diffrence between multi link and double wishbone
09-28-2008, 10:06 PM
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: fontana, ca, united states
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
diffrence between multi link and double wishbone
ive been searching the web and on hondatech couldnt find any answers
so please if someone could tell me or have a link
thanks
so please if someone could tell me or have a link
thanks
09-29-2008, 04:45 AM
#2
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: nigeria
Posts: 2,756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: diffrence between multi link and double wishbone (unbreakable_35)
I might be wrong but I think multilink refers to the rear suspension setup and double wishbone is the front.
09-29-2008, 03:06 PM
#3
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: strathcedar, nsw, australia
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: diffrence between multi link and double wishbone (alphalanos)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by alphalanos »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I might be wrong but I think multilink refers to the rear suspension setup and double wishbone is the front.</TD></TR></TABLE>
More or less. The main difference is that a wishbone suspension can be steered because it has ball joints that act as steering pivots, the suspension linkages roughly resembling tri-angular 'wishbone' shape with the ball joints at tha apex. Some look more like wishbones (i.e. triangles) than others, but all have three points defining the 'wishbone' triangle even if the metal bits between these points can be bent / offset etc.
'Multi-link' cannot be steered, having an adjustable 'toe-link' instead of being attached to a steering mechanism. Since the multi-link doesn't need to be steered, the arrangement of linkages looks a bit different to the wishbone suspnesion.
Other than that, in bump and rebound motion the geometry is more or less the same, i.e. the upper and lower suspension members do the same thing with both kinds of suspension (control camber change with suspension motion, and define geometric roll centre location), only the multi-link can't be steered.
More or less. The main difference is that a wishbone suspension can be steered because it has ball joints that act as steering pivots, the suspension linkages roughly resembling tri-angular 'wishbone' shape with the ball joints at tha apex. Some look more like wishbones (i.e. triangles) than others, but all have three points defining the 'wishbone' triangle even if the metal bits between these points can be bent / offset etc.
'Multi-link' cannot be steered, having an adjustable 'toe-link' instead of being attached to a steering mechanism. Since the multi-link doesn't need to be steered, the arrangement of linkages looks a bit different to the wishbone suspnesion.
Other than that, in bump and rebound motion the geometry is more or less the same, i.e. the upper and lower suspension members do the same thing with both kinds of suspension (control camber change with suspension motion, and define geometric roll centre location), only the multi-link can't be steered.
09-29-2008, 03:41 PM
#4
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA, United States
Posts: 7,539
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Re: diffrence between multi link and double wishbone (johnlear)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by johnlear »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
More or less. The main difference is that a wishbone suspension can be steered because it has ball joints that act as steering pivots, the suspension linkages roughly resembling tri-angular 'wishbone' shape with the ball joints at tha apex. Some look more like wishbones (i.e. triangles) than others, but all have three points defining the 'wishbone' triangle even if the metal bits between these points can be bent / offset etc.
'Multi-link' cannot be steered, having an adjustable 'toe-link' instead of being attached to a steering mechanism. Since the multi-link doesn't need to be steered, the arrangement of linkages looks a bit different to the wishbone suspnesion.
Other than that, in bump and rebound motion the geometry is more or less the same, i.e. the upper and lower suspension members do the same thing with both kinds of suspension (control camber change with suspension motion, and define geometric roll centre location), only the multi-link can't be steered. </TD></TR></TABLE>
Ever seen the front suspension of a new Audi A4? "Multi-link" design, and 4 ball joints per side...
More or less. The main difference is that a wishbone suspension can be steered because it has ball joints that act as steering pivots, the suspension linkages roughly resembling tri-angular 'wishbone' shape with the ball joints at tha apex. Some look more like wishbones (i.e. triangles) than others, but all have three points defining the 'wishbone' triangle even if the metal bits between these points can be bent / offset etc.
'Multi-link' cannot be steered, having an adjustable 'toe-link' instead of being attached to a steering mechanism. Since the multi-link doesn't need to be steered, the arrangement of linkages looks a bit different to the wishbone suspnesion.
