location device (such as panhard rod or Watt's link).
It also doesn't suffer the same level of cornering bind that a 4 link does (4 link is limited geometrically as the bars must remain parallel) and gives the ability to tune in neutral roll steer if desired. Additionally, it should be "kinematically free" and not require weird axle movements (think Mustangs).
I plan to get the truck in the air this weekend and take some measurements, but the setup (aside from the lower two links) will be akin to the 4 links already out there. Why the hassle? I'd like to optimize the truck for autocross while retaining the live rear axle. There just aren't any other options that have fewer drawbacks than this design (that I've found thus far).
One question, due to the lower arms (the angled ones) and their mounting points having to deal with some bending force as well as pure tension/compression forces, what size bar should I use to ensure enough strength there (for reliability and rigidity in maintaining geometry)? There's a guy out there using 1" x .156 wall D.O.M. tubing on his Satchell Link setup Jaguar with good results.
TIA
Hood
