88fastgta

iTrader: (9)

hey guys i was thinking about upgrading to the watts link system over my current setup... what do you guys think..... would it be beneficial....

http://www.stranoparts.com/partdetai...D=65&ModelID=9

//<86TA>\\

iTrader: (14)

if the car is built and performing on the race track to the point where somehow the panhard bar is holding it back, then yes.

Or if you want some bling, and its in the budget, yes again.

That said, there is nothing wrong with a panhard bar, and it can be lowered, and lengthened to improve the cars performance as well for a fraction of the cost of a watts link, if the panhard as it is in insufficient where it is

hellz_wings

iTrader: (2)

From what i've read/heard, this setup is the "best", but in my opinion, unnecessary. With a PHB, if you get adjustable rod ended ones and get the brackets to lower or raise the PHB and make it as level as possible, then you can achieve pretty much the same thing with less unsprung weight (the watts link adds unsprung weight). The watts is probably an easier install and doesn't require welding. The price is more expensive, but I guess if you factor in welding cost etc. it probably comes out to the same or similar.

UNCLE TOM

iTrader: (1)

i have had the watts link on my car for several months now . i'm not a racer by any means , i'm just a cruiser at my age . but , i love to carve corners & twisty roads . my 91 does it like my MGA that i had in my youth . i like mine , installation was a small pita . (follow instructions to the letter) with a lift i installed mine in 1 day . pros : no more offset rear axle , better handling . cons : price , you will need a new front end alignment if your rear end was offset as much as mine was . but , i'm happy . good luck .

hellz_wings

iTrader: (2)

The cons is also more unsprung weight. Although I don't have the number off the top of my head, but even 10lbs of unsprung weight is significant if you are racing the car. Also, what you achieve with the watts can be achieved more or less with an adjustable PHB and lowering brackets (such as the ones from unbalanced engineering).. You can get the bar pretty much level and lower or raise the rear roll center this way. If you run stiff enough rear springs and experience very little body roll as a result, then the "jacking" feeling of a PHB is probably almost non-existant, and for probably less than the total price of a watts link (if you know a welder or can weld yourself you can do this cheaper for example welding the PHB relocation brackets for me will cost about 100$ or so).

88fastgta

iTrader: (9)

well i guess ill just stick to my good old panhard bar setup.... by the way is vetruck still around... i havent seen him post in a while.....

//<86TA>\\

iTrader: (14)

no he got butthurt and left again. shame really, he had some good info to share

88fastgta

iTrader: (9)

man that is a shame.... he gave me some great alignment specs for my car...

1bdbrd

iTrader: (1)

I would do more research on it. I plan to run one albeit the number of negative (and not factually backed) posts on here. One of the top SCCA fbody drivers in the nation ran one on his old car and said he would never go back to a PHB setup.

Its heavier but puts the weight in a good area of the car. The 17 or so extra pounds is NOT going to kill your car's performance either way.

//<86TA>\\

iTrader: (14)

so saying you can go fast with a panhard bar is not factually based? Lots of people running very fast times with one. Just because Strano used the fayes2 piece doesn't make it the end-all-be-all. Granted you can make the argument that the watts does a better job keeping the axle in place and constant roll height, that doesnt mean the panhard doesnt work.

the point im trying to make is there are better places to spend money before this part is needed that will be more "beneficial"

//<86TA>\\

iTrader: (14)

i am also curious how hard it would be to mount a 3pc sway bar to the fayes2, that would be worth the effort.

87350IROC

iTrader: (2)

The majority of the weight is sprung. The giant metal framework is bolted to the chassis not the axles. The only sprung weight in the whole kit is the shackles that clamp to the axle tubes and half the cross shaft weight. I'd argue its about the same sprung weight as a panhard bar plus relocation bracket. Either way 5lbs on a 150lb+ solid axle is not significant. It would be a lot more significant on an IRS car.

1bdbrd

iTrader: (1)

No, not saying that at all. I realize these cars have turned in impressive results for decades now using a PHB setup. But, from the racing results I've seen (admittedly, not many), the watts link does a better job than the panhard bar does.

