Here's what is quite possibly the first third-gen in the nation that uses Unbalanced Engineering's decoupled torque arm design.



This picture shows the torque arm and how it mounts between the axle and the body. The decoupled torque arm is like a slapper bar in that it applies the acceleration torque upwards through the snubber into the crossmember. Under braking the snubber drops and is limited NOT by the loop, but by the upper sliding link which translates the torque into a forward-facing force vector. This separates the car's instant center into two distinct centers: One rearward i.c. for maximum acceleration and one forward i.c. for maximum braking. In addition, all pinion adjustments are done via shims instead of rod ends, so the "sloppy rod end" disease of many of today's torque arm designs is eliminated.

Note the piece of steel that is welded to the top of the transmission tunnel: It enabled me to widen the tunnel about one inch so that I could clear the new torque arm. I've looked at the fourth-gen underbelly and it's wider at the top of the rear transmission tunnel than the third-gen. Installation of this torque arm required some precision hammer-banging, plus this incision in order to clear the crossmember & torque arm.
http://www.ws6transam.org/ubedcta2.jpg
This picture shows the front of the crossmember and the hand-fabricated driveshaft loop that I had to make. UBE doesn't offer a driveshaft loop with their torque arms, but I am sure that through the grapevine Jason will see these pictures and he's welcome to copy it if he wishes. As a thank-you, he can send me some new lower control arm relocation brackets in exchange for my design drawings.
http://www.ws6transam.org/ubedcta3.jpg
Forward facing view. The crossmember mounting brackets are plainly seen, as is the driveshaft loop and Andris's REALLY cool T56 retrofit crossmember for long tube headers.
http://www.ws6transam.org/ubedcta4.jpg
Side-view where you can see the welded-in body mounts. These mounts are welded to the floorpan, and made from .125 inch steel. I've chosen to attach the crossmember with four grade 8, 3/8 inch bolts, one-inch in length. The brackets themselves are not only mounted to the floor but they are welded to the bottom of square tube reinforcing that sits inside the car.
http://www.ws6transam.org/ubedcta5.jpg
Passenger side floorpan. The tubing is welded to the floor, the transmission tunnel, and is channeled through the floor at the rocker panel and into the subframe connector.
http://www.ws6transam.org/ubedcta6.jpg
Driver's side. There is one little bit of welding left here, right at the RH rear seat stud. I want to reinforce that part where I cut through the seat channel. Notice how the steel tubing goes through the floor on the LH side. It is welded directly to the Kenny Brown subframe connector.

I've just ordered a new Chromoly driveshaft from Driveline Solutions, and the distance from the 1350 yoke to the end of my T56 output shaft is 43 3/4 inches. It should match my new Moser 12-bolt quite nicely.

Cheers,
--Dan Burk

 

price?

 

http://www.unbalancedengineering.com/Camaro/

Plus fab costs.

 

Very cool!
Not $800 of cool, but still cool!
but;
They say it does contain rod ends... Or the fact that that's not how the adjustment is made, that's what eliminates the sloppyness?

I understand that when you brake, that rubber stubber can't possibly effect anything, so the upper rod is the "torque arm". But when you accelerate, and the stubber goes up, what's stoping the upper rod from also coming into play? Something that I can't see?

Let us know if it was worth it

 

Sonix,
The rod ends are on the sliding link only. The sliding link is a tube with a rod that slides in and out as the torque arm pivots. Those rubber doughnuts in the center of the sliding link act as the second stubber: They take up the forward motion of the sliding link. So, the rod ends are never in tension, and usually only have a small amount of compression on them. This relieves them from the extra wear and tear of road vibration. that, and the fact they are QA1 XMR-series means they shouldn't make much noise for a long, long time.

$800 for a torque arm? Yes, it was expensive, but I've been through two different aftermarket torque arms already, and both were noisy, and sloppy with actual slop you could see with the naked eye. In fact, it was bad enough to scare the technicians at Livernois Motorsports when they dynoed the car.

