I wonder if there is anything that makes it impossible to allow for a combination of longitudinal FWD and torsion beam suspension in the game? I think that some Audis used that combination for real if I’m not wrong. I understand the conflict with the possibility of RWD with longitudinal engines and the impossibility of RWD with the torsion beam suspension, on the other hand there is a transverse AWD option that I think disappears when you choose torsion beam suspension, so is it impossible to let all options except FWD disappear when using torsion beam suspension on a longitudinal engined car?
I think it this point its merely a limitation in the game’s platforming system. Suspension types are characteristics of a platform whereas drive configuration is the characteristic of a trim. So if you choose longitudinal engine, then the game assumes the car will be RWD or at least support it in which case you cannot use torsion beam.
Although if you choose torsion beam with transverse engine, it does ban the AWD option… hmm. Wait. Why isn’t torsion beam allowed with longitudinal engine?
Yeah, that explanation is quite bizarre, because I can promise you there’s A LOT of longitudinal engines with torsion beams. Hell, I own one:
Torsion beam is not the same thing as torsion bars which you have up front. Torsion beam is a type of rear axle on front wheel drive cars that can act a bit like a torsion bar to improve the comfort and handling compared to a solid rear axle.
Oh, totally confused my beams and bars. Derp.
Three years later and still remains a mystery…
Is there any good reason why this can’t be adjusted? I accept that if that’s the case, I’m just curious.
On a somewhat related topic, Mazda was able to package a twist beam axle with AWD on the new Mazda 3. Seems like something that could be implemented into the game fairly easily. Also, why can’t I build an econobox with MacPherson strut rear suspension? It was a pretty common setup in the 1990s and 2000s, examples being the Subaru Impreza and Dodge Neon.
Now that sounds interesting. Is it like a De Dion but allowing some independent movement, or how does it work?
For the Automation devs, it’s probably an example of “This requires special art and very few people will use it so we don’t want to spend the effort.” But I’ll give another example of drive on a torsion beam:
Yes, my favorite odd duck that breaks all the rules! This is a transverse rear-engine, rear-wheel drive car, with a torsion beam rear! Even though this is technically produced by mercedes now, I chalk it up to French engineering ideals where everything has to be different for some reason.
This view is looking backwards, from in front of the rear-engine. The torsion beam is a VERY deep U-shape!
I believe the smart car rear suspension would be classified as a De Dion setup. I actually work at a Mercedes Benz dealer and have handled the tubes, they are extremely thick and heavy, I doubt they bend significantly. Instead, the beam pivots around a center rubber bushing. A twist beam would have two bushings, one near each corner.
Yeah. Though maybe it would be better suited with an off topic thread about odd suspension setups on cars. I hope you understand me right now, it is a VERY interesting topic to me but it doesn’t answer my question after 3 years, and I think that there is enough suspension systems in Automation at the moment, and that De Dion and swing axles probably are the most important ones missing, if there should be more of them added. Though what I would like is to be able to combine L-FWD + torsion beam suspension, and I wonder if there is any good reason why it is not possible?
Yeah, I see, I guess I don’t see any reason why it’s not possible. A lot of body/engine types would be impossible to finish, since the engine might be too long for longi FWD. But, it still seems a little harsh to restrict the option entirely. Especially since, the code for limiting to FWD only is already in place and used in transverse-engine cars with the torsion beam rear. Perhaps @Killrob can weigh in?