Not a panhard-a Watts link!!
 

I am in the midst of a 1/5th scale tube build. I will be using a 3 link system which will require a panhard on both front and rear........But I am seriously considering implementing a "Watts Link". Reason...........suspension geometry is consistent through out the cycle/articulation of the axles. Granted this is NOT a concern at slow speeds, but would be very trick and am wondering if this has been "attempted" by anyone in the RC realm?

By the way don't start with the why go panhard when it is easier to facilitate a 4 link......I am building a scale replica of my 1:1 buggy and even thogh this was not used on that vehicle I just thought what the heck since I will most likely have some issues with routing a panhard and so therefore why not "try" this....could be interesting to say the least.
Even though I am leaning towards placing the servo(s) in a 1:1 steering box position (scale/realism is everything). The 1:1 has hydro steering and NO I am not about to spend $1000 for a hydro set=up for this..............just yet!!!!

The pix below shows a "typical" Watts Link system....

Kerry

Go for it, man "thumbsup" I really like the Watts link design, and I have wanted to do one for a while now. Post updates if you give it a go.

I must say I've never seen a Watts-link. I'm trying to visualize how it works. Anyway, not sure if you were aware of this, but JasonInAugusta did hydro steering on his uber-scale Scorpion.

http://www.rccrawler.com/forum/general-crawlers/3069-hydraulic-scorpion-1-2-plumbed-powered.html

The photos don't work, but it may be of use if you decide to go hydro.

look under the back of a PT Cruiser...

looks like a pretty neat setup Kerry

this I have to see done go for it!

Here's a good page with some animated gifs showing you how the Watts Link works:

Scroll to the bottom: http://www.miracerros.com/mustang/t_suspension.htm

Why would they put a Watt's Link on the back of a front drive PT Cruiser? Do they really?

The question I have is will it allow enough movement to get a reasonable amount of motion?

Wow, that animation is cool. The one on the right looks like it would work best because you could locate the watts unit to the frame in the center by the pumpkin. I think it would give plenty of motion, for a scaler... kinda complex overall tho.

Yeah I'm aware of that rig.........just way more than I think I want to spend for now..........$1000+ is a bit pricey! Kerry

Not sure about the PT but they definetly use it on the Durango. If you are following one reasonably close you can see it work.

RK

If all your worried about is articulation it will work fine but is limited in straight up and down travel. A center limiting strap would probably remove any issues, but still why go through all the trouble to be different if it doesnt work at least as well as something simple?

A telescoping A arm would be different AND effective (picture a typical A arm where the end can go in and out)

Yes I'm concerned about articulation AND that the axle travel is straight rather than a slight arch to the axle movement which is inherent with a panhard system.

Of course what I am noticing by the attached drawings is that there is a "clearance" problem as you can see pictured below. Have to see if that can be alleviated and it appears that if that is addressed then, YES, articulation, as well as the ability of the axle to drop will be limited....SO maybe, Hello Panhard.

Kerry

I just modeled on up quick in Solidworks. I will post the picks up. It seems that I would give a very decent amount of flex. You will see it isn't even optimized in the drawing and It was getting a little over 1.2" of parrallel axle movement, even more when it is articulating side to side.

Cory,

They used the Watt's link on the PTs for space reasons. The Watt's allows for plenty of interior room.

The rear end of a new Durango also has one and is very easy to see when driving behind one. I know my Mazda RX-7's used to have them. Never had any issues.

Here is a quicky


Sorry about the color in the first two. Didn't check them before I transfered them from my laptop.

Up fully
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3...slinkupzl9.jpg

Down Fully
http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/7...inkdownpl3.jpg

One Side
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3...inkleftxj0.jpg

Other Side
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/4...nkrightmq8.jpg

Ah, I get it now, very clever idea. I'd have to build one or see a working one to see how tough it is, though.

Those pictures really sucked, don't know what I was thinking. I will post some better ones when I get home. I will change the angle of the camera and the lighting.

I believe that this would be a very simple thing to build, with how it simumated I think that it would work VERY well on a scale rig. Of course it would need to be pretty'ed up though, cuz mine looks like a**.

Hmm, looks like that setup would allow quite a bit of axle wrap though...

Harley0706, there's a very lot of axle swing with your Watt's Link placed so high.

And M Scientist, it's replacing only the Panhard Bar. Do it up as a typical 3 link, and it won't have the wrap problem. Or 4 link... or one link, or two. But as long as the axle is located, etc...

I just checked the side sway.

*EDIT*
Check side sway again, it shows almost zero side sway as is. I would have thought there would have been a little bit. This is of course assuming all joints as IDEAL.
Again this is a computer model and of course real world building is going to execute differently
*Edit*

Like I said the pictures SUCK, if I would have though about it I would have shown the other side too, it is actually 3 linked but the third link in not visible in those pics, so axle wrap would be low.

I will cut down the mount and maybe make some curved links when I get home.