I've had problems not with traction, but with low-speed hunting as the conventional torque arm flexed up & down. I've also had my share of axle hop when hard braking on the road course. By decoupling the torque arm, I should be able to optimize traction while also eliminating axle hop. By pre-loading the sliding link, I should be able to also eliminate the low-speed hunting problem.

...the jury is out as to whether or not the noisy clunk will go away, but I'm hoping that it will at least sound "different".

 

How long is that arm from axle center to front snubber? How heavy is it? - The idea behind the design is good, but it looks to me a bit over engineered. But, I'm more of a drag race guy, so it may be better for handling.

 

hmm, that movie shows a bit of slop, but I figured that'd be about normal for any rear suspension piece..?
Wouldn't this decoupled design show a LOT MORE slop? It looks like that rear snubber would have a fair bit of movement before it engages (acceleration)... vs when you hit the brakes and it moves down an inch or so.

Maybe someone can explain this to me, according to their pictures on the UBE website, the top bar and snubber "acts" like a long bar to prevent wheel hop on braking, and the lower bar "acts" like a short bar on acceleration. The top bar is very short by my eye, can anyone say how it acts long? The angle and how it moves the instant center forward? Placing more weight on the front tires when braking?

I can't quite tell how the sliding link works from looking at it, I guess i've never seen a gizmo that does that function in real life, so i'm having a tough time picturing it. A rod that slides in a tube? Is it lubricated, or does it have a way to seize at all ? That would be my worry, if it was steel on steel?

I wish I had one of those in hand so I could fiddle with it, and see how it works. Seems like a cool design, but perhaps something that can be home-made, for $800 it's worth trying right?

You'll have to get another video under the car of the new setup, it sure sounds like a cool setup! I haven't seen many decoupled torque arm setups on here yet.

 

Under braking it acts like a 3 link, so instaed of the length being what determines the IC location, instead the IC is located where the LCA's and upper link intersect. Basicly, under braking you tune the IC location like you would on a true 3-link, under accell it acts like a torque arm.

The reason for this, is the direction of the foces. Because the upper link has 2 rod ends, that can rotate, the direction of force on that member is basicly compressing that member. You have to think about the interaction here. On a torque arm (and under acell on the UE peice), what is actualy taking the force? the snubber or bushing being pushed up into the mount. Because of this, you end up with the diagram we are use to seeing with our car. With the 3 link, or upper member on the UE arm, if you tried to apply that same style of force, the rod-ends would just rotate. Instead, the axles rotation is stopped by a compression force on the upper member.

 

Whoa, thanks! I think you blew my mind though, gotta get me a book on tuning suspension to catch up here, figure out what a 3 link is, etc...

Can you re-read this Dewey, I think you may have a typo, sounds contradictory?
What force (compression?) the rod ends would rotate? Isn't that what rod end style LCA's due? (take compression?). Then you say, but instead, the force is taken by the upper member, did you mean lower? Are we talking just about acceleration there?
I'm going to re-read this, and look at the pictures on UBE....

 

Sonix,

When I get home tonight (I am still at work), I'll try to get some time to make up a couple of pictures, to show this.

Some books are great, the real key, is to think about how the forces are interacting. The IC is really just an point that represents a summery of the motion and pivot points of the entire suspension in a certain direction.

If we sat down over a beer, I could show you exactly how this is working, but over the internet it is a little harder to show practicle applications.

Also, feel free to hit me up on AOL or MSN, I'm always willing to try to explain things.

 

Ok, here is a quick free-hand for you. I did this on the 3-link and torque arm diagrams from the Millikens.

Here is your torque arm rear suspension. Because the way the torque-arm attaches solidly to the rear axle, it pushs on the torque arm mount. This is why the IC is determined by the legth of the TA.



