dolfan87 said:
Ah, so you are JUST like TCP! Tease us with these fancy suspension pieces that aren't available
So who needs TCP?
- Thread starter dolfan87
- Start date
Ah, so you are JUST like TCP! Tease us with these fancy suspension pieces that aren't available
-
Sponsors (?)
gp001 said:
LOL, ahh but unlike TCP, I won't take your money, and then send you nothing in return.
We will have a kit available for the 65-66 crowd within the month.
87
taylor4g63
Founding Member
how about us 67-68 crowd? I know its not a good idea to throw around prices and dates and such, but any estimate for the wait on the 67-68 cars? I plan on redoing my front and rear suspension in the next month or 2, and this would be great to use, and i'd be willing to wait a few monthes on it.
taylor4g63 said:
Your car will use the exact same set-up as what we have going right now. The only difference between the 67 and the 68-70 is the strut rod. Both the upper and lower control arms that we have already developed will work on the 67-68 cars.
So you guys will be covered.
87
Myfirst67
New Member
i like the looks of whats going on here.
The only thing i don't about the upper control arm is the adjustability. Why do you have it so that the only way to adjust it is by removing it. why don't you add a double adjuster like the tcp counterparts? you can get them at QA 1 for a deciently low price. i think besides this problem, i like the work and i'd definately be interested in a set if you ever do produce a set-up. i'm not real interested in the coil-over part though. maybe a uca with mounts for the saddle
here is a pic of the tcp unit........
great work!!! i wish i only had the resources!!
The only thing i don't about the upper control arm is the adjustability. Why do you have it so that the only way to adjust it is by removing it. why don't you add a double adjuster like the tcp counterparts? you can get them at QA 1 for a deciently low price. i think besides this problem, i like the work and i'd definately be interested in a set if you ever do produce a set-up. i'm not real interested in the coil-over part though. maybe a uca with mounts for the saddle
here is a pic of the tcp unit........
great work!!! i wish i only had the resources!!
That is a good idea, and I am sure we will try and work that in.
However this whole thing started only because I ordered the set up from TCP, and of course had to file charge back papers with my credit card company to get my money back.
So we set out to just get my Mach up and running, and the response from members here (and e mails I received from lurkers) was what made us re-think maybe just producing these.
I don't need the "easy access" adjustments on my car, because I am going to set it and leave it alone.
I also don't want to infringe on TCP's patent (even if they are in no condition to file a lawsuit) so we would have to figure out a different method of "easy adjustments".
Thanks for the input, and I will keep you update on what we can do.
87
Red Barchetta
Founding Member
2 things:streetgrande69 said:
One you addressed is cost. You do not skimp on a critical suspension component. Those adjusters are part of the reason why the TCP arms are expensive.
Two, those adjusters are a weak point. Eliminating the adjusters gives you a cheaper and stronger control arm.
Using shims is a better way of adjusting the suspension than the adjusters as you can end up having different control arm lengths on each side of your car. No big deal for easy driving, but not what you want from a performance perspective.
Red Barchetta said:
Yes they would add to the cost of the arm. With our set up the upper arms ARE adjustable, it's just that one would have to unbolt the two rod ends to adjust the arm.
Not a big deal really.
Shims should not be necessary on our system.
87
graham, i think what red was trying to say was that having 2 different length control arms is a bad thing, which would be possible with the adjustable arms. for instance the drivers side control arm length is 13 1/2 inches and the passenger side control arm measures 12 15/16 inches. that is NOT a good thing, which is why a lot of serious racers don't like the adjustable control arm idea. the only place i could see where different control arm lengths would even be remotely fesasible is in circle track racing (dirt track cars only by the way) to get a little more "stagger" in the setup. having them slightly adjustable like you have them now would be better and only to insure the arms are the exact same length, any further adjustments would better suited to using shims, unless of course you feel like pulling the arms off, adjusting them and re-installing over and over again until you got the alignment dead on and still have the arms the exact same length, does that make sense?
bnickle,
Yea I understood him, and I understand the theory on the easy adjustment arms, and the possibility of the different lengths.
