# My ground-up trike design



## rillip3 (Jun 19, 2009)

A couple concerns.

1) Where do your feet go? I undertand the climb on rather than get in, but the seat is mounted pretty load to be above the batteries. Maybe it's just the forced perspective, but the seat looks really close to the back end of the batteries.

2) If you're using lead acids, which is what appears to be pictured, I think you're in trouble for weight. FLA run around 70ish pounds, meaning 12 is 840. That leaves you 660 lbs for everything else. Driver, motor, controller, etc. are going to take up a good 300. 360 for frame and tires sounds pretty optomistic, but I'm not super familiar with the actual frame weight, so I could be wrong.

3) holy #$%^#$ it floats!!! J/k.


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

thanks for the comments rillip.
1. there will be foot platforms on the outside of each frame rail, you straddle the batteries
2.I was looking at exide golf cart bats, GC-145-6V for size and weight on them was 40+ lbs....think i'm headed the wrong direction already? I'm a bit confused by all the bat info out there..and in here for that matter, i'm definitely doing lead but am a little wishy washy on what to go with, so i settled on these dimensions. anyhow, you're probably right...but a guy can hope cant he?
3. LOLOL...yep thats my secret, no friction!!!! someone told me it was better that way....er something.


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

oh and as it sits now, i get an estimate of 443lbs sans bats, motor and me, but the chasis isnt nearly complete yet.


----------



## rillip3 (Jun 19, 2009)

Ah, I didn't realize you were going for 6v batteries, those would be smaller than the 12v I was thinking of. 72 volts is a respectable size for such a light vehicle. Make sure you get high Ah batteries if you want to get any sort of range though - lower batteries means higher amp draw. You'll also need a higher rated controller. 

But I think the weight and cost offset of the batteries is more than worth it for this weight. Many bikes that I've seen have used 48-72v systems so that seems pretty on track. That gives you 45 x 12 = 540lbs + 300 lbs of you and stuff, leaves about 660 lbs for the frame. That 300 lbs kind of depends on how big you are, but for something this light you won't need a big motor. Yhou should be really close to that 1500 mark, depending on the frame and your glutius maximus.

I used to want to make a traditional hovercraft because I thought (I was young!!) that with no wheels it must have almost no friction...

Edit: make sure you leave room for a 12v accessory battery if it's going to have any sort of radio/lights/fan (doubt you'll have wipers based on what you've said here). You can go with a little 12v motorcycle battery for this though and hook it up to a dc/dc converter, which is common. You won't need a deep cycle here, you won't be pulling high amps for these.


----------



## ithinkidontknow (May 14, 2009)

Personally, I would like to see you with more than 72volts in that thing. 120volts or so would be sweet! If you only need to go 25 miles, you might as well get amazing performance for those miles. Plus, you might need that extra power in order to have a direct-drive system that works well. 

By the way, what are your monetary restrictions for this project? If you don't mind the question.

Regardless, this seems like a great project. I am looking forward to hearing your progress! Make sure to keep us informed.


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

hey guys, 
thanks for the comments, i really appreciate them.
you know i once read somewhere that it wasnt what voltage or amperage you ran that gave you range, it was simply the amount of lead you had...so if i were to run 12v lower capacity bats it wouldnt be much different from running the same weight of high capacity lower volt cells....dont know how true it is, but I may end up going with a 144volt system....who knows, i'll see what lands in my lap.

as far as controller, i'm hoping to build an open source controller for it, should give me plenty of room for power. 

funny you should bring up my glutimu maximus, its not real big, but i am...nearly 300 lbs of solid....well, not much solid..anyhow the 1500lbs is probably not going to do it...but i'll work with whatever i get, and there are some areas where i can lighten it up. I should have gone for 2x3x.125" for the main rails, but it to late for that now 

as for financial restrictions, well, their fairly sever, and getting worse every day, I sold my truck to buy the motor. (i have another car) and I lost my job about 2 months ago....well, i know where its at, its not like i LOST it, but i let it go away. so whatever i can do on unemployment i guess. before i lost my severance pay i bought my chassis material and the car parts. even if i cant finish it for quite a while, i'll have plenty to work on.


----------



## ithinkidontknow (May 14, 2009)

I don't know about the amount of lead you have being the range factor. However, it does make sense because more lead would decrease the amount of peukert losses you would have on a smaller set of batteries. For this reason, more batteries is going to give you more range not proportional to the amount of capacity they have. That said, it only makes sense that higher efficiency lead acids would carry you further. Another thing to think about is that from what I have seen, EV's generally become more efficient at higher voltages. 144v might not be unreasonable because you can run it at lower amps. With 12 lead acids of reasonable size you should be able to get your 25 mile range goals. Especially with the light chassis as you have.

So even if 1500 pounds isn't doable including the driver, that's fine. Just build everything except the driver as light as possible, then if you are having range issues you know that theres some weight that can be cut out of the glutes 

Not having money might actually be sort of a blessing. This way you wont find yourself wasting money on unnecessary things. Plus, with all that free time you will be able to scrounge for used parts! As long as you have enough funding to barely get it done, it will get done, and it sounds like you do. 

Anyway, best of luck for the next steps!


----------



## fishguts (Dec 19, 2008)

Looks like you and I have some similar ideas going on: 
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/voltsrat-30353.html

Mine will be 72 volts with 6 12volt batteries. I don't need more than 45mph and 25 miles of range. I'm aiming for less than 1,300 lbs. Don't know if I'll make it, though.

Best of luck - I'm looking forward to seeing yours come together!


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

Guts, yep thats why i read all through your post and studied your pics. 

so, today i spent building a cheap layout table...well i dont have it done yet, but 3 more legs, fasten the top on and coat the top with something to keep it from absorbing water and warping. I'm making it out of wood, 2x6 framing, 4x6 legs, 6 of them....down from 9  and 2 layers of the flattest 3/4 ply money can buy...for 18 bucks a sheet. I've got levelers for all the legs, so hopefully it will be sturdy and steady enough to make a good fab table. heres the question.....i dont have any sheets of steel big enough to cover it, and i'll be welding on it...is there a waterproofer/sealant that will not burst into flames? I guess i'll go looking. i just dont want it to warp from a water leak, which the machine shed seems to have a few, but only when it rains... wonder why that is?

oh and i'm trying to get a rear axle made, sent a print off to moser to see if they could/would do it...havent heard back, otherwise i'm afraid i'll be making my own, which sounds dangerous. but i think i can, just barely, get the tbird axle mounter on centers in my lathe and grind bearing seats if i have to. raise your hand if this sounds like a bad idea...? anyone???


----------



## fishguts (Dec 19, 2008)

Food for thought ....

The new (2008) Honda Goldwing swing arm I'm using I bought off Ebay for $225. It came with a new wheel and tire as well. I then sold the wheel and tire on Ebay for $185 because of the custom setup I wanted to run instead. The math worked out pretty well.

If you keep the wheel and tire, $225 for the whole deal is hard to beat - can't get much custom machining done for that price. New swing arms are available on Ebay all the time, Honda and others, because of conventional trike conversions being done.


----------



## todayican (Jul 31, 2008)

I got a goldwing swingarm laying around, an 1800, no wheel or tire. you could have it for a hundred bucks


----------



## Harold in CR (Sep 8, 2008)

I got everything but the driveshaft, brand new, brake , wheel, tire, frame, for $119.00 on Ebay, last year. Need to find the Driveshaft and bearing and boot. Gold Wing 1800.


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

yeah, i looked into that, end even did the hunt on ebay, but to be honest, i'm not really attracted to the idea, i'm sure they work fine, but i just dont care for them....sounds like a hell of a deal financially, for the arm anyhow. what did your wheel and adapter cost ya?


----------



## fishguts (Dec 19, 2008)

fritzgutten said:


> yeah, i looked into that, end even did the hunt on ebay, but to be honest, i'm not really attracted to the idea, i'm sure they work fine, but i just dont care for them....sounds like a hell of a deal financially, for the arm anyhow. what did your wheel and adapter cost ya?



Had the adapter machined at a local shop for $125. I believe the custom offset wheel (16X8) was $150. 

