Wanting IFS plans.

I have been looking for some plans to build a clean front end. I am an experianced fabricator but a front end is not something I would like to wing.
The front end is to be used on a fenderless roadster and so Im looking for a clean and simple design. I'd also like some advise on the what parts to use for the A-arm pivots.

This is something I think would make a great Tech so I'd be happy to share the build with the rest of you by posting it here.

Thanks

Twig

 

Just use an I beam .Everything else is to bulky looking

 

You can hide an IFS under a fendered rod but not on a fenderless....
Straight axles are clean.
IFS ain't trad.

 

IFS front ends look like **** on a fenderless car....plain and simple no matter how clean you think you can make one!

 

Check the forums on http://www.locostusa.com/

 

Think Indy car.

Wispy control arms and push rods running bellcranks to actuate hidden coilovers.

Observe:



Be prepared for the IFS haters to descend upon you.

I can hear the mob lighting torches and clanking pitchforks already.

 

Perfect this is just what i'm after. I love a good **** storm so bring it on *****es!! LOL

No really I love a I beam way more but this project calls for a IFS so if you can help that would be cool if not save your breath for some one who really does need a education in taste.

 

Just make sure whoever has to approve this is on board. I know I repeat this a lot for Aussies, but if it's for street use custom facricated suspension parts like this are in need of some kind of certification, engineering approval etc so it's best to check first rather than risk tears later. Once again, not saying no, just do the homework.

The IFS you can buy from Rodcity or Rod Tech have certification.

 

Man, it sure is nice to live in a free country (at least for now).



I love you Aussies, but you all have got more rules than anyone that free spirited ought to have to live under.

 

The Ron Champion book is VERY disappointing, but searching online
for "Locost Plans" will turn up a wealth of info:


http://mcsorley.net/locost/
http://www.adelgigs.com/links.shtml
http://www.geocities.com/phbura@ameritech.net/index.html

 

Lights up torch..

Man, that front end is so ugly.....................

.

 

Yes...and from the arm angles and upper and lower equal lengths...plus no obvious anti-dive, it would more than likely handle way worse on the street than the original beam!
This being a straight line salt car changes the requirements so it's most likely fine for its intended use...but still not a model to design from if your building for the street.

I agree on looking at the Locost cars. Handling is the #1 priority for those.

 

I used to have a 34 coupe with a mustang IFS and a triangulated 4 bar rear suspension. I now drive a 32 sedan with a straight axle(cross steer) and the same rear suspension. I feel absolutely no difference what so ever. I am totally happy with it and I put on alot of miles (7000 a yr). If the straight axle is set up right you will be totally happy. Just my two cents worth but build what you like and have fun.

 

And you can absolutely tell that from looking at a single picture with the body work still on it. You can't even SEE the inner mount points of any of those control arms.

Mechanical anti-dive is NOT required for a car to handle like it's on rails.

Anti-dive like you find in production cars is an intentionally produced bind in the suspension that happens to hold the nose up under braking. This can be done in other ways, and for most race cars, IS.

Anti-dive creates a caster change curve, which can make the car do funky stuff when it rolls axially in conjunction with dive (like at the turn-in of a corner). And, at the very least, it makes the car feel odd/twitchy over bumps in a corner, because the uneven caster change will make the thing feel like the nose is pulling one way or the other.

It's an unnecessary complication, that causes more problems than it solves, especially when you can keep the nose up using other less irritating methods.

Unless you've built and/or driven road racing or circle track cars with this kind of suspension on them, you don't really know what you're talking about. Just because Detroit did something doesn't mean it's always the best, or even right. Just look at the Corvair for Christ's sake.

I hear people on here bag on guys asking simple questions about "new fangled" 50 yr old technology all the time. They usually launch into a litany of engineering terms, building a cloud of confusion (that they themselves obvious don't understand) to muddle the guy's head. They then point to this confusion as reason enough to dismiss any idea except a beam axle with a transverse spring as "a bad idea that will be way worse in practice", and suggest the guy do the right thing (IE, the traditional thing, IE what everyone is doing) instead.

This monolithic religion of "tradition" being a set formula that is never deviated from is total ********, invented by lemmings to convince other lemmings to follow them. Gotta make sure everyone conforms to the proper standards of rebellion. Can't have someone break ranks while we're all trying to "stand out from the crowd". It's *****ic, and it pisses me off.

If you don't have a set of dimensioned prints for the above IFS in your hands, you cannot have any idea what it will do in use. NONE. You're speculating, and based upon your dislike for the technology, you conclude that it's obviously poorly designed, even though you have zero data to base that on.

Every ch***is is different in what it needs from the suspension. You can't just decide that 2 degs of negative camber, 4 degs of positive caster, 4 degs of negative camber gain, and one degree of anti-dive is the perfect set-up for every car, it just doesn't work that way. There are hundreds of variables that you can work with to get what you want out of the system. This means there are nearly as many "right" answers.

The goal is to provide the tires with the orientation they need to produce maximum traction. The ways that you can do that are as many and varied as the people who build these cars.

Some things just defy the estabilshment of a universal formula. This is one of them. Either learn the system and speak intelligently about it, or stop giving advice. And stop dismissing things outright without any numbers to back your position up. This is not the sort of thing you can "just eyeball" and get right.

 

Hmm.. Ok .....
If that is logic then let me outa here.. lol

 

Too much Drama over a setup that isn't Trad...