...

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



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 03-17-2006, 09:10 PM
Mike Hall's Avatar
Mike Hall Mike Hall is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pelham, GA
Posts: 281
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Mark, what company do you work with? Did you say you already have some Camaro stuff ready now? I just purchaced a 68 camaro to go along with my Nova. LOL

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-17-2006, 09:38 PM
novanutcase's Avatar
novanutcase novanutcase is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,435
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Hey Mark

Yeah... I hear you. Not trying to start a fight, just trying to give my two cents. It's really hard to determine what is what with all the claims that are out there. The only thing an average person like me has to go by is what the companies claim and what I can distill it down to as far as getting to the truth and, of course, the input I get here. I've driven 3 and 4 link cars that my friends have had and they did corner pretty nicely but seem pretty stiff over all as far as ride. Compared to the sports cars I have driven that employ IRS in their rear end, they seem to have a smoother range throughout unlike the 3 and 4's I drove. They were kind of hooky at certain points in the turns under certain road conditions and it felt a little weird. Maybe theirw was not set up right? I don't know. It just seems weird, as I've said before, that practically every car manufacturer nowadays uses IRS as their rear end. Wouldn't it be cheaper for them to go with a solid axle and 3 or 4 link? This is one of the many things that I don't understand. Also, every one I have talked to can't really give me a reason why IRS is bad other than cost and difficulty of installation. Anyone want to clear this up?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-17-2006, 10:35 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

Aaahhh, now we are getting somewhere. (Oh, and by the way, Mike, I am the founder/President of Lateral Dynamics LLC, you'll be hearing lots more from us very soon, and yes we have a nice solution for the rear of your first gen F body at this time).

There are likely a couple of things going on with the link setups that you have ridden in. If the cars skamper about over bumps, it is likely that the spring rates and shock damping are the primary culprit, going "straight" over bumps is the easiest thing for a suspension setup to handle. Unfortunately, the majority of link setups on the road today, on typical muscle cars, are of the four link drag race type design, which is horrible for a street driven car. In the case of a four link, drag race or otherwise, there is an inescapable bind in the system in roll, there really isn't anything that you can do about it short of introducing compliance in the setup (such as rubber bushings, the best thing you can do for such a system). Most of the setups use rod ends in all pivot locations, which is murder on a four link setup. On a three link, it's completely fine, because the system is not overconstrained like a four link. The only decent (and admittedly poor) analogy I can come up with is a four legged stool. If you are on a flat surface, and all four legs are exactly the same length, you're good. If not, the stool will rock, because it is over-constrained, too many points trying to meet the ground at once. A three legged stool will never do this, it'll be stable and won't rock. Picture this as a suspension setup, going through roll, over bumps, etc, and you might be able to picture why a three link is "better" than a four link. Anyway, the drag race setups are not good at all for comfort, or overall handling, they bind, period. This is likely what you experienced, and would be cause for being skeptical for certain, I certainly would be.

And once again, I agree that the IRS, if done correctly, and made strong enough, is THE way to go, but it isn't all that simple. In the case of the domestic producers, well, they can't get the IRS right, except in the case of the Corvette, and the Viper. The new GTO, and the previous version Cobra Mustang both have serious issues that prevent them from being good candidates for retro-fitting. Just as bad, the new Mustang's three link setup is horrible, not the correct way to go about things either. Keep in mind that the domestic producers are far more interested in profit, manufacturing efficiency, etc, than they are in planting tires with 600 RWHP in all conditions. They could easily solve the issues, they have the talent, but not the economic desire. If you are dead set on an IRS system, I'd call the guys at Maximum Motorsports, who deal with the later Mustangs, and get the goods from them if possible, might be able to adapt to your muscle car? Not sure, but Chuck and his team are top notch, they race (and win), and are terrific overall. We're looking into IRS as well, but it will be at least a year before I expect we are ready to even prototype a setup, and at this point, I don't expect it to outperform our current setup. IRS is good, but only if all things are considered in the design, and this is not the general case.

And by the way, the reason that the new Mustang has a three link and Panhard bar, is because it is cheaper than the IRS they tried to put into the car. And to top it off, the three link they used, is basically, crap (not only my opinion, but the opinion of the engineers who were forced to package it in the an extremely short amount of time).

