revisiting anti-squat geometry on my mr2

[Wolfenstein]

I'm gonna start with a basic question for you guys to see if it meshes with what I'm thinking. I understand that in a mcpherson strut arrangement antis are generally determined by tilting the lower a arm and that the upper strut mount is essentially considered the virtual upper a arm based perpendicular off the strut. That said, what if you don't have a lower a-arm, but instead have a single lateral lower control arm bar with an intersecting radius rod. This is a picture of the mr2 rear suspension?

http://www.mr2turbo.info/pics/800x600/dcp_2099.jpg

In this picture the foreground is the vehicle front and the background is rear. Since this is the rear suspension, I would assume that an increase in anti-squat would come via spacing the ball joint down or moving the front of the radius rod up. Is this correct?

 

[BrianPetersen]

Draw a line in space between the center of the bushing where the lower lateral link is attached to the chassis, and the bushing where the radius rod attaches to the chassis. It acts like an A-arm with that same pivot axis. All the same principles apply.

The radius rod design allows some fore/aft compliance (for better ride quality) but that has no bearing on how the antisquat forces apply.

I don't see how tinkering with the height of the ball joint would change antisquat by any meaningful amount. You have to play with the chassis-end pivot axis of the lower arm / radius rod assembly.

 

[Wolfenstein]

Ok, So it is essentially acting as an A-arm on a diagonal. I was under the assumption that because the forward arm was basically parallel longitudinally with the car, that it was acting more like a trailing arm. Now what if the two arms were divorced from each other? That's how the awd Celicas were of the same era or a late Fiero for that matter. Something like this with a a fixed control arm, an adjustable toe control arm and a divorced forward radius rod.

http://i426.photobucket.com/albums/pp343/kbeaty47/Rear.jpg

In this case is the anti squat purely decided by the angle of the radius rod?

 

[Wolfenstein]

This is an better image of a stock alltrac celica rear.

http://www.gtfours.co.uk/pics/suspension/205/006.jpg

Is the anti-squat built into the "trailing arm" angle?