Suspension / ChassisQuestions about your suspension? Need chassis advice?
Welcome to ThirdGen.org!
Welcome to ThirdGen.org.
You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, join the ThirdGen.org community today!
Drop "spindles" shouldn't affect your static alignment settings. But they may limit how much wheel backspacing you can live with (think outer tierod end to wheel/tire clearance).
Norm
This ad is not displayed to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on ThirdGen!
Sponsored Links
Registered users do not see this ad. Click here to register for free!
Drop "spindles" shouldn't affect your static alignment settings. But they may limit how much wheel backspacing you can live with (think outer tierod end to wheel/tire clearance).
Norm
My 17"s are right next to the outer TREs but would 18"s clear or come close to clearing?
Drop "spindles" shouldn't affect your static alignment settings. But they may limit how much wheel backspacing you can live with (think outer tierod end to wheel/tire clearance).
Norm
Ok,
I think I have this now. Took weight off the nose, front suspension raises, causing positive camber change and toe (out?) change. Camber adjustment is already almost maxed out (inwards/negative) on struts. Installing drop spindles will drop the car, but leave the rest of the alignment untouched, so it is necessary to install the intrax IA kit/bolts. This will allow IA to be brought in line, but the camber to get worse. 1" drop springs and the Sphon adjustable a-arms mentioned at the outset of the post should be able get the neg camber back? That seems like a lot of lowering though (3") total.
Ok,
I think I have this now. Took weight off the nose, front suspension raises, causing positive camber change and toe (out?) change. Camber adjustment is already almost maxed out (inwards/negative) on struts. Installing drop spindles will drop the car, but leave the rest of the alignment untouched, so it is necessary to install the intrax IA kit/bolts. This will allow IA to be brought in line, but the camber to get worse. 1" drop springs and the Sphon adjustable a-arms mentioned at the outset of the post should be able get the neg camber back? That seems like a lot of lowering though (3") total.
gotta do more reading, thanks for the info!
I have this same problem... I have taken over 100lbs off the nose of the car AND put MOOG replacement springs (stock height) AND 4th gen isolators which apparently are thicker than 3rd gen ones... The car sits way too high for my tastes and the camber is positive and can't go more negative than +0.5 on one wheel... The other one won't go more negative than +1.0!
I bought J+M strut mounts, spohn's adjustable strut to spindle bolt kit, and will possibly be buying a set of racecraft spindles. I just stored the car and it's sitting on the suspension so I want to wait and see how it sits after the 5 months of sitting there on the suspension, i'm thinkin it will sag/settle a bit since the springs and everything was new.
Also, how would spohn adjustable a-arms bring back negative camber?
__________________ "An engine is like an orchestra. It's made up of wind, brass, percussion, and a whole range of other complimentary sections, all working to make that beautiful music that we call 'performance'..."
What about this for us V8 guys
just weld triangulated braces to the wonder bar and behind the steering box(semetrical on other side).Rod ends on the angled braces for removal. could be tight on driver side but possible
anyone think this would help?(or hurt?)
Maby add some beef to the opposite side of the wonderbar so as to prevent flex and add preload.
Lengthening the control arm pushes the balljoint outward, which also causes the strut and knuckle to pivot about the upper strut attachment point as seen in front view. You don't gain camber all that fast (compared to a short-knuckle SLA suspension) due to the relatively long length of the strut but you do gain.
Norm
__________________ '79 Malibu weenie CP car (on indefinite "vacation")
'95 Mazda 626 getting-faster (and no longer STS/FSP-legal) car
As norm has said, you do gain. The lower the car (strut length) the more the gain. Keep in mind using higher aftermarket strut mounts lengthen and lessen the camber gain from strut angle.
IMPORTANT NOTE- You can only go so far with adjustable A-arms so as not to have the spring misalign in the spring pocket- it can rub against the side of the can if adjusted out too far.
As norm has said, you do gain. The lower the car (strut length) the more the gain. Keep in mind using higher aftermarket strut mounts lengthen and lessen the camber gain from strut angle.
