Hey guys I need your thoughts/ideas/theories on getting the most out of my suspension with a limited tire.

The new rules for my car's class this year is street tires only (not even drag radials! ) so I want to work on suspension and try to get myself some good 60' despite having to use a 'non race' tire.

First of all, besides drag radials, whats a good radial tire to buy to get me out of the hole?

Secondly is there much that can be done to plant those hard *** tires to road on the launch?

I already have aftermarket LCA's with the relocation brackets, I'm planning to solid mount my torque arm (conical rod mounts) with a new stiffer torque arm, but I fear this wont be enough for even a 2.0 60' on street tires.

Has anyone tried using airbags?

Any other tricks or ideas that I can try?

This is for my 82 camaro btw. hoping for 13.0's at 105 with new motor i just installed. (see sig)

 

What's your tire budget? What wheels?

 

Last year i was running BF goodrich g force ta's. they hooked up pretty good. best 60' was 1.85. this was all with stock suspension BTW.

 

futura super sports from pepboys. they actually work really well. also look into some adjustable shocks. Chassis Engineering makes a cheap set....of course, there's always QA1

 

How much street time on the car?
If you don't drive it much or drive it hard on the street you can.... Pull the front sway bar off. Put a rear sway bar on it, and install 3 way adjustable drag struts and shocks.

Then other stuff....

Best hooking rear street tire I found to date (for my 15" wheels) are yoko avid s/t's. I trired quite a few rear tires on my car, one set after the next. Launching the same way. The BFG t/a was the WORST. Nothing but a smoke show. The yoko avids was the best.

Posi unit or locker if you don't already have one

Install sub frame connectors if you aint got them yet

V-6 springs
remove as much nose weight as you can

don't go wild taking weight off the rear. Rear weight is good weight for traction limited cars

Tallest, widest rear tires you can fit under the car or with in the size limit in your class if they run a size limit rule too.

Get the driveline angle right. Pinion down 2-5*.

Solid mounted torque arm will help, but any and all vibes, you'll feel. I mounted mine solid on my th-400 swap. no rod end or nothing. Just 2 bolts through the holes in end of TQ arm and into my th-400 swap tq bracket thing.

Get the tire air pressure right. Street tires aint like DOT drag radials or slicks, lower aint better. Do burn outs and watch the mark. You dont want the center lighter than the sides, or the sides lighter than the center. You want a nice even mark that's the same color across the whole footprint

 

my pilot h rated tires were great at the track heated up. neted myself 1.8 consistent 60's with limited suspension mods with a standard 245/50/16 h tire i thought it was great.

loved those tires...

 

yokohamas are great traction tires but wear out very fast. bfg t/a are possibly the worst tire ever made i agree w/ night rider

 

Thanks guys!

Tires I have to buy new anyways, I'm running 16" iroc rims and I'm willing to spend a bit extra there if thats what it will take..

I'd like to be able to get similar traction on the street as I do at the track as well so I think I'll leave the sway bar alone but perhaps adjustable front struts? really soft for racing, nice and firm for cruising..

I already have a locker installed on it, even with drag radials though, my best 60' is only 2.0

 

Something is really screwed up suspension wise or you can't drive worth a damn if you only 2.0'd on a drag radial.

If you don't already have a higher stall speed torque converter, get one. If you have a dirt track around, see if you can get one of those guys to spill the beans on how to make a tire softer.

 

I got to agree with nape... Something is really screwed up. I seen 460 hp cars with peg leg rears cut better than 2.0 60' on DR's

I don't have no times to back this up with, but before and after my locker install was night and day. On the street, If I just floored it from a stop, I would burn through 1, 2 and into 3 for a total of about 300-350'

After the locker install. Same spot, same shifting and launching. I burned through 1, into 2, and about 40' after second gear, for a total of about 130-150'

Thats just with my street tires. Now if I use better throttle controll like I do when I run it at the track, I spin about half that or so. Thats rolling into the throttle.

As for tire softeners... Here's a few things to try..

get a five gallon bucket and mix in an appropiate mix of granular tide bleach detergent and water. wash the entire tire tread and sidewalls with a coarse bristle brush then rinse with water.

Also here's a tip from somebody on another board.

