New Version of the 4 Link Calculator

[Treefrog]

Yepp this is where its coming from it seems.

Thank you. This makes it a bit easier to track.

Can you copy the equation in the upper left of the "#Name"s? and I am assuming that the front also has "#Name" starting in the index location?

Edit: What operating system and version of excel are you using?

 

[93blackxj]

Thank you. This makes it a bit easier to track.

Can you copy the equation in the upper left of the "#Name"s? and I am assuming that the front also has "#Name" starting in the index location?

Edit: What operating system and version of excel are you using?

Rear:

=_xlfn.SWITCH(E283,0,IF(ISBLANK(B281),B283,B281),1,"Coil Slider Stop",2,"Coil Slider Stop",3,B283)

Front:

=_xlfn.SWITCH(H283,0,IF(ISBLANK(B281),B283,B281),1,"Coil Slider Stop",2,"Coil Slider Stop",3,B283)

I am running excel 2016

 

[Treefrog]

Rear:

=_xlfn.SWITCH(E283,0,IF(ISBLANK(B281),B283,B281),1,"Coil Slider Stop",2,"Coil Slider Stop",3,B283)

Front:

=_xlfn.SWITCH(H283,0,IF(ISBLANK(B281),B283,B281),1,"Coil Slider Stop",2,"Coil Slider Stop",3,B283)

I am running excel 2016

That solves that. It seems the switch function is only available in office 2019 and office 365.

Its a fairly easy fix, so I should have a fixed version out later tonight.

Thank you for bringing the issue to my attention and for helping me trouble shoot it.

 

[Treefrog]

Thanks to 93blackxj, an issue regarding some values was brought to my attention and tracked down. Since this issue is due to older versions of Excel not having some of the newer functions, it seemed like a good idea to check if any other functions that are in use have the same issue. And the answer was yes.

In version 6.4, cells using these equations have been reworked to use different methods. The results and functionality have not changed. I believe that the calculator should work in Excel 2013 and newer.

Also fixed an mistake regarding the displaying of units on some values on the Driveshafts page.

 

[93blackxj]

Also fixed an mistake regarding the displaying of units on some values on the Driveshafts page.

Glad you were able to get it figured out.

I also was going to mention something about the driveshaft stuff. Did you fix the +/- for the rear tcase angle? I had to flip the sign to get the numbers to match up with my model.

 

[Treefrog]

Glad you were able to get it figured out.

I also was going to mention something about the driveshaft stuff. Did you fix the +/- for the rear tcase angle? I had to flip the sign to get the numbers to match up with my model.

I'll take a look. is it the top view or side view that needs looking into?

 

[93blackxj]

I'll take a look. is it the top view or side view that needs looking into?

Rear side view transfer case yoke angle. It says negative is below horizontal but I have to set it positive to match up with the numbers in my model.

 

[Treefrog]

Version 6.5 is going up in a few seconds.

Bunch of fixes in this one.

Weights, dropdown selections, and rod ends on Link Sizing page.

Plot scaling and in incorrectly linked cell on Vehicle Pitch.

Thanks to some help from 93blackxj , found a mistake in the sign convention in the math for the front driveshafts. The values for all angles and lengths should be correct now.

And changed it so that the version shown at the top now pulls the version from the revision page. No more forgetting to update it. I hope.

 

[93blackxj]

Thanks to some help from 93blackxj , found a mistake in the sign convention in the math for the front driveshafts. The values for all angles and lengths should be correct now.

Glad that I could help! This is a great resource, even when having a 3d model, so that you can test what the adjustments will do and decide if it will be worth it before going through the trouble of changing the model. Thanks for the work you have put into it.

 

[Treefrog]

And version 6.6. Missed a fix on the pinion u-joint angle. Maybe soon all the little errors will be worked out.

 

[No way]

Loving the metric option, thanks




Had a slight WTF moment until I realized you labeled the cells "mm" but your calculations are actually in centimeters

 

[Treefrog]

Loving the metric option, thanks




Had a slight WTF moment until I realized you labeled the cells "mm" but your calculations are actually in centimeters

Uh, calculations are done in inches? Inputs and charts should be metric.

