ShadWills
ShadWills New Reader
12/26/23 4:58 a.m.

I need a new rear suspension for my '61 Falcon and I think a "one link" wishbone rear suspension would be awesome. I need a tub to fit 275's and so I might as well go with a new setup. The torque arm setup seems to be well understood and very good and somewhat available (Maier has one, but it's too expensive for someone with my fabrication skills). But I've been thinking about it for a long time and I would like to try a "one link" wishbone (torque tube/arm) setup with a Watts link and coilovers- and I'm wondering why I shouldn't; other than the fact that I can't find much info on the geometry about this. It seems sweet- no bind at all. It seems like it would mostly adhere to the design parameters of a torque arm, but I'm not really sure what the lower links are for in a torque arm setup. I understand what they do geometrically, but why? Why not just get rid of them? The typical torque arm setup has a doge bone or sliding link at the front to prevent binding, but why not exchange it for a spherical link and get rid of the lower links. Particular placement of the Watts and you could have a bit of progressive roll understeer, which seems good. And finally I have some ideas about placing the axle links below and behind the axle and decoupling the upper link for braking performance (maybe unpredictable and not necessary) (and if this works, why not make the arm super short and get hella anti-squat?). Anyway, school me. I've looked, but there's not much performance talk about the "one link" setup. Any thoughts about pros/cons vs a traditional torque arm?

TurboFource
TurboFource HalfDork
12/28/23 8:44 a.m.

Try it? If it doesn't work, add the lower arms?

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
loSuHs29ish5dDITIt3I4dMg7TZMUqxvju9KPD8WRE8sS86eKa4UMdCswRdj0xbG