I went with the one sided swing arm because it allowed me to put the size tire on the back I thought would look right without going with a $$ widened swing arm. This required being very careful about the proper backspace for the wheel so it would work with the adapter and the swing arm and then offsetting the swing arm to the right to compensate for the wider tire, allowing the tire to track in the center line.

Yeah, I know this isn't the proper way to make tire decisions for EV's as that wider tire has a lot more rolling resistance, but there's a cool factor I had to figure in. A skinny rear tire on a street rod - themed vehicle just wouldn't be right! And since I'm not shooting for a lot of range or speed I figured it was an OK sacrifice to make.


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

hey, rat rodding isnt about efficiency!

went and picked up my motor today!!! super excited, but it wont spin using a 12v 6 amp charger, so i figured i'd try a gel cell i have sitting around.. any thoughts?


----------



## rillip3 (Jun 19, 2009)

fritzgutten said:


> hey, rat rodding isnt about efficiency!
> 
> went and picked up my motor today!!! super excited, but it wont spin using a 12v 6 amp charger, so i figured i'd try a gel cell i have sitting around.. any thoughts?


Keep it at low volts until you have load on it, or it will spin to death. Without any load, there's very little self-limiting built in with the mottor and it will over-rev. But 12v won't do it any harm.


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

yeah, i was keeping that in mind......didnt want to do ANYTHING to toast that motor, pretty much the last of my cash is in that motor .
anyhow, finally got it to spin, i wasnt sourcing enough amps for it to power up, tried a 12v gell cell, a little one, it still wouldnt run,but i could get a spark off of my clamp when i went to connect it. so i wired another matching cell in parallel with the first, and she spun right up, pretty thrilling for a first timer with no electric car experience ...its the little things right? well little and expensive.
thanks!


----------



## Duxuk (Jul 11, 2009)

My wife is demanding my attention (shopping), so I have only scanned the comments so far, but I am in exactly the same position as you but a good bit further on. I have the drive system and completed chassis, most of my bodywork and plans for almost everything else including battery choice. Leave a message here for me and I will be happy to discuss things in tedious detail! Breifly 6*12V 110Ah batteries weighing 151.2Kg (335lbs) should give me a range of upto 40 miles. Aerodynamics count for a lot so consider some bodywork. Also why so much weight-kit cars are usually built using 1 inch square by 1 sixteenth box section and weigh more than 1500lbs including the engine. I'm using a ladder plus spaceframe superstructure using one inch with 50mm by 25mm by 3mm for the ladder-got to go now!

Cheers,

Duxuk.


----------



## blackpanther-st (Apr 4, 2009)

It sounds to me like the frame weight estimate is to high for this; I think you could have that frame down to between 150 - 200 lbs and be much closer to your target weight. 

On battery voltage it mostly depends on how many RPM you are going to need out of your motor; amps = torque and volts = RPM. the other issue is Pukarts affect, ( I am probably not spelling that correctly) for the same watt hours in each pac a higher voltage lower amp pack will get beter range than a lower voltage higher amperage pac. 

How fast do you want to go?


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

well part of my weight issues are overbuilding, using 2x4 x 1/8" tubing for the chassis rails...and 1x3x1/8" tubing for the cross mambers...although it sounds as though i could scrap the 2x4" and just use the 1x3" for my frame rails. the other weight issue is the reuse of thunderbird susp arms and spindles. not really sure how to procede, i havent built anything yet. but do have the materials on hand, hate to waste any material, but hate to build it wrong more........hmmmm


----------



## blackpanther-st (Apr 4, 2009)

I don't know what the weight of your recycled thunderbird suspension parts are, but even with a lot of cross members I can't see the steel tubing you mentioned adding up to more than 200 Lbs. note that I am assuming a frame size <= 8' long by 4' wide not including wheels, front suspension and rear swing arm.


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

well, the 2x4x.125" (actually 11ga, .120") tubing is approx 4.6lbs per foot and 80" frame rails, as well as a cross member, which will most likely go away. 77lbs for the 3 primary tubes. i probably could have gotten away with 3x2"x14ga. hmm, well there's still time to change it, maybe not much cash to do so, but time for it if somones got some real solution to myu "weight problem 
thanks guys, i thought i was thinking before....now i know.


----------



## toddshotrods (Feb 10, 2009)

fritzgutten said:


> ...77lbs for the 3 primary tubes...


Why are you running three main rails? Even large trucks use a conventional, two-rail, ladder structure sucessfully. You definitely went overkill on the 2x4-inch tubing. That's what aftermarket companies use for truck frames, and really heavy cars. Maybe you can sell it on Craigslist.

I used 2x3" (.120 wall) for my project and, so far, my frame is very light. I have two rails, and will have four crossmembers when it's done. Even with the smaller size tubing, and a shorter frame than yours will be, I still may end up around 150lbs. It adds up fast. The weight of the tubing, the welds, brackets, etc.

I'm not too sure I would use 14ga. for a street driven vehicle. That's race car territory, and they usually have a lot of triangulation to add strength. Beside just being strong enough for everyday usage on typical American streets, you want it to not become fatigued over time and start developing stress fractures.


----------



## rillip3 (Jun 19, 2009)

blackpanther-st said:


> It sounds to me like the frame weight estimate is to high for this; I think you could have that frame down to between 150 - 200 lbs and be much closer to your target weight.
> 
> On battery voltage it mostly depends on how many RPM you are going to need out of your motor; amps = torque and volts = RPM. the other issue is Pukarts affect, ( I am probably not spelling that correctly) for the same watt hours in each pac a higher voltage lower amp pack will get beter range than a lower voltage higher amperage pac.
> 
> How fast do you want to go?


It's Puekert's, and while it has an effect on range, I think your statement is a bit strong. Puekert's effect, in a nutshell, says that the faster you draw out the energy, the less energy you're going to be able to pull out. The Ah ratings on batteries is for 20 hours. Since you'll be using it in less than one, Puekert's effect takes a major toll. You can only reasonably expect to use about 45% of the total kWh. 

Higher voltage does not, in and of itself, offer better range. You get better range with a higher voltage pack because you draw fewer amps and have more batteries to pull from. You will need higher Ah rated batteries for a lower voltage pack, but W=A*V. They're exactly preportional in effect; lower one and you have to raise the other. Puekert's effect hits high voltage systems just as much. The only way to mitigate Puekert's effect is with battery chemistry; lithium ion and NiMH are particularly good at discharging energy quickly, significantly lowering the percentage loss to Puekert.


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

there are only 2 main frame rails, the 3rd is the front cross member. I dont know, I dont feel to bad about the 2x4 choice, and yeah, 14ga would be a bit thin, and more likely for my heavy handed welding skills to burn through .

i think theres other places i can save weight, not to mention i can punch 3" holes in this stuff and save 1lb/per foot if i need to...yeah that might make it weak, but just an example. what i would LOVE to do is to take this tubing and laser cut a truss design into the sides, but thats not going to happen 

i will also most likely be removing a bunch of material from the tbird control arms to save weight...i dont know theres places to save the weight. i think i can shave 10 lbs off my rear arm pretty easily. it adds up, both ways, adding little bits, subtracting little bits.


----------



## toddshotrods (Feb 10, 2009)

By your numbers (4.6lbs/ft = 77lbs) you will only save about 20lbs moving down to 2x3x.120. Just weld it up, take the loss on this one, and select carefully throughout the rest of the process. Twenty pounds is probably costing you more in frustration now, than it will in range and performance later.


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

thats how its looking to me as well. its a hit, but not that big of one. i'll deal with it


----------



## blackpanther-st (Apr 4, 2009)

rillip3, for the most part you are correct in your response to my last post, but at higher voltages, resistance becomes less of an issue for loss, both internal in the batteries and more importantly in the cabling and connection points. yes lower AH batteries will have a higher resistance per cell, but from what I have read I don't believe that it is exactly linear, and the cable and terminal resistance will stay the same unless you upgrade to a larger size.

Actually what I should have mentioned as well is that there are disadvantages to high voltage as well; manly the need to advance the brushes to avoid arcing the com.