"5 parts Xyline (from any paint store)
1 part Acetone (also from the paint store)
Put it on with a paint brush about every hour for three hours.
It will soften them right up. The normal durometer reading on our spec tire is around 60-65. When I get done they are around 40-45. this is a differance of a normal street tire (60-65) compound softened to a slick (40-45) compound (Just an example)"

 

Yes I even have a 2600 stall converter and yet I cannot get better than 2.0

Although no one around here can get much better, perhaps its the high altitude or less than perfect track conditions. my friends awd syclone gets 1.9's only

its frustrating.

 

Sumitomo HRTZ IIs I have a set on my FWD Talon, with 21 PSi boost and about 275FWHP and I ran a 12.9 at 105 with a 1.8 60ft. A little heat and feathering the clutch and gas, and those tires stuck like glue!!! And mind you, the only suspension mod I have on the car is a front STB. The only problem with them, is finding the right size. I know it is limited. I had to use 205/ZR5016s.


Hope that helps

 

using a more "up" pinion angle loads the tires less.

the fastest radial tired cars in the country use less pinion angle and a timing computer to help retard the timing vs. time to limit power out of the hole.

 

I’ve cut much better then that on truly hard street radials.



If you get it right at the track you shouldn’t be spinning at all. There’s a lot more to it then just suspension and tire setup, getting sub 1.9’s with plain radials is probably 80% or more the driver.


Don’t waste your time and tires. Any strong solvent like xyline or acetone will break down the rubber compound and release the plasticizers in the rubber. They will test softer but as soon as you get some heat into them you’ll burn off the solvents that you added and be left with nothing but dried out rubber that will quickly fall apart.

 

WRT to advice… I’ve cut 1.7 60’s on my WS6 with a 6 speed on the stock 275 40 17 GSC rubber. I’ve cut 1.8’s in my formula 350 on the original 16y/o (at the time) Goodyear ZR’s, and even high 1.8’s on my ’83 TA with an open rear and some BFG radial TA’s. I got the impression that with the formula and the ’83 TA I was limited by the drivetrain at the time, not the tires (I tried some much stickier tires that I was able to launch as hard as I wanted on and didn’t run any faster.

Suggestions:
- as long as they’re mounted on reasonable size tires real radials work best at tire pressures in the 32 -36psi range
- ignore the no water box people. Tires don’t work if they’re not warm, and if you do your burnout right you won’t have any water in the thread to cause problems. Most of the tracks that I run at do not even allow you to go around the water box
- I’ve never been able to document a difference in 60’ with the front sway bar removed or just disconnected, so I don’t bother anymore.
- LCA brackets don’t work with relatively hard radials. I tried them on my WS6 in both lower positions and was never able to run faster then low 1.9’s with the rest of the combination the same as the 1.7 runs and those weren’t even consistent, I was running times all over the 1.9-2.2 range. The relo brackets allow you to hit the tires harder out of the hole, but since the radials have stiffer sidewalls they cannot absorb the energy and they actually bounce off the pavement. I found that I was able to hook hard out of the hole with them but was spinning wildly by the 10-15’ mark. I suspect that with stiffer spring rates/more shock dampening you might be able to get them to work, but I tried on the WS6 by adjusting air bag pressures up and never got better results
- In the range that we’re talking about I would suggest good, functional stock pieces with 2 exceptions: an aftermarket PHR will take the flex out of the rear suspension that allows the car to jump sideways on the 1-2 shift… this shouldn’t improve your 60’ time but you will see it in your overall time. Air bags in the rear springs can be effective tuning devices. I ran them on my WS6 and found that I ran fastest with the passenger side at between 23 and 27psi (depending on track conditions) and the driver’s side between 5 and 7 psi.
- Tire wise, what works on the street doesn’t necessarily work at the track. For example, most of the Goodyear tires that I’ve owned are almost slick/greasy on the street but I’ve managed to knock some decent times on of them at the track. BFG radial TA’s are OK, dunlap GT qualifiers and pep boys futures are easily the best normal radials that I”ve run across. KDW’s and R1’s are really surprisingly good for tires with a really hard sidewall, and are much easier to launch well then most of the rest of these but I’ve seen 2 issues with them, first, they might be considered race tires, and second, I’ve seen more then one car get squirrelly at about mid track with them. Somewhere I have some video of my brother’s car pulling a 1.8 on them only to get totally sideways and almost hit the jersey barrier right around the 1/8 mile.
- Work out a pattern that you can follow with the burnout/stage/launch. If you can’t repeat the conditions from run to run you’ll never figure out what works. I actually keep notes as well as actual and corrected times for all my passes in a spreadsheet… it’s a bit **** retentive but it’s suprising how fast you’ll learn things about your car.
- On normal radials, an extra ½ tank of gas may dropyour 60’ enough that you’ll run faster in the ¼ then you would with a near empty tank. My best times in my WS6 are actually with a full tank
- I suspect on a car with enough power with a careful driver you should be able to get into the 1.6’s on radials before you really need to start swapping parts. I haven’t experimented enough with a fast enough car to know… hopfully this year I’ll have a better idea.

