COOL
BTW I have a line up right now if you were to come and start on Monday we could get to Gregs much faster :thumbsup:

Front end
 

Okay ---- here's some simple pictures that ANYONE can understand.....


One is a picture of what is on DM..... a long - unsupported "j hook" design - that wants to BEND under braking (3:35 Hoosiers can supply a LOT of braking forces).... and also wants to TWIST and break that welded "eye"....



DIRT MISSILE currently:

Attachment 66688




NOW --- Let's look at the SpeedTech front design that is supported and beefy and nothing will be allowed to bend/flex/rotate..... a 4 year old might draw a little better (LOL) but it's pretty obvious there's a huge difference --- BOTH TAKE 3:35's up front --- one I'd drive and one is scrap.....




SpeedTech Extreme subframe design:



Attachment 66689

THIS is an actual photo of both sides of the SPEEDTECH lower control arm that accepts 3:35's...... Compare this to the WEAK SAUCE on Dirt Missile.... LOL Yeah that is all going away and we'll be putting this on FTW!!!




Attachment 66690





Attachment 66691

I'm no suspension expert but won't that lower control arm cause a negative caster gain? Giving a neutral or even loose steering feel? Probably a real handful in an off camber turn. The bent rear arm which if it was supported in the same plane as the front could be reinforced with a diagonal tube.

Since I have the Extreme subframe from SpeedTech now, I can attest to how hefty that LCA is.

One thing I spoke with both Ron and Roger at SpeedTech about that I liked from my previous JRS setup was the spherical bearings in the control arms. There is a lot of friction (Ron calls is stiction) when you go to move the arms with no spring/shock in place. I've thought about making a set of my own, it wouldn't be that hard. Aftermarket kits are available for the C5/C6 to do exactly this, but they are stupid expensive. You can get the high quality bearings for < $50 each (I did for TOW). 8 of them gets you to $400. But its the sleeves and standoffs which will take the machine time. Anyway, I digress...

Another thing about the ST LCA's: they are designed to go on a (typically) much heavier street car than I think Ron designs his race car parts for. That said, the race car has the capability of inflicting MUCH higher loads / stresses on components I would expect... So perhaps the higher forces of a racecar offset the raw weight of a street car. And thus this is certainly not a place to save a pound I think. (I'm rambling out loud here now...)

Good luck on the new plan. Like everyone else, I just want to see you out having fun with this or Yeller or whatever car you're driving!

Greg, the Sutton LCA setup is the same stuff I ran on my asphalt late models. I didn’t use the “fishhook” style rods, but it was a straight tube. Otherwise the same. Maybe Ron needed clearance for turning radius, hence the bend?
Either way, it’s a very lightweight simple setup, that’s not meant to hold up at all. ANY contact with another car, or a simple brush with the wall, and they went in the dumpster. I carried two sets of each side on the hauler, and would often have to change them out after practice, due to a pass with slight contact.
I really can’t believe that he used a setup like this on a car like that.
And the wiring on the missle...I’d re-do every inch of it. Looks like a third grader wired the car...
Looking forward to watching SppedTech make this car what it should have been.
Your on the wrong coast, or I’d be there today helping!
To everyone with their hands on this car...LETS ROLL!!!!:flag2::flag2::flag2:

I assume Blake will build a new set of LCAs using his design but retaining the RSRT pick-up points/geometry. Moving the pick-up points changes all of the current suspension geometry. Changing the effective length of the LCA would, for example, require a different length or repositioned rack to retain proper bump steer. The angled (not parallel with the centerline axis) pick-up points of the LCA move the lower ball joint fore and aft slightly with suspension travel, which affects dynamic caster gain, which I'm sure is a deliberate design feature of the current configuration. Moving either of the LCA pick-up points up or down changes the roll center, dynamic caster gain, and/or anti-dive. And as you point out, changing the relationship of the UCA and LCA lengths changes the camber curve. Lots to consider.

Pappy

I think it would actually be advantageous to update the geometry of what's on the the Dirt Missile to what Speed Tech is using. It really is dirt track stuff at the moment. It is either from Howe or copied from Howe, and as Mike at Muscle Rodz pointed out, I'm pretty sure the current lower control arms are actually going to lose caster under compression because they are not mounted parallel to the longitudenal centerline of the car.

Now I’m a bit worried. I have the very same chassis as Greg’s, except it took 6 months to get the LCAs & 8 to get the UCAs. One of my first thoughts was I should order a spare pair, and beef them up somehow, in spite of added unsprung weight.

we have built a couple prototype uca and lca with bearings in them. it is more work and more machining. we were going to offer them as an upgrade to the current arm but honestly other that talking it over with Ron you are the first one to mention it. so that being said does it make "Cents" out of dollars ? or the other way around