RE: suspension

["Dave Eaton" <Dave.Eaton@clear.net.nz>]

yes, but the original point remains.  generally speaking, a wishbone is less
useful in keeping good suspension geometry over a wide range of wheel
movement than a strut.

why does the humvee use double "a" arms?  the humvee uses all sorts of
sophistication to keep good traction (hub spur gears, multiple torsens etc).
and clearly optimum suspension design in extremis (e.g. camber) is much less
important than traction.

struts are a very good (compromise) solution when high rates of wheel travel
are required, and some geometry compromise is acceptable, and performance is
important.  witness the current crop of wrc rally cars which mostly use
struts front and rear.  also the ur-quattro did, of course.  struts also
don't get in the way of driveshafts as much as double wishbones can, which
is a factor in an awd system, particularly when you're trying to drive the
front as well as to steer it.

hth,
dave
'95 rs2
'90 ur-q
'61 mb fintail

-----Original Message-----

Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 15:18:06 -0400
From: "Smith, Kirby A" <kirby.a.smith@lmco.com>
Subject: re  RE: suspension

"Jeremiah Curry" <jeremiahcurry@sprintmail.com> wrote:

    What are the differences between mcphereson struts and wishbones?  In
general?, performance?,

to which "Dave Eaton" <Dave.Eaton@clear.net.nz> responded:

depends entirely upon the use.  wishbones are damn fine for relatively flat
surfaces where wheel travel isn't a factor (high spring rates).  struts are
considered the best solution for times where more wheel travel is
required/desireable.

To which I comment:

The HMMV (HumVee) uses double wishbones, I recall.  It can handle extreme
levels of terrain irregularity.  It is, however, somewhat wider than an
Audi.