 

Pinion angle has nothing to do with loading the tires. It has everything to do with driveline alignment.

Based on the rear suspension type, the pinion needs to be set more negetive depending on traction and HP which will cause the nose of the pinion to thrust upward causing a misalignment, power robbing vibrations, and hazardous failure of the drivetrain.
So again, pinion angle does not dictate traction, traction will dictate pinon settings.

 

Yes everyone knows that driveline angle is the "most important" adjustment for pinion angle but within that 1.5 to 3 degrees of proper u-joint angle for any car you have some adjustment which you can use.

There is some effect and correlation to pinion angle versus tire bite, otherwise those poor souls with improper angle that still have a solid rear would have great traction EXCEPT for the vibration.

 

Then please explain to me how you think this works to benefit traction- If it takes a drawing or what ever, please show or tell me further how it will change traction?

 

I will work on that, but in the mean time, can you tell me why a person would strive to achieve such an "ideal" pinion to drive line angle for track use and then wish to return it "stock" for street driving?

from what you have explained, wouldn't ideal be "ideal" for street and track use?

Im not concerned for those persons that adjust it once and leave it (like yourself if you so choose). I am talking about those persons that adjust to their own "optimal" adjustment for the track and then return it to a more stock "street" setting.

Are those persons simply misguided souls?

Also how does one explain the pinion angles which yield the best 60 ft and 1/4 mile times yet have the pinion so far out of adjustment with the driveline that huge vibrations and diminished U-joint life occurs.

Under the more common theory of adjustment that you and some others have the optimal adjustment shouldn't cause driveline vibration.

Yet most of the vehicles I have tuned for pinion angle based solely on timeslip performance, the pinion is pointed so far down that the driveshaft vibrates like crazy. I wouldn't expect that to last long ojn the street.

What my point is that, just because I cannot draw you a picture explaining it does not refute the timeslip proof.

I had someone the other day telling me that no car has ever had 40 degrees of total timing adjustment, he was able to draw me a picture as to why they never could but that didnt make it fact.

please address this as best you can. I will further research this claim I have made as I have no technical answer and I do not think the question you have posed is unreasonable.

thank you for piquing my interest on this.

 

You answered the question yuorself.
They do not do it for traction, they do it to cancell out all power robbing vibrations when under full throttle bursts down a 1/4 mile.

And of course, if that car set for Drag only use were to be driven on the freeway at cruse and coast speeds in traffic, the pinion angle wouild be sagged way to much neg and would prematurely wear the u-joints.

So again, it has nothing to do with making the car hookup better, thus it has nothing to do with improving the tire traction by setting the pinion differently.

 

Yes, if the suspension was allowing the same amount of motion both ways. The fact that it’s different is just pointing out that something is loose or flexing in the rear suspension/chassis.

Optimum would always where under normal load the angle at the rear yolk is equal and opposite to what it is at the front yolk so that the u-joints accelerate/decelerate at the same rates. Also, if the total angle ends up being too great you’ll break u-joints and if it is not great enough you’ll wear them out quickly.



Either misguided souls or ones that have just thrown in the towel and decided that they aren’t going to control pinion angle correctly no matter what they do. I’m tempted to go with misguided souls, since most of the f-body pinion angle discussions that I’ve seen don’t even seem to have a clue about what is considered proper driveline angle/phasing.



Suspension points moving flexing enough under a hard launch that you have to get the u-joint angle that far out to get it correct under launch.

 

I consider those all reasonable explantations.

