|
Quote:
The rearward offset mounting is used so you can get away with a longer links and to counter act leveraging. The longer the arms the better. |
Quote:
The comment I'm thinking of implied it was 13" above the axle centerline, and that the trunk was definitely sacrificed in that application. But since I can't find it at the moment, I could be completely wrong... :EmoteClueless: |
Fab progress. Mike Tolle has got the cross member located in the correct spot, from which everything else will be measured and installed.
http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps5e1e671e.jpg http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps0615fc14.jpg http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps5ba29afe.jpg Next up is the frame rails: http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/a...psc4e09341.jpg :superhack: |
Hi Bryan !
Quote:
You probably read that 13" number in a different thread. Yes, for an autocross client with a twin turbo LS on 200TW tires ... we placed the top link mount 13" above the rear axle CL. It has amazing grip. One of THE most important design points on any link suspension is ... how long are the "levers" ... which is what the upper & lower housing brackets really are. The length of the upper & lower housing brackets determine how the rear end's rotational torque is distributed. Just to help understand what we're dealing with ... a car with 550# of torque, a 2nd gear ratio of 1.76 & rear gear ratio of 3.70 puts almost 3600# of torque attempting to rotate the housing (exiting a corner in 2nd gear). How that torque is distributed through the upper & lower link housing brackets is called torque distribution. The upper link lifts the chassis & loads the tires ... while the lower links simply push the chassis forward. This ratio matters MORE than anti-squat, but is rarely understood. With Ron Myer's Camaro, the lower link mounts 5.5" below the axle CL & the upper link mounts 5" above the axle CL. That ratio puts 52% of this 3600# torque through the lower links pushing the chassis forward ... puts 48% through the top link pulling up ... lifting the chassis & loading the rear tires. This will be excellent with the slicks he plans to run. With my client's car that has the upper link 13" above axle CL ... he wanted killer, mean grip ... on 200TW tires ... for running Goodguys & USCA/Optima. So his top link is 13" above the rear axle CL. Yes ... well up into the trunk area. Ron has different tires (slicks) & different priorities. Ron wanted the most grip possible while keeping the factory trunk floor intact. My other client wanted the ultimate grip possible with 200TW tires. I help my clients achieve their individual goals by tailoring the "lift & load" ratio. To answer your other question, the centerline of mounting points do not to run through the axle centerline. The farther back we make the top mount, the more leverage we are giving the top link to "lift & load". :trophy-1302: |
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Hey Rob! Great to hear from you. I hope your time frees up in the near future. As you may have heard me say a bajillion times, we can not go faster through the corner that the front end has grip. That is typically our limiting factor. I say "typically" because it is not very difficult to get the rear tire grip to match the front ... in most cars ... to achieve neutral, balanced handling. We simply need to tune the rear grip up or down to match the front grip ... for this neutral handling. If we don't, then we have a loose or pushy car. Do I feel this will be the fastest front suspension design? No. But it's pretty good. I advised Ron against replacing it ... more as an exercise in cost vs gain. I can't speak for Ron Myers ... but I understand his goal to have a fast, fun track car without breaking the bank. It would cost $12k (parts & labor) to cut off & replace the JRS clip with my latest long arm/zero scrub design. The lap times would be measurably better ... but is spending $12k after already having this built worth that gain? I think each person has to make that decision, but I suggested he finish the car with the current front suspension and go have fun with it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On a different note ... and just for educational sake ... With a few minor exceptions, the rear suspension design has no impact on mid-corner "roll through zone" grip or corner speed capability. I just heard a lot people say, "What?" :confused18: The factors that DO play a roll on mid-corner "roll through zone" grip & corner speed capability are:
Whether you have a 3-link, 4-link, 196-link, IRS, torque arm, truck arm, etc ... is irrelevant to mid-corner "roll through zone" grip & corner speed capability … because there is no torque (engine or braking) being put through the rear suspension during the mid-corner "roll through zone." The few minor exceptions to this, are if the rear tires have camber, toe or rear steer from the rear suspension design. Those items can affect mid-corner "roll through zone" grip & corner speed capability. Another exception is rear suspension bind … which can have an obvious, negative effect on handling. But frankly, all of these … camber, toe or rear steer … and even suspension bind … are possible with most suspension designs. So why do we care what rear suspension design we run? Corner entry & corner exit. The choice of rear suspension design … and the key details in the rear suspension design … all play a role in how much rear grip the car has on corner entry (turn-in & braking) and corner exit (steering unwind & throttle roll on). While there are a lot of details (18 to be exact) in optimizing a solid axle link suspension, the biggies during design, or purchase selection, are: 1. Articulation 2. Torque Distribution 3. Instant Center 4. Packaging 5. Pinion Angle Change 6. Rear Roll Center 7. Adjustability Articulation is the amount of angle differential the housing can achieve from the chassis. Maybe not so obvious ... but we need the rear housing to articulate at least as far as the chassis needs to roll. This matters more if you're running a conventional suspension strategy that rolls 3° or more. This is less of an issue if you're running a modern low roll suspension strategy that rolls around 1°. Torque Distribution is not understood by most. We've been trained (wrongly) to just look at anti-squat for our rear tire loading geometry. But when you attach suspension link brackets to a live axle with torque coming through it ... the link brackets become levers ... and the location completely affects how much of the torque is pushing the lower links & car forward ... and how much of the torque is lifting the chassis & loading the rear tires for grip. This is CRITICAL for optimum forward bite on corner exit ... especially with harder TW200 tires. 