However, when we built and installed the arms on my car, the lengths turned out to be exactly the same. In order to make the arms uneven (with adjustment) you would have to have a car that isn't straight (frame wise)to begin with, and if that is the case, then you have bigger problems than just upper control arms.
When these arms are installed, they should be exactly(or close to it)the same length, and the "easy" adjustment only used in cases of racing, where you want to add/take away camber, with the turn of a wrench.
Anything is possible, and I could see how an improperly installed kit could wind up being off on both sides. This could happen with the lower being adjusted in too much, and the upper having to come in to accomodate the lower.
I think the thing to remember is proper writing of instructions, plus a qualified alignment tech seeing the car right away, would elliminate 99% of these issues.
Now having said all that, we aren't sure if that easy adjustment is going to be on these arms. It's a debate we are having right now.
Thanks for the interest guys, and I will have an update on price soon.
87
Yea I understood him, and I understand the theory on the easy adjustment arms, and the possibility of the different lengths.
However, when we built and installed the arms on my car, the lengths turned out to be exactly the same. In order to make the arms uneven (with adjustment) you would have to have a car that isn't straight (frame wise)to begin with, and if that is the case, then you have bigger problems than just upper control arms.
When these arms are installed, they should be exactly(or close to it)the same length, and the "easy" adjustment only used in cases of racing, where you want to add/take away camber, with the turn of a wrench.
Anything is possible, and I could see how an improperly installed kit could wind up being off on both sides. This could happen with the lower being adjusted in too much, and the upper having to come in to accomodate the lower.
I think the thing to remember is proper writing of instructions, plus a qualified alignment tech seeing the car right away, would elliminate 99% of these issues.
Now having said all that, we aren't sure if that easy adjustment is going to be on these arms. It's a debate we are having right now.
Thanks for the interest guys, and I will have an update on price soon.
87
Route666
Active Member
sportsroof69 said:Why not make both kinds. If someone wants adjusters, then for a slight increase in cost, they get adjusters. I'll take a set of non-adjustables for a '69.
Exactly what I was thinking!
Being a performance guy, I would have taken the adjustable-while-on-the-car type over non-adjustable anyday, to avoid shims, but with this option, I would take the take-off-to-adjust over the can-be-adjusted-on-the-car variety because I want to get a nice geometry by testing some, then it'll be set. Also, if you can adjust it on the car, it can come apart, while on the car, and perhaps driving along... I know it's unlikely, but hey, it's one less thing to worry about!
Seriously, after I've played around with the length of the arms, I'm gunna set it and not touch it for the rest of the time I have the car, I'm sure there are a lot of people who would appreciate those benefits, and I believe there would be more than those who want the more expensive adjustable unit.
A little update.
We are talking pricing with a shop about the pieces we will need mass produced. The front attaching point of the strut rod, and the control arm shafts. We are having a CNC program made up for both, this way we can have 20-30 pumped out at a time.
When we get the numbers from the CNC shop, I will have a much better idea on pricing. We are also going to be talking with Koni for the shocks, as well as a local powder coating facility.
Hopefully I will know more by tonight.
87
We are talking pricing with a shop about the pieces we will need mass produced. The front attaching point of the strut rod, and the control arm shafts. We are having a CNC program made up for both, this way we can have 20-30 pumped out at a time.
When we get the numbers from the CNC shop, I will have a much better idea on pricing. We are also going to be talking with Koni for the shocks, as well as a local powder coating facility.
Hopefully I will know more by tonight.
87
oboebrian
Founding Member
What have you set up on the business side? For your personal protection and to keep things on the level? I.E. accounting wise, setup for credit card transactions, liability waivers, copyright infringment/protection etc.? Drop me a PM or email and I'll be happy to discuss some of this with you and suggest a great lawyer (that I use) to set all the legal aspects up for ya.
BTW It looks good!
BTW It looks good!
Red Barchetta
Founding Member
I know you said you still have some fabricating to due, but I have a question:dolfan87 said:
Any particular reason why you chose to mount the top of the shock the way you did? I've never seen anyone use such a setup. My concern would be that since those tabs will be supporting the front of the car, after some use, those tabs may start to show some fatigue near the welds, especially without any type of gusseting. Your thoughts?
Similar threads