With the 3-link, that same rotation of the axle, gives us a diffrent effect. because of the bearing where the 3rd link attaches to the top of hte axle housing, if you try to rotate the axle, the bearing also rotates there (I marked it with a little red dot). This is what I was talking about in my first post. Since that is free to rotate, what stops the axle housing from rotating, is the compression of that 3rd member.



I hope that helps. So with those diagrams in mind. You can see how the upper link on the UE arm, works like the upper link in the 3-link suspension, and how the IC is determined in that direction. Then under acell, you can see how when that snubber hits the stop, then the bart of the UE arm, that is bolted solidly to the axle, like our torque arm, will have its IC located much further back, to help weight transfer.

(another note, does anyone know how to get attached images to show up large in my post, instead of just thumbnails?)

 

Ok, I think I follow you, the idea in the 3 link is that your bars only take forces through compression, and not tension.
The UBE piece is kinda like a torque arm crossed with a 3 link then? Best of both? (marketing wise? )

Now, when you say;
(the fact that the bearing rotates, that throws me off... If the mount on the axle is solid, then wouldn't that top bar be in compression, then what is rotating? A bolt in a hole? That wouldn't need a rod end ...?

That means that under decel, your top bar will be under compression, keeping the rear from rotating CCW in your pictures. Ok, (that bearing where you put the dot, that represents a rod end right?). Now wouldn't the lower bar also have a rod end ? At about the point where the lower arrow head is? Why would they need rod ends at all? To alleviate bind from twist? (ie, right tire hits pothole left does not?)

If I read one book on suspension, what would you recommend? The one by caroll smith? tune to win is it? Or the millikan one? I'd prefer one that has some info on the 3rd gen suspension, perhaps comparing it to others as well.

Thanks muchly dewey! I may be getting in over my head here, but I think that's the quickest way to learn!
I'm afraid I don't IM however, but thanks for the offer!

 

Sonix, As the suspension moves up and down, the angle on the sliding link changes, requiring a rod end. As for the torque arm, it does not need a rod end, for you can adjust pinion angle by adjusting the shims that sit underneath the snubber. Same thing with the sliding link: You can add or remove shims there as well. It's a combination of the two shim systems that determines pinion angle. I think I might actually look for some small springs with different spring rates, (sort of like valve springs) that I can swap in & out of that sliding link in lieu of the rubber bushing. Normally the snubber is supposed to maintain contact with the crossmember, except under heavy braking conditions. I think a spring may offer better control of that condition.

Books that I have on suspension design include Carrol Smith's work as well as a suspension book by Herb Adams. Mr. Adams is the creator of the original decoupled torque arm. I used to own one of those too, but I elected NOT to use it due to some technical issues I had with the design. There are only a few dozen of the Herb Adams torque arms in existence, as far as I know.

 

HI Dan

I am currently looking at the UBE decoupled torque arm for my 3rd gen road racer also. Unfortunetley the links to the photos are not working, any way to get you to repost them? also how is it working out?

Steve

 

I did find this one on his site

http://ws6transam.org/Gallery/albums...torquearm4.jpg

 

Back from dead!


So I'm just wondering through. Would you say this part is good enough to justify spending 800+ and modifying to fit? My car is in build stage and wondering if this is something I should throw money at. I have a spohn now.

 

Ive seen this on FRRAX, IMHO its the best option, but you would have to be a very serious racer to get the benefit of it or your money's worth from it. Especiallly if it has to be retro-fitted to fit a thirdgen. On my ideal suspension list it falls under the same category as the watts link, I want it, but can't justify the cost.

 

I know that my skills are not that good but it just bugs me to know it can be better. I'm not 100% convinced a watts link is worth it (about 70%)

Thinking if I should try and save for this

 

 

The idea that it helps with brake hop means more to me than anything. That's why I stayed with stock length for now. I am very worried exp. After hearing horror stories of people loosing control at 130mph because of brake failure and or something like this. Or excessive bind/spike in spring rate because of bottoming something out. I'm more worried about this BECAUSE my skills are not up there yet. If I build it to do more than I can I figure I have room to grow without having a wall

 

Wow, no kidding, back from the dead!