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

thanks for the info guys, I appreciate it.
at the moment, I'm a bit obsessed with the mechanical.
made this over the last week or so. may not be much, but I'm pretty proud of it considering the lathe I have.










the rear axle housing. oh, i also made the rear axle..and it all fits...wow, strange.


----------



## fishguts (Dec 19, 2008)

fritzgutten said:


> thanks for the info guys, I appreciate it.
> at the moment, I'm a bit obsessed with the mechanical.
> made this over the last week or so. may not be much, but I'm pretty proud of it considering the lathe I have.
> 
> ...



Very cool. You obviously have the skills ... and tools ... to pull this off. Unfortunately, I have to farm out my machine work and still have a few pieces to get made. Just waiting for $$ to be able to continue.


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

yeah, I have a feeling the financial limitations are going to hit me fairly quickly, luckily i have plenty to work on until then. I sorta went into panic mode when i found out about my job ending and bought my chassis material...which as we've seen may have been a bit rushed


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

You are going to have dangerous handling in cornering because the drive wheels should be on the front end not the rear.When Morgan trikes have a rear tire blowout they usually seriously injure the driver/passenger.You could have epoxy/Egot riveted aluminum tubing extrusions and aluminum sheets like Lotus makes their Elise chassis.It is torsionally stronger than steel and much lighter.You may want to go with lithium iron phosphate batteries/ac motor with a Honda limited slip differential belt pulley system.I have designed a 600lb. trike with this platform.


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

well, thanks for the ideas, but i've got my layout designed as i want it, and although i love the elise platform, sounds expensive and not in my realm of knowledge


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

well, i started construction on the rear arm today, still have gussets and pivot bushings to finish and complete the welds.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

fritz-
Did you pull premade car parts for your solidworks sim?

I'm currently finishing the car I'm building in solidworks, but annoyed by hand making things like seats (4 wheels but similar with a ground up plan). Solidworks isn't such a great program for easily making 3D curved/multisurface parts.


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

Hey Tech, 
no i wasnt able to find a single premade part, which is evident if you could see my front suspension more closely. the front control arms were traced out on a large sheet of graph paper to get dims from and i never could get the front steering knuckles right, just generalities.
I love solidworks, but yeah, its not much good at doing curves. although if you take a look at dpcars.net, the guy was able to do an amazing job of modeling the body for his dp1 prototype, and i just dont understand it, maybe skill level makes a difference


----------



## blackpanther-st (Apr 4, 2009)

sunworksco said:


> You are going to have dangerous handling in cornering because the drive wheels should be on the front end not the rear.When Morgan trikes have a rear tire blowout they usually seriously injure the driver/passenger.You could have epoxy/Egot riveted aluminum tubing extrusions and aluminum sheets like Lotus makes their Elise chassis.It is torsionally stronger than steel and much lighter.You may want to go with lithium iron phosphate batteries/ac motor with a Honda limited slip differential belt pulley system.I have designed a 600lb. trike with this platform.


I would think that the last thing I would want to do is add the piggish handling of a front wheel drive setup to a reverse trike with only one wheel supplying the necessary traction to prevent the whole vehicle from doing a 180 during hard braking. 

What were the causes of the injurys you are mentioning? were they from tire shred hitting the occupants or were they from loss of vehicle control? 

From everything I have read and also my own Anallese of the designs, it seems to me that a properly balanced reverse trike is far more stable than the contemporary forward designed counterpart.

As far as a rear wheel blowout I don't see the problem being any worse because of driving the rear wheel; the driver should just let off of the throttle a little so it continues to track while he steers and brings the vehicle to a stop.

Perhaps I am missing something here and if so please point out what that is, but this basic design has been done many times and I have not seen any one mention this sort of problem before. unless there is a serious design problem I see no reason to scare him off from his current plan.


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

ok, who knows FEA, how to read the results anyhow? i've run some for the rear arm, to try and see how much i need to build it up. but have no idea what i'm looking at from the displacement and stress maps....well, i have a little idea, but dont know how close i am to the edge....anyone?
fred


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

*question about my rear axle*

ok, guess no one knows FEA analasys...thats ok, i dont either, luckily i gots me some enginerd friends that helped me out a little.

ok, i know i'm goint to get some sort of flack for this one. say i have a ford tbird rear axle, the actual inner drive axle, how is it "hardened"? is it through or surface? I ask because i made my rear drive axle by grinding bearing journals into one. the finish is extra fine, very nice, with no sharp corners or lips, ground away about .020" on the inner journal (well .020 on one side and about.130 oposite it), which was originally in the middle of the axle, and about .010" of the outer journal (where the roller bearing originally ran.








thoughts? trouble? it looks good to me, but i'd like an expert opinion. or at least a well thought out one.

as a side note, anyone here ever imagine the the center of a stock drive axle would ever be .120" out of round? I didnt, thought my lathe setup was borked....crazy.


----------



## blackpanther-st (Apr 4, 2009)

*Re: question about my rear axle*



fritzgutten said:


> ok,
> thoughts? trouble? it looks good to me, but i'd like an expert opinion. or at least a well thought out one.
> 
> as a side note, anyone here ever imagine the the center of a stock drive axle would ever be .120" out of round? I didnt, thought my lathe setup was borked....crazy.


Not much I can say on the first from the information I see, and I am not an expert on stress leavels, though I do have a good feel for it when the materials are in frount of me and I know what the loading is going to be. 

I was curious as to why you are using a die grinder to cut instead of lathe bits? 

As far as the out of round goes, I would say that it is likely that the axle had been bent slightly in service either from a bad pot hole or from sliding into a curb.


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

hey panther, 
first off i need to correct you, its not just a "die grinder" its a Tim Allen SIGNATURE rotary tool! top quality stuff here!!! basically a dremel rip off from 10+ years ago 
anyhow, the only way i could turn it was to mount it on centers with a drive dog, which meant i was spanning about 34 inches, i didnt think it wise to attemp to use a standard bit to cut it with, to much cahttering and my lathe setup was questionable at best, i had serious doubts about it holding. not to mention, that using a wheel gave me some very nice fillets at the ends of the cut. It only took me about 18 hours to accomplish...yeah i know.

also, the shaft wasnt just lopsides, which may heve been caused like you said, the cross section was an oval of about .050", from the appearance of the shaft, it looks like it was "drawn" to some extent and may have resulted in the odd cross section.
anyhow, the thinest cross section at the driven end is now a perfectly round 30mm(1.181")
i think i'll be fine


----------



## jmygann (Jul 26, 2007)

There is also this group ...

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ZWheelz/


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

thanks jmygan,
still trying to figure out whats going on with that project.
have some updated pics of the trike construction:








rear arm nearly finished, need shock mounts yet









initial chassis weldup, front control arms attached. need to make the decision about coilovers vs tbird springs/and cheap shocks.









scored a blank harley pulley on ebay, maybe i can actually use my cnc machine on something for this build.


----------



## 80N541 (Jan 11, 2009)

nice starting dude.

Maybe you'll finish your tripod before mine 

what motor did you plan to use?

cheer up


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

hey 80N451,
thansk for the reply, I highly doubt i will finish before you, you're pretty far along. although i notice you havent updated your thread for nearly a month. how is your progress?

I have a Netgain ImPulse 9" I'm gong to use.

I need to cheer up? do i sound sad?


----------



## 80N541 (Jan 11, 2009)

i've just updated my post 

the body of my 3wheels is well advanced, but all electrical wiring, braking is to made. A lot of work.

sorry if you misunderstood my sentence "cheer up". I thought saying that was meaning that your are in god way and keep going. My engish is litlle rusted ^^


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

ah, perhaps "cheers" would be what you were meaning to say.
thanks.


----------



## 80N541 (Jan 11, 2009)

yes, that's it. A little word can chage all the meaning of a sentence


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

Got a little more done today.
The rear pivot point is tacked in place, need to align the rear arm before i fully weld them.









Straightened the warped cross tube on the rear arm, as well as adding a couple of stress relief gussets to the wheel side of the arm. The discolored area in the center is where we heated it for straightening.