Other than that, in bump and rebound motion the geometry is more or less the same, i.e. the upper and lower suspension members do the same thing with both kinds of suspension (control camber change with suspension motion, and define geometric roll centre location), only the multi-link can't be steered. </TD></TR></TABLE>
Ever seen the front suspension of a new Audi A4? "Multi-link" design, and 4 ball joints per side...
09-29-2008, 05:28 PM
#6
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: strathcedar, nsw, australia
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: diffrence between multi link and double wishbone (PIC Performance)
No I haven't seen it, and it is rather unusual. Tried (briefly) to find some info about it but found nothing that really explained anything.
My best guess from what I can see in the diagram / photos is they are attempting to seperate at least some of the various front end geometries. With a 'normal' wishbone suspension the upper ball joint location is one of the factors that defines:
1) The length / angle of the upper wishbone (in turn being a factor defining the 'camber curve', length of the 'virtual swing arms', and the static GRC location as well as GRC movement with suspension deflection).
2) The caster angle (i.e. rearward lean of the steering axis).
3) The 'trail' (distance from nomiminal centre of contact patch to the point where the steering axis intersects the road in front of the contact patch centre).
4) The KPI angle (i.e. king pin inclination, aka steering axis inclination, being the inward lean of the steering axis).
5) The scrub radius (distance from nomiminal centre of contact patch to the point where the steering axis intersects the road to the outside or inside of the contact patch centre).
Having a single ball joint involved in defining all these parameters obviously means that some compromises will typically need to be made, but having a much more complex arrangement should mean more freedom for the suspension designer insofar as defining these different parameters with fewer practical restrictions...?
My best guess from what I can see in the diagram / photos is they are attempting to seperate at least some of the various front end geometries. With a 'normal' wishbone suspension the upper ball joint location is one of the factors that defines:
1) The length / angle of the upper wishbone (in turn being a factor defining the 'camber curve', length of the 'virtual swing arms', and the static GRC location as well as GRC movement with suspension deflection).
2) The caster angle (i.e. rearward lean of the steering axis).
3) The 'trail' (distance from nomiminal centre of contact patch to the point where the steering axis intersects the road in front of the contact patch centre).
4) The KPI angle (i.e. king pin inclination, aka steering axis inclination, being the inward lean of the steering axis).
5) The scrub radius (distance from nomiminal centre of contact patch to the point where the steering axis intersects the road to the outside or inside of the contact patch centre).
Having a single ball joint involved in defining all these parameters obviously means that some compromises will typically need to be made, but having a much more complex arrangement should mean more freedom for the suspension designer insofar as defining these different parameters with fewer practical restrictions...?
09-29-2008, 06:35 PM
#7
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA, United States
Posts: 7,539
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Re: diffrence between multi link and double wishbone (PIC Performance)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by PIC Performance »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">now that is an odd design. why break up the upper wishbone into two arms? </TD></TR></TABLE>
It creates a virtual control arm longer than the physical piece, for (at least some of) the beneficial reasons outlined by johnlear.
It is a design that is beyond my knowledge/understanding of suspension, at least in terms of fully understanding the trade offs of the design (nothing is ever only positive).
I will say, a B6 A4 (what my girlfriend owns) actually has a smaller turning radius than my Integra. So I can't complain about the overly complex design as we do enjoy at least that benefit regularly.
It creates a virtual control arm longer than the physical piece, for (at least some of) the beneficial reasons outlined by johnlear.
It is a design that is beyond my knowledge/understanding of suspension, at least in terms of fully understanding the trade offs of the design (nothing is ever only positive).
I will say, a B6 A4 (what my girlfriend owns) actually has a smaller turning radius than my Integra. So I can't complain about the overly complex design as we do enjoy at least that benefit regularly.
Trending Topics
09-29-2008, 09:40 PM
#8
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: WV, USA
Posts: 8,119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: diffrence between multi link and double wishbone (PIC Performance)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by PIC Performance »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">now that is an odd design. why break up the upper wishbone into two arms? </TD></TR></TABLE>
very slight caster changes with steering?
very slight caster changes with steering?