IMPORTANT NOTE- You can only go so far with adjustable A-arms so as not to have the spring misalign in the spring pocket- it can rub against the side of the can if adjusted out too far.
Not that I have had the adjustable arms in my hands, but I'd also pay close attention to thread engagement as losing a control arm, would make a hell of a mess. Whats the general rule of thread engagement? 1.5 times the width of the bolt?
I'm not sure how much adjustment I'd be comfortable doing at the A-Arm side of things, more for fine tuning. Personally I feel that between lowering, slotting the towers, and aftermarket strut mounts their SHOULD be plenty of adjustment.
I agree i'd be worried about a-arms detaching... I think personally for my street driven car poly tubular non-adjustable a-arms are fine. J+m strut mounts should provide more than enough adjustment for caster camber for my tastes.
__________________ "An engine is like an orchestra. It's made up of wind, brass, percussion, and a whole range of other complimentary sections, all working to make that beautiful music that we call 'performance'..."
I figured you wouldn't gain either that quickly because as the ball joint was pushed out, the negative camber would increase which would tilt the hub on the spindle back. Since the hub is higher then the ball joint you essentially lose some of the distance that the A-arm was moved out, leaving only a camber gain which would still be very little. That's why I think the negative camber gain would probably be a greater gain then the length of the A-arm. This is just some theoretical thinking... I haven't made a model to check anything, but it seems right... no?
__________________ I started racing when I was 7 years old and here I am now... KONI Yellows | Pro-Kit | J&M Strut Mounts | Edelbrock STB | Spohn SFC | 9-bolt disk 3.27
36mm/24mm | UMI Adj LCA/PHB/LCARB | Corbeau seats | plus more ...and I'm only 18
Not that I have had the adjustable arms in my hands, but I'd also pay close attention to thread engagement as losing a control arm, would make a hell of a mess. Whats the general rule of thread engagement? 1.5 times the width of the bolt?
I'm not sure how much adjustment I'd be comfortable doing at the A-Arm side of things, more for fine tuning. Personally I feel that between lowering, slotting the towers, and aftermarket strut mounts their SHOULD be plenty of adjustment.
1.5 times the width sounds like a good rule of thumb to me. I will agree with that.
Its just a way to get every 1/10th in advantages to your favor by using adjustments to their maximum benefit. 1/4" more on each side makes for a wider track width without increasing scrub radius or SAI to reduce a negative scrub. Both sides could add up to a whole 1/2" above the competitor. All the little details add up. 3 little advantages like this example start making one big advantage.
I figured you wouldn't gain either that quickly because as the ball joint was pushed out, the negative camber would increase which would tilt the hub on the spindle back. Since the hub is higher then the ball joint you essentially lose some of the distance that the A-arm was moved out, leaving only a camber gain which would still be very little. That's why I think the negative camber gain would probably be a greater gain then the length of the A-arm. This is just some theoretical thinking... I haven't made a model to check anything, but it seems right... no?
I would say no because the hub/spindle is not touching the ground. the tire contact patch 12 inches lower is more angled out ward below that pivot. Think of the tire on a lever 10-11" long below the camber pivot of the balljoint.
Don't look at the static contact patches front to rear, look at the dynamic patches (they are more outward.) The way I look at a car is ... if the fender is such that it is factory wide and has to be considered as car width in transitions, then you might as well move the suspension assembly outward as far as you can while remaining tucked for travel clearance. Otherwise, grind off you excess body width inward to the tires so you can rub slalom at a lesser angle of attack through cones. If you are stuck with the body width, then use it.
Taking this principle to NASCAR, when I tore down Derek's truck and reset the whole front suspension like I was running on Masons truck, I found out in doing so I had too much left side weight and was illegal on initial scaling for tech and practice runs. I was over 55% left side weight. I pulled down the enite front suspension and reset the arms, and pull the rear over to match- so it moved everything over 1/2" to the left more reducing my left side weight by .3% getting me to 54.9%. Derek in his drivers seat weights 48 lbs more than Mason does. I do not have my own scales, I plan to buy some hopefully by the start of next season.Its tough setting things blind and relying on track scales to get things taylored in on a time crunch on race day.