 

[FJ73]

Figured it out. For some reason I have it converting the antis from imperial to metric like the rest of the values. A fixed version should be out in a day or two. But in the mean time, the correct values are at the top of the calculations page under "Link Calculations".

On a different note, what are you building? Those are some tall portals. And you have rather heavy and large axles.

I'm building a buggy form mainly social wheeling but also complaint with the "Tuff Truck" rules its the largest rock crawling event we have here in Australia. The portals are from a u1700 unimog i brought them from the military auction without siting them and the photos didnt do them justice lol.
i need to run a 20" to fit over the portals. Ls1 c4 atlas 42 krawlers landrover inspired panels.
I brought both diffs for less then 4 hummer portal boxs so it was also budget minded and i like not being the same as 20 other competitors with hummers and v6.

 

[No way]

Uh, calculations are done in inches? Inputs and charts should be metric.

Never mind I R dumb.


When I entered my measurements in millimeters the charts looked all wonky at first due to the base data in the cells being so far off. So, I changed to centimeters and everything looked better.

I now realize it really doesn't matter if you enter in mm, cm, dm or whatever. As long as all your input is scaled the same the charts will follow suit once all input cells are entered the same way.




On another note:
What are decent "Rule of thumb" Anti dive/anti lift numbers? I'm at 51% / 43% but I really don't know what to think of it for a crawler.

 

[Treefrog]

Never mind I R dumb.


When I entered my measurements in millimeters the charts looked all wonky at first due to the base data in the cells being so far off. So, I changed to centimeters and everything looked better.

I now realize it really doesn't matter if you enter in mm, cm, dm or whatever. As long as all your input is scaled the same the charts will follow suit once all input cells are entered the same way.




On another note:
What are decent "Rule of thumb" Anti dive/anti lift numbers? I'm at 51% / 43% but I really don't know what to think of it for a crawler.

Those sound okay, the big thing is that they stay on one side of 100% in all conditions. Such as 100% rear drive bias and full travel.

 

[Treefrog]

Version 6.7

Thanks to 93blackxj 's help the equations for the front and rear driveshafts angles have been completely sorted out.

The issues stemmed from trying to keep everything in the same coordinate system and have the inputs in a slightly different system for user ease.

 

[The Freeak]

I searched- is there an updated 3 link calculator too?

 

[Treefrog]

I searched- is there an updated 3 link calculator too?

The 3 link calculator has been built into the 4 link version since version 4.0.

 

[The Freeak]

Well. I COMPLETELY missed that. My bad.

 

[IH-SSII]

Can anyone tell me why I get "Document opened in read Only Mode" for ver 6.7 when I attempt to enter numbers? Cannot modify/change anything. I'm running Open Office 4.1.10.
The previous version I use, 5.3 opens fine.

Thank you for this wonderful resource.

 

[Treefrog]

Can anyone tell me why I get "Document opened in read Only Mode" for ver 6.7 when I attempt to enter numbers? Cannot modify/change anything. I'm running Open Office 4.1.10.
The previous version I use, 5.3 opens fine.

Thank you for this wonderful resource.

Make sure that the file isn't set to read only in its properties.

Also: [Solved] Document opened in Read only mode (View topic) • Apache OpenOffice Community Forum

 

[YeeP]

Can anyone tell me why I get "Document opened in read Only Mode" for ver 6.7 when I attempt to enter numbers? Cannot modify/change anything. I'm running Open Office 4.1.10.
The previous version I use, 5.3 opens fine.

Thank you for this wonderful resource.

Can you please expand on opening this file with Open Office? I tried LibreOffice last night for a while and it just cannot read a lot of the VBA Macros properly. Throws syntax errors all over the place.

Trying to decide if I should just buck up for Office 365. Anyone know if the spreadsheet functions well on that platform?

Guess in the mean time I'll install OpenOffice and give it a shot.

EDIT: Installed Open Office 4.1.11, enabled macros via security settings and there are errors everywhere. I would ASSume this works on Office 365. Can anyone confirm before I throw more money at this (Bought Office 2016 last night as well then fought on getting it to run in Wine for a couple hours).