09-30-2008, 03:57 AM
#9
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: strathcedar, nsw, australia
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: diffrence between multi link and double wishbone (Erik95LS)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Erik95LS »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">very slight caster changes with steering? </TD></TR></TABLE>
I doubt it, and even if this is the purpose it would be a lot of trouble to go to when it's easy to have the caster angle change by angling the wishbone(s) up or down away from horizontal (i.e. front wishbone chassis mount relative to rear chassis mount).
In any case, it's not good for the caster angle to change as it creates a non linearity in the geometry that would tend to muddy the steering feedback to the driver...
I doubt it, and even if this is the purpose it would be a lot of trouble to go to when it's easy to have the caster angle change by angling the wishbone(s) up or down away from horizontal (i.e. front wishbone chassis mount relative to rear chassis mount).
In any case, it's not good for the caster angle to change as it creates a non linearity in the geometry that would tend to muddy the steering feedback to the driver...
10-01-2008, 06:34 AM
#10
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shake Hands with the Dremel
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: diffrence between multi link and double wishbone (unbreakable_35)
From wikipedia:
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
In its simplest form the multi-link suspension is orthogonal - that is, it is possible to alter one parameter in the suspension at a time, without affecting anything else.
This is in direct contrast to say a double wishbone suspension where moving a hardpoint or changing a bushing compliance will affect two or more parameters.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
In regard to Audi's design a post on Audizine states,
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
The idea with the quadra-link setup is that the design creates a "virtual steering axis". It helps reduce torque steer and bump steer.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
The Hyundai Genesis sedan also has a five link suspension front and rear. Unfortunately, I could not find much on the implementation of that system other than a layout available on this Hyundai site. Hyundai cites that its implementation reduces bump steer.
Unfortunately, the front suspension was changed on the Genesis coupe to a dual link MacPherson. It is a shame considering the rest of the car's specifications are pretty close to what an enthusiast would consider ideal (turbo I4, RWD, IRS, etc.).
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
In its simplest form the multi-link suspension is orthogonal - that is, it is possible to alter one parameter in the suspension at a time, without affecting anything else.
This is in direct contrast to say a double wishbone suspension where moving a hardpoint or changing a bushing compliance will affect two or more parameters.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
In regard to Audi's design a post on Audizine states,
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
The idea with the quadra-link setup is that the design creates a "virtual steering axis". It helps reduce torque steer and bump steer.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
The Hyundai Genesis sedan also has a five link suspension front and rear. Unfortunately, I could not find much on the implementation of that system other than a layout available on this Hyundai site. Hyundai cites that its implementation reduces bump steer.
Unfortunately, the front suspension was changed on the Genesis coupe to a dual link MacPherson. It is a shame considering the rest of the car's specifications are pretty close to what an enthusiast would consider ideal (turbo I4, RWD, IRS, etc.).
10-01-2008, 12:12 PM
#11
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA, United States
Posts: 7,539
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Re: diffrence between multi link and double wishbone (uniseriate)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by uniseriate »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
The Hyundai Genesis sedan also has a five link suspension front and rear. Unfortunately, I could not find much on the implementation of that system other than a layout available on this Hyundai site. Hyundai cites that its implementation reduces bump steer.
Unfortunately, the front suspension was changed on the Genesis coupe to a dual link MacPherson. It is a shame considering the rest of the car's specifications are pretty close to what an enthusiast would consider ideal (turbo I4, RWD, IRS, etc.).</TD></TR></TABLE>
On a RWD car, struts up front aren't nearly the same detriment that they are on a FWD car. Look at a BMW, Mercedes, or Porsche, for example.
The Hyundai Genesis sedan also has a five link suspension front and rear. Unfortunately, I could not find much on the implementation of that system other than a layout available on this Hyundai site. Hyundai cites that its implementation reduces bump steer.
Unfortunately, the front suspension was changed on the Genesis coupe to a dual link MacPherson. It is a shame considering the rest of the car's specifications are pretty close to what an enthusiast would consider ideal (turbo I4, RWD, IRS, etc.).</TD></TR></TABLE>
On a RWD car, struts up front aren't nearly the same detriment that they are on a FWD car. Look at a BMW, Mercedes, or Porsche, for example.
