View Single Post
  #11   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 14-08-2011, 16:13
PAR_WIG1350's Avatar
PAR_WIG1350 PAR_WIG1350 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Alan Wells
FRC #1350 (Rambots)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 1,188
PAR_WIG1350 has a reputation beyond reputePAR_WIG1350 has a reputation beyond reputePAR_WIG1350 has a reputation beyond reputePAR_WIG1350 has a reputation beyond reputePAR_WIG1350 has a reputation beyond reputePAR_WIG1350 has a reputation beyond reputePAR_WIG1350 has a reputation beyond reputePAR_WIG1350 has a reputation beyond reputePAR_WIG1350 has a reputation beyond reputePAR_WIG1350 has a reputation beyond reputePAR_WIG1350 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: pic: Don't do this. It's a bad idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamHeard View Post
I Agree with your complaints about suspension geometry.

Also, The suspension on this seems to indicate a purpose of driving over varied terrain. With the completely open differential on there, the wheel with less resistance (often in the air, not making any contact) will get all of the rotation, leaving a torque on the static wheel equivalent to just the friction in the differential.
The suspension Appears to actually a three bar linkage with the link from the wheel bearing retainer to the differential frame being a spring loaded variable length link (possibly a gas shock). The u-joint is simply the joint between two links. It would benefit from more support, but the geometry should still work.

Also, by linking the axles with a slip clutch between the output gears of the differential the static wheel issue could be resolved. Like this. basically it's a primitive version of the limited slip differential.
__________________
Reply With Quote