----------



## Amberwolf (May 29, 2009)

I like your welding "clamps".  (the harddisk magnets)
________
Roll blunts


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

thanks Amberwolf, rethink, repurpuse, reuse, right? I got a ton of the things and they work pretty awesome, right up until you forget to remove one before welding.


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

*Its got wheel!!!*

hey, just an update.
got the rear arm pivots tacked in today, it was a rough one, yesterday we tweeked the rear arm to get rid of some curvature, and today we tweeked it to put the curvature back in. ugh
so the arm and wheel mounted up, just for some sense of progress in my mind:








you know, that arm looks pretty good from this little image...not bad. to me anyhow

to tweek the arm I made a spreader jack and my pops did the heating while i did the torquing..and pic taking. that ain't no red paint you're looking at  :










at any rate, the project is moving along, although i'm spending as much time researching things and doing design work as building. i think a team (with more experience) would help


----------



## blackpanther-st (Apr 4, 2009)

*Re: Its got wheel!!!*

quote; although i'm spending as much time researching things and doing design work as building.

that is part of the experience; to learn and develop new skills. 

This looks like it is coming along well. The gussets and reenforcement plates you added look like they will make this really solid.


----------



## toddshotrods (Feb 10, 2009)

*Re: Its got wheel!!!*



fritzgutten said:


> ...although i'm spending as much time researching things and doing design work as building. i think a team (with more experience) would help


Agreed. Doing a scratch-built project gives new respect for what the designers and engineers of the major manufacturers do on a daily basis. And they have to meet the scrutiny of corporate and government oversight, plus a decade or more of abuse in daily usage.

I am a freelance industrial designer, and took on my project to stretch myself - mission accomplished, way before the project is even close to being a tangible reality. I could have totally dismantled and rebuilt (as customs) six pre-existing vehicles in the time I have just designing this project, and I am still nowhere near finished (with research and design).


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

hey guys, thanks. you know how it is, some days it feels like you didn't get much of anything accomplished. but i'm also doing upkeep and improvements on our shop, and continuing design work on the body and suspension, it just takes time i guess.


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

ok, could use some advice, i'm getting close to having a roller, but it needs suspension, shocks to be specific.
I'm looking at these http://qa1.thomasnet.com/item/sports-street-rods-shock-absorbers-shock-absorbers/aluma-matic-174-ride-sensitive-shocks/aln4855p?&seo=110&plpver=1001 from summit. 
i can fully suspend it for about 700 bucks using these. thats 4 shocks, 4 springs and bump stops. seems spendy, but they're freaking cool and it really simplifies a lot of things over trying to us seperate coils and shocks.
thoughts anyone? is this just dumb, or crazy or what?
fred


----------



## Amberwolf (May 29, 2009)

*Re: Its got wheel!!!*

EDIT: have you looked into airshocks?



toddshotrods said:


> I could have totally dismantled and rebuilt (as customs) six pre-existing vehicles in the time I have just designing this project, and I am still nowhere near finished (with research and design).


I'm no engineer, but I have been heavily-modifying and rebuilding various bikes into ones more suited for my purposes for the last couple of years, and only once have I ended up with a fairly usable one (most of the others never even got past the first stages before I realized some major problem would make them unusable), though to be fair, since I'm doing it with only recycled parts of various things, and not buying parts for them, it's a lot harder.  

So yeah, it does give me some idea of how hard this must be to do for commercially-saleable designs. 

It also teaches me a LOT more about what I'm doing, and what I'm riding, and how it all works, though, so I consider the efforts worth it for that alone. 
________
Vaporizer Wiki


----------



## toddshotrods (Feb 10, 2009)

I am planning on using QA1s. I am hoping to be able to swing double-adjustables by the time I get ready for them so I have the ultimate setup for racing (drag and autocross).

IMO, you can't go wrong with coil-overs. It's a neat, compact, setup that allows you to adjust ride height, handling, and ride. You're aware that price doesn't include the springs right? They usually run around $50-100 a pair. Also, that shock doesn't seem to have any adjustments. Check them out at Summit Racing - good prices, info, etc.


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

Amberwolf - i hadnt really considered them, mostly because i dont understand them but was also concerned about price as well as available length. I need pretty short shocks.

Todd, 
actually that price does include the springs, I'm planning on ordering from Summit, and they're already in my basket. as for the adjustability, I'm not sure I want/need to mess around with adjusting them. i suppose the single adjustables might come in handy, but duals would just get way complicated.
these are self adjusting. I also dont want to add to my dollar figure, the utra ride single adjustables are 44 bucks more per. that 176 bucks i have to swallow.


----------



## Amberwolf (May 29, 2009)

Well, they're pretty simple, in that they replace your regular springs and shocks, and are very adjustable. Been used for a long time in a lot of different vehicles. Ones that carry cargo, and thus change weight and weight distribution by quite a lot, can really benefit from that adjustability. 

I plan to eventually have a cargo trike that uses them, because I hope to be able to carry at least 1/3 to 1/2 of the trike's weight as cargo, and that will significantly change the ride if the suspension isn't fully adjustable. All I will have to do (since it's a small bicycle-class vehicle) is pump it up with the same hand pump I'd be carrying for emergency use on my tires, until it rode like I wanted it, after I loaded it up with cargo. Then let sufficient air back out once I drop the cargo off, and I'm back to the regular comfy ride. 

Those pickups and cars you see that raise and lower the whole vehicle from higher than normal to actually sitting on the ground often use these systems along with an air tank and compressor, with valve controls in the cab (either manual or remote electric) so they can adjust the system on the fly. Can even make a nice anti-theft system, if lowered all the way to the ground it can't be driven off until the suspension is re-aired-up. Nor can anyone get to your underside parts to steal them (like the catalytic converter theft problem with ICE machines lately). 

Most of the things you'd need to know about them are in this article:
http://www.fourwheeler.com/howto/80258/index.html
Bump stops for compression and limiting straps for expansion are the only external parts generally needed, and depending on your application you might not require those (offroading would definitely need it, but my road trike probably does not). 

The rest are probably going to be specific to the kind of shock you choose, since some are of slightly different construction than others. 

One really nice thing about most of them is that there's no piston to have to keep aligned. As long as the basic axial alignment is maintained, there can be fairly significant misalignment between the two ends, meaning you don't have to have the heavier swivel bearing mounts that you do with regular shocks on swingarms and such. Direct mounts will work for the most part, for each end of the shock--bolt it in place and it's done. 

As for cost of the systems, it depends on how complex you want to get for the airing up system and controls, and what kind of airbag shocks you go with. If you intend to manually air up the bags to just one setting and leave them, you don't need anything except access to the air valve on each one. If you want to adjust while driving, you can valve them all independently to an airtank you keep filled up manually or with a compressor on the vehicle (which could also be used for roadside flat repairs). 

There are some that I wanted to use on my trike, by Firestone/Bridgstone, the 4001 industrial unit, about the size of a soda can, that cost around $150 each last year when I looked at getting them. They're probably cheaper now. At the time I saw ones for those adjustable-height trucks that are around $100 each, and they're around 8" wide and from 4" to 12" long depending on air pressure and vehicle weight. There were a lot of different sizes and types.
________
MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARI


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

thats a lot of info amberwolf 
well, the problem with using airbags is that i'm back to the added complexities of using a separate spring and shock, which would work on the front, but causes issues at the rear. But I already have springs for the front if i want to go that route. 
on the financial front, i just looked at my card statement, as i havent got enough cash to purchase the shocks, i would be using credit for them. my balance isnt that bad, and i have the room for it, but i just spent the last 8 months to get it down there and theres a ways to go yet.....ugh why cant stuff be free?  
for a while i had considered hyabusa or r1 rear shocks, but i just dont know that they have enough travel and strength for my setup. the trike will be quite a bit heavier than one built using motorcycle components and a space frame and i'm shooting for more range than those lighter trikes, so that means more lead.
I think i'm best off using automotive shocks for dependability reasons.

hmm, more thinking to do.


----------



## Amberwolf (May 29, 2009)

fritzgutten said:


> ugh why cant stuff be free?


