:headspin: I hope he let's it ride and uses it for fuel to finish his car the way he invisions it.

I think a 20 in the rear would fit the look he is after. Brett is that an 18 315 on there now?

lateral-g

Interesting--buried in this seems to be a debate between a trade off between looks and performance--(desired ride height/looks vs track performance)

I think it's worth all of the effort to have my car as low as it can go---but I like the way it looks--and I will be driving mine on the street and taking long trips--and I am willing to sacrifice some performance if necessary to achieve that. The great thing about having Brett do this for me is the fact that he has been able to achieve this for me while giving me more suspension travel than I had before and better articulation at a lower ride height than I had before--which in the end gives me a better performing car at a ride height that I absolutely love. Brett won't do it unless it's going to be correct in the end. I recognize that 20's on a 69 in the rear is not every ones taste--but I have never built the car for anyone but me. So in the end, build it the way you want it--if it costs an extra 10k to lower the car and you have it to spend, do it--especially if it won't sacrifice performance. Trade offs for looks, performance, streetability , etc are a big part of this gig in my opinion--and somewhere--usually in your wallet--is the balance of all of these.

D

"What you need is an impartial mediator. Course, it would have to be someone who hasn't heard the story before. Someone who is unencumbered by any emotional attachment. Someone whose heart is so dark, it cannot be swayed by pity, compassion, or human emotion of any kind." -Jerry Seinfeld

Ok Brett, I was no where near your balls on this one. You have to stop thinking every comment is an attack on your manhood.

This isn't the first time. When I made the harmless observation and commented "although I'm not a big fan of grinding down tig welds on a roll cage component" you took it personal and then attacked my skills and knowledge as a weldor. Fine, I'm thick skinned.
I get it Brett, your an artist. But please don't take opinions so personal. Just look at it for what it is. Don't get me wrong, I like your Brett-ti-torials and look forward to them but geeze man throw away the beret and man up. Your on a public forum. Your gonna get opinions and criticism from all sides.

All I was saying was I think Dave may need a taller tire and I'm sticking with that. I think it would have been a lot easier if you had replied " what do you mean Vince".

Again I'm not putting you down. It's ok.

Come on no more of this :catfight: :catfight:

Just more of this:grouphug: :grouphug:

This is why this site is better then all the others, because we talk about what we are doing and share ideas? Not bash or try to tell someone else what they should or shouldn't do?

I think Greg has said it best time and time again the only one that has to like it is the guy paying the bill!!!

As far as coping goes aren't most of the front suspension that use C/5-C/6 setup a copy of what GM designed?? Refined sure I get that, made better for sure in most cases, but everyone that builds a sub frame or full frame with these parts has taken the concept from GM? Just sayin!

He's got all the opinions he needs. I agree, the only one that really counts is his own. I didn't see the PM's, my opinion was based on what was posted on the forum which I still think is constructive advice.

Now that I'm looking in on these projects after pissing countless dollars down the drain on things that didn't make much difference in the end, it's hard for me to get on board with redesigning a system that clearly works as designed for the majority of the intended application.

I see it as a delay from getting on the track and having fun. But, my passion for it has waned so I see things differently these days.

Let's keep the politics out of it.