So upon testing my rides in Beam NG I thought something was a bit off when it came to suspension functionality. This got me to do some comparison testing…
I’ve made identical cars with two different suspension types and tested how they react under load after exporting them to Beam NG.
The results seem to be opposite to what they should be. Here is the quick video:
Macpherson acts more like DWB with minimal camber change, while DWB acts like a single armed MacP and bends with rotation and massive camber.
If this topic needs to be in a different thread, please let me know.
Well, don’t take me as a suspension expert now, but having no changes in camber is not necessarily a good thing (that would make the Morgan front suspension ideal I guess, lol!). One of the advantages a DW suspension actually has is that you can build some camber compensation into it in a way a McP would not allow for. That’s also one of the reason why many older DW equipped cars (like Volvo 140, 1st gen Mustang) are far from “sporty” in stock form. The Shelby lowering of the Mustang front suspension moved the mounting points of the upper control arm so it would give more negative camber with suspension travel (instead of positive camber like the stock suspension), thus decreasing understeer, for example.
But I am sure some suspension expert can give a way better explanation here.
The Double Wishbone is an excellent application to limit or minimize camber once the wheel is under load. This is something that happens when you export MacPherson struts into Beam.NG as seen in the video above. MacPherson on the other hand is simpler , cheaper and space saving, but it has only one wishbone and under compression rotates the whole wheel towards inside of the car. This happens when you export the Double Wishbone into Beam.NG.
The point being that the roles are reversed when car is exported.
This is not supposed to be anything regarding technical nuances with specific manufacturers, only an obvious bug that needs to be sorted out.
Alright… So yes the camber changes are minimal. It proves my point perfectly. Now view my video. The “mac” truck has macpherson front exported to BeamNG and the “dwb” truck has double wishbone setup exported to BeamNg. Look at how both react and tell be if it should be the other way around?
Why is this so hard to point out?
Again, look at the video I’ve made at the top of this thread. Mac is macpherson and dwb is double wishbone. Look at how the truck reacts to compression in both. Point being it should be the other way around.
I am watching the video. The negative camber increases more on the double wishbone setup than on the strut setup. “Minimal camber change” means the tires will stay more vertical on the strut setup under compression, which is what exactly I’m seeing. This is correct and true to reality. I’m not sure where you’re getting crossed up here. Double wishbones are desirable on sports cars because the camber gain during body roll keeps the outside tires flatter in relation to the road surface while cornering. Cars with strut suspensions set up for competition use need to run an alignment with more static camber to compensate for the lack of camber gain in corners. You’re visualizing this all wrong in your head.