Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom [Re: Stroker Scamp] #2109886
07/14/16 01:09 PM
07/14/16 01:09 PM
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,978
Hilltown Pa
1967dartgt Offline
master
1967dartgt  Offline
master

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,978
Hilltown Pa
Sounds like the harder hit in top hole topping out shocks and causing it to bounce.


Brett Miller W9 cnc'd heads
STR Chassis fabraction
Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom [Re: Stroker Scamp] #2109890
07/14/16 01:12 PM
07/14/16 01:12 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 13,345
Marion, South Carolina [><]
an8sec70cuda Offline
I Live Here
an8sec70cuda  Offline
I Live Here

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 13,345
Marion, South Carolina [><]
So maybe the top hole (harder hit) w/ a stiffer rebound shock setting may be faster?


CHIP
'70 hemicuda, 575" Hemi, 727, Dana 60
'69 road runner, 440-6, 18 spline 4 speed, Dana 60
'71 Demon, 340, low gear 904, 8.75
'73 Chrysler New Yorker, 440, 727, 8.75
'90 Chevy 454SS Silverado, 476" BBC, TH400, 14 bolt
'06 GMC 2500HD LBZ Duramax
Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom [Re: Stroker Scamp] #2109966
07/14/16 03:50 PM
07/14/16 03:50 PM
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,978
Hilltown Pa
1967dartgt Offline
master
1967dartgt  Offline
master

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,978
Hilltown Pa
Chip it could be, only one way to know for sure.


Brett Miller W9 cnc'd heads
STR Chassis fabraction
Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom [Re: Stroker Scamp] #2109969
07/14/16 03:53 PM
07/14/16 03:53 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 13,345
Marion, South Carolina [><]
an8sec70cuda Offline
I Live Here
an8sec70cuda  Offline
I Live Here

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 13,345
Marion, South Carolina [><]
I may give that a try soon...I'm still not sure exactly what this car of mine likes on these slicks.


CHIP
'70 hemicuda, 575" Hemi, 727, Dana 60
'69 road runner, 440-6, 18 spline 4 speed, Dana 60
'71 Demon, 340, low gear 904, 8.75
'73 Chrysler New Yorker, 440, 727, 8.75
'90 Chevy 454SS Silverado, 476" BBC, TH400, 14 bolt
'06 GMC 2500HD LBZ Duramax
Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom [Re: Stroker Scamp] #2109974
07/14/16 03:56 PM
07/14/16 03:56 PM
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,978
Hilltown Pa
1967dartgt Offline
master
1967dartgt  Offline
master

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,978
Hilltown Pa
I know mine stopped doing it when I switched away from rancho shocks.


Brett Miller W9 cnc'd heads
STR Chassis fabraction
Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom [Re: 506RR] #2110211
07/14/16 11:19 PM
07/14/16 11:19 PM
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 512
Illinois
Mopar_Ray Offline
mopar
Mopar_Ray  Offline
mopar

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 512
Illinois
Originally Posted By 506RR
The top hole moves the instant center closer, and made my car more prone to wheelie.

When I first put them on, Calvert told me that you want to put the bars in whichever hole makes them more parallel with the ground.

For me, that was the bottom hole. Started out that way and had good success.

Tried putting them in the top hole for a while, but with the short 20" front segment in the Duster it always wanted to pull the wheels.



Does this look right, or should I be on bottom hole?

image.jpeg
Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom [Re: Stroker Scamp] #2110218
07/14/16 11:23 PM
07/14/16 11:23 PM
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,978
Hilltown Pa
1967dartgt Offline
master
1967dartgt  Offline
master

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,978
Hilltown Pa
I would stay there.


Brett Miller W9 cnc'd heads
STR Chassis fabraction
Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom [Re: Mopar_Ray] #2110239
07/14/16 11:51 PM
07/14/16 11:51 PM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,230
fredericksburg,va
C
cudaman1969 Offline
master
cudaman1969  Offline
master
C

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,230
fredericksburg,va
Originally Posted By Mopar_Ray
Originally Posted By 506RR
The top hole moves the instant center closer, and made my car more prone to wheelie.

When I first put them on, Calvert told me that you want to put the bars in whichever hole makes them more parallel with the ground.

For me, that was the bottom hole. Started out that way and had good success.

Tried putting them in the top hole for a while, but with the short 20" front segment in the Duster it always wanted to pull the wheels.



Does this look right, or should I be on bottom hole?

Do you have shims-spacers between spring and housing-perch? Perch sitting on the spring I mean?

Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom [Re: cudaman1969] #2110812
07/15/16 09:40 PM
07/15/16 09:40 PM
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 512
Illinois
Mopar_Ray Offline
mopar
Mopar_Ray  Offline
mopar

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 512
Illinois
Does this look right, or should I be on bottom hole?

Do you have shims-spacers between spring and housing-perch? Perch sitting on the spring I mean?

No, I don't have any spacers or shims. Not sure what difference that would make?