 

I take it you have not been around for the 100 times I have posted this info in the past years- every time the topic comes up I or someone else re-posts this sketch I made. It is always expressed that the front yoke angle and the rear pinion angles need to cancel under "normal thrust" (that about -1* on most street cars without leaf springs) otherwise hbad harmonics will ruin the u-joints and cause vibrations

 

if it is only about the relation of the angles, and if there were no deflection to "compensate for", then a positive angle as long as the relationships were maintained shouldnt be a problem right?

for example if it is all about relationship of the driveline angles then a positive would be just fine as long as the reciprical angles allowed it?

using your example but inverted, if it is only about relation then it shouldnt matter if we go positive instead of negative right?

 

No I haven’t, since unlike you seem to believe I’m not stalking you to pick on you and generally don’t spend much time on the suspension board here since little if anything original has been done and talked about with 3rd gen suspensions in a long time and tons of what is is largely irrelevant or incorrect as it is applied, and then we end up with a pile of cars running >2second 60’ times and handling poorly where they would do much better in good, stock condition.

And yes, you’re right, pinion angle is actually just the difference between the front and rear angles, not the difference between the pinion yolk and DS, which is just about meaningless but seems to be the only thing most of the f-body world cares about.

FWIW, your middle and possibly the top example would kill U-joints

Correct, but it wouldn’t make sense to do that way. He’s showing a 1* pinion angle that would get taken up by suspension deflection under acceleration, where with your redraw you’re showing a 1* pinion angle that would turn into a 2* pinion angle if you had 1* of suspension deflection.

 

so other than deflection there is no reason what so ever to run a neg pinion angle?

 

Then why not learn to try and be helpful to people and give a reason WHY when you make such commemts.

You claim to have such knowledge, sounds to me tthat you are reading everything out of a book then giving an opinion.

You have actually made a comment about me publically if I actually have gotten lucky on my own car from trial and error, and is that all I know. I would love to see your credentials. I have seen your cars, they are POS's. So what do you do, you break down and buy a brand new car so it rides decent for a few years. This is not the nature of someone who knows how to actually perform work to an older vehicle and make/repair/customise it to a well rounded car for you intention- sounds and looks to me like you are booksmart but cant actually wrench to back what you preach. I can partner, thats why many here look to me for answers.

 

because he doesnt make personal attacks or attack other's work.

 

dean,

i respect your opinion alot about suspension and the smaller v6 cars. i looked up to you alot when you were africkingoodtime and whatever else and spent alot of time on the v6 board. when you got banned, i never understood why. after reading this post, and others in the suspension/brake boards, i understand why. whether you have alot of knowledge about this stuff or not is irrelevant when you haughtily mock other peoples lack of knowledge. it's childish man. nothing you said in your last post had anything to do with the question at hand, and (regardless of your obvious knowledge) only made you look like an ***. the "i-am-better-than-you-cause-i-have-hands-on-experience" attitude is getting outta hand. if you don't like the fact that we are all uneducated, either educate us in a manner that doesn't make us feel worthless, or leave.

 

He has to me on several occations now. time I call him to the table and you and Nova both jump my butt.

 

it shows poor taste to specifically attack someones person, work, or projects in an arguement. It shows weak character.

To do so outside of an agreement is another thing. For example, if a person shows up with a wooden wing, electric ebay turbocharger, or a neon kit etc then I would expect them to be kicked like a soccerball.

 

What comments? That those 2 examples will damage the U-joints? Close to 0* will not allow the needle bearings in the caps to move enough and they’ll all wear at one point wearing the thing out quickly, and 6* is outside of the normal range that you’d want to run a u-joint if you can avoid it (which is why I said possibly on that one)…



Whatever. Funny how you keep saying BS like this during a discussions of parts and related crap that I’ve built and done before, while you post nothing but theory and raves for your favorite suspension part builder. Funny how you keep ragging on my crap and lack of experience when I own most of the parts that you’ve raved about and have them off of the car I bought them for since I decided that the ones that I built myself worked better. It’s also a little funny how the only reason that I ran across any of your idiot posts because people asked me via PM and offline to come and look at them and comment/post correct information, otherwise like I already said, I probably would have never looked into the forum.

1- I have stated fact, you don’t like that and you don’t seem to be able to comprehend English. I don’t believe that I have taken any direct shots at your car or anything like that. You have.

2- Credentials… funny.... Lemme guess, you’re the lead suspension design engineer for Lotus, right?

3- POS cars- Did I miss something? Am I supposed to be approving my list of cars with you before I post? I didn’t know that this is the appearance forum or some such BS, did I somehow land with the waxers of the f-body world?

