I have been toying aroung with this idea for a while. After reading the "searched" posts on cantilever and bellcranks, I found it was mostly theory and little useful numbers and angles. I still learned alot reading them, so don't think I'm tring to be a dick.
I attached a hand drawing that is 1/6 scale. So my numbers are not exact but close enough.
The black lines are the shock compressed (full bump) and extended (full droop)
The shock is a fox 2.5"x 14".
At full bump the shock is 90* to the bellcrank (drawn in red)
At full droop the shock rotates or pivots 11* (the bellcrank is blue)
The bellcranks pivot points; the shock side is 16", the axle side is 28", and the 3rd side is aprox. 24.75".
Inside angle of the bellcrank is 62* and it rotates 55* (full bump to full droop)
Total movement at axle end is 26" yeilding an "overall" 2:1 ratio. (I know it changes through the movement)
I was surprised that the shock only pivots 11* total. So a ride height the angle correction factor would only be about 5.5*.
This is the same as an A arm set up with the shock mounted at 84.5* to the lower arm pivots at ride height.
Also if the shock side of the bellcrank equal to the shock stroke the total was only 13* (not shown)
Now the questions. I am having trouble with the axle side and understanding how it REALLY WORKS!
Mainly with the bellcrank to axle "link". At first I reasoned that the force placed on it would be the same throught the travel regardless of the angles it operated at (obviously talking about operation in a narrow range that would not cause failure or binding) but now I am thinking that the force will change slightly because the leverage between the liks mounts will change as the link angle changes thoughout is travel.
Is this correct? Will the angle of the link change the force transfured though it? Or will it be the same?
or is it even worth thinking about or worring about?
Any help in understanding this would be great. Joel.
Membership in the largest desert racing community has its advantages
- Participate in Forum Discussions
- Send and Receive Private Messages
- Maintain Public Photo Albums
- Access to Groups
- User Profile in our Social Network
- Increased Access to more Sub Forums
- Reduced Online Advertisements
So I did some more thinking and searching. Ended up searching "torque" and found a bunch of useful info on Wikipedia.
"Torque, moment or moment of force (see the terminology below), is the tendency of a force to rotate an object about an axis,[1] fulcrum, or pivot. Just as a force is a push or a pull, a torque can be thought of as a twist to an object. Mathematically, torque is defined as the product of force and the lever-arm distance, which tends to produce rotation.
The magnitude of torque depends on three quantities: the force applied, the length of the lever arm[2] connecting the axis to the point of force application, and the angle between the force vector and the lever arm. In symbols: where
τ is the torque vector and τ is the magnitude of the torque,
r is the displacement vector (a vector from the point from which torque is measured to the point where force is applied), and r is the length (or magnitude) of the lever arm vector,
F is the force vector, and F is the magnitude of the force,
× denotes the cross product,
θ is the angle between the force vector and the lever arm vector.
The length of the lever arm is particularly important; choosing this length appropriately lies behind the operation of levers, pulleys, gears, and most other simple machines involving a mechanical advantage."
Wish I would have found this before I posted! Oh well. So now im just gonna try and figure out how to do the math right, and build a few scale models for testing.
That ratio change through travel is important. Have a look at photos of the various Ivan Stewart stadium trucks. Some of them even run the shocks backwards so they pull on the shock as the axle moves up.
looking at any intro to physics book will show you how to calculate forces and torsions depending on moment of inertias and theta changes( Angles between crank and link), with changes in angle, changes of displaced forces occur.
Same info can be found in Machinery's Handbook as well as Statics & Dynamics textbooks. . .
. . .I started down cantilever lane about 2 years ago (maybe 3) and I pretty quickly figured out that I wasn't quite ready for that; I didn't have enough off-road driving experience or design/fabrication experience. . .so I shelved the idea until I was more adequately prepared. I'm hoping to hop back on the project in the next year provided I can get the projects I already have started finished.
Same info can be found in Machinery's Handbook as well as Statics & Dynamics textbooks. . .
. . .I started down cantilever lane about 2 years ago (maybe 3) and I pretty quickly figured out that I wasn't quite ready for that; I didn't have enough off-road driving experience or design/fabrication experience. . .so I shelved the idea until I was more adequately prepared. I'm hoping to hop back on the project in the next year provided I can get the projects I already have started finished.