3-links & 4-links ... if room above the housing allows the brackets to be tall ... allow optimum torque distribution for grip. Offset 3-links allow optimum torque distribution side-to-side ... for zero torque steer ... allowing equal handling on LH & RH corners. The Offset, Decoupled 3-link offers separate & optimum tuning for corner entry & corner exit grip. The Instant Center is your rear suspension pivot point as well as the point it picks up on the chassis to load the tires. Where it is in relation to the CG is very important. Too short & it will lose traction late on corner exit. Too long and it will spin the tires upon initial throttle roll on. This needs to be tunable & optimized to your car. I typically start with it under the CG & fine tune for track conditions. Packaging in the PT world is probably at the top of the list. When someone is asking for my recommendation for their car ... the first I ask is, "Are you keeping the rear seat?" If the answer is yes, we should eliminate all three versions of the 3-link ... because where they really need to mount conflicts with the rear seat. Frankly so do parallel 4-links, unless the top links are ridiculously low & short. If the back seat stays ... the triangulated 4-link & Torque Arm suspensions are the best of what will fit & allow a back seat. If the back seat goes & we can remodel the sheet metal in the rear floor & trunk area... it's wide open. 3-links & 4-links allow optimum torque distribution for grip. 3-Links offer the most articulation. Offset 3-links allow optimum torque distribution for zero torque steer ... allowing equal handling on LH & RH corners. The Offset, Decoupled 3-link offers separate & optimum tuning ... for the ultimate grip on corner entry & corner exit. Pinion Angle Change happens greater when the top links & lower links are short or have a large difference in length. It also happens with weak/soft leaf springs & lots of power. It's not the end of the world. You just have to plan & deal with it. Rear Roll Center adjustment ... to me, from my experience, for track tuning ... is one of the easiest, more predictable tuning devices you can ever have to help balance & neutralize the handling of the car. It's simple. Raise it to free the rear end up. Lower it for more rear grip. Don't go outside the sweet spots. Having a rear suspension with no adjustment for the rear roll center really ties your hands. It eliminates one of the best tuning devices out of your tool box. You can run a double adjustable panhard bar or adjustable Watts link with any suspension but IRS. Yes ... even leafs & triangulated 4-links. Adjustability is KING for track cars. if you can adjust the instant center height & distance ... adjust lower links for rear steer ... adjust the rear roll center ... you have a rear suspension you can optimize for your car. Not adjustable? How do you optimize it? Lastly, all rear suspension designs are a compromise for corner entry grip versus corner exit grip ... with the exception of a decoupled 3-Link. (See illustration below) With IRS & all link style suspensions the geometry needs are different for corner exit & entry. So your goal is to find the best, fastest "compromise" ... which is the best grip available on corner exit without making the car loose on corner entry. The exception is the decoupled 3-link ... because we can set the accel link for optimum corner exit grip ... with no affects on corner entry. Conversely, we can set the decel link for optimum corner entry grip with no affects on corner exit. Because they decoupled from each other. But everything has it's cons. The decoupled 3-link takes up a lot of room behind the roll cage main hoop ... and rides rougher (like it has a stiffer spring rate). Summary: • The highest performance rear suspension for track purposes is the Offset, Decoupled 3-Link. • Next would be the Offset 3-Link. • Next would be a regular centered 3-Link or 4-link (as long as articulation is not an issue). • None of these will fit well under a seat, unless the top links are super short (not recommended). • The best that fit under the seat are triangulated 4-links & torque arms. • Regardless of choice ... make them adjustable ... as well as the rear roll center. :cheers: |
Quote:
Hey Vince. Bryan was referring to a different client of mine. Ron Myers' top link mount is 5" above axle CL ... so around 17.6" above ground. But I've done one with the top link mount over 25" above ground. :gitrdun: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
LOL. No worries. It is an extreme set-up. Take care ! |
Quote:
|
Hi Mike,
Quote:
I use Tolle Fab for high quality fabrication work … like roll bars, cages, mounting seats, pedals, steering, fuel cells, etc. … installing my Track-Star Front Frame & Suspension … or Track-Star rear suspensions. Most racers know him by his last name "Tolle". Tolle is a very talented race car fabricator. He's a veteran race car builder from the road racing & sports car world. He has … and still builds … high end road race cars for Tudor/IMSA, Pirelli World Challenge, Porsche Cup, Daytona Prototypes, etc. :cheers: |
Hey Ron, it was another guy with almost the same name, in Tracy, a friend of a few good friends. Also a wonder fabricator.