Last edited by Mopar_Ray; 07/15/16 09:42 PM.
Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom [Re: Stroker Scamp] #2110859
07/15/16 10:34 PM
07/15/16 10:34 PM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,972
Romeo MI
MR_P_BODY Offline
Master
MR_P_BODY  Offline
Master

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,972
Romeo MI
You have to try both.. lots of variables to
play with here.. how much torque, weight distribution,
gear ratio and the front end set up.. the only way to
make sure is testing it... and that includes adjusting
the shocks... and if the shocks are good enough to control
it.. its never as easy to say.. this way or that.. do
you have a low ratio first gear is just another thing
wave

Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom [Re: Mopar_Ray] #2110898
07/15/16 11:59 PM
07/15/16 11:59 PM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,230
fredericksburg,va
C
cudaman1969 Offline
master
cudaman1969  Offline
master
C

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,230
fredericksburg,va
Originally Posted By Mopar_Ray
Does this look right, or should I be on bottom hole?

Do you have shims-spacers between spring and housing-perch? Perch sitting on the spring I mean?

No, I don't have any spacers or shims. Not sure what difference that would make?

Raising or lowering that bottom plate in relation to the housing changes the instant center just like the first or second hole in the front pivot. Pretty much the same way moving the bottom bar in a four link at the housing. One way of getting the bar level to ground and the farther away the hole is from the center of housing, more leverage, closer, less

Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom [Re: cudaman1969] #2556411
09/29/18 09:52 PM
09/29/18 09:52 PM
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,661
Wichita
G
GY3 Offline
master
GY3  Offline
master
G

Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,661
Wichita
I raced my car again this weekend and it was hooking really well, but doesn't 60 ft. like it did with SS springs.

The car leaves smoother and more level and felt really good, though.

It had done a best of 1.54 60 ft. with SS springs but not consistently. It did 1.67 all day long with the Cal-Trac setup last Saturday. I have 3.54 gears ET Street Pro's and leave off idle. The engine is like a low rpm diesel and makes massive torque.

I use the Calvert (Rancho) 9 position shocks set on 7. We did change the upper mount on the shocks to get them more vertical.

The car drives excellent but I would really like to shave a tenth off consistantly.

Should I move the bar to the upper hole? I thought about rear sliders, too, but use the car a lot on the street and have heard they are noisy.

Will double adjustable shocks help?


'63 Dodge 330
11.19 @ 121 mph
Pump gas, n/a, through the mufflers on street tires with 3.54's. 3,600 lbs.
10.01 @ 133mph with a 250 shot of nitrous an a splash of race gas. 1.36 60 ft. 3,700 lbs.

Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom [Re: GY3] #2556441
09/29/18 11:02 PM
09/29/18 11:02 PM
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,088
Bend,OR USA
C
Cab_Burge Offline
I Win
Cab_Burge  Offline
I Win
C

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,088
Bend,OR USA
Originally Posted By GY3
I raced my car again this weekend and it was hooking really well, but doesn't 60 ft. like it did with SS springs.

The car leaves smoother and more level and felt really good, though.

It had done a best of 1.54 60 ft. with SS springs but not consistently. It did 1.67 all day long with the Cal-Trac setup last Saturday. I have 3.54 gears ET Street Pro's and leave off idle. The engine is like a low rpm diesel and makes massive torque.

I use the Calvert (Rancho) 9 position shocks set on 7. We did change the upper mount on the shocks to get them more vertical.

The car drives excellent but I would really like to shave a tenth off consistantly.

Should I move the bar to the upper hole? I thought about rear sliders, too, but use the car a lot on the street and have heard they are noisy.

Will double adjustable shocks help?



The only way to find out what your combination and car likes the best is to test, test, and then test some more wrench work
Have you tested leaving at different RPM yet? If not try that also thumbs


Mr.Cab Racing and winning with Mopars since 1964. (Old F--t, Huh)
Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom [Re: Cab_Burge] #2556450
09/29/18 11:29 PM
09/29/18 11:29 PM
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,661
Wichita
G
GY3 Offline
master
GY3  Offline
master
G

Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,661
Wichita
Originally Posted By Cab_Burge
Originally Posted By GY3
I raced my car again this weekend and it was hooking really well, but doesn't 60 ft. like it did with SS springs.

The car leaves smoother and more level and felt really good, though.

It had done a best of 1.54 60 ft. with SS springs but not consistently. It did 1.67 all day long with the Cal-Trac setup last Saturday. I have 3.54 gears ET Street Pro's and leave off idle. The engine is like a low rpm diesel and makes massive torque.

I use the Calvert (Rancho) 9 position shocks set on 7. We did change the upper mount on the shocks to get them more vertical.

The car drives excellent but I would really like to shave a tenth off consistantly.

Should I move the bar to the upper hole? I thought about rear sliders, too, but use the car a lot on the street and have heard they are noisy.

Will double adjustable shocks help?



The only way to find out what your combination and car likes the best is to test, test, and then test some more wrench work
Have you tested leaving at different RPM yet? If not try that also thumbs


Not yet, but planned on that too! Not gonna experiment until next spring. Have some paying races coming up and always do well at both so don't want to change much..

Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom [Re: Cab_Burge] #2556623
09/30/18 01:44 PM
09/30/18 01:44 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
B
BradH Offline
Taking time off to work on my car
BradH  Offline
Taking time off to work on my car
B

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
Originally Posted By Cab_Burge
Originally Posted By GY3
I raced my car again this weekend and it was hooking really well, but doesn't 60 ft. like it did with SS springs.

The car leaves smoother and more level and felt really good, though.

It had done a best of 1.54 60 ft. with SS springs but not consistently. It did 1.67 all day long with the Cal-Trac setup last Saturday. I have 3.54 gears ET Street Pro's and leave off idle. The engine is like a low rpm diesel and makes massive torque.

I use the Calvert (Rancho) 9 position shocks set on 7. We did change the upper mount on the shocks to get them more vertical.

The car drives excellent but I would really like to shave a tenth off consistantly.

Should I move the bar to the upper hole? I thought about rear sliders, too, but use the car a lot on the street and have heard they are noisy.

Will double adjustable shocks help?



The only way to find out what your combination and car likes the best is to test, test, and then test some more wrench work
Have you tested leaving at different RPM yet? If not try that also thumbs

x2 on Cab's comments.

I ran a best of 1.54 on SS springs, then switched to CalTracs with standard leaf springs and the same Rancho 5-way dampers I was using with the SS springs and dropped to a best of 1.51 and more consistency. Better engine and changing to split mono-leaf springs saw a best of 1.45, and still with the same old-style Ranchos. But there were preload & damping adjustments, launch RPM changes, tire pressure changes, etc., along the way.

Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom [Re: 506RR] #2556654
09/30/18 02:59 PM
09/30/18 02:59 PM
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 19,317
State of confusion
T
Thumperdart Offline
I Live Here
Thumperdart  Offline
I Live Here
T

Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 19,317
State of confusion
Originally Posted By 506RR
The top hole moves the instant center closer, and made my car more prone to wheelie.

When I first put them on, Calvert told me that you want to put the bars in whichever hole makes them more parallel with the ground.

For me, that was the bottom hole. Started out that way and had good success.

Tried putting them in the top hole for a while, but with the short 20" front segment in the Duster it always wanted to pull the wheels.



Hole location has zero to do with IC as that is fixed however it changes the "hit" lower softer, upper harder......... beer


72 Dart 470 n/a BB stroker street car `THUMPER`...Check me out on FB Dominic Thumper for videos and lots of carb pics......760-900-3895.....
Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom [Re: an8sec70cuda] #2556731
09/30/18 06:48 PM
09/30/18 06:48 PM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,225
Charleston
S
sixpackgut Offline
Drag Week Mod Champion
sixpackgut  Offline
Drag Week Mod Champion
S

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,225
Charleston
Originally Posted By an8sec70cuda
I may give that a try soon...I'm still not sure exactly what this car of mine likes on these slicks.


To be 1000lbs lighter.....


Gen 3 power 6.22@110, 9.85@135
Follow @g3hemiswap on instagram

performance only racing, CRT, ultimate converter, superior design concepts, ThumperCarbs
Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom [Re: Stroker Scamp] #2556876
10/01/18 02:30 AM
10/01/18 02:30 AM
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1,096
Australia
O
ozymaxwedge Offline
super stock
ozymaxwedge  Offline
super stock
O

Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1,096
Australia
Would love to try bottom hole on mine but they had been cut off already when I purchased the car.


1963 Plymouth Max Wedge
1971 Barracuda
Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom [Re: ozymaxwedge] #2556890
10/01/18 06:34 AM
10/01/18 06:34 AM
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,457
Sydney,Australia
tex013 Offline
top fuel
tex013  Offline
top fuel

Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,457
Sydney,Australia
Originally Posted By ozymaxwedge
Would love to try bottom hole on mine but they had been cut off already when I purchased the car.


You can buy replacement side plates , just call Calverts

Tex


New best ET 10.259@129.65 .
New best MPH 130.32
Finally fitted a solid cam,
stepped it up a bit more
3690lbs through the mufflers
New World block 3780lbs 10.278@130.80 . Wowser 10.253@130.24 footbraking from 1500rpm
Power by Tex's Automotive
Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom [Re: dizuster] #2556914
10/01/18 10:27 AM
10/01/18 10:27 AM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,540
Milwaukee WI
T
TRENDZ Offline
master
TRENDZ  Offline
master
T

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,540
Milwaukee WI
Read dizus’ reply. I think I can add to it though...
The forward hole changes the angle of the link bar. If the link bar is angled upwards in the front, the rotation of the housing (or the force trying to do so) forces the axle downward, effectively causing chassis separation. More traction. More shock needed to control separation.
If you could get the front of the bar low enough, you could theoretically cause the chassis to squat, even with the same instant center location. (Spring eye)

A simple way to visualize this...
Try pushing a car with a 20” long pry bar. If it is parallel to the force you are applying, the pry bar will move the car without pushing your arms up or down. Now try pushing the car with the pry bar at an upward angle. The more force you apply, the more your arms will be pushed toward the ground. That same effect causes separation with the Caltrac bar.


"use it 'till it breaks, replace as needed"
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3






Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1