Avid Racing Maverick Max Build

[BrianReno]

Changing the tie rod mounting in the front is ok so I see no reason this should be an issue.[It is a fixed pivot link, not a dynamic steering link. The rules say that all suspension pivoting points must remain stock.

This is what the rule book states:

UTV-5 SUSPENSION:​

Pro Production UTV class​

​

​

​

​

All suspension mounting points must remain the stock​

design and in the stock location and position as delivered from the manufacturer,​

however they may be reinforced for strength. Any suspension point mounted with​

a single bolt, may be changed to a 2 bolt mount design. Either side of the original​

pivot points may be used to remount the 2 suspension points.

 

[facteryfmf]

Changing the tie rod mounting in the front is ok so I see no reason this should be an issue.

x2 !

 

[tatum]

This is what the rule book states:

UTV-5 SUSPENSION:​

Pro Production UTV class​

​

​

​

​

All suspension mounting points must remain the stock​

design and in the stock location and position as delivered from the manufacturer,​

however they may be reinforced for strength. Any suspension point mounted with​

a single bolt, may be changed to a 2 bolt mount design. Either side of the original​

pivot points may be used to remount the 2 suspension points.

I suppose it it depends on if you count a tie rod as a suspension mounting point.

 

[tatum]

Changing the tie rod mounting in the front is ok so I see no reason this should be an issue.[It is a fixed pivot link, not a dynamic steering link. The rules say that all suspension pivoting points must remain stock.

I have no dog in this fight. Please explain the advantage gained and why Marc would protest.

 

[badassmav]

I have no dog in this fight. Please explain the advantage gained and why Marc would protest.

I will be glad to elaborate on the advantage gained by changing the pivot location of the rear links. I will say first that Marc is not a protesting type. I however could be, because I can always back my point with facts.

Can-am's "Torsional Trailing A-arm" (TTA) design is complex in that in pivots on 2 separate axial planes in relationship to the wheelbase. One at 35 degrees (inner pivots), and the other parallel to it (outer pivots). In this format, the item you refer to as a rear tie rod is not a tie rod at all. Rather, it is a compliant link meant to control the alignment of the uprights as the suspension travels. I'll go out on a limb here and draw an analogy to the Acura NSX. When it came out in the late 1980's, Pat Gauss, an Autoweek contributor, boasted about its compliant 5 link, all aluminum rear suspension, stating how the 5th link controlled the upright throughout the wheel travel, maintaining negligible bump steer. The item you refer to as a tie rod, in this case, is a necessary dynamic component of the rear suspension in maintaining propoer alignment throughout the wheel travel. If the Mav had 4 wheel steering, then I could see calling it a tie rod. But it doesn't.

If that little technical excursion didn't boil your brains, let me add this:
We asked Cory if we could alter said pivot point when building the MonsterMav, and his answer was a resounding NO! So, I went to work on maintaining the stock pivoting point, and because I just cant quit, we persevered. The attached image is just one of many tries I had at figuring out how to make shit shine.

I apologize as coming across as crass, because I consider you a friend Hans. You know me well enough to know that I am a terchnical wizard in suspension dynamics. I'm sure you expected a response no less than what i offered. I loved the opportunity you gave me to educate though. It makes me feel worthy, in an otherwise worthless world.

 

[tatum]

I will be glad to elaborate on the advantage gained by changing the pivot location of the rear links. I will say first that Marc is not a protesting type. I however could be, because I can always back my point with facts.

Can-am's "Torsional Trailing A-arm" (TTA) design is complex in that in pivots on 2 separate axial planes in relationship to the wheelbase. One at 35 degrees (inner pivots), and the other parallel to it (outer pivots). In this format, the item you refer to as a rear tie rod is not a tie rod at all. Rather, it is a compliant link meant to control the alignment of the uprights as the suspension travels. I'll go out on a limb here and draw an analogy to the Acura NSX. When it came out in the late 1980's, Pat Gauss, an Autoweek contributor, boasted about its compliant 5 link, all aluminum rear suspension, stating how the 5th link controlled the upright throughout the wheel travel, maintaining negligible bump steer. The item you refer to as a tie rod, in this case, is a necessary dynamic component of the rear suspension in maintaining propoer alignment throughout the wheel travel. If the Mav had 4 wheel steering, then I could see calling it a tie rod. But it doesn't.