10-01-2008, 02:43 PM
#12
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shake Hands with the Dremel
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: diffrence between multi link and double wishbone (TunerN00b)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TunerN00b »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
On a RWD car, struts up front aren't nearly the same detriment that they are on a FWD car. Look at a BMW, Mercedes, or Porsche, for example.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Even if it affects the car in the real world only slightly, I cannot help but think that a strut suspension as inferior. While BMW and Porsche can overcome its inherent disadvantages with money spent on engineering (i.e. BMW's dual front pivot system), I am not sure if other makes can accomplish the same. European Ford's RevoKnuckle is the one notable exception.
By the way, Mercedes does not exclusively use Macpherson struts across its line. The high end models had front double wishbones from 72-98 (W116, W126, and W140) and then switched to a multi link design that saves unsprung weight and packaging space in the W220. The midsize E class switched from strut to double wishbone back to strut again over the past twenty years.
Interestingly, BMW's 7 series also converted from strut to double wishbone in its latest release. They had to do that on the X5 due to its weight but I can't find out the reason for the change on the 7 series.
On a RWD car, struts up front aren't nearly the same detriment that they are on a FWD car. Look at a BMW, Mercedes, or Porsche, for example.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Even if it affects the car in the real world only slightly, I cannot help but think that a strut suspension as inferior. While BMW and Porsche can overcome its inherent disadvantages with money spent on engineering (i.e. BMW's dual front pivot system), I am not sure if other makes can accomplish the same. European Ford's RevoKnuckle is the one notable exception.
By the way, Mercedes does not exclusively use Macpherson struts across its line. The high end models had front double wishbones from 72-98 (W116, W126, and W140) and then switched to a multi link design that saves unsprung weight and packaging space in the W220. The midsize E class switched from strut to double wishbone back to strut again over the past twenty years.
Interestingly, BMW's 7 series also converted from strut to double wishbone in its latest release. They had to do that on the X5 due to its weight but I can't find out the reason for the change on the 7 series.
10-01-2008, 02:54 PM
#13
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: strathcedar, nsw, australia
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: diffrence between multi link and double wishbone (TunerN00b)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TunerN00b »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
On a RWD car, struts up front aren't nearly the same detriment that they are on a FWD car. Look at a BMW, Mercedes, or Porsche, for example.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Mac struts can be made to work acceptably well, but are still inferior to a good double wishbone design. The benefits of Mac struts re wishbones are;
a) Cheaper.
b) Easier to package in the chassis (i.e. takes up less space).
c) Lighter (less unsprung weight).
Disadvantages (for high performance and racing cars);
1) Poor camber curve (requiring 'excessive' static neg camber settings in order for the OF to be near vertical with body roll, at the expense of the IF camber).
2) Excessive KPI angle (because the strut needs to be angled inward in order for the spring to clear the top of the tyre). KPI causes steered pos camber gain at both front wheels when turned in either direction, which is good at the IF (to counteract the static neg camber and camber gain caused by body roll) but bad at the OF.
3) The excessive static neg camber and KPI mean that much higher levels of caster angle are required to counteract the IF static neg camber, and the OF steered pos camber gain caused by KPI (some Mac strut racing and rally cars using as much as 20° of caster angle).
4) The designer has less freedom to locate the static geometric roll centre location.
5) GRC will tend to move more with roll motion than with a good double wishbone design.
6) Causes 'sticktion' and wear in the damper because the damper is used as a suspension locating member (in 'bend', which isn't nice since some flex will occur) and thus has to internally resist forces associated with braking, and with FWD cars 'acceleration'.
7) Caster angle changes with with suspension motion, unless the 'wishbone' is angled down (front to rear chassis mountings) so it's pivot axis is at 90° to the caster angle (which would generate some degree of 'pro-dive' geometry, which would probably be a worse thing than the caster change). Caster that changes during suspension motion is a non-linearity that muddies steering feedback / feel.