I.m mobile right now, and will try to catch up on wednesday.

Cheers,
Dan

 

I do not like this thing one bit becasue of the sliding link. talk about horindous throttle modulation. It would be far better to incorporate a Torque Absorber into the link area to give a preload and some resistance to have to breach upon braking. It would only breach under heavy braking loads that way. I would never run that design in the way its presented, especially for any kind of commuting use in stop and go traffic- what a nightmare.

 

Ah, hum.

...so you are some sort of suspension god who can rule his irrefutable and inerroneous judgement on anything and everything, regardless of whether or not you've actually tested it? I'm guessing you've never even seen this design underneath a car, much less been in one, and doubt you've put a couple hundred laps around Gingerman Raceway with it, either.

I have.

 

It's a real challange to get the setup angle right for the snubber force.

I have played with quite a few 3rd-links in my day.

 

Here we go again.....

Anyways...

Ws6transam, so would you say it's worth it?

 

I dont know who you are, except for some armchair yahoo racer wannabe who comes out of nowhere and starts criticizing stuff he knows nothing about. That's the only sore spot I have. I never heard of you, you are probably a troll. Prove your credentials before blowing hot air into my thread.

Yes, the UBE torqe arm assembly works great. Ask anyone who saw it perform at Memphis in 2008 at NFME, or at Gingerman raceway, or at midmichigan scca autocross events in 2009, or at the last of the camaroZ28.com events in Michigan where I have received trophies.

You are not qualified to pass judgement on my suspension unless you back it up with math, fact, real suspension fabrication proof, and proven performance. I have been at this for 25 years. Good night.

 

...

 

...

 

...

 

...

 

So, What do you want to know about third links?

 

Ok I know we all have opinions, I have seen this argument before. Slicktrackgod, I have seen you prove yourself like this a few times. I'm not bashing anyone here. All I ask is can we stay on topic? I would hate to see this thread closed.you may not be a fan of the UE unit. I would like to see more about it myself. That is why I'm asking. If you made a thread explaining a different setup that has similar results I would be happy to read it as well. If it has already been done please pm me a link. I have plenty of time to read about setups.


So can we please stop the contests of credentials?

I just asked ws6transam if he thought it was worth it? To pay 700+ and modify to fit

 

[quote=91camarosRS;5579165]Ok I know we all have opinions.you may not be a fan of the UE unit. I would like to see more about it myself. That is why I'm asking. If you made a thread explaining a different setup that has similar results I would be happy to read it as well. If it has already been done please pm me a link. I have plenty of time to read about setups. [quote]


The UE setup basically modulates between a Torque arm and a 3rd link. THe troulble you have here is the slide link and the travel cage of the snubber. Why? they had to put it in to prevent the tqarm from hitting the ground in extreme cases- so what happens? it will ABRUPTLY hit the bottom of the slide cage and go right back to being a tqarm even in the downward braking cycle making pedal modulation a real mystery.

A better solution? would be a double spring torque absorber setup just as a 3rd link and completely do away with the Tqarm all together. it will create a little more brake dive on the nose of the car rather than yank down the center, but that is mainly if the angle is setup wrong. The biggest problem both the decoupler Tqarm AND a pure 3rd link have is lack of room. if he fabbed up thuis to fit the 3rd gen, then he could have also taken the time to just fab a cage with a vertical offset 3rd link and help retain the rear caster and toe that go to hell with the rotation of the rearend. Getting over your head probably here (please take no offence, the complesity of this on a scale of 1-10 is a 9 when dealing with 3rd links, and an 11 when dealing with the added means of spring loads tq absorbers.)

