Talk:Beam axle

Deletion of large slabs of text

Read the banner - it says text may be deleted /after/ being challenged. Greglocock (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

camber gain in roll

The article says the lack of camber gain in roll is a disadvantage. That's true, but many suspensions don't even have 100% camber recovery, so the outer wheel actually leans outward when body roll is taken into account. So sure, the beam axle is at a disadvantage compared with a suspension that has been set up that way but most aren't. Macpherson in particular has a huge issue with this. Greglocock (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you a Mazda MX-5 owner? I'm joking (kinda; dissing MacPherson struts is archetypal Miata fanboy behavior). I've added a little more explanation and reduced the number of absolutist statements, but I'm trying to keep this simple and avoid jargon, and I don't want to delve into a point-by-point comparison of beam axles versus every other type of suspension; that would rapidly become overwhelming. Carguychris (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

No I'm a professional suspension designer (well, vehicle dynamics engineer, but I am one of two people who usually sets the hardpoints up). MacP is certainly a usable design that can be made to work nicely, in fact the lack of camber recovery is good for a road car as it helps to inject some limit understeer. Greglocock (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

"space efficient" claim

In my experience a front beam axle is not space efficient compared with an IFS because the possible set of locations of the axle (and diff) form an envelope that is generated using the entire jounce travel to rebound travel and roll, whereas in an IFS only the wheel moves that much, the centre doesn't move at all. This means the engine must be placed higher and steering rack location becomes interesting. Greglocock (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)