Quote:
Reason I ask is that from my experience it's not a great idea to do drastic ride height adjustment with spring preload.
|
We agree, in fact, one of the biggest things we looked at was the expected ride height variation with the system. This is the primary drive for the relatively long shock travel, actually it is pretty typical, but "well" thought out. If you go to one extreme or another, it "may" necessitate a different free height spring. For certain, and this is not exclusive to our setup, but the lower you make things, the stiffer the spring you'll need to keep the booty end of the car off of the bump stops. Less travel means higher wheel rate for a given chassis. Nice thing about springs, they are COMPLETELY linear in rate, no matte how much you preload them, f = kx, nature helps here. This applies to linearly wound springs, only. Of course, when they get into coil bind, the rate changes pretty dramatically.
Quote:
One of the main benefits of this system is reducing unsprung weight, no need to plop another 30lbs of steel rod on it.
|
Completely agree, the "good" thing is that the rear roll resistance required is not that large, a really small tubular bar is basically all that will be needed, so it'll be light one way or the other, it is really more a fine tuning tool than anything. Frame mount (like the Watt's...) is preferred, but if it sits on the axle, it won't be terribly heavy and a subsequent addition to unsprung weight.
Quote:
The low location looks great but the upper mount seems as though it could use some diagonal braces to combat rotational torque.
|
Excellent. One thing that is not so obvious from a force distribution standpoint is that the upper arm, in our setup, only sees about the same (in relative terms) as ONE of the lower links under throttle, everything is a lot less strained under brakes due to bias. Not trying to be nasty, but the upper links on a four link aren't only redundant from a roll-bind aspect, but also from a load consideration (provided there is a crossmember to handle loads). Anyway, for anyone using a high horsepower serious drivetrain, well, we strongly feel that safety is critical, and a full cage is a necessary thing. In this case, a good chassis shop will know to triangulate the load path from the upper link back into the cage. Beyond that, the stock setup is darned capable for a street tire'd car, even if they're sticky ones.
Quote:
How would you rank this setup in terms of street/track/strip?
|
On the top, in all honesty. There is nothing that a really high performance, well thought out setup suffers from, and again, in our approach, we have traded the convenience of bolting on a set of brackets for a system that is extremely high performing, but still completely reasonable installation. You simply cannot match the performance potential of this design with a bolt on setup, period. Now, let's be a bit more specific, street/auto-cross/road course all need the same basic elements to be friendly. The drag strip differs the most, you want a ton of forward bite, but other aspects of overall performance aren't nearly as important. Driven a really fast drag car on the street? Enough said. Here's something to consider, a contemporary Trans Am car can bust out a high ten second ET, with a 310 ci motor, can reach 170-180 on the fast straights, but most importantly, can brake REALLY well, and can mange sustained 1.8!!!! G's in the turns. Can we do that? No, but, it does make you ask what's "really" important, overall balance, or one particular aspect? We like balance. Extreme balance.
Back to work, consultants can pm me for a t-shirt!!!
Mark