Can you do a vid comparing the pros and cons of SLA/Wishbone suspension over McPherson struts? I love your teaching style and think it would be a great video. It is a topic I see often on forums and in suspension conversations with strong opinions either way.
Suspension was for me a big topic that i didnt know much about and is a still questionmark for me. Your videos are explain very well the different sub topics. Great work
after so many other convoluted videos, im glad I found your channel with clear and concise video with an easy to follow explanation of the differences. Thanks!
Excellent video, thank you! I have been wanting to improve the suspension on my 2014 Mustang and all signs point to replacing the rear panhard rod with a watts link system. However there never exactly was an explanation of *why* the watts link is better. This gives me a great deal more confidence moving forward with this project. Your voice and delivery of the presentation is also up there with some of the best TED speakers ive ever heard.
Great! I just stumbled upon a watts link without knowing what it was. Thanks to you I now know, also with additional knowledge. All in less time than I anticipated it would take to begin with. Thank you! 🤩
Best explanation I've ever watched. I run a frame mounted watts link in my triangulated 4 link in my Cutlass with rubber bushings. Started with Poly bushings and it was a no-go as the bushings would bind up unsettle. Switching to rubber made the car a dream to drive, the axle no longer shifted left to right settling into a corner and I could change the rear roll center with a single bolt and select how much over/understeer I wanted for a certain track.
I'm so enjoyed to these vids as I'm the Ranger Raptor owner, and I've so appreciated the car's performance on and off-road, you cleared my question on why Bronco's Panhard but Ranger Raptor adopted Watt's link. Thanks a lot.
Firstly, I'm loving these videos. They are instructive and easy to understand so thanks very much for that. The question I have is in regards to the watts linkage. My car is equipped with a 4 link trailing arm and watts link. If you google 91 Australian Ford Fairlane you will see the car I have. As an update in the 96 model (EL Falcon) they dropped the pivot point 20 millimetres to lower the roll centre. There was also some changes to the mounting points for the trailing links as well. What would the effect be in fitting that diff hat to my car? Bare in mind it's built for comfort and in its natural form can understand quite strongly with a sudden transition to oversteer. One of the main problems is the steering ratio is slowish around the centre to half turn. So I was kind of hoping that a change in the rear roll centre would delay the transition to oversteer. Hopefully I've explained that well enough! Thanks.
Thanks for replying and thanks for watching. I am not familiar with the Australian Falcons but lowering the watts link would have had the effect of lowering the roll center by the same amount. I've read this helped stabalize the car but the change was made as part of a much larger package of changes so it's hard to pinpoint what actually made the cars better. Here's a forum a friend of mine sent me that talks about the changes: www.fordforums.com/threads/whats-the-difference-between-ea-and-ef-l-rear-suspension.11130/ I hope this helps.
@@suspensionsexplained thanks for the reply and the link. I might have a play around with it and see what happens as it could be a nice cheap mod to tidy up the handling a little. I do know I have a couple of different holes to mount the upper arms to the diff housing but not as many as the later ones which had a few suspension variants. But yes, I appreciate your answer and the information that you freely put out in your videos. Looking forward to the next one!
What is your opinion on using a suspension like this . (4link with watts link) use heim joints on all positions. Except where they mount to the frame, in those positions use joints use either rubber or polyurethane bushings . Do you think this would give a decent ride. Every thing I know I learned from studying and some work on lowered trucks and race cars. Part of my study was a degree I earned from trucking magazine. Haha.. I had to build my own parts . I had a two link and kept one leaf spring to locate the diff. Far from perfect but it worked.. had air suspension. I really wanted a 4link with watts link. The tire size and rim width didn't leave room for side to side movement a panhard bar would allow. being a small amount I still didn't want any, it only had about 7"-8"of travel at most unless fully aired up. And this was rare.. thanks fof all the great videos! ✌️
Like your video. Will you make one comparing a triangular upper or lower center link that controls not only what a four link does, but also controls lateral movement because of the rigid triangle link, similar to some old Lotus cars. I’m also interested in the roll center height and how it affects cornering. With the Lotus design, I think you are limited to a low roll center. Thanks, very interesting!
Keep it simple. A Panhard rod means the vehicle will handle good in one direction and bad in the other direction. A Watts link will handle either good or bad in both directions. If you really want to get confused, try working with a Mumford link rear axle control.
