Search results

Roll centers have a pretty strong relation to body roll. As a matter of fact, when they equal cg height, you don't get any. Can't get much more roll control than that(not that you'd want it that way). And a watts link defines the Roll Center, so if you can move the watts link, other things...

Interesting, since the reference is that just bushing durometer increase roughly equalled the amount earned by a rear bar. Also, Howes statement should've provide a hint as to just how much of an effect it is... As they said they must go with a lower rate than they would with coils, as otherwise...

As I mentioned before, that depends on initial spring rate, leaf width, bushing durometer, etc... However, I will provide a few references here: http://www.howeracing.com/p-7665-howe-full-leaf-springs.aspx Here Howe makes reference to going with a lower than usual rate as necessary due to this...

It's the leaves themselves that generate anti-sway, and they do it precisely because there's a "bar across". When both wheels lift the leaves will experience compression but no warp, generating one rate. When one wheel lifts the leaves experience compression and warp, generating a new, larger rate.

The tire is being pushed up towards the car, as is the end of the sway bar, thus it tries to lift the inner tire, not lower it. Not sure why I can't post links, but this rather long link has more on load transfer...

Playing with spring rates won't redistribute weight left to right, you can't control lateral weight transfer by increasing or decreasing the spring rate. Increasing and decreasing rate generally causes the other axle to decrease or increase load, with the opposite effect on the axle the rate was...

Don't shocks typically generate more force at the mounting points than springs? While I don't question that air shocks have punctured upper mounts, I wonder if a good stiff set of Penskes wouldn't of done the same thing on those cars. Maybe it has more to do with steel condition? Just curious...

Had this setup out yet? What do you think of it? Just curious, with the spacer on a 94 rim your backspacing should be about 5.5" right? How much further in could you go before you hit the spring? Any chance you could head in another inch? One more question, you mentioned your steering...

So based on your RC, you've raised the suspension height until the tire didn't hit the top of the fender, and as a result your lca must have a pretty good angle to the inner mount right?

Not only that, but I would guess the stock spindles to be lighter than the wilwood ones. And from the little I know about drag cars, I don't think dropping the front end is an advantage.

I worked out the stock lbj to be about 1.22in. long when mounted, based on that at an 11 degree angle you go down 1.18in vertical. The wilwood spindle has its lbj mount at 2.3in. down from the spindle line. That gives you 3.48in. versus the measurement for the stock one which I have as 2.77in...

Well, the concern is just that the 2" drop spindle is more like 2.8" as compared with a stock vintage spindle. So if you want to keep the suspension in its geometric range,with say a 1" lowering spring, you'd end up nearly 4 inches lower. Now my springs are of an unknown age, but four inches...

Wow, I love that center link! Before I realized I'd be putting the tie rod through the body, that's the route I was going to take in combination with the stock steering arms. Never is that easy though :(. So you used the 2" drop prospindle? I was worried that would put my tires into the...

Thanks for the ackerman figure, I've been wondering about it. I'll need a new arm anyways, but I'm curious how much the normal one would need to be shimmed to get to zero or slightly negative. It's interesting to note that the mustang 2 had a shorter wheelbase along with less ackerman in the...

If you move both points on the tie rod in the same amount,and maintain tie rod angle, I thought you'd maintain the bumpsteer curve. Not that the stock one is ideal anyways. From what I've read, going for a ackerman more than 100% can often net benefits, especially in autox, but the question...

The wilwood (and by extension,stock) ones have very near zero ackerman in them. However, that's actually why I was asking about the center link.Moving in the tie rod mounts in would let me fab the new steering arm in as well to increase ackerman. It would likely be too much at one inch...

Does anyone know if the center link for the '67 up models has the tie rod mounts moved further in than the early ones? It should be the same total length right?

Wow, that could change a lot. I knew I should've finished the wishbone model I was working on. I just assumed I'd need new arms and since that step is far further along on my build then where I'm currently at, I gave it no more thought. 5280, I didn't realize you'd altered the ball joint...

From what I've read, they can take the same balljoints as stock classic mustangs. Haven't verified myself, so fwiw. I'm looking at the same thing, They've got more KIA, so you'd have to lengthen the lca or shorten the uca. They're hub face is further inward then classic mustang spindles...

I'd be down for a fifty as well, or whatever sum it ends up being. But I thought that the 1.75" drop lead to too short a FVSA ? I seem to recall reading that somewhere. Has anyone out there gone from the shelby drop to a negative wedge (or whatever method to avoid ball joint bind) and...