 

Now if I were the OP trying to use this setup, MY OPINION (which I am entitled to in a public forum) would be to take off the lower cage limit for the snubber travel in downward motion, and try and fit/replace the rubber bumper slide link arm with a double loaded Torque Absorber that would limit the downward thrust agaisnt a preloaded spring rate. When it breached (if it were to hit that hard) it would simply breach in forward thrust against the chassis in path of travel, and not downward, thus no real wheelhop.

Now on the upward thrust, I would preload it still in a slight 3rd link setup and have it hit against the Tqarm snubber upward under hard throttle hits- whereas mildly strong throttle imputs would simply absorb a little and retain traction when applying off a corner. You would also get a little rear caster gain under induced throttle over the static settings if the snubber is set at the right height and spring preload.

Here's a double action unit
http://www.smileysracing.com/shoppin...i=28404&c=1562

Orr you could go to a cheaper double biscuit version and work with different biscuit materials to ge tthe right preload. These things take ALOT of setup time.

 

Would you mind starting a thread with drawings? Or even a complete redesign? I can see why the op would want to do this. It's a "bolt in" and less math. I'm no engineer but I am an amateur suspension enthusiast. I do understand most of what you are talking about but I fail to see how you could get caster from rear end? I understand the articulation and rear steer,CAMBER changes and axle flex. I don't see how caster could help unless wheels are turning.

 

If the chassis is setup to allow geometry to cause rear steer= roll induced understeer, then Caster and camber come into play. The rearends are built with a fixed setting of slight negative camber- very slight. As the rear end roll downward in the slide link, and as the nose dives, and 3rdly as the car rolls(especially in roll induced oversteer when most have this improperly set) you go into alot of positive rear cmaber. By keeping the nose of the pinion higher you are keeping the bottom of the axle setting more optimum in its fixed position as the assembly rotates x,y & z.

Becasue a third link is shorter and more matches the length of the LCA's, the right angle can maintain or actually increase rear caster if properly set. Note that alot of 3rd link angle can highside a car under hard braking corner entrance, so 3rd link angle is CRITICAL!!!

What happens on this fixed position decouupler is the 3rd link angle in not really adjustable AND it gets more angle as the car lowers because of the rotation nature of the Tqarm its mounted to.

I am not going to bother trying to draw anything because you'd have to hack out half the cars rear sheetmetal to fab something strong with vertical adjustment and horizonal load support.

Because of all this, if you lower the car enough with this decoupler, your slide link angle gets very steep and the chassis will yank upward under pulling force on it as the chassis pulles aways from the braking force of the rear axle and tires. As it yanks upward, it then AGAIN hits the bottom of the snubber cage and yanks the chasiss back down again when it breaches travel- its got to act as a yoyo if it is off in sensitivity. THis setup lacks the appropriate adjustment room in my book. I do nto have to try it to see what I have experienced in other racecars with 3rd links- and as stated many times, I wrenched on cars in NASCAR ranks from Arca/campingworld series (we called it West Series a few years back) and down. Never made it to the big boys in division 1 &2 because I do nto have any readneck dynasty connections with my last name- politics, like anything, lots of politics.

I certainly have the bragging rights with my winning resume- its in the history book and they can never take that from me. And for the credietials proof, I guess Ill throw that in - I even had the factory Supertrucks sponsor.

 

Does the sliding link not function somewhat like a single action spring under compression? Ie the bushings? If things are just right how could this not work?


I could see why to do this swap, if you want IRS will you design your own or modify a corvette rear? Is it the best? No but it's better. I for one would like to keep a torque arm setup because it's what came on the car. However who doesn't want to improve?

 

Was it worth the time, effort, and 700?

Probably not unless for a road race chassis that is looking for the last bit of performance. I did it purely out of curiosity. This thread predates all my active development on setting it up for the car. Decoupled torque arms originally were created by Herb Adams. Mine, however works well enough for race day.