If you're willing to do some digging thru junkyards, and know what you are looking for, it can be pretty close. 
________
How To Roll A Joint


----------



## Jimdear2 (Oct 12, 2008)

Don't know if this will help, but look at the single air adjustiblr shock used by Honda on bikes like the V65 Sabre. Those were heavy bikes and you could pile a load on them and blow op the shock to compensate. I think the Gold Wing used it too. I seem to remember something about a built in air pump you could pump up on the fly with.

I know they use some kind of link that may make them unuseable for you but look anyway.


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

Amberwolf said:


> If you're willing to do some digging thru junkyards, and know what you are looking for, it can be pretty close.


hey Amberwolf,
If only i had some decent junk yeards around here, none of them will let you wander around and they will definetely not let you pull it yourself. admittedly i have limited exposure with the yards in this area, but the few i do have have been unpleasant rip off scenarios. 

Jim, I took a look at those shocks on ebay, looks like a pretty decent setup, but not much in the way of travel, with the weight i'm carrying, i either need capacity or travel, and i dont think they quite fit the need. but i will definately keep them in mind for a lighter future build, they look pretty slick.

I decided on a comprimise for now, since my rear arm setup will work best with the coil overs and i should be able to adopt the used springs i have for the front, I ordered a single set for the rear. still a hit on the card, but quite a bit less than before

now to redesign my front suspension...luckily i havent built it yet


----------



## gary k (Aug 19, 2008)

I just joined up and saw this build. I have a comment on the basic layout - have you calculated cg yet? It looks like it will be pretty far back.

I just started a rebuild of my trike and will be posting progress on my website.

Gary Krysztopik
www.ZWheelz.com
www.ACEAA.org
San Antonio, TX


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

Hey Gary, 
if my calculations are correct, full-up, the cg should be within 24" behind the front axle line and 67 inches from the rear axle line and 12-13 from the ground. all the lead is up front to allow the rearward seating.
It will drift around a bit, as i havent added all the components in my model.
What was the cg for the Zwheel?


----------



## gary k (Aug 19, 2008)

Sounds like your cg will be fine - I guess it's deceiving because there is nothing forward of the front axle and only single seat. I shifted my batteries around so that 1/3 the weight was on each wheel - cg is 1/3 of the wheelbase behind front wheels. I had to put quite a few batteries forward of the front crossmember to get that. I put the driver and pax on the cg to avoid variations.

Glad you were aware of that and calculated it before cutting metal. Nice job. Have you figured out steering rack and column? That "turned" out to be tricky but it worked out fine for me.

gary


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

Steering will still be an issue, i am actually looking at doing handlebars instead of the wheel shown in my renderings. If i do, i may have issues with steering effort, but i would really like to go that route. it would suit the trikes posture better than a wheel. either way, i have to come up with a rack setup and then deal with bump steer which should be interesting.


----------



## gary k (Aug 19, 2008)

Have you checked out the Riley XR3 steering? He has a center steer rack made for it that might work well.

Glad you're aware of bump steer - it can be pretty bad! I had to stretch my crossmember for the prototype and planned on other changes anyway so I wasn't too worried. It can be scary at speed on bumpy roads. They make extensions for the rack just for stretched widths so that's what I'll be using this time around.

gary


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

wel, been a while, been woring on it, a lot of background work sutting out pieces, working one the design.
the front suspension was abear to prepare and i'm still questioning it but i got something happening anyhow.
front suspension









i'm questionign the upper "ball joint" i've chosen, the range is limited but dont know if i have enough room for a real ball joint









and the rear suspension is supporting weight. QA1 aluma matic shocks, 400lb/in springs, my lever arm is pretty large so it requires soem stiff ones, if i have to i will order other springs, lighter or heavier, and i can get the shocks re valved if needed also.









so thats pretty cool, i was really excited, laid a beam across the frame, got up on the table and bounced on it for a little while, very exciting!


----------



## Amberwolf (May 29, 2009)

Need a video of that last part. 
________
Marijuana bubbler


----------



## blackpanther-st (Apr 4, 2009)

The rear looks top notch, but I agree with you about the upper ball joint on the front. We use a ball joint nearly identical to that on the pin setters at the bowling center I work at, and they bend quite frequently and even snap on occasion when things jam up. They would be good enough for tie rod ends on something light like you are building, but not for the A frames or equivalent suspension components.

An upper ball joint failure on a trike would not be good. I would try to work on a stronger solution.

The upper arm you constructed however looks plenty solid enough.


----------



## Woodsmith (Jun 5, 2008)

Agreed the back end looks spot on and really nicely made.

The front does look like it gets weaker at the point of highest stress. Those joints work best when the load is axial to the long threaded part whereas in yours it would be in bending fore and aft as the brakes are applied. That would lead to stresses building up at the point where the thread meets the hole in the top arm fitting, just where that nut is.

Can you use an automotive ball joint off, say, the lower wishbone? It may mean having a taper fit machined in the receiver for it but it would be stronger. The loads would then be directed right through the centre of the joint and not at a weak point some distance away.


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

Yeah yeah yeah amberwolf, i'll work on that video for ya 

panther and woodsmith, that decides it, to be honest and i hate to admit it, i was fine with the fore/aft forces until you mentioned the braking forces, which i had forgotten to take into acount, sometimes its easy to lose sight.

dang, i guess my problem with the ball joint is that they are much larger and it will change my camber angle. i'm not so sure i can fit it all in there, but there should be a way.

thanks for the suggestions and observations guys, i appreciate it


----------



## blackpanther-st (Apr 4, 2009)

Though a strutted system, VW used a small clamp in lower ball joint in the VW rabbits and likely many other of their vehicles which shared suspension and drive train components; the joint was a physically small assembly and I think would adapt well for your application if flipped upside down for an upper joint.

From your photos it looks as if you cut off the original upper ball joint mount and made an adapter with the stud hole above and to the inside of the support leg of the knuckle assembly; I think you could re make a similar adapter with the stud hole to the inside of, but lower than the top of support leg, maintaining the basic geometry. You may be able to keep the same pivot hight in the joint due to the different construction of the joint; at worst, it may lower up to 200mm, but you could easily compensate my lowering the A frame pivots the same amount on the frame rail side.


----------



## toddshotrods (Feb 10, 2009)

Do you have enough room for a monoball? Or maybe a small screw-in balljoint? The sleeve could just be welded to your UCA. I'm going to use the screw-in style. It gives a lot of clearance and look neat and simple.


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

Hey guys, thanks for all the suggestions. but while you were making them i was running errands, picking up more 75/25 for the welder and stopping by the parts house, i picked up one of these http://www.jegs.com/i/Moog/719/K5208/10002/-1 to try it out. i think its probably the way to go, and not far off from what you've suggested. its the smallest ball joint that they could find with minimal effort. i decided that the bolt in style would be easier to deal with as far as welding distortion goes.

panther, the front sterring knuckle is actually off os a strut equipped car, what you're seeing is the adapter i made, so not to far off. i wish it had a ball joint there originally. and yeah, i'll most likely have to remake it.

also have to find a taper reamer, or program the cnc to cut the taper hole. ugh. the parts house called moog for me and got the specs on the taper as 2 per foot, which i assume means the taper for each side is 2" in 12".

have to do some looking


----------



## gary k (Aug 19, 2008)

Sounds like you'll be reworking that front upper control arm attachment, but just as note - it is common practice to put a large fender washer over the "rod-end bearing" or "heim joint". If the ball fails and comes out of the socket, the socket can pass over the bolt head and that would be a much worse failure. The washer will keep everything together in the case of a failure.

Very nice work and great progress.

gary
www.zwheelz.com
electric trikes


----------



## Woodsmith (Jun 5, 2008)

You may have clearence issues with the new, or any other, ball joint with respect to the wheel rim.

Perhaps you could move the ball joint downwards, with respect to the spindle, and keeping it in the same kingpin inclination so that the bulk of it is inside the dish of the wheel rim.

It may increase the loading on it due to braking forces so you may need to beef up the fixings.
Just imagining the torque loading on it when the caliper locks up on the rotor at that 70mph emergency stop.