Not that it’s any of your business, but since a good fraction of those that have posted here know anyway from other places, I bought my WS6 mostly because my wife wanted me to, slapped some parts on it, ran mid 11’s on radials and then got tired of it and parked it. it’s not a race car and not a driver (it’s got 28K miles), right now it’s just the car that I drive when I’ve managed to take everything else apart. The formula was bought as a parts car to use to fix another up that ended up totaled beyond repair. It’s a piece of crap but the drivetrain only has 70K miles and it was bought from a competitive road racer/autoxer and had a pile of nice parts on it. I decided that since it was mechanically sound and has an almost perfect interior I’d inspect it and turn it into a driver. It is basically a mule for testing assorted stuff which will eventually get swapped into another body when I find just exactly what I want. I own a few non f-bodies that are drivers and spend most of my non-work time working on either my brother’s “race” car or my friend’s 67 Lemans that I just put together a custom, bolt in big caddie engine swap for in the last year, in both cases with custom welded brackets, plumbing, manifolds…

4- Booksmart- not sure that that is really an insult. As I’ve asked before, if you know someplace that goes in depth about some of what I discussed I’d love to see it. Good, well researched books can give you a idea of what direction to go in and save time with experimenting in directions that will not work for what you’re messing with. There are a few engineering texts with good discussions of kinematics (most of what we’re discussing here), but for the most part, if I’m going to spend my spare time reading about “car stuff” it’s going to be thermodynamics/IC engine dynamics/mechanics texts, and there are some really good ones out there, but for some real meat on the subject I would suggest starting with MIT press publications from the first half of the 20th century and the assorted published NACA papers. That being said, for the most part I’m better with a welder or grinder then I am with a text book.

LASTLY, I’d suggest that you shut up and either disappear or learn something. It’s somewhat entertaining that you somehow manage to make all sorts of noise in these threads without adding anything useful to the discussion, although the people asking the questions are probably getting tired of it. In this thread you haven’t said anything useful but have posted an interesting drawing with NO explanation whatsoever. You’ve managed to waste a lot of time attacking me, while I’m pretty much the only one that has posted any useful empirical (as in, this is what I’ve done and what worked) and theoretical (as in, this is what he’s trying to post a picture of and here is what the issue is) information in this thread.

 

sucks when someone else jumps you, huh?

 

No, It just tells me you are misinformed to whats going on.

I try to stick to facts and correct misinfo. When I point out something wrong, that person generally takes offense and the it becomes personal to them. I don't take it personal, I merely try to give creditbility to what I type. Ultimately, I just come into here for relaxation.


Now about the needle bearings, they will not wear prematurely at 0* angle of driveline. I have no clue where crossfire is coming up with comments like these. They will float more in the 360* revolution with even presure distributed through the entire 360* instead of bind pressure on say 270* with a 3* angle on them. There is less bind wear on a driveline the less angle is present on the joints, that is a fact. His second statement about the 6* example is correct due to more extreme angles. It will still work, but the angle will wear faster. If it wouldn't work decent, the tell me how all the 4x4's in this world are running around on 12" lifts with leafsprings that smile at you.

Thats the kind of "Why" I suggest he start making rather than just saying for the 10th time I am incorrect and just states almost the opposite of what I say. I am not perfect, I admit when I have been wrong several times here and can show those as facts also. Its not about being the best here, its about giving proper info. Right now, crossfire is debating Kandied about the Coilover post- I question his experience here also in real life- I still contend that what he writes is assumption and not real world experiences. I respect the tried and true, and I give that out also when I do have the experience first hand- it helps others.

 

to the original poster:

we run hotchkis lca's and panhard rod with a spohn adjustable ta for a powerglide. we noticed that when running drag radials, the car liked -1* pinion angle the best. with the street tires, i might go with -1/2* to -3/4* pinion angle so you don't shock the tires too hard. you need to get an adjustable ta so that you have control over the suspension geometery, especially if your set with street tires.

dean:
i understand what your saying, especially about correcting the misinformed. BUT, have you noticed that the majority of the people take what you say personally? not just one, not just some, the MAJORITY. maybe practising a little tact would help the people from taking things personally. generally, when there is a problem like this, it's not the other persons fault.

