Is this correct?

[jorgeopesi]

Are the links 1x6 well mounted or they have some tolerance?. I always put them with the 4x5 rule but those steering arms are 6.5x2.

 

[Erik Leppen]

Wat set is this? My guess is it's the 8653 Racers Ferrari Enzo?

Well, what's your definition of "correct"?

It's not an exact fit, because the hypotenuse of a right-triangle with sides 2 and 4.5 is not 5 (but approximately 4.92), but on the other hand, it's in an official set, so apparently it's according to Lego official standards. (Or at least it was at the time)

Also, keep in mind that there's no suspension here, so the fact that the length of the suspension arms doesn't match the length of the links, doesn't matter, since there is no vertical movement.

Also, what is the "4x5 rule"? You mean a Pythagorean 3/4/5 triangle where the 1x6 link is the hypotenuse?

Edited February 7, 2021 by Erik Leppen

[Seasider]

And if you’re talking pythagoras and Lego technic then you count the number of studs minus 1 for each length so to get a 3 4 5 triangle you actually need to use 4 5 6 as your beam lengths.

[jorgeopesi]

Yes, they are instructions for the enzo and fiorano, I am building a car and I remembered that rare position... Of course I use that rule to put 6 studs pieces. Even without having movement they are incorrect a little, aren´t they?.

[Zerobricks]

They are close enough. Besides having these links at slight tension is a good thing tor reduce the slack, since we want the hubs to be as stationary as possible. But with the 6,5 suspension arms retired I don't see why this is relavant anymore.

[jorgeopesi]

1 hour ago, Zerobricks said:

They are close enough. Besides having these links at slight tension is a good thing tor reduce the slack, since we want the hubs to be as stationary as possible. But with the 6,5 suspension arms retired I don't see why this is relavant anymore.

I would wish it wouldn´t be relavant for me... It is hard to be purist and also there is not retired pieces for me.