SFCs= less grip?
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: South Texas
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 92 Camaro RS
Engine: 305 TBI
Transmission: T5
Axle/Gears: 3.08
SFCs= less grip?
Recently got some UMI sfc's, and spohn lcas installed. The car seems much more solid, but I can kick out the rear end much more easily now.
Installed a wonderbar and strut tower brace (myself) and the car is MUCH more solid! It seems that all the supports are working together now and it's much better than SFCs alone.
BUT, now it also seems like it's much harder to maintain traction under fairly, well, pedestrian conditions. It seems like the car just always wants to break loose, so to speak.
Do I just need more tire (my first thought) or is something not right here? It seems like these "upgrades" have reduced low/mid speed cornering in favor of high speed.
Some car info:
92 camaro rs, torsen rear, motive cromo axles
225/45r16s
KYB gr2s x4 (2yrs old)
Camber -1 right, -.8 left; stock caster
Poly sway bar mounts (all), 34mm front bar
Any help is welcome! Help me get more grip!!
Installed a wonderbar and strut tower brace (myself) and the car is MUCH more solid! It seems that all the supports are working together now and it's much better than SFCs alone.
BUT, now it also seems like it's much harder to maintain traction under fairly, well, pedestrian conditions. It seems like the car just always wants to break loose, so to speak.
Do I just need more tire (my first thought) or is something not right here? It seems like these "upgrades" have reduced low/mid speed cornering in favor of high speed.
Some car info:
92 camaro rs, torsen rear, motive cromo axles
225/45r16s
KYB gr2s x4 (2yrs old)
Camber -1 right, -.8 left; stock caster
Poly sway bar mounts (all), 34mm front bar
Any help is welcome! Help me get more grip!!
#3
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Re: SFCs= less grip?
I think you just need better tires.
When you tighten up a car that has major flex issues (like every third gen) then you are eliminating an energy loss by allowing more energy to be transferred to the wheels instead of out through the body via flexing/etc.
When you tighten up a car that has major flex issues (like every third gen) then you are eliminating an energy loss by allowing more energy to be transferred to the wheels instead of out through the body via flexing/etc.
#5
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Georgetown TX
Posts: 1,928
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: Base 91 'bird
Engine: 3.1 v6
Transmission: 4L60
Axle/Gears: 9-bolt 3.27 & PBR
Re: SFCs= less grip?
The point by NOSHO is everything works together. Change one thing and it's likely something else needs to change to work best with the first change. I always knew suspension set up wasn't a simple thing but the more I've read the more complex it seems to get!
#6
Re: SFCs= less grip?
Has nothing to do with tires being better or worse on a chassis change.
The chasis is now stiffer so the inside rear wheel lifts easier where before the chassis flex kept it more planted.
You can search on here where I have stated a dozen times over the years that sfc addition requires a minimum 2mm drop in rear sway bar size.
The addition of sfc's will result in more consistent tire footprints in relation to each other.
The chasis is now stiffer so the inside rear wheel lifts easier where before the chassis flex kept it more planted.
You can search on here where I have stated a dozen times over the years that sfc addition requires a minimum 2mm drop in rear sway bar size.
The addition of sfc's will result in more consistent tire footprints in relation to each other.
Last edited by SlickTrackGod; 05-08-2014 at 01:22 PM.
Trending Topics
#8
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: South Texas
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 92 Camaro RS
Engine: 305 TBI
Transmission: T5
Axle/Gears: 3.08
Re: SFCs= less grip?
Less rear sway bar makes a lot of sense. I do plan on larger tires in the future, but for now I guess it's time to look for a smaller bar!
#9
Re: SFCs= less grip?
Nope. Buy the Jegs panhard relocation bracket and drop the panhard mount on the axle side one hole from stock position. Trust me you'll thank me later. They are about $80
#11
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: South Texas
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 92 Camaro RS
Engine: 305 TBI
Transmission: T5
Axle/Gears: 3.08
Re: SFCs= less grip?
SlickTrackGod: is this significantly easier than getting a smaller swaybar? More effective? Or is it because I'll be able to change it later?
I understand why it would work (roll center will drop) but I'm just trying to be practical.
I understand why it would work (roll center will drop) but I'm just trying to be practical.
#12
Member
Re: SFCs= less grip?
Mmmmmmmmm, good discussion. I had Alstons put on last year in the middle of the autocross season and immediately noticed that the car wasn't snap loose nearly as bad. It still pushes some but doesn't immediately transition to snap loose anymore. Buuuut, I did notice that the rear axle felt like it wanted to go to the right on launches. I don't remember it doing that too bad back in my drag days. Granted these autocross courses aren't prepped like a strip.
