...

Go Back   Lateral-g Forums > Technical Discussions > Chassis and Suspension
User Name
Password



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 03-14-2007, 04:19 PM
Mean 69 Mean 69 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 375
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
It`s configuration allows for much longer upper links
While the physical length of the upper links is longer, the "effective" length is actually shorter. To find the effective length, you need to look at the component of the upper arm that lies along the vehicle centerline (i.e. front to back). In other words, how long is the arm in side view? Shorter. You have to keep in mind that the upper arms on a converging setup are doing two things at once.

Quote:
and better antisquat
I'm not sure I have seen the actual figure for A/S on either setup, I have never seen it published (might just be looking the wrong place), do you know what the specific values are, Marcus?

Mark
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-19-2007, 06:20 PM
Marcus SC&C's Avatar
Marcus SC&C Marcus SC&C is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: S.E. PA.
Posts: 169
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Actually the lengths of the links are much closer than you think,even in side view. The G Bars converge at a milder angle than GM factory cars and they make efficient use of the available space. The DSE upper arms are parallel and recessed into the unibody but they loose much of what they gained by mounting the rear end of the arms well forward of the axle tubes rather than directly over them like the G Bar. Both are clearly somewhat of a compromise of form for fittment BUT both have also proven to perform suprisingly well. Naturally the more you`re willing to chop the car up and the more money you`re willing to spend the less compromises you have to accept. The question I always ask clients though is,for them and what they`re really going do with their car for is that little extra bit of "juice" worth all the extra "squeezin"?
My statement on antisquat is based on seeing both setups in person. With the lower arms parallel to the ground for min. roll steer and as a std. of comparison the G Bar`s upper arms are angled more steeply than the QL`s which are nearly parallel. The QL is set up much more like a typical street rod "4 bar". You`ve seen them both at SEMA and such,I`m sure you noticed it too.
Honestly I wouldn`t use either on a GT1 or AGT road race car. But for a performance street car they offer some very nice advantages and the G Bar does so with no cutting or welding to the body or frame at all. At it`s price point it`s a heck of a good deal with the Alston Varishock 16 setting adj. coilovers and springs included for less than a base QL with no coilovers or springs at all. The QL is fine and I like the swivel links (which have been used in aftermarket 4WD applications for years BTW) but for all the extra work and money folks might as well spend a little more and get the Lat.Dynamics 3 link/watts link package. Mark SC&C
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-19-2007, 09:04 PM
Jr's Avatar
Jr Jr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: so cal
Posts: 1,772
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Marcus,
You have installed this system, right? Do you have pictures of how low the system will go with the qa1's?

This is very good information...Thanks guys
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Lateral-g.net