As for my other new friend, ...Still not impressed. You can have the last word if you want it. I will not bow to your altar of assumed knowledge as I've met too many real people who have really been there and done that, and who offered their wisdom with a lot more grace and humbleness than you. Your claims still sound like simple shirt-tail associations to me. If you have issues with the decoupled torque arm assembly, take them up with Jason Swindle - It's his design. I only adapted it to the third-gen. As for the upper link, the piece that solved the whole deal was to replace the rubber with captured die springs. There's only a quarter-inch of fore/aft movement in upper link, and the die spring works the treat. I get no wheelhop when the shocks are set up right, and BMW M3's hate me 'cause when I see them, I pass them two turns later. Maybe you are right, I don't know. All I know is the DCTA does okay by my book. Though I think ordinary torque arms are probably just fine for most cars.

Knowing what I know now, Would I do it again? Probably not. I'd probably put the time into more course practice, and the money into better tires, shocks & struts.

 

I always wanted to do an IRS for the third-gen ~

I've seen prototype IRS systems underneath some fourth-gen test mules when I was at Pontiac world headquarters back in 1996; Very, very cool setups. They did pretty good at the test track in Milford too, but got canned because of the expense of manufacturing.

I suggest that a lightweight tubular and adjustable torque arm that runs on the poly bushing on the transmission tailshaft is the way to go for most F-bodies. They seem to be just as fast at the track for the casual driver. Rod ends are problematic and unless you buy the absolute best ones, they get dirt in the races and wear out.

I went through four different torque arm setups, including two different Spohn torque arms, and the crossmember attached torque arm, though nice enough, has maintenance issues that make it clunk a lot on the street. Of course, Steve could have improved his design since then, I dont know. I bought my first torque arm from him back in the days when he used pine jigs and hand-fabricated each piece himself from inside the pole barn with his father. The business is a lot larger since then.

 

...

 

...

 

IMHO (humbleness is underrated in our society), the cross-member is the better set-up. Take it off the tail-shaft! What maintenance issues do you refer to? I have none with the BMR trak pak. Only issue is cosmetic with the weld tab on the subframe connector (see pic).

 

The maintenance issues I talk about are when the rod ends pick up dirt and root out the teflon races. Then the crossmember torque arm design gets noisy. You need the absolute best rod ends in there to keep them from going south on you. The torque arm with a tubular end through a poly mount will stay quiet for the long term.

BMR's trak pak uses a ladder link instead of a rod end, and that too, is probably a decent solution. However I always thought of the trak pak as more of a drag race friendly design than something for overall handling, both maximum acceleration, cornering, and braking. It's been eight or nine years since I really looked at them though. Trak pak was super new when I was fiddling with suspension design, and I'm not sure which came onto the market first. I think they were sponsoring Taner Bosnali at the time with his 9 second T56 Camaro; I was always intrigued by Herb Adams's decoupled torque arm, so I naturally wanted to try out the DCTA.

 

Since I see the BS has stopped, I will clean up all of my posts so it stays to topic.

I would appreciate if others do the same- it's called self moderating.

 

Same here. K read his book and was hooked. Wondering if I could find an old unit from him.


My current torque arm is very heavy and lacks room for headers. If I keep it, I plan on using a del sphere end. Options on this? Ws6transam, which would you suggest I do for my build?(thread in Sig)

Btw... Pics don't work anymore...

 

Unbalanced Engineering's decoupled torque arm assembly, with Andris Skulte prototype T56 retrofit crossmember, and my hand-fabricated Y-pipe and some Hooker super-comp headers. The floorpan has been braced with one-inch rectangular tubing to triangulate the floor mounts to the subframe connectors and the transmission tunnel.

I did this after I recorded with high-speed in-car video demonstrating the visible deformation of the transmission tunnel of Bosnali's 9-second 6-speed Camaro with what I think was the BMR trak pack prototype. (I did this in 2002 or 2003). Since the third-gen had no crossmember mounts, I erred on the conservative side and welded up everything. I also hand-fabricated the driveshaft loop and mounted it on the UE torque arm crossmember.



Here's what the clearance looks like with the exhaust system after mounting it.



