Can Am 2022 model line up.

.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand Shark said:
The front spindles hopefully don't have the ball joint over the top of the tire.  It would be an odd thing to do.  The rear suspension has a lot going on. Looks like it will now have 4 links and a new swaybar setup.  
Click to expand...
I saw that and thought, "Business as usual for CanAm."

 
CampfiresNbrews said:
The spindle/uprights look funky to me. Are they sitting above the tires? Shocks lower mounts definitely look to be inspired by Polaris. And is that a support bar tube coming off the top of the rear upright in the last picture? Interesting stuff. 
Click to expand...
The high-mounted upper control arm reduces the leverage the tire has on the mount. Packaging and tire fitment become issues, but it’s one way to reduce stress on the ball joint (by increasing vertical separation from where the rubber meets the, er, dirt) and improves steering and camber geometry. Good bet bumpsteer will be better and you won’t see crazy positive camber like the PoPo (as the pictures show). Another benefit is scrub radius is closer to center on the tire (looks slightly outside of centerline, which pairs well with front steer) since you can put the upper pivot in a spot that would otherwise be occupied by brakes. This should limit torque steer under power and improve steering feel.

Rear suspension appears to have some anti-squat built in. Not sure what they’re doing with the second longitudinal link though…  Maybe to work as a sort of "traction bar" since there's not much to resist rotational forces on the spindle?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also, second OEM with entire departments of suspension engineers who centered the damper on the axle centerline. Hmmmmm. Must be something important to burn so much profit on…  :biggrin:

 
Also also: looks like it finally has ground clearance at full bump. Lol

 
.
 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NIKAL said:
Yes they finally figured out why it’s way better to mount the shock off the lower arm. Even a non engineer guy could not figure that one out. But I’d bet the reason they are centering over the axle to to get around a patent. And because Polaris & Can Am still mount the rack & tie rods off the back of the arm they have no room for shock packaging unless they mount the shock over the axle. 
 

I believe Speed has two patents, one on shock location and one on steering location that the other manufactures are having to work around. 
 
Click to expand...
It is nice to see the manufactures finally move the front shock mount to the lower arm.  I have not looked a RG's patent, but maybe his patent is coupled with the front steer set up.  Polaris and Can Am are similar in design on the front lower shock mount and both have rear steer. 

Going to be interesting to see the final design of the front spindle once they release model. I would think they designed the spindle to have enough clearance for 35" tires.

 
NIKAL said:
Yes they finally figured out why it’s way better to mount the shock off the lower arm. Even a non engineer guy could not figure that one out. But I’d bet the reason they are centering over the axle to to get around a patent. And because Polaris & Can Am still mount the rack & tie rods off the back of the arm they have no room for shock packaging unless they mount the shock over the axle. 
 

I believe Speed has two patents, one on shock location and one on steering location that the other manufactures are having to work around. 
Click to expand...
I read the patent.  The "strut mounting" doesn't specify mounting the shock to the rear or the axle centerline, or really anything about its location on the lower control arm, only that it's mounted to it (that I saw).  Most of it is upper J arm (cool, but not really "better"), 90* at full bump (I don't think that's really patentable anyway, and is so specific you could make it 89.9* and be fine), and specifics about bushings and chit.

Honestly, I think he got the patent because he was the first to bother filing it, as none of this is really ground-breaking.  People have been running J-arms for a long ass time, just not on UTVs.

Also, found this nugget:

18. The lower suspension arm of claim 16, wherein the outboard mounting point is configured to receive a threaded shank comprising the rod-end joint and a lock-nut to fixate the threaded shank with respect to the lower suspension arm.

Uh.  Congrats.  You patented an inferior way to connect a spindle to the LCA.  I thought he was running uniballs in the lower control arm?  There was also some marketing literature that said "DOM equivalent tubing" for the chassis.  WTF is DOM equivalent? 

