DeDion Rear

[E90400K]

If Slate wants to use as much part commonality.

 

[AnnDee4444]

Depending on how it's designed, a De Dion suspension could use the same struts as the front suspension.

Related:

Why The Slate EV’s Unconventional Rear Suspension Makes Perfect Sense

https://www.theautopian.com/why-the-slate-evs-unconventional-rear-suspension-makes-perfect-sense/

 

[Ewwgas]

If Slate wants to use as much part commonality as possible, why not just go struts all around and use the same suspension front and back? Use a suspension link in place of the tiered for the rear hubs. An IRS should easily handle a 1,400 pound payload.

Pickup box intrusion maybe?

This would be a poor design for a few reasons, most obvious to me is the camber curve when the truck is loaded.

Also You would also get bump steer in the back, which would be sktecy. You would also have a weird axis of rotation that would be flat if both front and rear matched, then as the roll center moves around during braking and cornering the tendency to oversteer or understeer would randomly switch depending, the truck would be super unpredictable.

Depending on how it's designed, a De Dion suspension could use the same struts as the front suspension.

Slate would need to add features to the strut for it to mount and pivot through its rage of motion, on the front it would be fixed to steering knuckle and on the rear the lower mount would need to pivot. Then you would have a different spring rate for the rear, so you would need different shock valveing, also it would be a waste of engeering to try to match the packaging... I think different shocks f/r is the correct approach to save money.

 

[Ewwgas]

Sure, the lighting has IRS, but not an identical front and rear MacPherson like you suggested. The MacPherson has a pretty aggressive camber curve. Also it has a built in king pin angle designed to be steered. You can't really use it on the back.

With the F/R MacPherson set up, The shocks would need to be vavled different f/r. Slate would have to order them as 4 shocks. Front left, right, rear left, right. 4 different shock part numbers for 4 shocks.

To me it looks like Currently they have front left, front right, and rear. 3 shock PNs for 4 shocks.

 

[AnnDee4444]

Slate would need to add features to the strut for it to mount and pivot through its rage of motion, on the front it would be fixed to steering knuckle and on the rear the lower mount would need to pivot. Then you would have a different spring rate for the rear, so you would need different shock valveing, also it would be a waste of engeering to try to match the packaging... I think different shocks f/r is the correct approach to save money.

Absolutely it's a better design with different parts front & rear. But it's still technically possible for them to be the same, even when mixing IFS & DeDion. I doubt this has been done by a manufacture in the last 80+ years though.

FWIW: spring/damping rates are only a piece of the equation. Motion ratio/ride frequency/load capacity/etc. are of great importance.

 

[Ewwgas]

Absolutely it's a better design with different parts front & rear. But it's still technically possible for them to be the same, even when mixing IFS & DeDion. I doubt this has been done by a manufacture in the last 80+ years though.

FWIW: spring/damping rates are only a piece of the equation. Motion ratio/ride frequency/load capacity/etc. are of great importance.

I agree