Even with all these disadvantages Mac struts can be set up to work well enough even in high performance and racing applications, especially if suspension motion (i.e. roll motion) is restricted. Even so, with a clean sheet of paper and no other restraints (i.e. first list of advantages) you'd use wishbones in preference for high performance and racing cars, and you could set it up with fewer compromise settings.
Modified by johnlear at 2:11 PM 10/2/2008
On a RWD car, struts up front aren't nearly the same detriment that they are on a FWD car. Look at a BMW, Mercedes, or Porsche, for example.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Mac struts can be made to work acceptably well, but are still inferior to a good double wishbone design. The benefits of Mac struts re wishbones are;
a) Cheaper.
b) Easier to package in the chassis (i.e. takes up less space).
c) Lighter (less unsprung weight).
Disadvantages (for high performance and racing cars);
1) Poor camber curve (requiring 'excessive' static neg camber settings in order for the OF to be near vertical with body roll, at the expense of the IF camber).
2) Excessive KPI angle (because the strut needs to be angled inward in order for the spring to clear the top of the tyre). KPI causes steered pos camber gain at both front wheels when turned in either direction, which is good at the IF (to counteract the static neg camber and camber gain caused by body roll) but bad at the OF.
3) The excessive static neg camber and KPI mean that much higher levels of caster angle are required to counteract the IF static neg camber, and the OF steered pos camber gain caused by KPI (some Mac strut racing and rally cars using as much as 20° of caster angle).
4) The designer has less freedom to locate the static geometric roll centre location.
5) GRC will tend to move more with roll motion than with a good double wishbone design.
6) Causes 'sticktion' and wear in the damper because the damper is used as a suspension locating member (in 'bend', which isn't nice since some flex will occur) and thus has to internally resist forces associated with braking, and with FWD cars 'acceleration'.
7) Caster angle changes with with suspension motion, unless the 'wishbone' is angled down (front to rear chassis mountings) so it's pivot axis is at 90° to the caster angle (which would generate some degree of 'pro-dive' geometry, which would probably be a worse thing than the caster change). Caster that changes during suspension motion is a non-linearity that muddies steering feedback / feel.
Even with all these disadvantages Mac struts can be set up to work well enough even in high performance and racing applications, especially if suspension motion (i.e. roll motion) is restricted. Even so, with a clean sheet of paper and no other restraints (i.e. first list of advantages) you'd use wishbones in preference for high performance and racing cars, and you could set it up with fewer compromise settings.
Modified by johnlear at 2:11 PM 10/2/2008
10-01-2008, 03:13 PM
#14
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: strathcedar, nsw, australia
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: diffrence between multi link and double wishbone (uniseriate)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by uniseriate »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Even if it affects the car in the real world only slightly, I cannot help but think that a strut suspension as inferior. While BMW and Porsche can overcome its inherent disadvantages with money spent on engineering (i.e. BMW's dual front pivot system), I am not sure if other makes can accomplish the same. European Ford's RevoKnuckle is the one notable exception.
By the way, Mercedes does not exclusively use Macpherson struts across its line. The high end models had front double wishbones from 72-98 (W116, W126, and W140) and then switched to a multi link design that saves unsprung weight and packaging space in the W220. The midsize E class switched from strut to double wishbone back to strut again over the past twenty years.
Interestingly, BMW's 7 series also converted from strut to double wishbone in its latest release. They had to do that on the X5 due to its weight but I can't find out the reason for the change on the 7 series.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
And it's notable that Honda no longer uses double wishbone suspension (at least not on the cars I'm aware of). Apart from the short list of Mac strut advantages above, I think it's also that the marketing and accounting departments can't see that the demographic would ever notice the inferior handling caused by Mac struts (especially with FWD), so the cost isn't justified (in their opinions).
The base models are not aimed at people who place a premium on handling, so the engineers working on the 'performance' variants (which sell much less volume) end up having to make silk purses out of sow's ears...
Even if it affects the car in the real world only slightly, I cannot help but think that a strut suspension as inferior. While BMW and Porsche can overcome its inherent disadvantages with money spent on engineering (i.e. BMW's dual front pivot system), I am not sure if other makes can accomplish the same. European Ford's RevoKnuckle is the one notable exception.
