Hi! I have a problem , i wanted to completely lift a covet suspension with coilovers. i know how changing height etc work , and i also know that there is something limiting it. (at a certain point the suspension wont get higer anymore and gets extremely stiff) I wanted to know how i can increase the limit. eg ; to increase the beam precompression on the coilovers to 2 while still having an ok damping and get the suspension even higher than it is possible right now. Thanks in advance!
Probably take a look under //hard travel limit in hatch_suspension_F.jbeam and hatch_suspension_R.jbeam EDIT: Oops, I'm afraid that makes no difference, at least at the front. Completely removing the beams in that section doesn't affect (downwards) limiting at all for the front suspension. I did not check the back.
doesnt really help on the rear aswell. i tried to replace some stuff from the with d-series (suspension) beam setups on the covet suspension , but it somehow didnt make a difference at all , or broke the suspension. i have no clue how this could work atm
well , the suspensions dont have coltris at all. dont know if i explained it right. what i did was for example copying the "beamdeform:xxx" from the d-series over the covet's "beamdeform:yyy" to make it the "beamdeform:xxx". no nodes were moved. just replaced some numbers - that's why i dont know how nodes hitting coltris could be a problem caused by the number replacing i did.
I didn't say that you caused the problem. If you remove the struts the Covet's suspension still won't move any farther. Clearly something is stopping the movement at each end, even with the //hard travel limit beams removed. Coltri's are certainly present in that area and so are nodes. (the suspension has nodes and the wheelwell has coltris) ... with all that said, I don't really think that this is the issue. It might be, but I assume that there's another beam limiting things somewhere.
Ah , i understand. i'm still trying tomake it possible , but with no luck. maybe someone else knows an answer.
I spent quite a bit of time poking around. It appears that the limiting factors are both the hard limits and the suspension anti-invert. The hard limits can be commented out, although I'm sure there's some downside. The anti-invert requires more finesse. Both the short bounds and long bounds are an issue here, some beams are limited one way and some another. Increasing the limits too much allows accidental inversion. It's easier to check for that without shocks or wheels installed. To get the attached screenshots I ended up changing: suspension anti-invert hard travel limit ride height (plus I turned ride height all the way up in the UI - could have done it from the JBEAM, whatever) Scroll through this difff to see the precise changes highlighted - https://www.diffchecker.com/NE98bubb As you can see, the changes were enough to get the driveshafts clipping through the lower arms. EDIT: Bumping the "$rideheight_F" variable much higher than 2.0 results in really poor geometry and not much additional height. The wheels get sucked in a lot. If you needed more you'd have to make some other changes to the jbeam (install longer wishbones).
You can simulate bolt-on-portal-axles when moving down the wheels in the jbeam (there is a node offset behind the wheels in the slots part of the suspension, reduce the Z axis position). That way, when you model the bolt-ons, you have a pretty realistic setup. I did the same on my ETK SUV offroad variants.
thats good to know. for a cheap lifted covet suspension this is the perfect solution. thanks, i'll try to apply it when i've got time. This also sounds really interesting. but for a cheap covet this is probably too advanced. i might try this out on real offroad versions of some cars. should turn out pretty nicely. Thank u!
Well, maybe not too advanced; it's bolt-on after all! Just too expensive. I hadn't heard of bolt-on portals before, that sounds promising like it would be really cool. It doesn't sound like bolt-on portals are really available though. Tibus doesn't post a pricelist after 2+ years and AIM (Axletech International Motorsports) just shows testing video / etc on their website 7 years after demoing the bolt-ons to Fourwheeler mag - and they appear to have no availability through their "distributors". http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/gene...-running-tibus-killer-axles-bolt-portals.html :-( You're welcome.
No, they're bolt on since the axles are taken from the normal G. I've read a quite interesting artice about the car, unfortunately it's German. The frame is taken from military G 6X6 that were made for the Australian army, Mercedes decided to create a RHD version afterwards and selled that to a few other countries. The body is taken from the civil G class, cut after the D-pillar. The springs come out of the bullet proof safety G class, the engine and trans are taken from AMG. The only big part that were actually made for the vehicle is the pickup bed. I guess the vehicle only could be made with reused parts, keeping development costs low, since not many of them get selled ( but if I had the money )
Thanks for the link @Bernd - surprising and interesting! I wonder what the portal boxes are re-used from? They are certainly bolt-on, but AMG also did more than just bolt them on! They have welded in strong trusses. Here are some clear pictures: rear portal - front portal - from this Car and Driver article Actually I believe that those are LeTech portals. http://offroadnewswire.com/aftermar...g-class-portal-axle-system-at-sema-show-2014/
Nice pictures! The LeTech really look similar, it would just make sense to take them from someone instead of developing them, since they are only used on this single car.