 

The "majority" of the time I am the one correcting the misinfo and backing that best if I can with why is wrong. Not many others here do that on a regular bassis. Hence why all the mudslinging starts and then I do give the personal attacks back in a very abrupt way when challenged. I am human, I speak the same way I would to someones face when presented the same in person- the guys here in So Cal on this board all know I shoot from the hip, they all have met me in person.
I type here to help people spend their hard earned money wisely. When I was younger, I spent many a dollar on parts that later I wish I hadn't but the info I had at the time deemed it appealing for what I expected because of marketing hype. I can't stand marketing hype. I can't stand people bias to what they bought and telling others is the bomb - only because since they bought it, they want it to be the best. I will gladly tell you if what I have sucks. Case in point- powerslot rotors, EBC brake pads, PFC brake bads, Wilwood "Q" & "E" brake pads on the street(squeaky), edelbrock 3pt STB- (it flexes) I can go on and on. My parts are not always the snitchz, I bought most of them through reading from others and marketing hype- I received bad info.

You starting to understand why I post factual info? Strarting to realize why this offends others sometimes- I still plan to cotinue because it benefits someone looking to spend their hard earned money.

Now as for me NOT adding anything to this post, Nova my friend you are far wrong. Look atop again and you will see where I pointed out misinfo about poinion angle improving tire traction.

At this point. I will read any replies, but I am finished and agree that no further can be added to benefit the original posters question.

Dean

 

never once did i imply that you didn't add to the thread, i said that the post before my first post from you didn't add anything, it was a direct attack on 83 crossfire ta, which was unnecessary. correction is one thing, making someone look stupid because they gave the wrong info is totally another thing. tact my friend, tact.

 

What incorrect info did I post?

As far as the U-joints, running one at 0* will trash it, and seriously lifted trucks that are going to have smooth and durable drivelines usually run CV joints and don’t bother with driveline phasing or u-joints

 

Hmm, some interesting ideas, keep up the (friendly) debate
guys.

I only wish our track was open right now so I could contribute more to this discussion with my own experiances.

I look forward to continuing this discussion to help us all get our cars into the 1.8's on hard radials!

 

I ran 14.5's at 89 mph at Sears Point through 1993 with a 305 TPI 85 iroc powered 82 Z28 Camaro. The engine mods were an air foil and hollowed out intake box bottoms. The exhaust was even stock 82 (not very good) attached to this 85 engine but with a hollowed out cat.

The suspension was Sears lifetime gas rear shocks and worn out front struts. The control arms and panhard was solid heim joint peices made by Moroso for Herb Adams.

The drivetrain was a built 700r4 with a converter, and the rear was a 3.70 moser 9" with a 4 spider open carrier (it would mostly behave like a posi).

This was my first built car. Built in 1989 and raced in that combination until 1995 when it recieved a 415 small block and single plane intake.

The point of this is that it ran 1.89 to 1.87 60 foots consistently with the very tiniest of wheel spin. I can only imagine that there are already many around here that run 1.8 60 foots as well.

 

Hmm well I don't know what Im doing wrong then.

Both of my 2.0 60's (in both cars) were done with very little tirespin. usually I spin lightly and get 2.1's

 

Well rather than chewing each other out and attacking and defending ands otherwise wasting bandwidth, how about we go back to the original post. To repeat:That's easy. 1 easy step:

Step 1. Get decent tires.

 

rephrased question:

my racing class limits me from bias ply and drag radial tires.. what do i do to hook?

step1:
find best tire allowable in class.. use that.

step2:
build more extreme launch setup then normal..
example:
if you could put ET streets on, you would hook as is.

to do the same with the limited tires you need 90/10s and relocation brackets....



its still going to come down to spending money, nomatter how you do it.
find what your car needs, and fix it.
more inital weight transfer? do somthing to make that happen.
suspension angles wrong? fix them








and stop looking for a easy answer of just do this _______
instead, learn about what everything does, how everything works, troubleshoot your own car, and find a solution.
the boards are for learning about things... they arnt here to tell you what to do.

 

If that is directed at me, I am offended.

As my original post described, I am asking for ideas and theories on how to hook up my car based on my new tire limitations. I am not looking for a step by step tutorial, nor do I need one. Many of you have made helpful tips which I may or may not use. I also have my own theorys so I am seeking to validate them with the vast knowledge that is contained on this website.

If you feel this thread is a waste of your time, stop reading it.