What about triangulated 4-link rear suspension? Lower links are parallel to the frame, Upper links are "triangulated" i.e the axle mounting points are close together approximately at the center of the rear axle (above diff housing). This system doesn't need Panhard bar or Watts links.
can result of Panhard Rod be that with time one side of car be more up and another more down because of asimetrical forses? Sorry if I understand wrong, wideo is very clear but im not profesional. Thanks for shareing knowlege
Awesome video, I watch a lot of Matt's Offroad recovery, even though I don't do any offroading, and I always wondered what the heck is going on with that giant horizontal link in their vehicles. So all the movement that the Panhard rod allows is from bushings deflections? That makes it sound like design of bushings is a huge deal in this suspension type in particular?
I'm not sure if I'm saying this right, but I'll have a crack at it... If the control arms are triangulated from the top view, then the lateral motion is technically already constrained, so adding a Panhard rod would introduce bind (the severity would depend on the angles of the links and length of the rod), and would require deflection of some component for the suspension to travel. But if the links are parallel (top down view) the axle is free to move side to side so it can follow the ark of the Panhard rod without bind. So, to answer your second question... Yes, the design of the bushings would have to allow enough deflection for the design of the suspension or something will likely break, but not all 4 links will have that problem. All of that bushing deflection is less than ideal for performance, so this particular suspension is probably making a sacrifice in that aspect to gain somewhere else like packaging or something. A 3 link with a watts link or Panhard can operate bind free, so solid spherical rod ends work fine. Technically, all non-parallel 4 links will bind in roll... they try to twist the axle, but the amount is usually minimal. I have, however, seen ladder bars break front rod ends and I suspect it's due to that kind of bind.
Just to clarify, most of what you are saying is correct, however, a non-parallel 4 link will not bind in roll. With 4 links, there are 2 degrees of freedom available: roll and vertical movement. There is no binding. Introducing a Panhard rod or even a Watts link will introduce binding though. The use of bushings in the links will eliminate the binding and allow the system work. The Watts link adds control and lateral stiffness while the bushings add comfort. The best of both worlds.
@suspensionsexplained sorry, i meant non-parallel in side view. The side view swing arm will cause the axle to rotate forward on the side that compresses and back on the side that extends. Unless the links are parallel and SVSA is infinitely long.
Shawn, i have a BSME from Duke University and an MSME from Georgia Tech. I also have 31 years experience in the auto motive industry focused on chassis design and engineering
@@suspensionsexplained I love that UA-cam has provided a platform for the public to glean a ton of knowledge from a seasoned industry professional, what a time to be alive. I have a BSME from UConn and now work in the MEP controls industry, but the automotive industry fascinates me. Kudos to you for putting this knowledge out there, and I hope your channel takes off.
The roll center for a panhard rod is where the rod crosses the center of the vehicle. For a Watts link it is at the pivot point of the link where it attaches to the differentcial.
You wouldn't run double triangulated 4-link suspension with either a panhard or a watts. Triangulating the arms creates a lateral locating force, making a separate locating link unnecessary. Adding a locating link also causes binding since the main links and the lateral links create different roll centers. Even with bushing deflection you're going to run into trouble combining the two. Once watched a video that accidentally displayed exactly this problem. A fabricator posted the video to "prove" the watts link was garbage that caused binding. He had put it on a double-triangulated 4-link.
What you are saying is true if the links are all perfectly stiff and the joints are all heim joints. But if the joints are rubber bushings then a Watts link will still be an improvement since the compliance of the rubber allows the Watts link to do its job. It will also be a much more comfortable car to drive in.
@@suspensionsexplained ...what you're describing is a total compromise. What John is saying holds true. Very, very, very few people will install sloppy rubber bushings in a triangulated 4 link so they can add a Watts...
Actually, you will need some compliance in the other links if you want to use a Watts link or a Panhard rod. Both try to move the roll center away from where the 4 main links place it so you MUST have some compliance in the bushings in order to stop the whole thing from binding. What both do is allow you to have high lateral stiffness (for good cornering and steering response) while using relatively soft bushings to get longitudinal compliance for good ride and comfort. As far as compromise is concerned, absolutely EVERYTHING in suspension design is a compromise of some sort. You just have to have your priorities set before you start your design.@@anonymousplanetfambly4598
That depends on other things. The axle is still moving with the suspension so there is still a lot of unsrpung mass. If the corners are rough, it will still cause the axle to bounce a bit and "skate" in the corner. Having said that, using a Watts link or Panhard rod will make the rear feel much more "planted" and confident in a corner. The vehicle will turn in more sharply and precisely and will feel much more confident.