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

knock it off woodsy! yer freakin me out!
yeah, it looks like i'll have to either move the pivot point in which isnt all bad, it looks as though i could use a bit more camber angle to get closer to center point,
otherwise, i'm unsure if i have the room to bring the ball joint down enough to get it inside the rim

Gary, 
good point on the safety washer for the rod end, but i think that issue is going away soon


----------



## Woodsmith (Jun 5, 2008)

Sorry. 

Where are you aiming the kingpin inclination where it meets the road? 
If the top joint is well inboard you can aim the kingpin so that it intersects the road surface outside of the centre line of the tyre ie negative offset. That way if you get a flat tyre, hit a pot hole or your brakes are not quite balanced it will counter any pull on the steering making it more stable.


----------



## Jimdear2 (Oct 12, 2008)

fritzgutten said:


> Hey guys, thanks for all the suggestions. but while you were making them i was running errands, picking up more 75/25 for the welder and stopping by the parts house, i picked up one of these http://www.jegs.com/i/Moog/719/K5208/10002/-1 to try it out. i think its probably the way to go, and not far off from what you've suggested. its the smallest ball joint that they could find with minimal effort. i decided that the bolt in style would be easier to deal with as far as welding distortion goes.
> 
> panther, the front sterring knuckle is actually off os a strut equipped car, what you're seeing is the adapter i made, so not to far off. i wish it had a ball joint there originally. and yeah, i'll most likely have to remake it.
> 
> ...


fritzgutten,

Be careful on your choice of ball joint! Some are made to be loaded in compression and others are loaded in tension. Looking at the picture you linked to, that joint appears to se one that is to be loaded in compression. Using the wrong one could cause a serious failure.

This may be a redundant suggestion but I have always been a belt and suspenders guy, so since you are designing/building from scratch be sure of all of your steering and suspension geometries. A good book on setting up suspension for racing usually covers the basics and dynamics

Hope this helps.


----------



## toddshotrods (Feb 10, 2009)

Speedway has the reamers - they're not cheap though.

Have you calculated the geometry? Moving a balljoint radically alters the existing geometry. At the very least it usually requires lowering the upper control arm (UCA) pick-up points. On a reverse trike I would think that stable front suspension geometry is critical. You don't want the roll center all over the place, among a host of other issues.

This is the main reason I used a whole Fiero setup for my project. All I had to do was implement some minor changes we had discussed on the Fiero forum years ago to correct the factory flaws (poor camber gain, pro-dive, etc.) and I am off to a decent start. I still plan to plug the numbers into software eventually and optimize it for my application, but I am planning to race so I am going to the extreme.

I paid $100 for the complete bolt-in front suspension (crossmember, control arms, spindles, etc.), and another $60 for a steering rack. That got me off to a safe, cheap, start that I can continue to modify to meet my long-range goals. I just mentioned it because a similar approach would save you a lot of time and energy.


----------



## toddshotrods (Feb 10, 2009)

Woodsmith said:


> Sorry.
> 
> Where are you aiming the kingpin inclination where it meets the road?
> If the top joint is well inboard you can aim the kingpin so that it intersects the road surface outside of the centre line of the tyre ie negative offset. That way if you get a flat tyre, hit a pot hole or your brakes are not quite balanced it will counter any pull on the steering making it more stable.


I forget the exact terminology but that seemingly simple change opens a whole can of worms. When the wheel turns into a corner on that increased steering axis angle it changes the way the car behaves. There are other changes that have to be made to compensate.

I'll see if I can dig up the article and find the info...


----------



## Woodsmith (Jun 5, 2008)

toddshotrods said:


> On a reverse trike I would think that stable front suspension geometry is critical. You don't want the roll center all over the place, among a host of other issues.
> 
> This is the main reason I used a whole Fiero setup for my project. All I had to do was implement some minor changes we had discussed on the Fiero forum years ago to correct the factory flaws (poor camber gain, pro-dive, etc.) and I am off to a decent start. I still plan to plug the numbers into software eventually and optimize it for my application, but I am planning to race so I am going to the extreme.
> 
> I paid $100 for the complete bolt-in front suspension (crossmember, control arms, spindles, etc.), and another $60 for a steering rack. That got me off to a safe, cheap, start that I can continue to modify to meet my long-range goals. I just mentioned it because a similar approach would save you a lot of time and energy.


That's the same reasoning I have for thinking about using the MGB front suspension. Simple, cheap, easily modifed for racing and only four bolts hold it on.

Doesn't mean that self build is bad, far from it. You can make it the right width, the right ride height and significantly lighter. However, it may be worth copying the dimensions and angles from a similar set up on another vehicle to save reinventing the wheel so to speak. You may already have thought of all this so don't want to patronise you.

I have 30 odd books on motor vehicle and mechanical engineering on my shelves dating from the early parts of the last century to the last ten years. They make great reference material and are still in regular use, sad I know, especially for a furniture maker!

If you have any queries on suspension geometry then do feel free to ask and I will see if I can look up answers for you. Gone are the days when I used to remember whole books on this subject.


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

GREAT GOOGLEY MOOGLEY! apparently everyone is really concerned for my safety.....that brings a tear to my eye...*sniff*


all very good points, and yes, i'm calculating the geometry to the best of my ability, and leaving tons of adjustment where i can to correct any issues i come up with. trust me, i certainly do not believe i have all the answers.
but i believe i do know enough of what is needed to get in the ballpark, so to speak, and thats a starting point.

totally agree with the points about using an existing suspension so that these issues do not cause hold ups or a dangerous situation. but at this point, this is what i got to deal with. things could have been simpler, but i ended up with a strut equipped fron end, and no room for struts, so here i am.

i still have to model up the new ball joint and see where it fits into things, but i think i'm on the right track now, and hopefully i can hit the geometry i need for stablility, otherwise its another design period.


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

actually, i'm not sure that previous post reflects how much i appreciate the suggestions, i'm going this essentially alone as far as design and geometry go, and every little bit helps. i'll make sure to take any suggestions into account and to ask questions when i have them, 
thanks again.
Fred


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

sorry for the third post in a row, but if someone can help me out on this other issue i'd be real grateful.
what the heck is the spec on a harley davidson final drive belt? does it match up with the gates htd product specification or not? i love "proprietary" products. good gravy!


----------



## Amberwolf (May 29, 2009)

gary k said:


> it is common practice to put a large fender washer over the "rod-end bearing" or "heim joint". If the ball fails and comes out of the socket, the socket can pass over the bolt head and that would be a much worse failure. The washer will keep everything together in the case of a failure.


Something I have experienced myself, with my homemade steering tie rod on my ebike.  I figured out the washer thing on my own, after the bearing came out of the socket, the socket fell off the bolt, and I suddenly had zero steering capability while going down the road!
The story (no pics of the fault, sorry): http://electricle.blogspot.com/2009/03/fairing-concepts-second-steering.html
The fix (with pics):
http://electricle.blogspot.com/2009/04/uphill-downhill-skateboards-and.html
Not truly applicable to your project, but food for thought. 
________
Find headshop


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

ok, guys, hashed this over for a few days, talked with a buddy and came up with a complete replacement for the upper front arms and suspension towers to allow the use of balljoints and maintain adjust-ability, the rendering doesnt have the shoulder screws for pivots, or the poly bushings in place, and the front steering knuckle was to complex to model, so it aint all there either


----------



## Woodsmith (Jun 5, 2008)

That looks like a workable design.

Are the wishbone pivots at the chassis end parallel? Having them angled so that an imaginary line through them intersects behind the crossmember will have anti-dive properties under braking.

There is also a method for working out the roll centre of the set up, I can try and dig that out for you if you want.


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

hey woodsmith, 
currently they are parallel and i imagine they will stay that way, but i have allowed for the upper arms to be inclined to add a bit of anti-dive if i'm understanding what i've read and what happens under braking correctly.

and now that i think of it, the upper arm adjustment would allow me to place spacers such that the arms could have converging pivots.