Ya, Strano isn't the last word in it but I will believe him everyday of the week and twice on Sunday when it comes to what works and does not work versus vetruck on here. I have a lot of the stuff he wrote on suspension designs and even his "suspension bible" but I am not sure I agree with his philosophy nor his "my way or the highway" attitude when it comes to disagreements. I am probably wrong but I never saw any proof that his ideas and philosophies were any better than the next guy's either, but I may have missed those results.

//<86TA>\\

iTrader: (14)

your not alone. Deans a smart guy, but i dont agree with everything he said either, however i did find a lot of his attitude eruptions to be greatly entertaining and i do miss that.

87350IROC

iTrader: (2)

Lol. Don't we all.

I think a lot of the watts link is driver feel. Most people who run a watts link say they think the car feels better. Does that translate into lap times? Hard to say.

At the end of the day I want a car that is fun to drive on the track, I really don't care that much about track times. With that said I will be trying a Watts link this year. But of course I will have made 100 other changes at the same time, so it will be hard to tell.

1bdbrd

iTrader: (1)

Ya he seemed very intelligent but like said, just didn't agree. I sadly didn't get to see many of the eruptions because most were edited by the time I came across them.

UNCLE TOM

iTrader: (1)

glad to hear some support for the watts link . as i stated before i'm not a racer but a cruiser . i do love carve twisty roads , the watts link in my 91 camaro makes it feel better doing so . reminds me of my youth playing with my 1957 MGA . oh well , those of us who have them like them . all the naysayers do not . does that tell anyone anything ???

Thirdgen89GTA

iTrader: (5)

Having been in a car with a Watts link.....

...I seriously want one. No more jacking effect in hard corners. It won't make it an IRS, but its as close as you can get without converting.

If I had the $$$ I would convert.

87350IROC

iTrader: (2)

This kind of response seems to be common. And is why I am so excited to try mine.

Adrenaline1

iTrader: (1)

Assuming im dropping my car and redoing my entire suspension anyway, would this be a nice route to take? I dont really care at all about the weight being sprung or unsprung either. I realize it costs a bit more but it seems like a nice piece to have and its all bolt in.

88fastgta

iTrader: (9)

well i will more than likely get the product... its possible to run true duals with this setup.... but how would you set it up.... does it come with instructions on preset settings or something....

Thirdgen89GTA

iTrader: (5)

Most of them don't change the stock exhaust routing. Exhaust goes over the panhard bar as it does on a stock car. Except the "panhard" bar is the upper tube that makes up the watts link member.

87350IROC

iTrader: (2)

If you don't care about unsprung weight then this isn't the part for you. I would put the more towards something else.

Lonnie P

I've had mine for approx 3 years & am glad I bought it. I was apprehensive based on the price, but after using it extensively I am convinced it was a good purchase. It can be tuned easily by adjusting the roll center to approx 7 different heights without having to re-center the rear.

It is not something that is necessary, but it you push the car hard, you will notice the difference between a Watts & a panhard (even if relocated).

As far as the weight, this is highly over exaggerated. Most is sprung weight. I can feel the difference between a full & empty tank of gas, but if you want to see the difference of about 12# add 2 gals of gas to the tank & see if you can feel how it alters the handling.

Twin_Turbo

iTrader: (25)

exhaust clearance.... that's a 4" elbow right there

Pablo

iTrader: (1)

Has anyone done the math on this?

With the watts you are virtually eliminating lateral movement of the axle with suspension travel which also eliminates roll center migration laterally.