But where apprx is Gold River? 50 or 80? Never mind, just above Rancho Cordova.....50, nice area |
Is this done yet or what?
|
Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Quote:
|
You guys are killin' it!
Pics tomorrow :D |
Quote:
|
This is going to be Killer Ron!:thumbsup:
The humor is an added bonus. Joe |
Quote:
|
Our buddy, Camaro Ron, didn't want any focus drawn away from the GNRS by posting the massive update he has planned.
:popcorn2: |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
When we last left off, Mike Tolle had the install measured out and the cross member located in place. I had ordered the Autoweld frame rails and really they could not help tell me which ones I needed, only after a bit of discussion about intended use and the car already has DSE mini tubs and subfr connectors installed their parallel rails should work. This is what we ended up with:
http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps0mrh0wk1.jpg http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/a...psuaz82vdv.jpg http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/a...psoyuu029g.jpg http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/a...psmpz9eycf.jpg You can see the fit. I don't much care, this is not a 100 point restoration. What I will need to do is get a custom tank. I'll make that decision later, but a fuel cell is very much on the table. More industrial strength pics: http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps2bteiteu.jpg http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/a...psedf3ohcf.jpg http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/a...psddlslcka.jpg http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/a...psc1ladmfp.jpg |
Here's a look inside the car where the main hoop is:
http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps9okbblo3.jpg http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/a...psaovnfopl.jpg And outside looking in: http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/a...psojxogfyb.jpg http://i885.photobucket.com/albums/a...psj6eykvzw.jpg That's all for now. I'm pretty sure there's more progress, so I'll start bugging Hot Sauce to go get me some pics! :cheers: |
1 Attachment(s)
Looks stout Ron. :thumbsup:
|
I don't see a problem with the fitment. Needed to go with the taller frame rails for the lower ride height and this is a race car anyways. How many times did we go back and forth and you telling me you weren't going to swap out the oem frame rails. Guess that's another point for me. Ha Ha.
Glad to see you went the RIGHT direction and the progress. :thumbsup: |
Quote:
Quote:
#becauseracecar :D :cheers: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Saaweeet!
|
Quote:
As opposed to a Kramerica Industries oil tanker bladder perhaps? :sieg: http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/f...ps6goudlwe.jpg |
sweet ron, now tell them to add another 3" to that tub.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I've been talking to Carl C about a sweet Vaporworks set up in a custom sized fuel cell. It's :G-Dub: though... Quote:
|
Quote:
|
You can never have enough space. Plus that's 4 extra lbs of sheet metal sitting idle.
What's a couple more hours and a coupe strips of 18gauge. LOL :D |
Nice progress! :thumbsup:
Have you started accepting resumes from potential drivers yet? |
Not yet, but for sure I'm crossing Lotus drivers off the list :D
|
315's with slicks are definitely plenty. Think about how much more weight I have then you back there with the leaf springs, Fays 2 watts (35 lbs) and I cant get the rear to slide (with the Sutton secret sauce shocks).
295's up front if you can manage would be great also but Dave Brown and Karl Chicca have been doing pretty darn well with 275's and I imagine they're shock set up contributes to that. 335 in the rear with 200 tread wear tires I completely understand due to the amount of power these Optima Challenge cars lay down but I'm under the impression that this will be your track car and not auto x. And again, why spend money on a custom tank when you can pic up a fuel cell. Aluminum fuel cell would be my preference as my 8 gallon steel is 26 lbs and I'm pretty sure you will go bigger. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:12 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Lateral-g.net