"El Gordo"

mosebilt

Well-Known Member
Posts
164
Reaction
45
decided to actually finish a project (money allowed).....El Gordo!-4 wheel a-arm, cantilevered pre-runner. dual sub mounted tanks (60 gallon between two), sub mounted pedals, front and rear cantilevered/inboard shocks. rear a-arm with 1/2" axle plunge through entire travel range, with 4 degree total camber change as well. the front suspension is done except for finishing the spindles and inner floor mounted shock mounts. rear a-arms are made as well, just need to finish shock mounts between rear seats and rocker arm pivots (they are the same rocker arms as in the front). radiators are mounted behind rear seats and will have inner/outer ducting for air flow. all plumbing/water lines are made as well as most tabbing. the cars ride height can be adjusted 3" by turning the control rods from the a-arms to the rockers-no need to touch the springs. car will have full body with windshield and AIR CONDITIONING....37" tires,"Lamo doors", S4D and Titan V8 with700 hp and 8 into 1 exhaust.....3200 lb. weight, 132" wheelbase and 30" travel all 4 corners....
 

Attachments

CaptinCrash

Well-Known Member
Posts
2,450
Reaction
109
can u take a picture of where the shocks are mounted from in the car please
 

FABRICATOR

Well-Known Member
Posts
5,147
Reaction
107
Interesting!
 

Lance

Well-Known Member
Posts
252
Reaction
8
You didnt have any problems with bump steer drooping the front out that far?
 

CaptinCrash

Well-Known Member
Posts
2,450
Reaction
109
which class one car
 

GunnSlinger

Captain Backpack
Posts
4,875
Reaction
702
.... not trying to be negative in any way at all ...


but all i have to ask is .....WHY???.... so much different stuff being incorporated .. why not just keep it simple and proven??...
 

Dumfast

Well-Known Member
Posts
113
Reaction
2
Very nice!...One question on the front end...At full bump is there quite a side load on the "pivot box" hinge point?
 

mosebilt

Well-Known Member
Posts
164
Reaction
45
Very nice!...One question on the front end...At full bump is there quite a side load on the "pivot box" hinge point?
not that much, plus not in the photos are "dust cap"/double shear mount for the rocker arms......
 

motorhead

Well-Known Member
Posts
128
Reaction
2
.... not trying to be negative in any way at all ...


but all i have to ask is .....WHY???.... so much different stuff being incorporated .. why not just keep it simple and proven??...
From what I see, having the shock body (heavy part) very close to the floor helps lower the center of gravity. Along with relocating the weight back toward the center or rear axle centerline making the car slightly more responsive. Both, not being worth the packaging and serviceability problems IMO. What does make it worth the hassle, IMO, is the extreme rising rate created by the motion ratio of the bell crank (rocker arm). The suspension gets "stiffer" throughout compression as long as the angle between the bell crank and shock shaft don't pass 90 degrees. I'm not sure how the angle between the push rod and bell crank effect the motion ratio but assume it is the same.

I've never considered this approach worth it beacuse of the extreme shock stroke compared to road racing, but very interested to see if mosebilt can get it to work and work well.
 

mosebilt

Well-Known Member
Posts
164
Reaction
45
From what I see, having the shock body (heavy part) very close to the floor helps lower the center of gravity. Along with relocating the weight back toward the center or rear axle centerline making the car slightly more responsive. Both, not being worth the packaging and serviceability problems IMO. What does make it worth the hassle, IMO, is the extreme rising rate created by the motion ratio of the bell crank (rocker arm). The suspension gets "stiffer" throughout compression as long as the angle between the bell crank and shock shaft don't pass 90 degrees. I'm not sure how the angle between the push rod and bell crank effect the motion ratio but assume it is the same.

I've never considered this approach worth it beacuse of the extreme shock stroke compared to road racing, but very interested to see if mosebilt can get it to work and work well.
looks like we are on the same page, and yes we are just moving weight from where you dont want it to where you do/use it to your benefit.......
 

Gonads

Member
Posts
10
Reaction
0
From what I see, having the shock body (heavy part) very close to the floor helps lower the center of gravity. Along with relocating the weight back toward the center or rear axle centerline making the car slightly more responsive. Both, not being worth the packaging and serviceability problems IMO. What does make it worth the hassle, IMO, is the extreme rising rate created by the motion ratio of the bell crank (rocker arm). The suspension gets "stiffer" throughout compression as long as the angle between the bell crank and shock shaft don't pass 90 degrees. I'm not sure how the angle between the push rod and bell crank effect the motion ratio but assume it is the same.
It seems like you would get a similar motion ratio with a traditional shock setup, without the rocker arm. Only difference being the tie rod end that mounts to the rocker arm would not move side to side through the suspension action. I would also love to know the weight of the rocker arm, snout/bearings, tie-rods, heims, as compared to the weight of the bypass shock. All this for center of gravity? You already scored with the fuel cells under the seat (the most fluctuant mass on the vehicle), is the shock body/ pedal assembly being moved this dramatically going to out weight the benefits of a traditional system? Being simplicity and proven history.

Are the benefits of having the shocks down low and back still valid with the 20+ lbs of metal/rodends you have to add (where the shock body weight would have been) to make the system work?

I am not trying to bash on anyone here, but i am wondering why some of the steps were taken in the chosen direction...
 

mosebilt

Well-Known Member
Posts
164
Reaction
45
the rocker boxes weigh 12lbs each, the cotrol rod with heims weighs 3.2 lbs-the spindle snouts that the boxes pivot on are now "part of the frame", as well as the shocks-increasing the sprung weight of the vehicle. all we have done is move weight from where you dont want it, to where you do. more sprung/less unsprung weight=better wheel control/handling, we are putting as much of the weight is in the center of the car as possible. the suspension a-arms are also lighter since you dont have the force of 2 shocks acting directly on them (the coil-over is mounted with the bypass-just not in the picture..)
 

Gonads

Member
Posts
10
Reaction
0
the suspension a-arms are also lighter since you dont have the force of 2 shocks acting directly on them (the coil-over is mounted with the bypass-just not in the picture..)
The force put on the arm is going to be the same as if it was directly mounted to the arm like a traditional system. The only difference being that now the force of the bypass and C/O are being directed to one focal point, the tie rod end thats on the arm, instead of two mounts like a traditional lower arm with bypass and c/o shocks. I have seen arms with no lower gussets/triangulation (in the vertical direction, not front to back) fold under mild use, and they were round tubing. Hopefully you are planning on adding some meat under those arms?
 

motorhead

Well-Known Member
Posts
128
Reaction
2
It seems like you would get a similar motion ratio with a traditional shock setup, without the rocker arm. Only difference being the tie rod end that mounts to the rocker arm would not move side to side through the suspension action.
I agree, except the bell crank potentialy can cycle through a full 90 degrees of motion, where a traditionly mounted shock will only see 30-50 degrees of motion. The side to side movement adds another force component, bringing additional trig into the design, but overall could probably be considered negligible.

Also, why do you guys call bell cranks "rocker arms"? I've never heard them called that. Although, I've heard the term cantilever to describe a bell crank.
 

mebuildit

Well-Known Member
Posts
225
Reaction
12
I like new ideas, that is what makes you think outside of the box. Although, I do have one question. Since the shocks will be inside, will there be a heat issue since I'm guessing that there will not be any airflow around them like in a traditional method.
 
Top