Mark
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-18-2006, 12:27 AM
race-rodz race-rodz is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,099
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

i will throw in my opinion on truck arm set-ups as i have used them several times. very easy to set up, great for a street vehicle, ride "nice" with proper spring rates. handling is decent, again "good" for a street car, usually better than the factory IF set up right and straight line "hook" is respectable.

the downside, packaging..........really long arms that need to go someplace usually occupied by other components. the fact the the arms are rigid mounted to the housing means the arms/bushings need to flex(bind) during opperation.

overall its a pretty decent arrangment for a street car, or better yet a 63-72 gm truck like it came in, there are a lot better suspension choices out there, it all really depends on your driving needs and style.

like i said, i have ran several of them with great results, but these were mostly STREET cars, usually with air ride....and the set-up fit the bill perfectly. i have one going together now, in a personal project 40 ford pick-up, the reasoning was to make it "nascar style" using weight jacks and adjustable height panhard mount. AND because i wanted to see just how well i could make a truck arm set up "work". i will be posting pics of the truck when it gets a lil closer to completion, but its a WAY backburner project, as time allows while waiting for parts for the "other" shop truck.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-19-2006, 01:20 AM
novanutcase's Avatar
novanutcase novanutcase is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,435
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Good Looking Out!

Thanks for the info Mark! I already e-mailed them and am waiting for a response. By any chance, do you know if the hub to hub rear on a nova is the same as the mustang rear? I've alredy contacted Wayne Due about bending me a frame for my project but, of course, he needs to know what kind of rear end I am going to put in the car. I will try and contact him also and get his thoughts on this. What have you heard as far as mustang rear ends and the problems they have? I was thinking about a Cobra R rear end since Doug Sinjem was using one but if it has serious problems then it's probably not a good idea to use it unless I can correct it with some aftermarket products and a good tuner! Anyone know the total length of a '66 Nova? I need to make sure it fits in my garage. Otherwise I will have to make my garage bigger!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-20-2006, 10:17 PM
Mike Hall's Avatar
Mike Hall Mike Hall is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pelham, GA
Posts: 281
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Well, I ended up not getting that rust free car and went with a car that need floors and trunk work. Looks like I may just go with a full frame setup. I would love to design my own frame and suspension but I don't even know where to start. I still think I would like to use the C5 front suspension with I guess a well designed 3 link rear setup. Anyone know of a good book on designing chassis and suspension components?

A few things I want to do with this car is move the engine back enough to have room for twin turbos and all that good stuff. The nose on this car is so small its going to be hard to get two turbos mounted along with intercoolers. How much could I move the engine back without causing a major lose of interior room?

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-20-2006, 11:25 PM
Mike Hall's Avatar
Mike Hall Mike Hall is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pelham, GA
Posts: 281
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

If I go with the full frame chassis would there be any issues with going to a Aluminum floor and firewall? I built a factoryfive cobra replica back in 99 and it used a steel tube frame with aluminum interior and floors. I don't see why a well designed tube chassis in a nova could not have aluminum floors. I bet you would lose a good bit of weight with aluminum. I got this idea after looking at some nova race cars.

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-20-2006, 11:26 PM
Matt@Lateral Dynamics Matt@Lateral Dynamics is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Paradise, Ca
Posts: 66
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

10" of engine set back and 10" of driver set back and you're good.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-20-2006, 11:35 PM
Mike Hall's Avatar
Mike Hall Mike Hall is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pelham, GA
Posts: 281
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Cool, 10" should give me the room for the turbos. I think I will design and build a custom core support which will make more room for the intercooler.

Matt, PM me with some info on that rear setup you guys already have. I would love to see about setting one up in this car.

Thanks
Mike
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-21-2006, 12:29 AM
novanutcase's Avatar
novanutcase novanutcase is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,435
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default 10 inches????

Matt,

are you sure you can pull it back that much? Mike are you planning on having a back seat? As far as a frame, at least for me, I'm going to go with the experts on this one and have Wayne Due bend me a frame. He already knows how to setup the front end geometry for C-5 setup. My dilemma has been the rear but you already know my opinion!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 03:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Lateral-g.net