These days a lot more autocrosses in my area take place on speedways where you start on the banking. Whether they start us counterclockwise or clockwise it always wants to go to the right on launch. I thought it was just us pushing the car harder and that I needed to replace the floppy stock panhard rod but this relocation bracket sounds like the hot ticket. Perhaps people with this issue should do both? Also the inside rear wheel lifts fairly often (not high, but enough to make the tire spin) especially in right turns both at autocross and coming out of 13 at Nelson Ledges. Diffs don't like it! I have an 87 IROC so the stock rear bar is fairly big.
These days a lot more autocrosses in my area take place on speedways where you start on the banking. Whether they start us counterclockwise or clockwise it always wants to go to the right on launch. I thought it was just us pushing the car harder and that I needed to replace the floppy stock panhard rod but this relocation bracket sounds like the hot ticket. Perhaps people with this issue should do both? Also the inside rear wheel lifts fairly often (not high, but enough to make the tire spin) especially in right turns both at autocross and coming out of 13 at Nelson Ledges. Diffs don't like it! I have an 87 IROC so the stock rear bar is fairly big.
#14
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: South Texas
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 92 Camaro RS
Engine: 305 TBI
Transmission: T5
Axle/Gears: 3.08
Re: SFCs= less grip?
Flip, I do not. The car is not lowered and it won't be in the foreseeable future, so it's not something I was looking into.
#15
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Bethlehem, CT
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Car: 1983 Firebird SE
Engine: C5 LS1
Transmission: 6 speed
Axle/Gears: 3.42
Re: SFCs= less grip?
Of course, too steep an angle makes braking an exciting proposition. This is very true- I tried the lower setting once. It hooked up like mad, but the car got very funny as soon as you let off the gas and turned the steering wheel- like for bend in the road. 1 test drive and I put it right back. LOL.
Another thing to think about is setting your pinion angle.
BTW- I just went to a second set of SFC's (Alston- the inners) and it stiffened my car a ton. Had no bad effect on my traction, that I have seen.
Last edited by Flip 2; 05-11-2014 at 06:03 PM. Reason: mention roll and squat
#16
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Bethlehem, CT
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Car: 1983 Firebird SE
Engine: C5 LS1
Transmission: 6 speed
Axle/Gears: 3.42
Re: SFCs= less grip?
Not coming up with this item on Jeg's website……
Assume you are suggesting lowering the rear roll center.
#17
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Bethlehem, CT
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Car: 1983 Firebird SE
Engine: C5 LS1
Transmission: 6 speed
Axle/Gears: 3.42
Re: SFCs= less grip?
The upper of the 3 holes is probably best for cars that are not lowered.
#18
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
#20
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: South Texas
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 92 Camaro RS
Engine: 305 TBI
Transmission: T5
Axle/Gears: 3.08
Re: SFCs= less grip?
Thank you all for the help! As soon as I get some good time off I'll be trying some of your ideas.
I may opt for the lca relocator and panhard relocator over the smaller swaybar. I like to tweak settings wherever I find them, so these two options really speak to me!
I'll keep you posted...
I may opt for the lca relocator and panhard relocator over the smaller swaybar. I like to tweak settings wherever I find them, so these two options really speak to me!
I'll keep you posted...
#21
Supreme Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Iowa
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Car: 92 Camaro RS
Engine: LS1
Transmission: T56
Axle/Gears: 10bolt w3.42 Torsen
Re: SFCs= less grip?
I would like to add that by not running the stock 245/50R16's you are leaving some grip on the table. What the others have suggested is the fix to your problem. This is just one more thing that will help.
Or you could move up to 17x9 or 18x9 with some 275's but thats another thread.
Or you could move up to 17x9 or 18x9 with some 275's but thats another thread.
#22
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: South Texas
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 92 Camaro RS
Engine: 305 TBI
Transmission: T5
Axle/Gears: 3.08
Re: SFCs= less grip?
I would like to add that by not running the stock 245/50R16's you are leaving some grip on the table. What the others have suggested is the fix to your problem. This is just one more thing that will help.
Or you could move up to 17x9 or 18x9 with some 275's but thats another thread.
Or you could move up to 17x9 or 18x9 with some 275's but thats another thread.
