speed;997415 said:
Okay, I went out to the garage to try and find my dynamics book and just do the math for you ...diagrams...
I'll try to clarify things a little.
The article he took the diagrams from is showing the merit of a double wishbone suspension in that it can put the reaction point in a specific spot (sort of like the axis the car rolls around) to get the desired suspension dynamics.
No one can say that the spring and strut don't carry the wieght of the car, even in a double wishbone setup. That's their whole purpose. When the car leans around a turn, there is a strong force being applied to the strut towers.
STBs on a double wishbone car are going to have the same effect on chassis rigidity as on a macpherson strut car, most else being equal. I don't doubt Larry A's testimony that the STB kept his car straighter and caused a wheel to come off the ground where it hadn't before.
The important distinction to make is that the geometry of the strut towers is really not important to the suspension dynamics in a double wishbone design. The diagrams speed posted show that. As long as the geometry of the control arms is consistent, the suspension will act consistently.
With macpherson struts, changes in the strut tower geometry are bad news, and any improvement is good. (The improvement offered by different strut tower bars is still arguable.)
Basically:
Even if you ARE making your body a little more rigid, you AREN'T really helping the suspension much because double wishbone doesn't suffer from the same problems.
