iansane

iTrader: (1)

http://www.stranoparts.com/partdetai...D=67&ModelID=7

But now we have a solution. Nice. Opinions?

86camaro383

iTrader: (3)

I think its a little to pricey at 650.

Id rather go buy steel tubing and make one for 50 bucks.

Stephen

iTrader: (12)

I'm not seeing how that works, or how it could improve anything.

I understandWatts links...
But what's with the vertical slot?
Is it just me? Or does it look like the arms go to a rerar end mount? And only the red piece with the slot, is what is controlling left/right movement.

Now...Being from Spohn, I'd say it must work in someway I'm not seeing. If it was was Joe Blow, no name...I'd say it is a lot of cosmetic fluff, that does no more than a stock set up.

krisb410

iTrader: (9)

Why clutter up the boards when there is already a thread on this same subject

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/susp...new-watts.html

krisb410

iTrader: (9)

I think that's so you can adjust the roll center.

iansane

iTrader: (1)

I remember posting a couple weeks ago saying every post I see you make just asks why anyone would want to do anything to their cars and you protested.

Wow. I'd probably say because a cursory glance of the threads from the last few days didn't come up with anything. Your tone makes it seem like a did it on purpose.


Mods, Delete me please.

Stephen

iTrader: (12)

You just like to post to push people's buttons? I didn't protest SQUAT! People are MORE than welcome to do whatever the hell they want one, rgardless of it is a big block, twin turbos or chrome fender lips, revers spoke wheels...or WHATEVER. It's THEIR car, not mine.

I didn't ask WHY people would do that...I was referring to how THAT SPOHN unit could work! It doesn't look functional to me.

iansane

iTrader: (1)

That comment, at least to me, comes off as if you're questioning why someone would do this to their car because it doesn't look like it'd work. Must've misinterpreted that.

And FYI, that's not a Spohn piece. It's from Fays2 Suspension being sold by Sam Strano.

Again, Mods can delete this whenever they like.

Stephen

iTrader: (12)

You did misinterpret it....I said THAT piece....Not Watts set ups IN GENERAL.

My did....Strano comes to my mind. I rarely see his stuff anywhere, so I forgethe exists.

AC

iTrader: (3)

There is more than 1 option similiar to this approach. I'll be honest and say this is the first time I've seen anything like this. Granted I've never looked for alternative rear suspension geometry I thought this was a neat approach. Apparently there's also two sides to this approach. Those who like it and think it'd work okay given the developers reputation and those who think its no good. My is I still think it's an approach that would eleviate a few issues I have.....question is would it cause others in the process....

WIll36

iTrader: (12)

I think your right, but it doesn't look like it really alters the rear suspension geometry but rather it holds it. If I've read and understand the tech page correctly they're saying that a stock panhard bar moves the axle back and forth a little as the suspension cycles up and down. Thus by using this setup it eliminates that and uses two rods one on either side to hold the axle on its centerline.

Dewey316

I am rather unimpressed actualy. Watts links are really nice setups, but the execution on this one doesn't do it for me. There is both a sprung and unpsrung weight penalty with that design, and I am not a fan of the way it looks like he is putting the rear axle side mounts on.

Honestly, our cars have a VERY long panhard rod, yes there is some slight side/side movement through the suspension travel, but it really is not all that much. I don't know that it is enough to worry about, and trade off for the added weight of that watts link.

Maybe when I upgrade to a 9", i'll sit down and setup up a watts linkage, but I would do it with a 9", where i can axle mount the bell rank, and then there would be as much needed bracing ot built, so the weight penalty wouldn't be nearly as big.

Sonix

iTrader: (1)

ian - once you create a thread, you don't "own" it anymore, it's part of the public domain. So mods don't delete "your" thread just because you want them to. Unless it gets REALLY out of hand, and so far it's not.

2nd - your thread title is "another watts linkage thread", leading me to believe you know about the other one, 5 links down from this or so. Which also talked about this exact piece, which made me wonder why bother starting another thread. Just saying, that's probably why kris said that...

and as mentioned by Dean in the other thread, the mumford deal is the cats meow, and that's where you want to be paying attention.

iansane

iTrader: (1)

1-I have no control over the thread, which is obvious, but I would assume that at that point any and all info in this thread was redundant and it served no purpose other than to waste bandwidth. I dunno. Redudant threads bug the crap out of me during searches so I had hoped this one could've been pruned before growing a bit. I can start name calling and being REALLY imature if that'll get it deleted. No, don't want to do that.

2-I meant another watts link thread as in, I had seen quite a few threads with discussion on the subject and the best execution of the watts but no products displayed.

My bad.

Guest

I now own my own Milling machine and will have to make that Mumford link I designed. I just have to get my Camaro back- Got alot of crap on my plate right now