I think i know how to get the roll center, but what does it mean, and what do i do with it? and agian, if i understand roll center correctly, isn't it dynamic as well? constantly moving as the suspension flexes?

anyhow, this was the simplest of my designs, and i'm hoping to start on it soon, but if ther


----------



## Woodsmith (Jun 5, 2008)

It still looks good and, as you say, there is adjustment.
This is the method behind anti-dive:



The roll centre is the virtual point at which the body with roll under centripetal loads when cornering. It becomes more relevent when you consider it as one end of your roll axis, the other end being the contact point on the road of your single rear wheel. What it gives you is a roll axis that is at road surface at the back end of the trike and some other height at the front. This comes more into effect with the height of your CoG relative to the roll axis at that point of the vehicle length.

If the CoG is a long way above the roll centre then it will roll much more due to the longer lever the CoG has.
If the CoG is on the same axis as the poll axis then you will have no feedback when cornering to tell you when the tyres are about to break loose.
The idea would be have the CoG a little bit higher then the roll axis so you get a bit of feel but you don't get seasick.

Here are some pages from one of my reference books. I hope you can read them:


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

Ok, the anti dive is what i was thinking, i had thought you were talking about the inner pivots being parallel from left side to right side, but what you have posted is exactly what i was thinking. the lower arm will be horizontal and the upper can be adjusted for dive angle.

ok still have to try to read the other pages you posted, i'll reply again.
THANKS WOODSIE!


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

OK, so my front roll center should be a high as possible without meeting or exceeding the height of the front CG. now i see where the instability of the trike design comes from, at least in a more scientific way as the rear roll center is non adjustable and at ground level. but still better in a 2f1r config as apposed to a 1f2r config, due to braking forces exceeding acceleration forces. 

in the anti-dive section, does this book talk about how much or how to calculate the anti-dive angle?
thanks again.


----------



## Woodsmith (Jun 5, 2008)

These are the pages that went with the anti-dive figure, it was on a diferent page:



You will need to rotate them if they are the wrong way round. My Photobucket is being stupid and I haven't slept for three days.


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

good lord man, get off the boards and get some sleep!!!


----------



## toddshotrods (Feb 10, 2009)

My turn to check up on you! What's up doc?


----------



## gary k (Aug 19, 2008)

yes, Harley uses Gates but Gates will refer you to a special supplier like http://beltdrives.com/

any particular questions? I used this on my trike www.zwheelz.com but I will be upgrading to bigger and more expensive belts and pulleys because the weight grew and the belt skips. I snapped a belt when I hooked up regen.

gary


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

hey, great design and thread, actually made me think of a trike. on youre upper and lower a-arms, you want to make an imaginary line through the top ball joint, through the bottom joint that intersects the middle of youre tire where it touches the road. you dont want much camber(how far the tires leans in or out) and youll want about 5-9 degrees caster(how far the top ball joint is behind the bottom) these need to be adjustable, of course. find a buddy with a quad and look at the front and rear suspension. use poly bushings frame side. use threaded rod endsfor the outer a-arms. a good bushing to use is a jeep cj, tj, or yj shackle bushing. it fits nicely into 1 1/2, .120 wall tubing. Or the old chevy shackle bushings, which fit tightly into 1 3/4, .120 wall. 
on the rear, youre biggest concern is the roll center. youre roll center is youre center of gravity, normally the bell housing of a rwd transmission or, middle of the vehicle, just behind the engine, right about the fire wall. on youre application, it will be hard to find as its so low and forward. you want to make an imaginary line from the center of the wheel throught the pivot point on the frame, as that imaginary line(or use string) passes youre center of gravity, if its right through the middle, its neutral. if its above or below, its antisquat or squat. one makes it drop and one makes it lift the rear of the vehicle.


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

Ok, someone please slap me and tell me to read the whole thread before i post!


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

LOL, 
no sweat man, there was a ton of info in your first post, it looked good, but a bit tough to follow. If i didnt have a clue before, i still wouldnt.
after saying that however, do you see where i've made any problem areas for myself with what i have posted so far?
thanks for the info, I can use all the help i can get on this, although I think I'm on the downhill side of the front suspension design.
I really dont want to create a dangerous situation with this vehicle...well, other than it being a trike design...and thats not going to change!!!
fred


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

For the most part, it all looks good. Not so sure of the upper a-arm. Someone mentioned using a junk yard front end, I like that idea. Suspension design and geometry are hard to get nailed down, especially when starting from scratch. A quad would actually be a good suspension to mimic, as it is simple and has good geometry. Its all trial and error, just drive slow untill the trial works out the error!


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

For the most part, it all looks good. Not so sure of the upper a-arm. Someone mentioned using a junk yard front end, I like that idea. Suspension design and geometry are hard to get nailed down, especially when starting from scratch. A quad would actually be a good suspension to mimic, as it is simple and has good geometry. Its all trial and error, just drive slow untill the trial works out the error! Check out some off road sites, although you're not 4 wheelin, they hae a lot of info on all types of modified suspension. Have to also mention the import racers.


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

Todd, Gary.......sorry guys, guess i was in a stupor forom my trip, didnt even catch your posts...really sorry bout that.
as for where i'm at...I've got the suspension figured out, have to finish it up, details and whatnot, and then adjust the geometry, primarily camber and castor adjustments.










I currently have the spring tower in place and need to finish up the other side, hopefully here in a few minutes. also need to implement the steering rack.

Gary, 
my Gates/Harley question is what Gates series is a harley belt, I need to come up with motor pulley with a taper lock.. I found this http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=110369739242&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT ...is HTD the correct tooth profile for a Harley belt? thanks.


----------



## Woodsmith (Jun 5, 2008)

The work is coming along nicely there.

When the set up is right you might want to weld a ridge or something to the top wishbone arm to stiffen it.

Will be good to see the steering rack go on. You can then sort out Ackermann angles, tyre clearances, bumb steer, camber caster changes etc.
It's great watching the progress.


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

Thanks Woody, ...and everyone, 
the upper arm actually gets an outer and maybe an inner rib of 1" x 3/16" steel, in an I beam cross section.
I'm having a huge party this weekend, and wanted to use the shop space as party space, so this morning I dug in and got the left front side caught up to the right, as well as getting the spring perches functional...took it off the table and rolled her out the door!!! I was pretty excited to see it sitting on her own wheels.
I'll get pics


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

WE'VE GOT A ROLLER!!!

















yeah, i know its not even close...but this was super exciting!!!!


----------



## Woodsmith (Jun 5, 2008)

Excellent! That is looking good. We just need you to place a chair in position and sit in it to show us the scale and driving position.

You could start loading it up to see what the ground clearance will be. The thing to check is to add the load evenly front and rear over the springs to keep your chassis level and measure the chassis height as you increase the loading incrementally. Then plot a simple graph of front and rear weight over chassis height.
That will tell you if your suspension has an increasing, decreasing or neutral rate and how the spring rate compares front to rear.


----------



## toddshotrods (Feb 10, 2009)

Looking good fritz! Two things I noticed:

It looks like you have a LOT of anti-dive geometry in the upper arms. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, because I know diddly about reverse trike suspension setup - just an observation. Is that done purposely for some reason?

How much travel are you planning on for the rear suspension, and how much bounce (compression) travel do your coil-overs have. I am always working on some type of low stance setup with limited travel, so my ratios on a rocker arm setup are usually exactly the opposite of how you set yours up; _i.e._ I would have a longer spring side arm to provide more damping in the limited bounce travel. In other words, I might end up with about three inches of coil-over compression for two inches of wheel travel.


----------



## Drew (Jul 26, 2009)

Fritz, I'm a little concerned about your geometry.

It looks like you've got a lot of anti dive on there, which might cause a lot of lateral load on your wishbones. Anti dive reacts loads into the vehicle structure rather than through the shock, so you have to be careful about that.

Additionally it looks like you might have a problem getting enough camber on in roll and you seem to have a lot of kingpin inclination which might cause a lot of problems with camber roll off due to steering input.

Have you done any modelling? If not I'd recommend a program called susprog, its a simple geometry calculation program, all it does is what can be done in an excel sheet if you're up on all your calcs, but for $100 or whatever it seems very worth it.

BTW What is your target geometry?


