That's the reason why I asked.Jersey Tom wrote:...I fail to see how X degrees upwards is normal but X degrees forward is strange. [...]
When you design a car (or anything) you can't get everything 100% the way you want it. There are compromises to be made for packing, component layout, whatever.PaulB wrote:But I still see no logical reason, to tilt the shafts forward
Hmm. Not sure if that is the case. For a typical open wheel car with the gearbox / differential rigidly fixed to the body I think those forces are all resolved internally to the structure. The anti's would come into play through control arm geometry, or in the case of a stock car where the axle housing is separate from the body.DaveKillens wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the wheels are ahead of the transmission, torque is vectored downwards, giving an anti-squat under acceleration.
I agree, believe it or not, the conveyed torque itself is never attached to neither suspension nor structure outside of the diff, why the chassis will never see any of it?Jersey Tom wrote:Hmm. Not sure if that is the case.DaveKillens wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the wheels are ahead of the transmission, torque is vectored downwards, giving an anti-squat under acceleration.
Yep, that's a usefull information. Thanks!Lycoming wrote:[...] 4% at 12 degrees, the maximum they specify for that particular type of CV joint.
True but kind of deceiving. There are suspension topologies where the torque from the engine is resolved internally and/or there are no anti's and it's all nice and easy.rjsa wrote:Torque knows only direction, not point of application.
You do indeed with a conventional joint, but that is directly neutralized with two joints on the same shaft interacting.tommylommykins wrote:do you also get slightly sinusoidal rotation speed from the geometry of CV joints?
Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot], Google [Bot], kentech, SEMrush [Bot], ziggy and 9 guests