Not Applicable
Not Applicable
1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to the drive axle of a vehicle, specifically to the use of axle torque to enhance the performance and suspension of a vehicle.
2. Background of the Invention
When a vehicle accelerates forward weight is transferred towards the rear of the vehicle. This weight transfer causes additional weight to be placed on the rear of the vehicle compressing the suspension. Similarly weight is transferred off the front suspension lightening the load on the front axle. For many years this was not a problem but as the power output of engines and the traction of tires increased the weight transfer became so great in some high performance vehicles as to cause insufficient weigh to remain on the front axle, and thus the front tires, resulting in a lack of steering control.
Inventors have addressed this problem in many ways, but all with the same aim; to limit the amount of vertical front suspension or wheel travel. U.S. Pat. No. 4,353,571 to Anderson acknowledges this. This invention allows a motorcycle to be ridden with the front wheel not in contact with the road surface but a ‘wheele bar’ attached behind the rear wheel and used as a stabilizer. It should be noted, however, that there is no steering control for the rider using the above mentioned device.
Another problems associated with the power gains of modern engines is the driving axle causing a twisting or ‘winding up’ effect on a typical leaf spring type suspension. As early as 1965 solutions were being sought and U.S. Pat. No. 3,191,711 from this date is an early attempt. It should perhaps be noted that this invention uses the principle of my invention, that is, axle torque, but used to lower the rear of the vehicle for improved traction of the rear tires. While effectively solving the problem of axle ‘wind up’ it was later discovered that raising the car beneficially altered the moment of the center of gravity for improved traction. U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,098,523 and 5,354,092 are other examples of typical solution to the problem of axle ‘wind up’ but do nothing to address the problem of the lack of steering control mentioned above.
A chassis design proposed by Jones, U.S. Pat. No. 4,988,120 addresses both problems by limiting the amount the front suspension is allowed to travel with the use of ‘wheelie bars’, mentioned above, U.S. Pat. No. 4,353,571, Anderson. However if the weight transfer of acceleration has sufficient inertia, weight can actually be transferred from the rear wheels to the wheelie bar causing a lack of traction for the rear tires.
Another problem, particularly for motorcycles, is created by improvements to the brakes. This problem is the opposite of the rearward weight transfer described above. During braking weight is transferred forward. If the braking force is powerful enough the rear wheel(s) can lose contact with the road with a resulting loss in braking efficiency and control. The solution provided by my invention uses the reaction to engine torque, or wheel mass inertia on braking, coupled to a simple linkage or other means, to reverse the effects of weight transfer on the vehicle's suspension.
Summit and others racing parts catalogues, circa 1970 to present.
Accordingly, some of the objects and advantages of my invention are;
Further advantages of my invention will become apparent from the following drawings and description.
In accordance with the present invention a vehicle having a means to provide power to a driving axle which contains an arm assembly which reacts with equal and opposite force to this application of power. The arm assembly is connected by a linkage and rocker system or other means to a position on the chassis where this force can act upon the chassis or frame to control suspension movement.
In the drawings, closely related figures have the same number but different alphabetical suffixes.
A preferred embodiment of my reactive axle and suspension system is illustrated in
As one of the objects of my reactive axle and suspension is to create an upward thrust at the rear of a vehicle this may compromise the some of the normal functions of the sophisticated suspensions used today. In
Sub-frame (22) now becomes the rocker (15) of
Another method of operating is shown in
The reactive axle assembly is shown in
Newton's third law of motion tells us that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction thus a clockwards turning of axle (31) causes an equal and opposite reaction and thus turns reaction arm (13) counter clockwards within the hub carrier (34). Mounting holes (35) provide a means to attach hub carrier to the arms of the vehicle's suspension. Also shown in this example is a disc brake caliper (36) fitted to the reaction arm (13). The drive means and wheel mass posses kinetic energy which will act in the opposite fashion to axle torque when the brakes are applied and lower the rear of the vehicle.
In
The reactive system described in
It should also be noted that in most forms of competition any aerodynamic devices must be rigidly attached to the chassis even though it is acknowledged that movable parts would operate more efficiently. This is a method where rigidly mounted aerodynamic devices are rigidly mounted to the chassis. The chassis described uses conventional attachment methods but an force is applied to the chassis in a new manner. This force causes the chassis itself to change its shape with speed for maximum efficiency.