By the way, Mercedes does not exclusively use Macpherson struts across its line. The high end models had front double wishbones from 72-98 (W116, W126, and W140) and then switched to a multi link design that saves unsprung weight and packaging space in the W220. The midsize E class switched from strut to double wishbone back to strut again over the past twenty years.
Interestingly, BMW's 7 series also converted from strut to double wishbone in its latest release. They had to do that on the X5 due to its weight but I can't find out the reason for the change on the 7 series.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
And it's notable that Honda no longer uses double wishbone suspension (at least not on the cars I'm aware of). Apart from the short list of Mac strut advantages above, I think it's also that the marketing and accounting departments can't see that the demographic would ever notice the inferior handling caused by Mac struts (especially with FWD), so the cost isn't justified (in their opinions).
The base models are not aimed at people who place a premium on handling, so the engineers working on the 'performance' variants (which sell much less volume) end up having to make silk purses out of sow's ears...
10-02-2008, 09:38 AM
#15
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Miami, Fl
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: diffrence between multi link and double wishbone (johnlear)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by johnlear »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
And it's notable that Honda no longer uses double wishbone suspension (at least not on the cars I'm aware of). Apart from the short list of Mac strut advantages above, I think it's also that the marketing and accounting departments can't see that the demographic would ever notice the inferior handling caused by Mac struts (especially with FWD), so the cost isn't justified (in their opinions).
The base models are not aimed at people who place a premium on handling, so the engineers working on the 'performance' variants (which sell much less volume) end up having to make silk purses out of sow's ears...
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Honda's "Safety for Everyone" policy had a huge influence on the decision for mac. struts. It's just better for crash worthiness..
And it's notable that Honda no longer uses double wishbone suspension (at least not on the cars I'm aware of). Apart from the short list of Mac strut advantages above, I think it's also that the marketing and accounting departments can't see that the demographic would ever notice the inferior handling caused by Mac struts (especially with FWD), so the cost isn't justified (in their opinions).
The base models are not aimed at people who place a premium on handling, so the engineers working on the 'performance' variants (which sell much less volume) end up having to make silk purses out of sow's ears...
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Honda's "Safety for Everyone" policy had a huge influence on the decision for mac. struts. It's just better for crash worthiness..
10-02-2008, 11:36 AM
#16
Honda-Tech Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Nowhere and Everywhere
Posts: 29,530
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
46 Posts
Re: diffrence between multi link and double wishbone (TunerN00b)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TunerN00b »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Ever seen the front suspension of a new Audi A4? "Multi-link" design, and 4 ball joints per side...
</TD></TR></TABLE>
OMG my buddy used to have an A4, and we both went
the first time we took the front wheels off and looked at the front suspension. The stock pieces are notorious for failure, too, hence the many complete control arm kits for Audi's you can find all over the 'net.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by johnlear »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
And it's notable that Honda no longer uses double wishbone suspension (at least not on the cars I'm aware of). Apart from the short list of Mac strut advantages above, I think it's also that the marketing and accounting departments can't see that the demographic would ever notice the inferior handling caused by Mac struts (especially with FWD), so the cost isn't justified (in their opinions).
The base models are not aimed at people who place a premium on handling, so the engineers working on the 'performance' variants (which sell much less volume) end up having to make silk purses out of sow's ears...
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Accord, TSX, and TL all still use independent double-wishbone front suspension and multi-link rear suspension. Acura states the TSX has "double-wishbone multi-link" for the rear suspension as well.
Ever seen the front suspension of a new Audi A4? "Multi-link" design, and 4 ball joints per side...
</TD></TR></TABLE>
OMG my buddy used to have an A4, and we both went
the first time we took the front wheels off and looked at the front suspension. The stock pieces are notorious for failure, too, hence the many complete control arm kits for Audi's you can find all over the 'net.<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by johnlear »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
And it's notable that Honda no longer uses double wishbone suspension (at least not on the cars I'm aware of). Apart from the short list of Mac strut advantages above, I think it's also that the marketing and accounting departments can't see that the demographic would ever notice the inferior handling caused by Mac struts (especially with FWD), so the cost isn't justified (in their opinions).