Good luck!!!
Thank you for the reply. I have read your cantilever tread(s) a few times over, and was bummed it got shelved, but glad it may be back on soon.
The formula that was on wiki did not "copy and paste" on post #2.
1st formula; t=rxF or 2nd formula: t=rFsin0 (the sin0 had a diagonal line through the "0")
I was wondering if this is what you mentioned about the info found in Machinery's Handbook, and Statics & Dynamics textbooks? Does it match?
I think I need to use the second formula because the link will not always be 90* to the pivot arm, therefore needing the angle correction factor. The first formula seem to be used when the link (or force) is at a constant 90* angle to the lever arm.
Also I made a scale model and plotted out the wheel travel vs shock travel. I was vary surpised to find that, for my little set up, the line was very linear. It had a slight raising rate from full droop to ride height, and from ride height to full bump it was basically linear. The last two inches were technially falling rate, but not by much.
I will try to post up the graph later.
Your first formula is to calculate torque due to a tangential force ( t=rF ). A tangential force F applied at a fistance r from the axis of rotation produces a torque. Your other formula is to calculate torque for a general force ( t= rFsin*theta ). A force exerted at an angle theta with respect to the radial direction and applied at a distance r from the axis of rotation. The only thing that i think would be difficult in trying to calculate your torque or forces would be to figure out your true inital force that then can be inputed into your equation.
DEFINITELY pay attention to the angles and travel numbers and use something like Excel to graph them. Its very simple and im sure you can google some instructions if you havent used it. If you can draw the bellcrank as it cycles and get axle travel numbers every inch or half inch (shock travel and wheel travel), you can graph your motion ratio and see if your motion ratio is increasing all the way up to bump or if you have digressive valving. Changing the angle of the link mount on the axle and the angle of the link itself from the axle to the crank will change the MR quite a bit.
If this crank is being used with an axle with leaf springs you may have to fiddle with it quite a bit as the motion ratio graph is going to somewhat screwed up since the leaf pack doesnt just swing in an arc. The leaves straighten out and push the axle backwards. Leaves also rotate the axle quite a bit. So depending on the angle of your link and link mount on the axle, it can will screw with the MR curve. Leaves generally will rotate the axle backwards (pinion points up) on bump so if the crank is behind the axle the last few inches of travel will probably start going digressive. If this is for an axle with links, try and get it in front of the axle as the motion ratio curve is very smooth and easier to make progressive (you can tailor the MR curve very easily).
If you are looking at the moment equations to find out how strong the crank needs to be, you will also need to look at the side loads on the axle side. When the axle articulates it will move the link in board creating an angle out of plane and will add another moment to your crank. If your crank is not wide/strong enough it could bend.
DEFINITELY pay attention to the angles and travel numbers and use something like Excel to graph them. Its very simple and im sure you can google some instructions if you havent used it. If you can draw the bellcrank as it cycles and get axle travel numbers every inch or half inch (shock travel and wheel travel), you can graph your motion ratio and see if your motion ratio is increasing all the way up to bump or if you have digressive valving. Changing the angle of the link mount on the axle and the angle of the link itself from the axle to the crank will change the MR quite a bit.
If this crank is being used with an axle with leaf springs you may have to fiddle with it quite a bit as the motion ratio graph is going to somewhat screwed up since the leaf pack doesnt just swing in an arc. The leaves straighten out and push the axle backwards. Leaves also rotate the axle quite a bit. So depending on the angle of your link and link mount on the axle, it can will screw with the MR curve. Leaves generally will rotate the axle backwards (pinion points up) on bump so if the crank is behind the axle the last few inches of travel will probably start going digressive. If this is for an axle with links, try and get it in front of the axle as the motion ratio curve is very smooth and easier to make progressive (you can tailor the MR curve very easily).
If you are looking at the moment equations to find out how strong the crank needs to be, you will also need to look at the side loads on the axle side. When the axle articulates it will move the link in board creating an angle out of plane and will add another moment to your crank. If your crank is not wide/strong enough it could bend.
All good info there. . .and you can see how quickly this begins to effect that, and how you can get confused fairly quickly with all the numbers and calculations which is why I decided to shelf my cantilever project until I get some more experience under my belt.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by atomicjoe23