#23
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Amsterdam, NY
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1988 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
Engine: 408 LSx
Transmission: T56 Magnum
Axle/Gears: 3.73 10-Bolt Detroit TrueTrac
#25
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Amsterdam, NY
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1988 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
Engine: 408 LSx
Transmission: T56 Magnum
Axle/Gears: 3.73 10-Bolt Detroit TrueTrac
#26
Re: SFCs= less grip?
Sorry, I missed this.
You can have the chassis side bolt about 1" higher from the ground then the axle side bolt when both measured at static heght without anyone in the car and aprox half tank of fuel. Dynamic set and bump travel articulation will put it past parallel the opposite way. It's a happy medium in travel. If you set the oanhard parallel at static, it will very likely severely invert in corner set & bump travel combined.
You can have the chassis side bolt about 1" higher from the ground then the axle side bolt when both measured at static heght without anyone in the car and aprox half tank of fuel. Dynamic set and bump travel articulation will put it past parallel the opposite way. It's a happy medium in travel. If you set the oanhard parallel at static, it will very likely severely invert in corner set & bump travel combined.
#27
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Bethlehem, CT
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Car: 1983 Firebird SE
Engine: C5 LS1
Transmission: 6 speed
Axle/Gears: 3.42
Re: SFCs= less grip?
Sorry, I missed this.
You can have the chassis side bolt about 1" higher from the ground then the axle side bolt when both measured at static heght without anyone in the car and aprox half tank of fuel. Dynamic set and bump travel articulation will put it past parallel the opposite way. It's a happy medium in travel. If you set the oanhard parallel at static, it will very likely severely invert in corner set & bump travel combined.
You can have the chassis side bolt about 1" higher from the ground then the axle side bolt when both measured at static heght without anyone in the car and aprox half tank of fuel. Dynamic set and bump travel articulation will put it past parallel the opposite way. It's a happy medium in travel. If you set the oanhard parallel at static, it will very likely severely invert in corner set & bump travel combined.
#28
TGO Supporter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: CT
Posts: 1,992
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
9 Posts
Car: 1986 Camaro SC
Engine: 305 TPI Procharged D1SC
Transmission: Tremec TKO-600
Axle/Gears: Moser 12 Bolt 3.73 posi
Re: SFCs= less grip?
when i added sub frame connectors i had done a strut brace and wonder bar, instant improvement to the rigidity of the car, i added a 12 bolt rear axle and with 36/24mm sway bar combo it was a nightmare the rear was so loose, i since removed the 24mm for an 18mm and it's much more easier to control
#29
Re: SFCs= less grip?
Disregard what was here, guess I'm just
Last edited by Joe Tag; 05-23-2014 at 07:00 AM.
#30
Supreme Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Rockledge, PA
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: SFCs= less grip?
I too also had a lack of "grip" after putting in spohn lca's The problem is the poly mounts, they are too stiff to let the axle rotate in relation to the car when it leans. The poly's are great for straight line traction and wear, but they do not allow rotation like the soft rubber mounts or rod end lca's do.
#31
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Amsterdam, NY
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1988 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
Engine: 408 LSx
Transmission: T56 Magnum
Axle/Gears: 3.73 10-Bolt Detroit TrueTrac
Re: SFCs= less grip?
I too also had a lack of "grip" after putting in spohn lca's The problem is the poly mounts, they are too stiff to let the axle rotate in relation to the car when it leans. The poly's are great for straight line traction and wear, but they do not allow rotation like the soft rubber mounts or rod end lca's do.
#32
Supreme Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Rockledge, PA
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: SFCs= less grip?
A friend has those founders pieces, softest poly I ever felt. Definitely a step in the right direction. I mull over the derlin rotojoint/delsphere or full rod ends. My car isn't a daily driver anymore so I'm leaning towards the rod ends more.
#33
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Amsterdam, NY
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1988 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
Engine: 408 LSx
Transmission: T56 Magnum
Axle/Gears: 3.73 10-Bolt Detroit TrueTrac
Founders has ones with poly on one end and the rod end on the other. Should be a good balance.
#34
Re: SFCs= less grip?
I too also had a lack of "grip" after putting in spohn lca's The problem is the poly mounts, they are too stiff to let the axle rotate in relation to the car when it leans. The poly's are great for straight line traction and wear, but they do not allow rotation like the soft rubber mounts or rod end lca's do.
JoeTag- I do not recall the avatar you are talking about. Nothing of that sorts comes to mind.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
TinnMann2
Canadian Region
16
06-18-2017 05:10 PM
luvofjah
Engine/Drivetrain/Suspension Parts for Sale
13
09-26-2015 08:28 PM
83 Crossfire TA
Suspension and Chassis
6
09-18-2015 12:01 PM