Ron Sutton Offset 3-Link install

[FETorino]

Originally Posted by Ron in SoCal

It's got a JRS designed C6 suspension with fabricated frame rails. Came out pretty good.

Originally Posted by Vegas69

In all seriousness, the front of these old cars is usually the major weakness, not the back. I think this is great to maximize your rear dynamics but you better make the carpet match the drapes.

I hear you Todd.

Ron always preaches that we are always chasing front end grip and often looking to reduce rear grip to match. Up front is a JRS front end. C6 spindles and coilovers like almost every other aftermarket subframe but is a conventional low travel high roll deal.

Are the Ron's making any changes to that or leaving it as it was when Dave and I picked it up in Maine and delivered it to Ron and Brian in OC.

[GregWeld]

I see he's running the same rear tires I run all around mine....

[Vince@Meanstreets]

Originally Posted by Ron in SoCal

^ Bryan great question and one of the reasons I picked Ron's 3 link design as his are parallel. Early on I sent Ron web pics of the LD design. Ron pointed out that the angle of the LCAs would induce rear roll steer: good for rotating the rear on an autoX, not so good for high speed corners. Further, the higher speed the more roll steer induced. Now, I'm no expert but I'm thinking ideally that's not what I'd want. Better IMO to put in a rear suspension that keeps the rear planted as best as possible, tune the front for turn in and mid corner balance and let the rear compliment it. Obviously everything else plays into it (shocks, sways, balance and tuning), but that's what made sense to me.

I really like the LD fit and finish, but also think Ron's design is an improvement.

There was a huge thread (2002) on CC when Mark was doing his design and they acutally angled the lower links uphill to counter act the roll steer. There was a bunch of adjustiblity with the set up.

I believe it was discussed that it was optimum to run the link parallel to keep the car going straight.

[Ron in SoCal]

Originally Posted by Vegas69

In all seriousness, the front of these old cars is usually the major weakness, not the back. I think this is great to maximize your rear dynamics but you better make the carpet match the drapes.

Originally Posted by FETorino

I hear you Todd.

Ron always preaches that we are always chasing front end grip and often looking to reduce rear grip to match. Up front is a JRS front end. C6 spindles and coilovers like almost every other aftermarket subframe but is a conventional low travel high roll deal.

Are the Ron's making any changes to that or leaving it as it was when Dave and I picked it up in Maine and delivered it to Ron and Brian in OC.

First of all I hate that f'n pic.

Turn in is good on my 69 but it needs work. Rear roll center is too high, front to rear TRS is off. I think David Pozzi's recipe falls right in line with what Ron S looks for, more caster than KPI.

I had Jake build in 10* of caster (to be verified) on this sub. Will any first gen Camaro out perform a modern c6? Nope. Weight, weight distribution, aero, million$ in GM engineering. Can it get better than I've seen so far on my 69? Ron has measured it out and thinks so. 500 lbs lighter, so that's the plan.

[Vince@Meanstreets]

Originally Posted by Ron in SoCal

First of all I hate that f'n pic.

Turn in is good on my 69 but it needs work. Rear roll center is too high, front to rear TRS is off. I think David Pozzi's recipe falls right in line with what Ron S looks for, more caster than KPI.

I had Jake build in 10* of caster (to be verified) on this sub. Will any first gen Camaro out perform a modern c6? Nope. Weight, weight distribution, aero, million$ in GM engineering. Can it get better than I've seen so far on my 69? Ron has measured it out and thinks so. 500 lbs lighter, so that's the plan.

Is he having you changing the UCA mount position on that sub?

[FETorino]

Originally Posted by Ron in SoCal

First of all I hate that f'n pic.

Turn in is good on my 69 but it needs work. Rear roll center is too high, front to rear TRS is off. I think David Pozzi's recipe falls right in line with what Ron S looks for, more caster than KPI.

I had Jake build in 10* of caster (to be verified) on this sub. Will any first gen Camaro out perform a modern c6? Nope. Weight, weight distribution, aero, million$ in GM engineering. Can it get better than I've seen so far on my 69? Ron has measured it out and thinks so. 500 lbs lighter, so that's the plan.

Even with more caster the front still has minimal travel and a steep camber gain to go with the low travel. Plus the front end lacks any of the real adjustability for tuning such as Ron is building into the rear.

Are you planning on having Ron rework the front clip to make it as tunable as the rear or to allow for a true long travel low roll set up?

500lbs lighter than the 69 How much does DP weigh? Did you ever scale her?

[fleetus macmullitz]

Originally Posted by Ron in SoCal

First of all I hate that f'n pic.

Photoshop is your friend, my friend.





Enjoying the tech in this thread.

[Vince@Meanstreets]

Originally Posted by FETorino

Not sure what you have against Dead pool that you hate that pic.

Even with more caster the front still has minimal travel and a steep camber gain to go with the low travel. Plus the front end lacks any of the real adjustability for tuning such as Ron is building into the rear.

Are you planning on having Ron rework the front clip to make it as tunable as the rear or to allow for a true long travel low roll set up?

500lbs lighter than the 69 How much does DP weigh? Did you ever scale her?

Would not be too hard, just time = expensive.

Ron knows where the rear roll will be and its range, so matching the front would not be too bad. Set the front to an optimum RC height while controlling IC's IIRC the change will be in the upper control arm length and mounting position. The LCA and spindle are set.

[Ron Sutton]

Originally Posted by carbuff

Got it... Makes perfect sense.

One other question while I'm here... From a top-view, are the 2 lower arms parallel to each other, or do you angle them inward towards the front of the car? You have likely touched on this in a post somewhere. I'm not sure if anyone else makes them this way, but the Lateral Dynamics 3-link that a few cars here ran angled the LCA's inward as they went forward. I'm not sure if I've ever known what the reason for that was...

Technically they are considered parallel lower links, but they are a smidge (1/8" each side) narrower in the front. This is to insure the outside lower link is never pushing the rear end towards the outside of the corner, under acceleration.

[Ron Sutton]

Originally Posted by GregWeld

You and Gaetano need to get together and coordinate your excuses why I passed you both on leaf springs and skinny tires. LOL

Originally Posted by Ron in SoCal

^ right on queue

Originally Posted by Track Junky

Your not the only car still on leaf springs Mario.

You shouldn't have any problem passing Ron. Just be sure to have the back bumper back on your car when I'm pushing you passed him.

Originally Posted by Ron in SoCal

Nutttin' wrong with bump drafting but be careful what you wish for.

^^ This is hilarious. You guys need your own TV show.