Indulge me, if you will...

As I prepare for my mid-life crisis, I'm attempting to educate myself on the finer points of spaceframe and suspension design... why do it the Hard Way? Money, purely and simply... at this stage of my life - as I gradually process a separation and divorce - I'm less-than-flush, but can see an incremental increase in my own disposable income beginning to occur. And, as I put it in my introduction post (many, many moons ago), I love motor racing, but don't feel compelled to join the tin-top ranks, as there's way too much of that, and not enough of the other facets...

And so, I'm preparing to draw up some sort of Group 2C contraption.

I did some scribbling on an unequal-length upper-and-lower wishbone suspension setup about 12 months ago, when I started thinking about it, but have struggled to find somebody to discuss a desirable value for camber change through the travel arc ( I think I've manage 1.5 deg of neg per 100mm travel), but don't know what to aim for... so there's the first area I need to find a guru to address , especially since most of the conventional wisdom I've managed to access so far would suggest that I get the suspension geometry sorted, and then scratch up something to hold it all together...

Anyhow, once I sort that, the next question was going to be one of spaceframe design... the CAMS documentation nominates a minimum torsional rigidity figure for the frames, and given the minimalist look of some of the chassis I've seen (thinking Westfield XTR etc), is it a hard number to match? While keeping weight out of these things is an obvious key to maximising performance, why - other than the volume of steel - does geodesic frame design not figure prominently in modern spaceframe construction?