The base models are not aimed at people who place a premium on handling, so the engineers working on the 'performance' variants (which sell much less volume) end up having to make silk purses out of sow's ears...
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Accord, TSX, and TL all still use independent double-wishbone front suspension and multi-link rear suspension. Acura states the TSX has "double-wishbone multi-link" for the rear suspension as well.
10-02-2008, 01:21 PM
#17
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: strathcedar, nsw, australia
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: diffrence between multi link and double wishbone (EK4civichatch)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by EK4civichatch »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Honda's "Safety for Everyone" policy had a huge influence on the decision for mac. struts. It's just better for crash worthiness..</TD></TR></TABLE>
Hmm, why would Mac struts be better for crashworthiness than double wishbone?
Sounds like a rationalisation to me. I do suspect it's to do with cutting costs; some bod at Honda wondering why they were using a much more sophisticated and expensive design when the average punter wouldn't know and couldn't care less, and nearly all their competition is using the inferior but cheaper alternative...
Honda's "Safety for Everyone" policy had a huge influence on the decision for mac. struts. It's just better for crash worthiness..</TD></TR></TABLE>
Hmm, why would Mac struts be better for crashworthiness than double wishbone?
Sounds like a rationalisation to me. I do suspect it's to do with cutting costs; some bod at Honda wondering why they were using a much more sophisticated and expensive design when the average punter wouldn't know and couldn't care less, and nearly all their competition is using the inferior but cheaper alternative...
10-02-2008, 01:55 PM
#18
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA, United States
Posts: 7,539
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Re: diffrence between multi link and double wishbone (johnlear)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by johnlear »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Hmm, why would Mac struts be better for crashworthiness than double wishbone?
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Because of the required structural elements (and their location) to support each suspension type.
I wish I had better information, but it has been commonly said (by companies at least) that a strut design allows for a safer front end on a compact car. I think the argument is lessened as the front end of the car increases in size, in terms of amount of chassis forward of the suspension.
My best guess, is that the more compact design of struts allows for better and/or larger crumple zone areas.
But yeah, I'm having trouble finding a nice website that explains this.
Hmm, why would Mac struts be better for crashworthiness than double wishbone?
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Because of the required structural elements (and their location) to support each suspension type.
I wish I had better information, but it has been commonly said (by companies at least) that a strut design allows for a safer front end on a compact car. I think the argument is lessened as the front end of the car increases in size, in terms of amount of chassis forward of the suspension.
My best guess, is that the more compact design of struts allows for better and/or larger crumple zone areas.
But yeah, I'm having trouble finding a nice website that explains this.
10-02-2008, 02:00 PM
#19
Honda-Tech Member
Re: diffrence between multi link and double wishbone (EK4civichatch)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by EK4civichatch »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Honda's "Safety for Everyone" policy had a huge influence on the decision for mac. struts. It's just better for crash worthiness..</TD></TR></TABLE>
first time ive heard that. care to back that up?
Honda's "Safety for Everyone" policy had a huge influence on the decision for mac. struts. It's just better for crash worthiness..</TD></TR></TABLE>
first time ive heard that. care to back that up?
10-02-2008, 07:41 PM
#20
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: strathcedar, nsw, australia
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: diffrence between multi link and double wishbone (TunerN00b)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TunerN00b »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Because of the required structural elements (and their location) to support each suspension type.
I wish I had better information, but it has been commonly said (by companies at least) that a strut design allows for a safer front end on a compact car. I think the argument is lessened as the front end of the car increases in size, in terms of amount of chassis forward of the suspension.
My best guess, is that the more compact design of struts allows for better and/or larger crumple zone areas.
But yeah, I'm having trouble finding a nice website that explains this.</TD></TR></TABLE>
None of that seems likely to me, especially if you look at the difference in chassis structure between a car fitted with a Honda style double wishbone suspension (i.e. a very high upper wishbone mounted to the top of the suspension tower) and a car fitted with Mac struts, i.e. virtually no structural difference that I can see that might make any significant difference to crumple zones or whatever.