If that little technical excursion didn't boil your brains, let me add this:
We asked Cory if we could alter said pivot point when building the MonsterMav, and his answer was a resounding NO! So, I went to work on maintaining the stock pivoting point, and because I just cant quit, we persevered. The attached image is just one of many tries I had at figuring out how to make shit shine.

I apologize as coming across as crass, because I consider you a friend Hans. You know me well enough to know that I am a terchnical wizard in suspension dynamics. I'm sure you expected a response no less than what i offered. I loved the opportunity you gave me to educate though. It makes me feel worthy, in an otherwise worthless world.

I understand what the link is for I just didnt see the advantage to moving it unless you cant keep the correct geometry with the stock location. I also had no idea you where told you cant move this but it still seems like a tie rod to me. My interpretation of the rules doesn't matter though.

 

[Ignore Amos]

I understand what the link is for I just didnt see the advantage to moving it unless you cant keep the correct geometry with the stock location. I also had no idea you where told you cant move this but it still seems like a tie rod to me. My interpretation of the rules doesn't matter though.

This is considered a Tie Rod that is NOT part of the suspension which Cory at the Henderson race agreed with. I'm sorry he didn't agree with you on your previous car but maybe we made a better case.

 

[mearsman]

In the long run it made the MONSTERMAV faster and a better handling car. So everything happened for a reason

 

[badassmav]

This is considered a Tie Rod that is NOT part of the suspension which Cory at the Henderson race agreed with. I'm sorry he didn't agree with you on your previous car but maybe we made a better case.

That's awesome for you, but wasn't so awesome for us at the time. So Cory, does that mean I can relocate the rear radius rods on my new Polaris build? After all, the rear links on the Polaris serve a similar function as do the rods on the Can-am. I have been designing a new suspension around ther stock pivots as the rules require, but can take a huge advantage of moving the location and function of the rear radius rods. How say you, Cory? Can we relocate the pivot points for our new Polaris, or are you again going to show why a competitor shouldn't be allowed to make (bend) the rules in a class in which he competes in?

Reason # 568 why society sucks ass. The politics of favoritism. This is why Marc doesn't want me to post. I call it as I see it. Cory already bitched to Marc about a door bar on our new build, but allowed a fundamental suspension change on a team members car that he wouldn't allow us to do in the past. Nice. Handicap us as you will, we will still prevail. I'm out of words on this topic........

 

[badassmav]

In the long run it made the MONSTERMAV faster and a better handling car. So everything happened for a reason

No, in the long run, it made me work longer, harder hours to get the results I was looking for. As if 100 hour weeks aren't enough, I get to work a bit more because of someone else's agenda. confirmation is all it is.

 

[mearsman]

I hear what you're saying my friend, however I don't believe you would've been satisfied if it wasn't theoretically perfect

 

[Ignore Amos]

I can guarantee that Cory shows us no favoritism.. again, you cant accept the premise that we made a better case than you.. sure go feel sorry for yourself as you usually do.. how the world is again showing its mean side to you... your self pity parties get old. We too had to move the side protection bars and make other changes per Cory...we get the same amount of scrutiny that every other BITD car gets. Sure we have pushed the limits but never with the intent to break any rules. Have a Wonderful Christmas...I'm going to go back to sharing this wonderful day with my family and friends.

 

[BiggJim]

Hopefully the #D10 dont make contact with those spares, that big ass bumper might send both of those deals flying in one nerf

 

[badassmav]

Since this is your thread, I will respectfully back off. I made my point, and it is black and white. You were allowed to move your pivots, we were not. Plain and simple. It has nothing to do with presentation of the facts to Cory. I just want your car to be in every race you choose. Hopefully, we choose the same races. 12 total.

 

[NIKAL]

No shit! If you can move that suspension link on a Can Am then Hell I will start calling the rear links on the Polaris Tie Rods too! They look just like tie rods, more so then the Can Am!

One more reason why I have been vocal about having a Tech Director being a racer and also being attached to a Manufacture. Such a conflict of interest!

It's probably a very good thing I don't currently have a vested interest in this class. Because I can assure you I would be taking legal action if I had a financial interest, plus sponsorships involved.

I had a sponsor years ago that offered to cover any protest that we might need to file. They were at a race and asked about a vehicle, which had questionable parts on it. When he found out the only way the series would investigate or penalize a team was to pay and formally protest, he got pissed and told us he would cover any future cost on our end.