I race with a watts link. ignoring the handling benefits honestly, it's smoother. ride quality is way better. I can go 100% throttle over bumpy tracks without any issue. my panhard bar always had issues with bumps.
I have Thise car now whith leaf springs And i am a technician And now an inválid butt my wife buyd this raptor And years before i had a toyota land ruiter Tj 82 And this system was the best And also now for my raptor
Decent beginning to the video...but the decision making behind the engineering used for your example (the "Raptor") wasn't adequately explained. In that application, yes the Watts was a good decision for lateral location due to significant suspension excursions and no need to have the absolute lowest roll center. However, for on-road performance applications, the Watts is a poor choice compared to the Panhard, which has fewer moving parts, requires fewer modifications, and would have a lower roll center compared to a Watts. To simply state "the Watts link works better" isn't necessarily true.
You are correct that a Panhard rod has fewer parts but it is also asymmetrical. The placement of the roll center could indeed be lower with a panhard rod but only if the rod is installed in a low position which may not be desirable for ground clearance and structural reasons since the roll center will be at the height where the rod crosses the centerline of the vehicle. It is also true that a Watts link will have one of the links below the roll center while the Panhard rod is right at the roll center but there are ways to mitigate this somewhat, which is what the Raptor does. For shear performance, I stand by my claim that a Wats link is superior, even if it is more complex.
Hello, coming over from SuperfastMatt's video.
Welcome! Glad you are here.
Can you do a vid comparing the pros and cons of SLA/Wishbone suspension over McPherson struts? I love your teaching style and think it would be a great video. It is a topic I see often on forums and in suspension conversations with strong opinions either way.
Suspension was for me a big topic that i didnt know much about and is a still questionmark for me. Your videos are explain very well the different sub topics. Great work
after so many other convoluted videos, im glad I found your channel with clear and concise video with an easy to follow explanation of the differences. Thanks!
Excellent video, thank you! I have been wanting to improve the suspension on my 2014 Mustang and all signs point to replacing the rear panhard rod with a watts link system. However there never exactly was an explanation of *why* the watts link is better. This gives me a great deal more confidence moving forward with this project. Your voice and delivery of the presentation is also up there with some of the best TED speakers ive ever heard.
I saw someone do this with their dana 50 front axle on their excursion. Watts linked explained! Thank you for the thorough explanation!
Great!
I just stumbled upon a watts link without knowing what it was. Thanks to you I now know, also with additional knowledge. All in less time than I anticipated it would take to begin with. Thank you! 🤩
Best explanation I've ever watched. I run a frame mounted watts link in my triangulated 4 link in my Cutlass with rubber bushings. Started with Poly bushings and it was a no-go as the bushings would bind up unsettle. Switching to rubber made the car a dream to drive, the axle no longer shifted left to right settling into a corner and I could change the rear roll center with a single bolt and select how much over/understeer I wanted for a certain track.
I'm so enjoyed to these vids as I'm the Ranger Raptor owner, and I've so appreciated the car's performance on and off-road, you cleared my question on why Bronco's Panhard but Ranger Raptor adopted Watt's link. Thanks a lot.
I hope to learn a lot from you as a suspension enthusiast
These videos are absolutely excellent!! Thank you for passing on knowledge!
I would love a video between 4 unequal length link vs equal length links on live axles
Firstly, I'm loving these videos. They are instructive and easy to understand so thanks very much for that. The question I have is in regards to the watts linkage. My car is equipped with a 4 link trailing arm and watts link. If you google 91 Australian Ford Fairlane you will see the car I have. As an update in the 96 model (EL Falcon) they dropped the pivot point 20 millimetres to lower the roll centre. There was also some changes to the mounting points for the trailing links as well. What would the effect be in fitting that diff hat to my car? Bare in mind it's built for comfort and in its natural form can understand quite strongly with a sudden transition to oversteer. One of the main problems is the steering ratio is slowish around the centre to half turn. So I was kind of hoping that a change in the rear roll centre would delay the transition to oversteer. Hopefully I've explained that well enough! Thanks.
