Al, you are the typical "over-engineering engineer". Love ya, but you're wrong.
Your example of the "frig" (actually a fridge), being pushed is totally off base.
We are not pushing anything with a 4-link or any attachment method for that matter, you are LIFTING.
The rotation of the axles within the axle housing with resistance provided by the effort to LIFT is what causes forward motion.
Think about it.

quote:

Originally posted by sammy christian:
We are not pushing anything with a 4-link or any attachment method for that matter, you are LIFTING.
The rotation of the axles within the axle housing with resistance provided by the effort to LIFT is what causes forward motion.
Think about it.

DbL O you see this?



I think theyre just makin shyt up as they go at this point...

quote:

Originally posted by sammy christian:
Al, you are the typical "over-engineering engineer". Love ya, but you're wrong.
Your example of the "frig" (actually a fridge), being pushed is totally off base.
We are not pushing anything with a 4-link or any attachment method for that matter, you are LIFTING.
The rotation of the axles within the axle housing with resistance provided by the effort to LIFT is what causes forward motion.
Think about it.

Sammy
Sounds like you work for NASA. How much nitrous do you use at LIFT off?

If the force on the bars are not pushing on the chassis why does the car move forward?Should it not simply point the nose to the sky and god forbid you try to use reverse the nose will be buried in the ground.You are correct that changing the ic changes the point where the weight is picked up from and applied to the rear tires, however this doesn't move the car, all it does is apply load(traction) to the tires.

I am not going to say anyone is wrong here or insult anyone, we have two different trains of thought. We all agree that it makes it a solid rear. The forces are still applied to the chassis in relation to center of gravity. My personal opinion is that it would still make a difference but to a MUCH smaller degree than with shocks and active rear. But opinions are like (well you know) and we all have them. I can understand both sides.

I still have same question that nobody has been able to answer. HAS ANYONE EVER LOCKED REAR SHOCKS MAKING IT A SOLID REAR AND TRIED DIFFERENT SETTINGS TO VERIFY THAT IT DOES OR IT DOES NOT CHANGE HOW CAR REACTS?

quote:

If the force on the bars are not pushing on the chassis why does the car move forward?Should it not simply point the nose to the sky and god forbid you try to use reverse the nose will be buried in the ground.You are correct that changing the ic changes the point where the weight is picked up from and applied to the rear tires, however this doesn't move the car, all it does is apply load(traction) to the tires.[/ all it does is apply load(traction) to the tires.

Even though you seem to disagree somewhat, you clearly answered the same way.
This whole subject was about how a solid suspension acts and if it actually matters where the attachment points are, right?
Exactly, it doesn't.

Al, Holiday Inn Express last night.

I am going to add some things to think about related to this thread. I have a hard tail 225 front engine dragster and it would not hook good and would not pull the front wheels. The front tires might pull up an inch or two and then right back down and spin back tires. I believe for a car to work good it has to have almost all of the weight on the rear tires for much of the run. The original chassis builder put the motor down 2.7* down and I think that was the problem. I had moved weight around with little success. In this case moving weight is just a band-aid to fixing a problem. That was much of the reason I asked this question in the first place.

So I had the motor angle changed to .5* down and made a couple test hits last night. Car hooked up and carried front tires out past 60' got up about 2' high, hit wheelie bars and came back down smoothly. Now just so you know I always keep wheelie bars lower but on this test I wanted to eliminate that and just had it up high as a safety just in case. With old set up it acted like it was trying to drive over rear tires instead of planting tires and moving car forward. Now it is pulling front tires and planting back tires, it will be easy enough to limit the wheelies. I have about 20 Lbs I can remove from back, and of course lower wheelie bar and can add 5 Lbs or so in the nose.

This is definitely a different handling car now and the major change was the engine angle. With a major change like that there was some other minor changes. Now on this car even though it is a hardtail when I changed how the force is applied to the chassis or center of gravity it really changed how the car hooked and worked. Big time. Now I feel it is trying to drive under the center of gravity instead of over it.

I am not arguing with anyone here or saying anyone is wrong but I can tell you on my car it made a difference and I suspect it would have similar results by moving the bars on a four link car with a solid strut in place of shocks.
I started this thread to see if anyone had any real first hand hands on experience.

I still have same question that nobody has been able to answer. HAS ANYONE EVER LOCKED REAR SHOCKS MAKING IT A SOLID REAR AND TRIED DIFFERENT SETTINGS TO VERIFY THAT IT DOES OR IT DOES NOT CHANGE HOW CAR REACTS?

quote:

Originally posted by Curly1:
HAS ANYONE EVER LOCKED REAR SHOCKS MAKING IT A SOLID REAR AND TRIED DIFFERENT SETTINGS TO VERIFY THAT IT DOES OR IT DOES NOT CHANGE HOW CAR REACTS?

The results would be exclusive to the specific rigidity of the 4 link bar- heim joint flex, bolt hole slop, high or low horsepower in play, as a result of the pinion crawling the ring gear at the hit.

Results would vary.

I don't deal with angles much at all. When I build a car it get's a crank centerline, then a bar through the mains to line it up to the rear axle pinion centerline. I'm interested in learning something here, but I can't figure anything out with degrees. I'm assuming when you change degrees, your changing crank centerline height?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Nitzsche:
I don't deal with angles much at all. When I build a car it get's a crank centerline, then a bar through the mains to line it up to the rear axle pinion centerline. I'm interested in learning something here, but I can't figure anything out with degrees. I'm assuming when you change degrees, your changing crank centerline height?

Mike the rear end was lowered in the car some and the front of the motor came up some then new motor plates to get it done. Do not know the exact measurements but I think it was about 1.5" down in back and front of motor about 2" up. In any case it made a big difference of how the car works. And I do not know why they originally built it like it was.

Curley. I think the car would go right down main street. If I had my way it would be at the point where it moves the car (approx .750”) or so.. I do think the car would react quicker loosing the shock travel. But then it’s relying on the tire solely. Sounds like an experiment in our future...

Beware when beginning your testing that it could be a bouncy sob when you are on the brakes. Something you don't generally have to deal with with the active 4 link.

quote:

Originally posted by Bucky:
Beware when beginning your testing that it could be a bouncy sob when you are on the brakes. Something you don't generally have to deal with with the active 4 link.

Thanks Bucky. My partner Jeff has to deal with it. I just tune! I had a FED in the late 70’s and a hardtail Ron Fry RED I the 80’s. I did some hopping!!