Bellcrank vs. Direct Steering
 

So what do you see as being the pros and cons between bellcrank steering and direct steering? Touring car designers seem to put a lot of effort into optimizing the bellcrank assembly, while pan cars do just fine without it.

Here's what I can see as the advantages of each:

Bellcrank:
adjustability
tunability
better bump-steer characteristics

Direct:
simplicity

It probably comes down to the bump steer issue, which would affect TCs much more than pan cars due to the far greater suspension travel.

Another thing I could think of is space. There could be not enough space for current TC designs to fit a direct/mono crank steering. But if you remember, the first X-ray TC that ever came out had mono-crank steering.

It would be hard to fit a belt through the center of the chassis with a servo in the way.


Most bellcrank designs are very simple, but allow more tunability than a direct linked method as well.

Good point. :smile:

is it bellcrank is ankerman ?

No, you still have Ackerman effect with either type of steering. The Ackerman is determined by the geometry of the steering knuckle.

I vote belcrank, primarily for adjustments. I run a custom made central ackerman that allows about 50 different settings (front/back and side to side) because my car only has one at the knuckle and thats before you shim anything.

Pan cars have direct, the best part is that you don't have the 0.01mm of slop per ball joint that touring cars end up with.