Talk:Ackermann steering geometry

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Automobiles Low‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ackermann and high speed cars[edit]

FYI

– Section heading added by Undead Shambles (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acherman mechanism is it the best model for high speed cars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.89.8 (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHat do you mean by 'high speed cars'? Fast road cars, racing cars, record breakers like Thrust SSC? As the article states, "pure" Ackermann isn't used in real cars, but a slight modification of it which accounts for other effects, such as tyrewall compliance, etc. There are also many other interacting factors in car suspension/steering design which make it a very complex subject. Graham 23:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you should not use 100% Ackermann for a high speed car. Typically a modern production car will use perhaps 60% Ackermann, whereas racing cars often use parallel steer (0% Ackermann), or even negative Ackermann, in which the outer wheel turns more than the inner wheel. Greglocock 08:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was also once considered optimum to use excess ackermann on formula-type cars, to improve turn-in on short-radius corners. --Tedd (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling[edit]

FYI

– Section heading added by Undead Shambles (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Ackermann" the right spelling? Google seems to think that the right spelling is "Ackerman" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.1.254 (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for expansion[edit]

FYI

– Section heading added by Undead Shambles (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ackermann Geometry is also used in catamaran and wide-hull, double rudder steering. Article should include this aspect, or another be developed and/or linked. 148.65.197.118 (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for cleanup and clarification[edit]

FYI

– Section heading added by Undead Shambles (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes about disadvantages of Ackermann steering are jargon. Links to sources that spell out the issue(s) would be welcome. Or add an example that demonstrates the effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.9.142 (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Improve animation[edit]

The two frames of the animation should both have the steering at the top. It’s mildly confusing the way it is. --Dough34 (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin and/or Lankensperger[edit]

Reading "Erasmus Darwin may have a prior claim", that "may have" sounds kinda like weasel words to me, some more effort should be put into establishing the actual relationship between Darwin's and Lankensperger's work.
The "may have" presents this relationship as unknown, the source cited presents it as an independent discovery (without naming who may have done so, at least in the summary), and the sentence "[Darwin's] design [...] was implemented & modified by Richard Lovell Edgeworth [...] to the modern incarnation we see today" replaces Lankensperger with Lovell, presenting this as known fact (in contradiction with the "may have") and presenting Lankensperger as not at all involved, even in adapting Darwin's design to "the modern incarnation". Sadly the only source cited is not freely available, so I can't really check in there myself beyond the summary wether it clarifies things at all. 185.163.103.83 (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually hold on, the last sentence presenting the "may have" as outright fact was a later adition (how do you link to revisions properly again?), the only source provided is the external link to the Erasmus Darwin museums' site, which does not seem to mention Ackermann at all. It might be best to delete that until proper sourcing and clarification is found, lest we start getting circular references out of it, so I'll go ahead and at least do that. Feel free to revert I guess, but I'd appreciate if it came with some sources and a proper rewrite instead. 185.163.103.83 (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]