Who is Macpherson, and why do we hate him?

>>15913954

Gains positive camber under compression - 'nuff said

>>15913980
is it used as a cheap alternative or does it have it's benefits?

>>15913988
Cheap and compact

File: aid1771813-760px-Fix-the-Alignment-on-a-Car-Step-10.jpg (115KB, 760x570px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 760x570px

>>15913980
Except under load gaining camber is a good thing. In a straight line you retain the optimal tire wear, braking and acceleration characteristics of having no camber and during turning you gain camber on the outside tire while keeping flat contact on the inside tire.

still better than doublewishbone r-right?

>>15913980
are you fucking mad? Can you even into geometry? It gains negative camber under load and gains positive camber on decompression

>>15913980

Basically any suspension design can have good or poor geometry relative to what is ideal. Struts can be setup to work just fine. The main thing is that strut front ends typically limit tire width if you want to maintain zero scrub.

>>15914023
Yep.

>tfw both of your cars use double wishbone

plebs

>>15914023
>>15914037
>>15914216
If your car is lowered at all, mcpherson gains positive camber on compression.

>>15914283

The thing about generalizations is that there's always an exception so they're never right.

Nothing really wrong with macpherson suspension the drawbacks is that you will have problems if you try to lower the car/wider tires as it will scrub, also while cornering it can't keep a good contact patch as compare to double wishbone. Positive things is that is a really light suspension setup and cheap/compact more room for storage, passengers, etc. Even porsches use macpherson and they're great handling cars though they probably have an advance design