Thanks for replying and thanks for watching. I am not familiar with the Australian Falcons but lowering the watts link would have had the effect of lowering the roll center by the same amount. I've read this helped stabalize the car but the change was made as part of a much larger package of changes so it's hard to pinpoint what actually made the cars better. Here's a forum a friend of mine sent me that talks about the changes: www.fordforums.com/threads/whats-the-difference-between-ea-and-ef-l-rear-suspension.11130/
I hope this helps.
@@suspensionsexplained thanks for the reply and the link. I might have a play around with it and see what happens as it could be a nice cheap mod to tidy up the handling a little. I do know I have a couple of different holes to mount the upper arms to the diff housing but not as many as the later ones which had a few suspension variants. But yes, I appreciate your answer and the information that you freely put out in your videos. Looking forward to the next one!
What is your opinion on using a suspension like this . (4link with watts link) use heim joints on all positions. Except where they mount to the frame, in those positions use joints use either rubber or polyurethane bushings . Do you think this would give a decent ride. Every thing I know I learned from studying and some work on lowered trucks and race cars. Part of my study was a degree I earned from trucking magazine. Haha.. I had to build my own parts . I had a two link and kept one leaf spring to locate the diff. Far from perfect but it worked.. had air suspension. I really wanted a 4link with watts link. The tire size and rim width didn't leave room for side to side movement a panhard bar would allow. being a small amount I still didn't want any, it only had about 7"-8"of travel at most unless fully aired up. And this was rare.. thanks fof all the great videos! ✌️
Thank you for this great video and your great content. I run a specialty suspension shop so I really appreciate this.
Like your video. Will you make one comparing a triangular upper or lower center link that controls not only what a four link does, but also controls lateral movement because of the rigid triangle link, similar to some old Lotus cars. I’m also interested in the roll center height and how it affects cornering. With the Lotus design, I think you are limited to a low roll center.
Thanks, very interesting!
Keep it simple. A Panhard rod means the vehicle will handle good in one direction and bad in the other direction. A Watts link will handle either good or bad in both directions. If you really want to get confused, try working with a Mumford link rear axle control.
Awesome video. Thank you for sharing ... from South Africa
Great video! Thank you!
What about triangulated 4-link rear suspension?
Lower links are parallel to the frame,
Upper links are "triangulated" i.e the axle mounting points are close together approximately at the center of the rear axle (above diff housing).
This system doesn't need Panhard bar or Watts links.
Nice explanation
can result of Panhard Rod be that with time one side of car be more up and another more down because of asimetrical forses? Sorry if I understand wrong, wideo is very clear but im not profesional. Thanks for shareing knowlege
can you please do a video on caster angle?
Awesome video, I watch a lot of Matt's Offroad recovery, even though I don't do any offroading, and I always wondered what the heck is going on with that giant horizontal link in their vehicles. So all the movement that the Panhard rod allows is from bushings deflections? That makes it sound like design of bushings is a huge deal in this suspension type in particular?
I'm not sure if I'm saying this right, but I'll have a crack at it...
If the control arms are triangulated from the top view, then the lateral motion is technically already constrained, so adding a Panhard rod would introduce bind (the severity would depend on the angles of the links and length of the rod), and would require deflection of some component for the suspension to travel. But if the links are parallel (top down view) the axle is free to move side to side so it can follow the ark of the Panhard rod without bind. So, to answer your second question... Yes, the design of the bushings would have to allow enough deflection for the design of the suspension or something will likely break, but not all 4 links will have that problem. All of that bushing deflection is less than ideal for performance, so this particular suspension is probably making a sacrifice in that aspect to gain somewhere else like packaging or something.
A 3 link with a watts link or Panhard can operate bind free, so solid spherical rod ends work fine. Technically, all non-parallel 4 links will bind in roll... they try to twist the axle, but the amount is usually minimal. I have, however, seen ladder bars break front rod ends and I suspect it's due to that kind of bind.
Just to clarify, most of what you are saying is correct, however, a non-parallel 4 link will not bind in roll. With 4 links, there are 2 degrees of freedom available: roll and vertical movement. There is no binding. Introducing a Panhard rod or even a Watts link will introduce binding though. The use of bushings in the links will eliminate the binding and allow the system work. The Watts link adds control and lateral stiffness while the bushings add comfort. The best of both worlds.
@suspensionsexplained sorry, i meant non-parallel in side view. The side view swing arm will cause the axle to rotate forward on the side that compresses and back on the side that extends. Unless the links are parallel and SVSA is infinitely long.
