Tall spindle vs tall(er) balljoint
#1650510
07/24/14 05:08 PM
07/24/14 05:08 PM
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 553
Sac, CA, USA
ntstlgl1970
OP
mopar
|
OP
mopar
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 553
Sac, CA, USA
|
I haven't seen this question asked before, but has anyone run one of the longer (+1" or .5") balljoints in the upper control arm with a stock e body spindle to see if it would help the camber gain? Or would that result in a bind situation. Just wondering if it was an option in place of the F-M-J spindle swap - seen lots of discussion on the spindle which I don't think needs mention here. http://www.summitracing.com/parts/aaf-all56012/overview/or maybe the body is 1" longer and I can't read....
|
|
|
Re: Tall spindle vs tall(er) balljoint
[Re: ntstlgl1970]
#1650511
07/24/14 05:16 PM
07/24/14 05:16 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,467
So Cal
autoxcuda
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,467
So Cal
|
Quote:
I haven't seen this question asked before, but has anyone run one of the longer (+1" or .5") balljoints in the upper control arm with a stock e body spindle to see if it would help the camber gain? Or would that result in a bind situation. Just wondering if it was an option in place of the F-M-J spindle swap - seen lots of discussion on the spindle which I don't think needs mention here.
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/aaf-all56012/overview/
or maybe the body is 1" longer and I can't read....
Brad70 effectively does this with the C-body spindles he runs. The ball joints will take the angle. We use them in circle track racing at much higher angles.
The question is what does it do to the roll center. And does the camber gain more advantageous to any negative roll center affects.
The problem that can happen is if the ball joint moves up it can interfere with the inside of he rim when running high backspace over about 5" rims. Of course 18" rims will have a little more room ~ 1/2" in theory depending on rim than 17".
|
|
|
Re: Tall spindle vs tall(er) balljoint
[Re: jcc]
#1650514
07/24/14 10:48 PM
07/24/14 10:48 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,696
Bitopia
jcc
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
|
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,696
Bitopia
|
Just stumbled on this, very interesting. http://www.pro-touring.com/threads/10882...-Spindle-Systemmaybe it should be its own thread.
Reality check, that half the population is smarter then 50% of the people and it's a constantly contested fact.
|
|
|
Re: Tall spindle vs tall(er) balljoint
[Re: ntstlgl1970]
#1650516
07/25/14 01:23 PM
07/25/14 01:23 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,388
Pikes Peak Country
TC@HP2
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,388
Pikes Peak Country
|
The FJM spindle is .375 taller and these ball joints are offered in .5 and 1.0, so they are going to alter geometry. Whether or not you need the change in roll center and the additional camber gain will depend on your overall combo. Things like ride height, spring rates, body roll, tire diameter, rim diameter, etc will all factor into whether or not these actually improve things for you. If your car is significantly lowered, these may help. If you have soft spring rates with small sway bars that allow a fair amount of body roll, the camber gain may be of assistance with keeping the tire flatter.
Remember these parts are developed for oval track racers that may carry around a half dozen different control arms to tune for specific track conditions, especially in the dirt. Its entirely possibly that these are for use with geometry that will never be found in a stock based pick up point suspension like what we have under our cars. The radical camber gain a 1" over stock ball joint would provide is likely for use on a dirt track where a lot of body roll is needed for bite and you need a lot of camber gain to keep the tire face in contact with the track.
Now, if you want to understand if these can be used, you need to map out your pick up points and graphically see how they change things. This can be done with pencil and paper, but it requires A LOT of paper to actually see the incremental changes .375 and .5 can make over the stock locations because the changes become very minor, where you probably can't see them without using a gauge. It obviously is easier to use a program that can map and graph these all for you automatically and then demo changes in dynamic sequences as well. I know Steve Smith Autosports Publishing has a program that is around $100. I'm sure there are other out there in addition to the the Performance Trends piece jcc referenced.
Just taking a swag at it, the .5 unit may help but I doubt the 1.0 unit would really help. I typically lower my cars to a point where the lower control arm pivot and lower ball joint are level. This is considered very low for a street going Mopar but it matches well with my tire diameters. This drops the front roll center 2" underground. Changing to the .375 taller spindle brings this point back up to 2" above ground. Adding another .125 of height may bring that roll center up to 4" above ground, which may not be too bad.
I may try to model it sometime in the future, but I also need to go back and reconfirm all my set up measurements. Accuracy of finding these is HUGE to the overall results but it is also very difficult to get accurately in a stock layout with a tape measure and nailing these down will require I spend time with a plumb bob and a layout sheet underneath the car.
|
|
|
Re: Tall spindle vs tall(er) balljoint
[Re: brads70]
#1650519
07/27/14 05:36 PM
07/27/14 05:36 PM
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 553
Sac, CA, USA
ntstlgl1970
OP
mopar
|
OP
mopar
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 553
Sac, CA, USA
|
Quote:
IMO they could help in a stock E-Body but I never checked to know for sure. As in stock form the ball joint is lower than the inner pick up points on the UCA. (UCA/ball joint pointing down )IMO this causes the top of the wheel to go out before it goes in ( camber) But you can mess things up quick. When I did hours of bump steer measurements with every combo I could think of using a-body LCA ,b-body drag links and the C-Body spindle etc.... When I used the taller ball joint in my combo ( 73 C-Body) it made the bump steer measurements worse, so I went back to stock length.
