http://ls1tech.com/forums/attachment...972-nova-2.jpg

http://ls1tech.com/forums/attachment...972-nova-3.jpg

That is the idea. But since my G-Link is already installed, welding in a crossbar like that is not possible. My plan is to use a 1" square tube and weld tabs on each end then simply bolt it to the front mount bolts.

Here is the Ridetech 4-Link mount:
http://hayes-ent.com/steve/images/Ca...etech4link.jpg

Here is the Chassisworks G-Link mount:
http://hayes-ent.com/steve/images/Ca...works4link.jpg

My plan is to make a bolt in bar to connect the two front bolt mounts together side to side.

Ok I see. One suggestion. Since there will naturally be play between the holes supplied on the G-Link, the holes you drill, and the bolts used, there could still be some side-to-side slipping/flexing allowed of the frame rail brackets relative to the center cross-brace. Since repeated flexing/movement of even 1/16 of an inch could be enough to allow the framerails to fatigue, it would be ideal if your bolt-in cross-brace secured to each frame rail in two directions. Such as using the forward bolts as you plan on but also having tabs that bolt to the framerails. Only difficult part would be finding a flat surface for said side tabs to mate to, as well as getting up in there with a drill to make the thru-frame holes. This would be ideal, altho your idea would still be an improvement over the stock brace-less design.

I should maybe clarify.. even with a bolted surface like the cross-brace to the forward mounting tabs/holes, I feel the side load from the triangulated UCA's could be great enough under hard cornering/acceleration to allow the two mating bolted surfaces to slip against each other.. that's what I meant by "slipping flexing". It shouldn't be a regular occurrence, but if you're only securing the sideloads with bolts in shear, it's a very real possibility of happening at some point, or worst case happening repeatedly.

I understand your point about movement and the use of an additional brace but I see no easy place to add the second pair of cross brace mounts without welding. The car is already undercoated so welding now would be a real pain. That is why I plan to drill out the existing holes to 1/2" and bolt it all together with 1/2" grade 8 fine thread bolts so I can apply maximum torque to limit movement as much as possible. Had I been aware of the frame cracking issue before I installed the G-Link, I would have fabed a cross brace like yours. My goal now is to add a bolt-in brace without having to remove the rear end or weld on the car.

It looks like Chris Alston himself has put out a writeup discussing some of these concerns. Lengthy read but I felt it was worthwhile. Kudos to him for taking the time to do the writeup. You can find it in the tech section of their site but here's a link.

Chris's Corner - G-Bar Misinformation

He seems like a straight-shooter based on the writeup. Sort of entertaining for a piece discussing suspension design :) .

John

Chris makes a good point about the improper installation of the MODERN G Link/GBar. Clearly not using the tab for support compromised the design.

Since he drug me into this deal I'm not afraid to give you my opinion. :unibrow: The changes I made to my suspension set up were MANDATORY. I tore up the end links in two autocrosses and my car wasn't anywhere close to where it is today. I'm talking my first two autocrosses with a green car. The upper link design required pulling the end links to make a pinion angle change. What a pain in the butt so I naturally went to an end link that would handle the load required in a triangulated 4 link and easily adjustable upper sleeves.

I agree with Chris, the G Bar wasn't engineered for my cars capabilities. I've modified it and it works great.

Regardless, I still feel you will see frame rail problems with either set up. A triangulated 4 link just isn't ideal for 40 year old paper thin frame rails. My reinforced rails are holding up just fine. To take it one step further, I think any car that is used to it's full extent could benefit from new, thicker rails, regardless of suspension design.

Thanks for posting that. It was an interesting read.

Don

Well I think it's good that they have taken notice of these issues and addressed them sort of. No mention of Tony's cracked frame rails (69x22) only Todd's and Rodgers. Looks like they are looking into other options like that 2nd gen kit with complete new framerails. That would be a good kit for a 1st gen.

I think this thread can really help people decide to buy this kit or not. And I think that's why it's very beneficial.

I like his response, but am somewhat disappointed in the "lower shock mounting extension bar things" In the lowest lower shock position, the aluminum bracket is a good 3-4" off the ground (18" wheels) which is a little close for my comfort, but ok. Lowering that a further 2.5" should not be condoned by the manufacturer especially if the manufacturer knows and openly admits it's for "fairgrounds only". He says that he knows it will likely hang below the rim of an 18" wheel at the lowest setting, which is illegal as far as I'm aware. Even the 1-1/4" lower position is stretching it, but would be okay as the maximum additional lowest setting that should have been offered.

I also find it funny that these lowering brackets are included in the sub-section of reducing bump travel.. in fact the only thing these lowering brackets do is decrease axletube-to-framerail clearance, but do nothing to reduce shock bump travel. A stiffer spring would absolutely be mandatory.

I'm not in any way knocking Chris Alston, on the contrary good on him for having the balls to step up and write such an all-encompassing.informative piece of literature to customer present & to-be. However, myself coming from a manufacturing industry where warranty and risk-to-customer is so critical, I think the decision to produce/sell, such lowering brackets is too risky regarding liability as well as possible customer complaint. If the customer wants lower than the GLink can possibly go (even with say a 0.5" or 1" bracket lowering block), then customer has to realize that floorpan modification is required like all the other systems out there.

Good on ya Chris, good read regardless!

Joe

That was covered in the last page iirc. Ideally those of us that went with the complete glink and fab 9 setup could simply swap our crossmember for one they've already modified. Presumably they have the jigs and such to do it better than most of us. Then again, like Chris kinda says, it isn't the end of the world and some level of this type of thing is to be expected.