Good video. What is your educational and work related background?
Shawn, i have a BSME from Duke University and an MSME from Georgia Tech. I also have 31 years experience in the auto motive industry focused on chassis design and engineering
Hey man, did you happened to work for Tesla back in the early model S days?
@@suspensionsexplained I love that UA-cam has provided a platform for the public to glean a ton of knowledge from a seasoned industry professional, what a time to be alive. I have a BSME from UConn and now work in the MEP controls industry, but the automotive industry fascinates me. Kudos to you for putting this knowledge out there, and I hope your channel takes off.
check out the watts link wheel every weekend made!
Can you comment on roll centres for panhard and watts,
The roll center for a panhard rod is where the rod crosses the center of the vehicle. For a Watts link it is at the pivot point of the link where it attaches to the differentcial.
@@suspensionsexplained what if it’s not level?
Doesn't matter. it still forces the roll center to be where the link crosses the vehicle centerline.
@@suspensionsexplained thus Panhard link allow lower RC than Watts link, this may be relevant to choose among
this is so good
You wouldn't run double triangulated 4-link suspension with either a panhard or a watts. Triangulating the arms creates a lateral locating force, making a separate locating link unnecessary. Adding a locating link also causes binding since the main links and the lateral links create different roll centers. Even with bushing deflection you're going to run into trouble combining the two. Once watched a video that accidentally displayed exactly this problem. A fabricator posted the video to "prove" the watts link was garbage that caused binding. He had put it on a double-triangulated 4-link.
What you are saying is true if the links are all perfectly stiff and the joints are all heim joints. But if the joints are rubber bushings then a Watts link will still be an improvement since the compliance of the rubber allows the Watts link to do its job. It will also be a much more comfortable car to drive in.
@@suspensionsexplained ...what you're describing is a total compromise. What John is saying holds true. Very, very, very few people will install sloppy rubber bushings in a triangulated 4 link so they can add a Watts...
Actually, you will need some compliance in the other links if you want to use a Watts link or a Panhard rod. Both try to move the roll center away from where the 4 main links place it so you MUST have some compliance in the bushings in order to stop the whole thing from binding. What both do is allow you to have high lateral stiffness (for good cornering and steering response) while using relatively soft bushings to get longitudinal compliance for good ride and comfort. As far as compromise is concerned, absolutely EVERYTHING in suspension design is a compromise of some sort. You just have to have your priorities set before you start your design.@@anonymousplanetfambly4598
Will this keep the rear of the car from stepping out in a corner?
That depends on other things. The axle is still moving with the suspension so there is still a lot of unsrpung mass. If the corners are rough, it will still cause the axle to bounce a bit and "skate" in the corner. Having said that, using a Watts link or Panhard rod will make the rear feel much more "planted" and confident in a corner. The vehicle will turn in more sharply and precisely and will feel much more confident.
I race with a watts link.
ignoring the handling benefits honestly, it's smoother.
ride quality is way better.
I can go 100% throttle over bumpy tracks without any issue.
my panhard bar always had issues with bumps.
love fusion360 for this
I have Thise car now whith leaf springs And i am a technician And now an inválid butt my wife buyd this raptor And years before i had a toyota land ruiter Tj 82 And this system was the best And also now for my raptor
Decent beginning to the video...but the decision making behind the engineering used for your example (the "Raptor") wasn't adequately explained. In that application, yes the Watts was a good decision for lateral location due to significant suspension excursions and no need to have the absolute lowest roll center. However, for on-road performance applications, the Watts is a poor choice compared to the Panhard, which has fewer moving parts, requires fewer modifications, and would have a lower roll center compared to a Watts. To simply state "the Watts link works better" isn't necessarily true.
You are correct that a Panhard rod has fewer parts but it is also asymmetrical. The placement of the roll center could indeed be lower with a panhard rod but only if the rod is installed in a low position which may not be desirable for ground clearance and structural reasons since the roll center will be at the height where the rod crosses the centerline of the vehicle. It is also true that a Watts link will have one of the links below the roll center while the Panhard rod is right at the roll center but there are ways to mitigate this somewhat, which is what the Raptor does. For shear performance, I stand by my claim that a Wats link is superior, even if it is more complex.
i test drove both suspension i prefer watt link better control and comfy..!!
I’m not gay and this is in now way a flirtatious message but you are hypnotizing
Hello