 

[Glamisfan]

Reid, how do you figure the motion ratio? You state that 18" front travel with a 13.5" shock = .75 I divide 18 by 13.5 which = 1.33

 

[XPirate]

Reid, how do you figure the motion ratio? You state that 18" front travel with a 13.5" shock = .75 I divide 18 by 13.5 which = 1.33

Divide 13.5 by 18... .75

 

[badassmav]

Reid, how do you figure the motion ratio? You state that 18" front travel with a 13.5" shock = .75 I divide 18 by 13.5 which = 1.33

A shock motion ratio is quantified as a percentage of shock stroke relative to vertical wheel travel. In the example above, 13.5/18=.75, 0r 75%. The shock will compress 3/4" (75% of 1") for every vertical inch the wheel bumps. If you reverse the equation above as you have, the product is expressed as a mechanical leverage. That equation is good when working with fulcrums and lever arms.

For example, my front top a arm has a 25.3" long pivot axis (center of inner pivot to center of outer uniball/ball joint), while the shock is mounted 22.1" from the inner pivot. 25.3/22.1=1.14. Expressed as a ratio, it is1.14:1, which means that a vertical load of 1000 lbs. applied at the centerline of the uniball, will exert a force of 1,140 lbs. (1,000 x 1.14=1,140) at the shock/spring. The motion ratio comes in when the shock is not cycling at the same rate that the wheel is traveling.

The Popo's are a great example of this problem. Not only is there a mechanical leverage acting upon the coil over due to its mounting location on the a arm, there is also an inefficiency factor of the spring rate vs. wheel rate as a result of the shock being positioned at an angle relative to the pivot axis of the a arm. It is expressed as a product resulting from the SIN of the angle (angle being the angle the shock is positioned relative to the pivot axis of the arm). On the XP's utilizing stock shock mounting, these operating angles can be as low as 35 degrees. Look at most any RZR XP from the front, and the operating angle of the shock is painfully obvious. Most builders maintain the stock shock mounting locations so there are plenty of options available to the consumer regarding brands of shocks that will fit their car. Then, some offer extended arms, and motion ratios go through the roof as a result!

So, with all that being said, lets calculate just how much builders are asking of the coilovers they squeeze into their builds.
Let's throw out some hypotrhetical numbers. Lets say the front axle weight of a car is 850 lbs. Divide it by 2, and we have 425 lbs. weighing down onto one of the front tires. We'll use a constant of 5 g's, which quantifies the maximum expected impact load the front end might see during a race. So, 425 lbs. x 5 times the force of gravity = 2,125 lbs. That is the amount of energy, expressed in pounds, that one of the coil over shocks needs to resist. Keep in mind, that is a wheel rate, not a spring rate. Assuming a linear progression, 2,125 lbs. / 18" of wheel travel = 118 lbs per inch. So, if the car had a live axle front end, and the spring/shock was mounted vertical, the spring rate would be equal to the wheel rate (a motion ratio of 1), and the spring would have to be rated at 118 lbs/inch. But, lets factor in the actual mounting position of the coil over, and see how much more spring we will need to resist our projected maximum impact load of 2,125 lbs. per corner (wheel):

Using approximate numbers from our new build, as outlined above, we take the mechanical leverage into account at 1.14 x 2,125 = 2,423 lbs.. Then, the inefficiency of work being performed through an angle (average coil over to pivot axis angle is 48 degrees on our car), which is 48 sin = .75. Divide .75 1, and we are needing 1.33 times more spring to resist our impact. SO, multiply the original calculated spring rate of 118 lbs. per inch by the mechanical leverage as a result of the mounting location of the coilover of 1.14:1, and we get 134.5. Times that by the inefficiency of the operating angle, which was 1.33, and we get a coil spring rate of 178.9 lbs per inch! That is a whopping 66% more work we are asking the coil spring to do. So, we have a wheel rate of 118 pounds, and a spring rate of 178 pounds. These numbers are using my front end as a model. If I used a stock shock mounting location, the inefficiency quotient would be far above double the work that the shock needs to perform because a fabricator was lazy. And people wonder why the Monster Mav cleaned house as heavy as it was. TYhe above example is what makes the Mav "BADASS"

Thanks to this lesson, I get to go back out and work til 2 a.m this morning, but it was worth it to educate the laymans, and even the experienced fabricator. Maybe we'll start seeing shock angles decrease as a result of this lesson, but I doubt it. Good. Another victory lies ahead for us then!!