EDIT 2: I have purchased Office 365, It seems to have a formula problem as soon as I change the wheelbase. I am downloading the desktop app to my work machine so that should work.

 

[Treefrog]

Can you please expand on opening this file with Open Office? I tried LibreOffice last night for a while and it just cannot read a lot of the VBA Macros properly. Throws syntax errors all over the place.

Trying to decide if I should just buck up for Office 365. Anyone know if the spreadsheet functions well on that platform?

Guess in the mean time I'll install OpenOffice and give it a shot.

EDIT: Installed Open Office 4.1.11, enabled macros via security settings and there are errors everywhere. I would ASSume this works on Office 365. Can anyone confirm before I throw more money at this (Bought Office 2016 last night as well then fought on getting it to run in Wine for a couple hours).

EDIT 2: I have purchased Office 365, It seems to have a formula problem as soon as I change the wheelbase. I am downloading the desktop app to my work machine so that should work.

It was made in 365, so I hope it works. I seem to remember the web browser version not liking macros, the desktop version should have no issue.

But the issue with using macros has been brought up by a few now. I will take a look at removing that side of things for more compatibility.

 

[YeeP]

It was made in 365, so I hope it works. I seem to remember the web browser version not liking macros, the desktop version should have no issue.

But the issue with using macros has been brought up by a few now. I will take a look at removing that side of things for more compatibility.

I appreciate your work on this, I read through the version sheet and can tell you have been at it for a while.

 

[chaplinfj60]

good morning

so i actually did my numbers last night. and it looks good. but i dont know how read them. i do feel like my rig is super stable. i mean super.
i will add a couple of screen shots along with the file.

thanks

 

[YeeP]

Treefrog I am working on a design as well and have seen what chaplinfj60 is seeing on his chart

Any tips on what it means when the point of convergence (assuming that is what we are seeing on the rear axle) is going down almost vertically like that?

 

[chaplinfj60]

when i look at the top and side view of the links they do loo look pretty close to that on the vehicle. now i could very well have my sprung and unsprung weight mixed up, i just took a stab at that, not even sure that will make a difference. the over all weight is with in a hundred pounds for sure though.
i also do not know how to read my anti squat or anti dive numbers off this one. maybe i am missing it.

 

[Treefrog]

good morning

so i actually did my numbers last night. and it looks good. but i dont know how read them. i do feel like my rig is super stable. i mean super.
i will add a couple of screen shots along with the file.

thanks

Interesting, looks like there is a failure in the geometry calculation. I'll take a look at it after work tonight.

Treefrog I am working on a design as well and have seen what chaplinfj60 is seeing on his chart

Any tips on what it means when the point of convergence (assuming that is what we are seeing on the rear axle) is going down almost vertically like that?

It shouldn't be going straight down like that. Something is causing an error. If you are willing to, post screenshots of the data input section so that I have 2 sets of numbers to trouble shoot with. Only other thing I can think of is to open a fresh copy of the file and see if it has the problem as well.

when i look at the top and side view of the links they do loo look pretty close to that on the vehicle. now i could very well have my sprung and unsprung weight mixed up, i just took a stab at that, not even sure that will make a difference. the over all weight is with in a hundred pounds for sure though.
i also do not know how to read my anti squat or anti dive numbers off this one. maybe i am missing it.

The inputs are total mass and unsprung mass. Unfortunately you can't use the spring deflection method for unsprung.

None of the values are plotting it seems, so that's probably why you are having a hard time reading them.

 

[YeeP]

It shouldn't be going straight down like that. Something is causing an error. If you are willing to, post screenshots of the data input section so that I have 2 sets of numbers to trouble shoot with. Only other thing I can think of is to open a fresh copy of the file and see if it has the problem as well.

I have started over with a fresh copy of the file already in an attempt to find where the calculation issue happens. I also have noticed that the front pinion calc is flat lined similar to the above.

EDIT:
Screenshots:

 

[chaplinfj60]

i will redo it easy day more to follow