 

I’m curious:
- what are your exact limitations tire and suspension wise? I’m assuming that this is all about ¼ mile times, right?
- What ideas do you have?

As far as relocation brackets and similar geometry changes for more antisquat… don’t do it with a hard radial unless you’re willing to spend a lot of time experimenting with spring rates and shock dampening changes (they work great with soft slicks and similar tires)

 

no drag race tires are allowed, including drag radials
street only tires, radials only, tire size limits are to be determined still, but my rims are only 9" wide unless I invest in wheels...

my current mods are the relocation brackets, aftermarket LCAs, adjustable torque arm which is mounted to the trans crossmember.

I plan to replace the PHR and instal airbags in the rear springs for added adjustability.
I am also considering replaced the stock struts for adjustable ones to better control weight distribution.

I will try the stock LCA settings, but so far i do not get any wheel hop. The only problem with my area is that we only get racing once a month so unfortunatly I will not get as much experiance with different settings as I would like.

 

What class are you racing in… judging from my previous results with radials this sounds like something right up my alley.



huh… in my opinion, none of this will make any significant impact on traction with a radial. Maybe getting rid of the tranny mount slop with the TA mount to the tranny crossmember…



Both very worthwhile changes.

The stock PHR flexing is what causes these cars to jump to the side on a hard shift or launch. With a totally stock suspension, swapping just the phr will fix that (but you usually won’t see it in the 60’s since the biggest change will be at the 1-2 shift which should be right past the 60’ mark). You will see it in your et.

I like the adjustability of airbags. In my previously mentioned ws6, these were the only 2 suspension changes that got me down around 1.71 60’ with a 6 speed car and 275 40 17 eagle gsc tires (might as well been on marbles). The rest of the suspension was stock.



Wheel hop? Generally as long as you’ve got reasonable suspension geometry and nothing is broken/loose you won’t get wheel hop no matter what parts you use. What I found with the relo brackets and that WS6 setup was that in either of the 2 lower settings it would hit hard off the line (like as in I could launch almost like I would on slicks), but the tires couldn’t absorb the energy being put into them as the suspension pushed down on them and about 10’ out they would bounce (you couldn’t feel it but you could see it on video) and unload and they’d go up in smoke. Like I said, I had a really difficult time running a sub 2s 60’.

That just sucks, anyplace that you can get a similar surface that you can make some tries on? I usually log all my dragstrip passes so I can compare what I did, how the car reacted… and it usually takes about 3-10 passes to get a really clear picture of what it happening with any new changes.

 

By wheel hop, I was refering to your description of the 'bounce' the tires make after the initial launch with the control arms in the lowered position. I have not noticed this, but if you say that it is not a noticable feeling, then I will definatly look into that.

my stock LCA bushings were toast so I replaced the whole unit for a stiffer/lighter set.

for right now I am going to try building a PHR with poly bushings and see if i can scrounge a pair of airbags.

Is there any consensus on a quality radial tire I can try?


Thanks guys

 

im gonna go ahead and say right off the bat that i have no education or experience with drag racing suspension setups.
there.

now.

to simply repeat what i know by hearing it said, you might look into putting the lower control arms into their original position, or only slightly lower than stock.

the reason for this is that your sidewalls are too stiff for much of any anti squat to be built into the suspension, not only that, but i doubt that you are making enough power to really need a lot of anti squat.

what you need are like 10" wide, 15" wheels with the biggest, tallest, widest tires you can fit on them. (think 275/60/15 )

15" wheels because it will give you the most sidewall to work with and absorb the shock of the launch, and keep your wheelspin to a minimum.

the "wheel hop" you speak of is exactly opposite of wheel hop i believe.
what is happening is your suspension is generating too much anti-squat and lifting the car up.
if you were running drag slicks, the slicks would compress and get a longer profile and generate massive grip...
this is not the case here.

i think that you want to let as much weight transfer as possible and run the minimum anti-squat you can. this means a full tank of gas and put the LCA's back where they belong...
unless your car is lowered, then you should move them down SLIGHTLY.

relocate your battery if possible and remove your AC if you can stand it.

fiberglass hood, ect...
you know the rest










HOLY OLD THREAD BATMAN!!!

ok, sorry. not sure how i ended up replying to this being that it is from 2005!
either way.
its a good read for anyone that likes reading flame wars.