Sounds good, but does anyone know how much the panhard setup in our cars is actually moving laterally?
The less suspension travel you have, the less it moves. You are talking about something moving up on a radius of iirc ~ 42 inches (the length of the stock bar center to center of bushing), which is offset if the axle angle goes the opposite direction of the bar by half that distance which is something that could happen in a right turn
Watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8cJCqWkfgk
Now you have to watch it a few times hitting pause to look at suspension travel that is relevant to the range of travel you would see on a handling car. If you pay attention, you will find that the lateral movement is actually very small. So the key is constraining the movements so that you don't see very much lateral translation at all. I think you can do that with a properly set up panhard bar and reduced body roll/suspension travel, which is something you want anyway

Someone good with trigonometry could actually figure out exactly how much lateral movement we are talking about (I'd have to really brush up)

Now lets look at some of the other considerations, the fays piece is a reverse watts, the rocker axis is not fixed to the rear axle, consequently, your roll center height relative to the ground changes with suspension travel. So have eliminated lateral movement of the axle but now introduced a changing rear roll center height. Is that going to make the car handle more predictably? Edit: the kicker is that a reverse watts also requires that the axle move laterally. The further the roll center is from the axle center the greater this is.
The other part of that is that the roll center height in a static sense cannot be lowered as much as a panhard bar. Just eyeballing that fays piece in pictures I can say that at it's lowest setting, it looks like its maybe 4" higher than a lowered panhard bar. Is an inclined roll axis going to be offset by laterally locating the rear axle?

And lastly, weight. In searches I have found that the fays piece is around 15 lbs heavier than the phb setup, that is a stock phb. If you fab up an aluminum phb you will save around 3 lbs. So the weight difference rises to 18 lbs. How much of that is unsprung I don't know but it's definitely polar weight at least.

So the way I see it, its 650 dollars to laterally locate the rear axle better than a phb, to a degree that no one has determined. It could potentially be a very tiny amount.
In trade, you get a changing rear roll center height
a still laterally translating rear axle
A more steeply inclined roll axis
15 more lbs of weight
650 less dollars in your pocket.

I picked up an unused second hand set of kuhmo victoracers for 450. The difference between those and regular street tires is enormous, far more than the difference between these two suspension bits. I'd be looking to buy those instead if I was rolling on some regular street tires, but that's just me.

SlickTrackGod

3 people say they disagree with me on the reverse watts but don;t have the brain power to explain why or to back their statements- go figure.

Pablo an I are friends and he seems to get what no one else is getting. The link he shows in a "true conventional Watts link" with the pivot on the axle, not the chassis.

If someone where to be able to do an active video model of this crappy "Reverse Watts link" they would see just as Pablo decribes with the RC moving about veticaly as well as the lateral movement when the alxle is not parallel with the body over a bump. As stated before, get some pocicle sticks to makeup a model and educate yourself before you comment further on things you do not understand.

As for Strano? of course he will sell you a bill of good- he has interest in making money off his opinion and has some you your $650 dollars. I have debated him directly on this topic, he is wrong.

Dean

ps- rumor has it this site just keeps getting worse- friends informed me that bs talk was going on here about me

SlickTrackGod

...oh yeah- and as for the rear rc migrating sideways? Thats actually a good thing to keep the inside tires weighted. The watts will feel more predictable becasue the lateral roll feels more linear, but it is a false sense of performance.

The watts will not migtate the rc towards the outside tire like the PHB does. The migration actually causes a greater leverage of chassis weight to remain over the inside rear tire to keep the rear weight of the car more distrubuted over both tires rather than more onto just the outside tire as the Watts favors. You think 1200lb of weight with 1000 lbs on one tire and 200 on the inside is better than 800lbs on one and 400 on the other? Nope. I take the PHB over the Watts as long as the PHB is long enough (Ours is) and the tracvel is reduced as Pablo addressed. Again, were are not even comparing the inferior Reverse Watts either- thats more crappy. It just feels better to the novice driver- feels better is not works better.

I don't think there is a single person that would even think of using or previously explain to me why I chose to run progressive springs on the rear of my 3rd gen. There were a few reasons for it- one being the migration of the rear rc laterally, I actually exagrerated that effect rather than eliminating it.

89_RS

Pablo,

theres a member on here, widowmaker, who AFAIK is the only person to have crunched the numbers on an inverse watts linkage in relation to lateral axle movement.

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/susp...w-watts-2.html