 

[Trinity Racing]

Looks you you need a Trinity Racing exhaust system on that bad ass Maverick.

 

[Gilroyboy]

A shock motion ratio is quantified as a percentage of shock stroke relative to vertical wheel travel. In the example above, 13.5/18=.75, 0r 75%. The shock will compress 3/4" (75% of 1") for every vertical inch the wheel bumps. If you reverse the equation above as you have, the product is expressed as a mechanical leverage. That equation is good when working with fulcrums and lever arms.

For example, my front top a arm has a 25.3" long pivot axis (center of inner pivot to center of outer uniball/ball joint), while the shock is mounted 22.1" from the inner pivot. 25.3/22.1=1.14. Expressed as a ratio, it is1.14:1, which means that a vertical load of 1000 lbs. applied at the centerline of the uniball, will exert a force of 1,140 lbs. (1,000 x 1.14=1,140) at the shock/spring. The motion ratio comes in when the shock is not cycling at the same rate that the wheel is traveling.

The Popo's are a great example of this problem. Not only is there a mechanical leverage acting upon the coil over due to its mounting location on the a arm, there is also an inefficiency factor of the spring rate vs. wheel rate as a result of the shock being positioned at an angle relative to the pivot axis of the a arm. It is expressed as a product resulting from the SIN of the angle (angle being the angle the shock is positioned relative to the pivot axis of the arm). On the XP's utilizing stock shock mounting, these operating angles can be as low as 35 degrees. Look at most any RZR XP from the front, and the operating angle of the shock is painfully obvious. Most builders maintain the stock shock mounting locations so there are plenty of options available to the consumer regarding brands of shocks that will fit their car. Then, some offer extended arms, and motion ratios go through the roof as a result!

So, with all that being said, lets calculate just how much builders are asking of the coilovers they squeeze into their builds.
Let's throw out some hypotrhetical numbers. Lets say the front axle weight of a car is 850 lbs. Divide it by 2, and we have 425 lbs. weighing down onto one of the front tires. We'll use a constant of 5 g's, which quantifies the maximum expected impact load the front end might see during a race. So, 425 lbs. x 5 times the force of gravity = 2,125 lbs. That is the amount of energy, expressed in pounds, that one of the coil over shocks needs to resist. Keep in mind, that is a wheel rate, not a spring rate. Assuming a linear progression, 2,125 lbs. / 18" of wheel travel = 118 lbs per inch. So, if the car had a live axle front end, and the spring/shock was mounted vertical, the spring rate would be equal to the wheel rate (a motion ratio of 1), and the spring would have to be rated at 118 lbs/inch. But, lets factor in the actual mounting position of the coil over, and see how much more spring we will need to resist our projected maximum impact load of 2,125 lbs. per corner (wheel):

Using approximate numbers from our new build, as outlined above, we take the mechanical leverage into account at 1.14 x 2,125 = 2,423 lbs.. Then, the inefficiency of work being performed through an angle (average coil over to pivot axis angle is 48 degrees on our car), which is 48 sin = .75. Divide .75 1, and we are needing 1.33 times more spring to resist our impact. SO, multiply the original calculated spring rate of 118 lbs. per inch by the mechanical leverage as a result of the mounting location of the coilover of 1.14:1, and we get 134.5. Times that by the inefficiency of the operating angle, which was 1.33, and we get a coil spring rate of 178.9 lbs per inch! That is a whopping 66% more work we are asking the coil spring to do. So, we have a wheel rate of 118 pounds, and a spring rate of 178 pounds. These numbers are using my front end as a model. If I used a stock shock mounting location, the inefficiency quotient would be far above double the work that the shock needs to perform because a fabricator was lazy. And people wonder why the Monster Mav cleaned house as heavy as it was. TYhe above example is what makes the Mav "BADASS"

Thanks to this lesson, I get to go back out and work til 2 a.m this morning, but it was worth it to educate the laymans, and even the experienced fabricator. Maybe we'll start seeing shock angles decrease as a result of this lesson, but I doubt it. Good. Another victory lies ahead for us then!!

Well played Sir well played, you have definitely opened my eyes to shock setup. thanks ! now make me a setup for my Mav haha