i dont like the way they handle going fast in the whoops.. the axle is moving side to side can throw you side to side.
if you notice less and less ultra 4 rigs are running them..
tweaky they could have done a 3 link with par hard like shannon and probably got there roll center closer to center of gravity but they did the wishbone to not need it..
cjn was thinkin that one in the video had a panhard front. and it could if the uppers were strait to help keep the axle under it but like you said it would bind
I understand the side to side movement your talking about. But it will be fairly minor. Running the whoops, or flat out in the desert, the suspension won't usually drop all the way out. Some yes, but most of it will be quick side to side articulation. Casey Beach ran a 3 link with a panhard on his ultra4 for a long time. He just recently changed to a triangulated 4 link for packaging reasons. He ran the three link in the silver state 300 (which he hit 105mph in), and all the ultra4 events he did last year. I do understand your not wanting to go with a 3 link. Its reasonable, and I'm not trying to talk you into it.
As for tweaky, there is nothing wrong with the 3 link they did. They used a uniball for the upper attachment point, which is way stronger, and more expensive, than a hiem. The way they did it works just about exactly like a triangulated 4 link. I think they didn't do a parallel 3 link w/ panhard because packaging it would he extremely hard with the gas tank, etc back there. Also if you look at the lower arms, they are slightly triangulated too, which helps locate the axle.
If I can be honest with you..... I think you are worrying too much about roll center. The only reason I say this is cause I have heard you mention it multiple times in your various threads. Did you worry about it when you built your rig the first time? It seems like you rig worked good before. I think if you worried more about anti squat, front end dive, proper articulation without bind, and over all proper geometry, the roll center would basically work itself out.
I'm NOT saying my junk is correct or great, but i will use it as an example cause I have pics of it. I concentrated on proper (in my eyes) suspension geometry. In the rearend of my buggy, I am running a double triangulated 4 link. At the axle, I have 7.5 inches of vertical separation between the upper and lower link attachment points. My lowers are on centerline of the axle tubes. At the frame, I have 7 inches of vertical sep between attachment points. The upper and lower arms are equal length (cause I didn't want much pinion roll). The front of the rig is also a double tri 4 link. The vertical sep between the axle and frame side mount points is also only about 5.-.75 inch different. I have little to no squat on accel and very little dive when braking. I have very little to zero body roll with no sway bar at speed around corners. I have had it up to around at least 60, if not faster in the dirt, and it was super stable. Ask Carl, He was with me. I guess my point is, I didn't think once about roll center when I built the suspension, I just concentrated on getting the basics "right", and (I think) it works great. All my .02, I mean
no disrespect just a thought. There's a million ways to build stuff, I'm not trying to say mine is right.
My build thread if you wanna take a look, 113wb 21" belly:
http://www.rme4x4.com/showthread.php?60811-Project-Bush-Baby&highlight=bush+baby
As for the triangulated 3 link in that movie, there should be no panhard. A panhard would just be a bind point. The triangulated 3 link works almost exactly like a triangulated 4 link. It doesn't matter if the upper arms are straight, or triangulated, the lower 3rd link is what is locating the axle side to side. (having the uppers more triangulated would help)
Suspensions are fun :thumbs:
