BioMax
+1y
Alright, let's see if I can make some sense out of this... It is not a major issue to have 2 different length axles and yes you would still keep the a-arms the same length from side to side. The issue would be if you were squeezing every last ounce of travel out of the system, you would want to relate the suspension to the axles and that would be an issue with one side having longer arms than the other. More important than the camber curve being the same from front to rear would be to keep the roll-center as "attached" to the chassis similiarly. This is more advanced than anything that I have ever touched on here on SSM, but for as much performance as possible, the rollcenter is probably more important than the camber. This is arguable from designer to designer tho. For most of the minitruck world, having similar camber curves would be quite tolerable, but I would always design the suspension so that the rear has slightly less camber for a couple of reasons. Copying the front suspension would probably work, but you'd have to try it to see if it would do what you needed. IC isn't used in A-arm suspension design the same way that it is in 4-link design. The IC of an A-arm suspension is really only used for calculating than it is for set-up. On an IRS the knuckle has far more freedom than a front knuckle that would be steering the vehicle has. The fact that there will be no steering of the rear wheels makes the knuckle very "dumb." There is no castor, Ackermann, spindle inclination or scrub radious to worry about, only the axles and camber are of any concern (and of course everything associated with camber, but that's not a major concern here) I hope this helps you guys out some.