Question about left front geometry

[Mr.Kennedy777]

But you also need to take into consideration that go karts handle so well because in relation to geometry and change due to chassis movement, and forces on the tires, you’ve essentially removed camber change when it’s undesirable (vertical movement and chassis roll are almost nil)

[Mr.Kennedy777]

This means the loading on the chassis comes down to changes on forces on the tires from the track, and not suspension geometry changes. This makes it have a better equilibrium on its surface. I guarantee you put that design on a late model you’ll have your hands full lol!!

[Mr.Kennedy777]

And I think was it you who mentioned the cantilever idea? It’s still going the same way.. but it all comes down to tires and the forces going through them. I don’t think it would change the ride quality in full hike because your bar angles would dominate anything coming through the cantilever, but it would allow for more hike, I think you might run into problems with steer, and it would be tight as hell. I don’t think it’s going the wrong way. Look at the weight distribution of a sprint car. They’re insanely fast on dirt. And considering they also run soft wheel rates (comparatively, to asphalt or F1). The biggest problem is the surface of the track. That’s why I think LR devices used to cushion the forces and control the loading on the LR somewhere along the connection of links to chassis and rear end are a good idea. But the one thing that’s missing from a dirt late model I think is the next step, is similar to a sprint car. A change in tire for RR. With how much further it keeps going to increase rear loading through LR and j bar, eventually these RR are gonna run out of steam. A wider tire would allow for more room to work I believe. A wider tire would take a bit of time to figure out, but would have its obvious benefits. Since that’s likely to never happen, we need to work on ways to make the cars more compliant, such as LR devices, and optimizing geometry. As aero becomes more important, front end geometry with added loading becomes more important because jacking forces increase proportionate to the vertical load, due to the relationship of overturning moment, pneumatic scrub, and vertical load (Mz=Fz x Pt) moment is torque, so that’s force across distance, N•m, lb-ft etc. When changing camber during travel you change pneumatic scrub and thrust characteristics, left front isn’t AS important, but at the same time, what you do to the left has an effect on the right because it can either move it to the right front or right rear depending on how changes were made in relation to the rear.

[Matt49]

Sprint cars are certainly fast but it sure isn't because of their complex front end geometry. It likely has a lot more to do with the fact that the driver has about 3/4 HP per 1 pound of weight at their disposal.
I think you're taking a lot of this feedback the wrong way. Nobody is trying to argue. You've posted an idea and we would assume you're looking for some feedback and some of that could come in the form of poking holes in your theory. I think you've defended it to the point that I believe you should (as someone else suggested) just try it and let us know what you learned.
You've clearly done your homework but you will find (as was previously mentioned) that many things discussed in great detail in vehicle dynamics books must be viewed with skepticism when you add in variables that were not considered AT ALL when the engineers that wrote those books wrote them. Unequal spring/wheel rates left to right, unequal static weight distribution, EXTREME suspension travel, extremely dynamic vertical center of gravity, etc., etc. We've introduced all of these things into the equation in our cars these days. These things throw all kinds of wrenches in even the simplest things including the roll center calculations. Take the classic front roll center drawings that we have all seen and used to calculate kinematic roll center. But it doesn't take into account spring rates because it assumes equal spring rates. That's a bad assumption to make on an oval dirt car isn't it? Put a 40,000 pound spring in the RF and tell me where the roll center just went. The vehicle dynamics books (at least not one I've seen) can really tell you this but the answer is pretty obvious. Bottom line is that if you take that stuff as complete gospel, you'll often find yourself scratching your head as to why what works in theory often doesn't work in practice.
But give it a shot. Don’t let anybody on here stop you from trying something you believe in. I imagine a lot of people told Skip Arp he was crazy when he was just talking about putting the spring behind the axle on the LR. But at some point he had to actually do it.

[Mr.Kennedy777]

what about reversing the connecting points of the suspension? Like top to bottom and bottom to top? It would push out the left front tire and lose positive camber under jounce, and then keep the spindle moving in favor of stable camber curve during roll? Does anyone have an idea what that would do to your caster and anti dive?

[Mr.Kennedy777]

Another thing I was thinking of, was if the points were reversed, so upper control arm attached to the bottom ball joint and vice versa, if the lower control arm had some type of pull bar or shock or combination of the two that would allow just enough movement to maintain camber during jounce, and was basically solid under compression, so that when the chassis rolled to the right, you could at least maintain camber, if not gain positive camber. It would put the rol center far left and low to the ground, it would be fairly stable and wouldn’t move much.