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

Wow guys, thanks.
I just woke up, so i'm trying to process this all on half a cup of coffee.
to be honest, a lot of this is a little over my head at the moment, and maybe that says something about me trying to build a vehicle of my own (well, specifically that i shouldnt )

but here is whats happening right now:
Front suspension:
the upper A-arm inner mounts are completely adjustable, allowing caster and camber and anti-dive adjustments. what am i shooting for? will I was shooting for a neutral centerpoint steering as far as camber goes...but i hear if you get to close it can deaden the feel? shooting for 5-8 degrees caster and 1-2deg of camber. anti dive...i have no real idea...any rules for thumb on that?

The entire vehicle was modelled in solidworks, but i had an issue with the front steering knuckles, i couldnt model them properly, the castings are just too complex so i was shooting for absolute positionings on the ball joints, and let the knuckles sit however they sit with that geometry. I think i can make a cylindrical stand in that will replace the knuckle for measurement purposes and allow me wto accurately set my caster, but with tapers on both ends, its not going to be fun to make.

also, i think i may need to shorten the upper arms, as they sit with all that extra anti-dive and ....pre travel? (the angle they sit at to increase camber during roll) i am sitting pretty neutral, but havent had time to measure the actual camber angle. so any adjustments i make have the possibility of changing camber into the ...negative? but the upper arms are only tacked at the moment at any rate.

as for spring/shock geometry, i was shooting for a neutral or slight rising rate on the rear, i think the front will be fairly neutral, but should attemp to do what Woody suggested with loading it up...but i need to rebuild my scale first to accomplish this.

at any rate, any suggestions are very very welcome, as i'm out of my depth, or at least not sure of myself, my only experiences with this are some pedal style RT designs and RC cars...and not nearly as critical.
thansk again guys!
fred


----------



## fritzgutten (Jul 4, 2009)

Looks like i missed some questions, 
Todd, 
my rear suspension is about 3:1 with dual 400lb springs, and the shocks are none adjustable..but revalvable QA1's. the shocks are short travel...3-4" and i can add bump stops to shorten that up. I dont know what my droop and up travel will be for sure, i was think a 2:3 ratio ofor up:droop. It might be trouble but its workable one way or the other.

Drew, 
some of your teminology I will have to do a search on, to make sure i understand it. in roll and roll off specifically. but thnak you, it should help me to understand the situation much better.

as an end note, If i dont post any reply's or answers in the next 4 days or so, its not cause i'm not listening, I have a Labor day camping party at my place, and the guests and preperations MUST be attended to..if you know what i mean 

thanks again guys, i really appreciate it.


----------



## Drew (Jul 26, 2009)

Where the issues come from is the interelation between caster and kingpin inclination, if you have more KPI than caster then you end up rolling off camber whenever you turn the steering wheel, if you've got more caster than KPI then you end up rolling on camber on the outside wheel, which is what you want.

Its a little more complex than that though because you've got two more critical factors to take into account;

Mechanical trail, which is related to caster and spindle longditudinal offset. Basically what this is is the distance behind the line that the wheel turns around that the tyre contact patches center is at looking from the side of the vehicle. This is important because of another factor called pneumatic trail, which is related to the way that a tyre reacts the load placed on it by the vehicle, this changes with tyre loading which gives you your steering feel. This will range from positive up to 10-20mm depending on tyre diameter to some negative value at maximum loading.

I would recommend setting mechanical trail based on a zero pneumatic trail assumption and then working back through your steering system to work out a maximum steering load, but taking into account that you wouldn't want it under (from memory) 10mm or over (from memory) 30mm but I haven't done steering geometry in a long while so I'd do some reading before setting anything in stone 

The other important factor is scrub radius, this is somewhat simpler to understand than mechanical trail and much easier to set a good figure for.

Basically scrub radius is the distance between the point that the tyre rotates around and the center of the tyre, looking along the car. It is good to have a slight negative value or zero for this if possible (a few mm at most ideally).


EDIT: I also forgot to mention something else in a bit more detail, the reason dynamic camber change is important is because when you corner the vehicle rolls out of the corner, which means that it changes angle with relation to the ground plane. Because your vehicles camber is set with relation to the ground plane this means that the harder you corner the more camber you roll off with lateral load. The way to counteract this is to put on negative camber to at least offset the loss of camber due to the body roll. I'd recommend however going for less static camber and a few degrees of camber rollon. The reason for this is because camber contributes to rolling resistance, so less=less rolling resistance, but lower cornering forces, however as the cornering forces build up you get more body roll which you can use to put on camber and eliminate part of your problem.

You should be able to get away with maybe a degree or two of static negative camber and roll up to a good target of maybe 3-4 degrees negative.

BTW I also edited because I confused scrub radius with toe for a moment


----------



## toddshotrods (Feb 10, 2009)

Drew said:


> Where the issues come from is the interelation between caster and kingpin inclination, if you have more KPI than caster then you end up rolling off camber whenever you turn the steering wheel, if you've got more caster than KPI then you end up rolling on camber on the outside wheel, which is what you want.
> 
> Its a little more complex than that though because you've got two more critical factors to take into account;
> 
> ...


This is why I decided on a complete factory front suspension drop-out! I saw guys doing their own designs from scratch and there were just so many variables and so many different schools of thought on how to best approach it... Then a guy who worked for Art Morrison tweaked the company's tried-and-true Mustang II design and came up with exotic car perfomance numbers on a heavy tri-five Chevy! I started remembering some discussions we had on the Fiero forum about incremental changes to do the same thing with its IFS, and now my from-scratch race car has Fiero front suspension! I have more peace.

Software is best but you can actually draw this stuff on paper. You don't even have to draw the components - all you need is accurate measurements to plot the points and draw lines through them - and a lot of patience.


----------



## Drew (Jul 26, 2009)

I should have mentioned before, if you're interested in doing some reading about pretty much everything to do with vehicle dynamic control then I'd recommend race car vehicle dynamics by Milliken and Milliken, its quite high level but it gives an excellent and incredibly complete, concise and relatively easy to understand rundown of a lot of the higher level concepts involved in car design. Not so much the specifics of geometry but more whole car behavior

http://www.millikenresearch.com/rcvd.html

I've got some other books around which give a better understanding of the more basic geometry concepts which I'll dig out and post up later if you guys like.


----------



## WarpedOne (Jun 26, 2009)

Yes, please do.

I'm also trying to design something and will need to cover those geometric details. How much caster, camber, how much travel, how and where to put shocks, at what angles, etc.


----------



## toddshotrods (Feb 10, 2009)

Two years ago I would have begged for more, more, more! Now, I am more focused and wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole. It's fascinating and I would really love to dig in but there are only so many hours in a day. I reached the point where I had to decide what was more important.

You have to constantly reassess your goals and make sure your not climbing off onto branches, and turning your project into a nightmare that ends up getting sold as a "great project" vehicle on Craigslist.

Maybe I'm being the over-protective brother, but I just don't want fritz to get so bogged down in front suspension design that the rest of the trike suffers. I keep thinking if he could have just welded in a complete setup from some other vehicle he would be working on the motor, batteries, etc.


----------



## Drew (Jul 26, 2009)

Another few that I'd recommend are the race and rally car source book

http://www.pitstop.net.au/view/motorsport-cars-rallying-books/page/query/plu/4803/

http://www.themotorbookstore.com/howtomayocar.html

http://www.bevenyoung.com.au/prdt123.htm

These are three other books which are very good for the basics and specifically targetted at non professionals.


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

Hey drew, isnt scrub radius where the imaginary line from the top ball joint, through the bottom, then contacts the ground in the middle of the tire?


----------



## Drew (Jul 26, 2009)

few2many said:


> Hey drew, isnt scrub radius where the imaginary line from the top ball joint, through the bottom, then contacts the ground in the middle of the tire?


Yes, in the left to right plane of the vehicle, so when viewed from the front or rear of the vehicle it would look like your diagram. This angle is called King Pin Inclination.

The part which could be confusing is that when you swing that around 90 degrees you get Caster and Mechanical Trail, which are related in exactly the same way. This is when looking at the fore after plane of the front steering geometry (as viewed from the side of the Vehicle).


----------