In any case, this is the patent I read. 

https://patents.justia.com/patent/20210331742

If there's another about shock mounting location on the actual LCA (not just to the LCA), it'd be interesting to read. My interpretation of the patent is competitors would have to avoid using a suspension design that mounts to the LCA, uses J-arms for the UCA, threaded rod ends in the LCA, and 90* at full bump.  Since the only thing PoPo and Canned Ham have in common appears to be the fact that the shock is mounted to the LCA, I doubt centering on the axle had anything at all to do with getting around a patent. There's a reason why every OEM manufacturer out there spends profit on lower shock mounting solutions (before Robby's Patent) to get the attachment as close to the axle centerline as possible, and also why those that do mount it offset put the sway bar attachment opposite the axle, and it's not Robby's patent. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand Shark said:
It is nice to see the manufactures finally move the front shock mount to the lower arm.  I have not looked a RG's patent, but maybe his patent is coupled with the front steer set up.  Polaris and Can Am are similar in design on the front lower shock mount and both have rear steer. 

Going to be interesting to see the final design of the front spindle once they release model. I would think they designed the spindle to have enough clearance for 35" tires.
Click to expand...
What will be interesting is how they saved unsprung weight on that humongor spindle/upright assembly.  My guess is it's hollow and has ample webbing.  

 
Rockwood said:
What will be interesting is how they saved unsprung weight on that humongor spindle/upright assembly.  My guess is it's hollow and has ample webbing.  
Click to expand...
It will certainly not be billet like the huge spindles you see on Class one and trophy trucks. 

Ample webbing for Can Am might be 100 rivets.  LOL!!!

 
Sand Shark said:
It will certainly not be billet like the huge spindles you see on Class one and trophy trucks. 

Ample webbing for Can Am might be 100 rivets.  LOL!!!
Click to expand...
Rosy needed something to do...

Rosie-the-Riveter-We-Can-Do-It-poster-J-Howard-Miller-circa-1942-1943-World-War-II.jpg


 
Rockwood said:
There's a reason why every OEM manufacturer out there spends profit on lower shock mounting solutions (before Robby's Patent) to get the attachment as close to the axle centerline as possible, and also why those that do mount it offset put the sway bar attachment opposite the axle, and it's not Robby's patent. 
Click to expand...
Every OEM mfr? Which ones? Are we still talking about UTVs?

Polaris? No.

CanAm? No.

Yamaha? No.

Kawasaki? No.

Honda? No.

 
Lord of the Dunes said:
No problem, Hillary Clinton.

:biggrin:
Click to expand...
Right. My point is I doubt that marketing ploy/patent means anything other than telling people "this suspension's soooooooo goood, we patented it!"


Just don't drink the Kool Aid too soon okay Pastor (Reverend? Father? Maharajah?), and check ID before entering. :biggrin:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, my point was you made a statement that was wrong. Totally wrong. Not even 1 single OEM UTV mfr mounted their front shock to the lower a-arm until after Speed did it.

You can mock all you want, just don't post BS and expect it to go unnoticed. Most people would apologize for being so wrong.

Maybe if you spent more time checking your facts before posting instead of looking up unrelated videos in an effort to deflect...  you'd have more credibility.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lord of the Dunes said:
No, my point was you made a statement that was wrong. Totally wrong. Not even 1 single OEM UTV mfr mounted their front shock to the lower a-arm until after Speed did it.

You can mock all you want, just don't post BS and expect it to go unnoticed. Most people would apologize for being so wrong.
Click to expand...
Well I hate to burst your bubble.  I present to you Exhibit A - the Wildcat XX.  LOL!!!!

2018-01-21_211150-jpg.221905


 
Lord of the Dunes said:
No, my point was you made a statement that was wrong. Totally wrong. Not even 1 single OEM UTV mfr mounted their front shock to the lower a-arm until after Speed did it.

You can mock all you want, just don't post BS and expect it to go unnoticed. Most people would apologize for being so wrong.
Click to expand...
Yep.  Mounting it to the LCA is better.  No one is arguing that.  There's more than 1 way to skin a cat, and one person having a patent on the process doesn't mean they had to compromise their design "because lawyers".

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top