Thanks Brad, I was wondering if anyone had tried it out just to see "what if"?
|
|
|
Re: Tall spindle vs tall(er) balljoint
[Re: brads70]
#1650521
07/27/14 08:34 PM
07/27/14 08:34 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,491
Lethbridge, AB, Canada
dangina
pro stock
|
pro stock
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,491
Lethbridge, AB, Canada
|
Quote:
IMO they could help in a stock E-Body but I never checked to know for sure. As in stock form the ball joint is lower than the inner pick up points on the UCA. (UCA/ball joint pointing down )IMO this causes the top of the wheel to go out before it goes in ( camber) But you can mess things up quick. When I did hours of bump steer measurements with every combo I could think of using a-body LCA ,b-body drag links and the C-Body spindle etc.... When I used the taller ball joint in my combo ( 73 C-Body) it made the bump steer measurements worse, so I went back to stock length.
so your not running the taller howe balljoints on your car now?
|
|
|
Re: Tall spindle vs tall(er) balljoint
[Re: dangina]
#1650522
07/27/14 09:35 PM
07/27/14 09:35 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 813
Ontario,Canada
brads70
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 813
Ontario,Canada
|
Quote:
Quote:
IMO they could help in a stock E-Body but I never checked to know for sure. As in stock form the ball joint is lower than the inner pick up points on the UCA. (UCA/ball joint pointing down )IMO this causes the top of the wheel to go out before it goes in ( camber) But you can mess things up quick. When I did hours of bump steer measurements with every combo I could think of using a-body LCA ,b-body drag links and the C-Body spindle etc.... When I used the taller ball joint in my combo ( 73 C-Body) it made the bump steer measurements worse, so I went back to stock length.
so your not running the taller howe balljoints on your car now?
No
|
|
|
Re: Tall spindle vs tall(er) balljoint
[Re: brads70]
#1650523
07/27/14 11:40 PM
07/27/14 11:40 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,467
So Cal
autoxcuda
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,467
So Cal
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
IMO they could help in a stock E-Body but I never checked to know for sure. As in stock form the ball joint is lower than the inner pick up points on the UCA. (UCA/ball joint pointing down )IMO this causes the top of the wheel to go out before it goes in ( camber) But you can mess things up quick. When I did hours of bump steer measurements with every combo I could think of using a-body LCA ,b-body drag links and the C-Body spindle etc.... When I used the taller ball joint in my combo ( 73 C-Body) it made the bump steer measurements worse, so I went back to stock length.
so your not running the taller howe balljoints on your car now?
No
But are you running the C-body (73?) Spindles?
If so, how much taller are they?
|
|
|
Re: Tall spindle vs tall(er) balljoint
[Re: autoxcuda]
#1650526
07/28/14 05:15 PM
07/28/14 05:15 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 813
Ontario,Canada
brads70
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 813
Ontario,Canada
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
IMO they could help in a stock E-Body but I never checked to know for sure. As in stock form the ball joint is lower than the inner pick up points on the UCA. (UCA/ball joint pointing down )IMO this causes the top of the wheel to go out before it goes in ( camber) But you can mess things up quick. When I did hours of bump steer measurements with every combo I could think of using a-body LCA ,b-body drag links and the C-Body spindle etc.... When I used the taller ball joint in my combo ( 73 C-Body) it made the bump steer measurements worse, so I went back to stock length.
so your not running the taller howe balljoints on your car now?
No
But are you running the C-body (73?) Spindles?
If so, how much taller are they?
Yep I'm running the 73 C-Body spindle. They are 5/8" taller and drop the car 5/8"
The KPI on the e-body spindle I measured at 5 degrees, on the C-Body I measured it at 7.5 Degrees. To measure it I mounted the spindle pin in the lathe and then used a precision bevel protractor and measured the machined flat surface on the top of the spindle.
Do you think there is room between the top of your ball joint and the insde of your 18" rims to run 5.6" of backspace?
What backspace, width and offset (positive?) are your front rims?
Did you want to add KPI degrees to reduce scrub radius with your particular rim and tire setup (315/40/18 12" wide rim)? If so, did it help much?
5.6" backspace would be close? Might work, but it would hit my tierod set up. I lowered the outer tie rods to correct bump steer.
Howe quick bump kit
KPI was built into the spindle and it is what it is. I didn't reinvent the wheel per say I just researched the Petty kit cars and what they used and talked with local Mopar stock car racers and what they found that worked. The Petty kit cars used an e-body front end etc.... they were banned from quite a few tracks because they dominated. Good enough for me I thought! 
I also used A-Body LCA because they are slightly longer than E-Body's I would have tried the later b-body LCA but they widen the front end too much on my car. My buddy runs them on his circle track car though ( with a wider rear end). Also if I used the wider still b-body lowers than the Hotchkis uppers wouldn't work and I have to make my own.
It's all in here what I did if your interested? Sorry for the link I didn't feel like typing it all out again!
http://www.cuda-challenger.com/cc/index.php?topic=73985.0 
|
|
|
|
|