Here's another view that shows how much clearance I have from the Hooker supercomps past the retrofitted T56, and then up past the Unbalanced Engineering decoupled torque arm assembly. The collectors are the lowest point of the system.







Here's the spring and the cup that Dean hates so much:



Here is the undershot of the Y-pipe fabrication process in which you can see exactly how it clears the back of the T56 and interacts with the UBE DCTA crossmember.



Here's my old Spohn system versus the new DCTA, which is, if I recall, about five or six pounds lighter. There was no way to run long tube headers and a six-speed in the third gen with the Spohn setup.



Here is a long-shot of the assembly before I fabricated the cup and moeller die spring that replaced the rubber doughnut on the sliding link.



More pictures for you:



Last one, covering the whole underside of the car.



Of course, I'm now going to catch a bunch of crap about how dirty the car is underneath (It's 80's rustproofing) and if I were you, I'd not try duplicating my efforts. After all, according to your resident suspension expert, I'm just a putz and a mechanical idiot.

I *DO*, however, have extensive photographs to back up my claims to actually fabricating, and testing suspensions, chassis, brakes, electronics, powertrains, instrumentation, and fuel injection design & transmission retrofits.

I've also been a full member of the SAE as an automotive design & instrumentation engineer since 1994. I've driven the proving grounds in the mid-1990's. I've taught shock and vibration seminars at NASA, Disney, and done projects for the US Army. I am now currently a PhD graduate student at Michigan State University studying Geophysics in northeastern Siberia, as well as developing advanced calibration techniques for seismic networks.

I was the guy who first brought the ALDL data stream to the DIY_EFI mailing lists in the early 1990's that helped us all get our wonderful aftermarket scan tools. I am the guy with one of the first FAST XFI fuel injection systems to be installed outside of Comp Cams. I am the one who helped sort out the wiring for doing T56 retrofits and used to make those little 6-speed shift plates for the center console. I am the one who filmed, edited, and produced the CamaroZ28 Nationals DVD in 2003, by developing shock-mounted, in-car video camera systems for capturing the violent launches of the eight-second street racing cars from around Michigan. I've been wrenching and developing the SAME car since 1990. I've even documented, using NIST-traceable and certified accelerometers and professional data acquisition, this SAME car catching 1.21 g of lateral acceleration at Gingerman raceway in 1999.

I've also taken a first place trophy in autocross at the National Fbody Motorsports Event in 2005, as well as the Tremec "Best engineered T56 retrofit" award at the NCMA competition, and the 2007's Chris Jackson Memorial award for most outstanding F-body.

All design, fabrication, and testing was done by myself.

I'm not a bench racer. I do real stuff, and I don't go around spouting unsolicited criticism of other people's projects.

 

NOTE: Im an armchair racer
Note: He stated the UE Tq Assembly works GREAT(meaning in the stock form that I say the sliding link is horrible and should be changed- its what he's mad about)
NOTE: The UE sliding link "I" commented about
Note: Where did I say I hate a spring loaded Tq Absorber- it was the very thing I suggested anyone try and incorporate if they were going to try to use a decoupled assembly-Read where I posted my opinion before this guy actually shows later its what he did.

So Whhy the f8ck you get your panties in a bunch and argue with me and say who the hell am I and all the other bullsh*t about me being an armchair racer-
THEN_ come into here later and actually show you had to end up doing just the exact thing I was talking about?

Yes you are a putz and you just proved it yourself.

 

Yes I am a suspension god

choke on that Assshole

 

Prove it with real iron and track times, and not just pictures of you standing around with famous people.

 

In before lock!

Just saying, if you have to "self moderate yourself" you probably shouldn't have posted in the first place.

Huh, you talk about eliminating the torque arm entirely not just adding a spring:

Just to make sure the childish name calling can't be "self moderated."

Dean, I'm not sure why you're here anymore. Please just move on or buy a another f-body and have something new to post instead of just rehashing the same crap in every single post.