As described above the purpose of this invention is to provide an upward thrust at the rear of the vehicle. Although never tested due to the infinite permutations it is reasonable to assume that engine torque could provide a complete suspension system for certain vehicles. As an added advantage this would eliminate the weight and cost of conventional springs and mounting hardware while benefiting from the safety of better steering control.
The above drawings and descriptions have illustrated the workings of my reactive axle. The reaction axle assembly is so versatile it can be used in almost any vehicle; motorcycles, circuit racing cars, and dragsters have been used as examples here.
A single disadvantage to this system could be found on automobiles with ‘live’ rear axles as drive line fidelity would be compromised. A way of overcoming this would be to have the axle mis-aligned when the car is not moving and correctly aligned when the vehicle is under power. Different length reaction arms could ensure the axle's alignment stays within the tolerances of the drive shaft coupling.
Some vehicles may be able to use this system where the axle torque lifts or supports the weight of the rear of the vehicle. Top levels of drag racers and speedway motorcycles are examples of this.
A new generation of racers using front wheel drive cars are making new demands on traction. Previously, as described above, the problem was a lack of steering control as weight was transferred to the rear. With front wheel drive the problem also becomes one of lack of traction as weight is removed from the driving tires. One of the objectives of my reactive axle is add weight to the front axle which will take front wheel drive cars to a level of performance previously unattainable.
Although I have not provided examples of my reactive axle the creative minds of racers will find many ways of using the reactive axle to lift the rear of the car adding weight to the front driving axle for better tire traction.
The examples above all refer to the invention as used in competition machines. High performance vehicles are common place on the road. Many of today's performance vehicles use sophisticated electronics to control the suspension. Typically they use shock absorber stiffness to control suspension movements. The purpose of the reactive axle is to create suspension movement. An example of a comparison of the differences would be on heavy braking: Stiffening the shock absorbers electronically on braking would restrict the front of the car ‘diving’ and the back would stay at an almost even level. With a reactive rear axle the front of the car would still ‘dive’ but so too would the rear of the car. Thus the car would also remain somewhat level, although lower. Anyone who has seen the television advertisements of vehicles being crash tested against a solid wall may have noticed the rear of the vehicle usually leave the ground. With the rear of the vehicle lowered as in this example the possibility of the rear wheels of the vehicle leaving the ground becomes less due to the lower center of gravity. Furthermore, in this example, if the reactive axle assembly was also fitted to the front of the vehicle it would control the ‘diving’ of the front under braking. Axle torque is greater at slower speeds through the torque converting mathematics of gear ratios. The problems that this invention looks to overcome occur at lower speeds due to this torque multiplication. It seems fitting to harness this torque to solve the problem.
This application claims the benefit of Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/354,380 filed Feb. 7, 2002.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3191711 | Conner | Jun 1965 | A |
3277975 | Van Winsen | Oct 1966 | A |
3484091 | Draves | Dec 1969 | A |
3573882 | Van Winsen | Apr 1971 | A |
3601385 | Senter | Aug 1971 | A |
4098523 | Valero | Jul 1978 | A |
4108267 | Valerio | Aug 1978 | A |
4282945 | Bessay | Aug 1981 | A |
4353571 | Anderson | Oct 1982 | A |
4572317 | Isono et al. | Feb 1986 | A |
4813702 | Arai et al. | Mar 1989 | A |
4988120 | Jones | Jan 1991 | A |
5029893 | Walton et al. | Jul 1991 | A |
5098121 | Walton et al. | Mar 1992 | A |
5108127 | Chandler | Apr 1992 | A |
5123672 | Walton et al. | Jun 1992 | A |
5127887 | Nuttall | Jul 1992 | A |
5458359 | Brandt | Oct 1995 | A |
5803200 | Brandt | Sep 1998 | A |
5971654 | Sweeney, Jr. | Oct 1999 | A |
6167361 | Bristow et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6386565 | Kugler | May 2002 | B1 |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60354380 | Feb 2002 | US |