The actual chassis structures are almost identical, save for some holes that allow fitment of the upper wishbones. It is in fact so similar that I think it would be relatively easy to fit Mac struts to a Honda chassis intended to use double wishbones...
Because of the required structural elements (and their location) to support each suspension type.
I wish I had better information, but it has been commonly said (by companies at least) that a strut design allows for a safer front end on a compact car. I think the argument is lessened as the front end of the car increases in size, in terms of amount of chassis forward of the suspension.
My best guess, is that the more compact design of struts allows for better and/or larger crumple zone areas.
But yeah, I'm having trouble finding a nice website that explains this.</TD></TR></TABLE>
None of that seems likely to me, especially if you look at the difference in chassis structure between a car fitted with a Honda style double wishbone suspension (i.e. a very high upper wishbone mounted to the top of the suspension tower) and a car fitted with Mac struts, i.e. virtually no structural difference that I can see that might make any significant difference to crumple zones or whatever.
The actual chassis structures are almost identical, save for some holes that allow fitment of the upper wishbones. It is in fact so similar that I think it would be relatively easy to fit Mac struts to a Honda chassis intended to use double wishbones...
10-17-2008, 03:29 PM
#22
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: fontana, ca, united states
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: diffrence between multi link and double wishbone (unbreakable_35)
like really i dont get how double wishbone performs good in the corner is it because most of things on the double wishbone design is so complex and the tire rods are straight and has negative camber and wouldn't multi link be a better suspension design since it has more links to the axle?
10-18-2008, 06:39 AM
#23
Honda-Tech Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Nowhere and Everywhere
Posts: 29,530
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
46 Posts
Re: diffrence between multi link and double wishbone (unbreakable_35)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by unbreakable_35 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">like really i dont get how double wishbone performs good in the corner is it because most of things on the double wishbone design is so complex and the tire rods are straight and has negative camber and wouldn't multi link be a better suspension design since it has more links to the axle?</TD></TR></TABLE>
Are you referring to the multi-link design used by Audi that was posted above? While that may have certain advantages, it's complicated as hell and has 10 ball joints total on the front end vs. only 6 total for traditional double-wishbone designs. Ball joints can fail, and I'd rather have 6 than 10 potential failures up front.
Are you referring to the multi-link design used by Audi that was posted above? While that may have certain advantages, it's complicated as hell and has 10 ball joints total on the front end vs. only 6 total for traditional double-wishbone designs. Ball joints can fail, and I'd rather have 6 than 10 potential failures up front.
10-18-2008, 10:01 AM
#24
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: fontana, ca, united states
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: diffrence between multi link and double wishbone (PatrickGSR94)
yeah i see and no i wasn't talking about the Audi suspension which is on top
I've heard that multi link is like double wishbone but mainly the design is more for street than track
I've heard that multi link is like double wishbone but mainly the design is more for street than track
10-18-2008, 01:43 PM
#25
Honda-Tech Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Nowhere and Everywhere
Posts: 29,530
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
46 Posts
Re: diffrence between multi link and double wishbone (unbreakable_35)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by unbreakable_35 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">yeah i see and no i wasn't talking about the Audi suspension which is on top
I've heard that multi link is like double wishbone but mainly the design is more for street than track</TD></TR></TABLE>
never heard anything like that. Most all cars with independent rear suspension use a mutli-link setup. All Hondas have a multi-link rear suspension. Even cars with Mac struts usually have multi-link in the rear. In the case of most Toyotas with Mac struts, there are 2 transverse arms on each side, a trailing arm, and then the Mac strut assembly to locate the rear hubs/brakes.
I've heard that multi link is like double wishbone but mainly the design is more for street than track</TD></TR></TABLE>
never heard anything like that. Most all cars with independent rear suspension use a mutli-link setup. All Hondas have a multi-link rear suspension. Even cars with Mac struts usually have multi-link in the rear. In the case of most Toyotas with Mac struts, there are 2 transverse arms on each side, a trailing arm, and then the Mac strut assembly to locate the rear hubs/brakes.