Quote:

---

The triangulated systems are NOT afternoon bolt-in jobs. The short upper bars on the triangulated systems and the amount of adjustment on both upper and lower bars limit their HP level.

My guess is the HP limitations of both are about the same. The next level would be back-halfing the car.

---

Quote:

---

Go with the caltracs and don't look back....plenty of guys in the 9s running them...And you can install them in the driveway with a hand fiull of tools.

---

Quote:

---

can you take a picture I just bought the caltrac set up should be at my house for the weekend. showing the welded straps or gussets

---

Not the greatest drawing, but you should be able to see what to do from it

Quote:

---

can you take a picture I just bought the caltrac set up should be at my house for the weekend. showing the welded straps or gussets

---

Quote:

---

There are pictures of boxing up the spring perches in the second link above. I only boxed up the rear.

---

NICE!

Quote:

---

Cal tracs can't change the instant center, only stop the axle wrap.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Cal tracs can't change the instant center, only stop the axle wrap.

---

Not true - you can change the IC of a car with Caltracs by selecting either the top hole or the bottom hole. Top hole brings the IC back, bottom hole brings it forward.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Cal tracs can't change the instant center, only stop the axle wrap.

---

Not true - you can change the IC of a car with Caltracs by selecting either the top hole or the bottom hole. Top hole brings the IC back, bottom hole brings it forward.

---

But is there only two adjustment points?

---

Quote:

---

Scot, based on your posts it looks like you already made your mind up on the cal tracs.
The Unlawful system is nothing like the street links. I see a lot of people racing and cruising with the alterkation front ends but havn't seen anybody racing with the rear ends. No offense but it just doen't look like it can take a lot of power. I am no engineer so it just my opinion. The Unlwaful system can take a ton of power where the street links seems to be more for street use.
The cal tracs do work for racing but not so good for street use, you are basically making the front half of your spring a solid link. This can and sometimes does tear parts of the car if a lot of power is applied to a weak or rusty car.
Make sure you have a solid body at the connections for the springs!!!
Like any system, cal tracs are just not as simple as bolting it on. There is going to be other stuff you need to change and upgrade. The Unlawful system is complete when you get it, shocks, springs, bolts hangers, everything you need to put it together. All the little stuff adds up. I needed nothing else for this system.
You can adjust this system to leave flat and maximize traction, or pull a big wheelie if you want to. It is all how you set the instant center and can be changed at the track in minutes, literally!!. Cal tracs can't change the instant center, only stop the axle wrap.
This is very streetable as well!!! My car handles like it's on rails.
This system is not a back half but gives you many of the same advantages. One thing about it is that you can easily go back to stock on a valuable musclecar, you can't do that with a back half.

Again, this is just the opinion of a guy who uses a particular system and likes it. It has improved my car by .20 second in the quarter.
I have my flack jacket on so fire away!!

---

What's one of those set ups run money wise? And no I don't want to call somebody to find out lol, just curious

Quote:

---

too bad you can't run the exhaust all the way back, that's kinda half of the fun of Mopars is the tail pipes lol j/k.

---

I know!! I miss my tail pipes!! I live on a dirt road and it kicks up all kinds of dust!! They will fit, just not like a pre-made TTI system. I have a box of mandrel bends. I am going to work on it after SEMA. It will give me something to do when they ship the car back from Vegas.

The other cars that have it had the down turns anyway.

I really don't see it as bashing any kind of system, it is just discussion. This kind of discussion answeres a lot of questions for people without ever having to ask

One thought though, when Calvert and Reilly designed their systems did their freinds and people that had it first talk about them and support them? Anything new will take time, especially in this economy, to get unbiased reviews. Jack's systems are out there, even one in Europe.

$10,000 is a lot of trial and error and many, many hours when he should have been building one of his own cars!!

When I say that I picked up 2 tenths, understand that I am not a weekly or even monthly drag racer. I just get in and push the gas down. The car does what the car does.

Quote:

---

So, it cost $10k on the Unlawful prototype to pick up .2 and will cost anyone else roughly $4k for ???

I'd go with Cal-Tracs or just back half the car. Both being proven methods. The Unlawful deal seems like a lot of BS for the money and the only ones who seem to back it up are friends of those who make it. Also, doesn't seem to be too much info on how well it works.

---

You think $10 is too much for 2-1/2 long hard years of research and development? All the mistakes, the lessons learned, the test parts, all the revisions making thousands of dollars worth of parts in stock obsolete .. And all to pick up 2/10ths? You think that's all there is too it? That's the only benefit?

So our systems seem like a lot of BS do they ... what does this even mean? Are you implying all triangulated 4-link suspension systems are BS? Or just ours? What's your issue with ours? What exactly is the "BS"?

Yeah we have support from our friends, because a few close friends have been a part of the long journey to get where we are. Our friends have been a great help and involved every step of the way. You don't hear from many people who aren't our friends because there aren't a ton of systems out there, because we're finally to the point where we have our latest designs nailed down, and can finally start manufacturing systems in higher quantities to keep up with demand.

I think Irons Works (unlawfulracing.com) has done pretty good for just a father and son team with no outside help aside from a few good friends. We designed every aspect of our systems, manufacture 100% of them, created our own website & forum, make our own video advertisements, brochures, etc. So thanks for your kind words.


This thread needs a reference picture.

Quote:

---

No matter how you slice it, Cal-Tracs are 1/2 to a 1/3 of the cost of the Irons' setup and will likely go just as quick to the 60'. CHIP

---

There's a WHOLE lot more to our system than 60' times. Ours systems are completely adjustable for ride height, stance, tire clearance, pinion angle, and instant-center. Our systems also allow for more tire clearance for a wider wheel and tire without tubbing.

My is you will have a quicker 60' with our system opposed to Cal-Tracs because there is no wasted motion when launching. The tires plant, the car jumps FORWARD. A Cal-Trac is a glorified torque arm. It's only benefit over a single torque arm bar (ladder bar), is that bolting to the spring and the spring mounting point, they effectively control the length of the front half of the spring keeping it from winding. other than preload, its not adjustable. With our 4-link setup, you can control the instant-center. By being able to move the instant center you can control the anti-squat. The more anti-squat the better for drag racing usually, because every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The harder you lift the car from the suspension moving, the harder it plants the tires.

Quote:

---

This is pretty simple, Cal Tracks or not, leaf springs are on the BOTTOM of the list, as far as desirable suspension for a race car. Sure some cars go fast with them, but they are nowhere near as good as a link system. In high HP applications, leafs are really hit and miss and basically suck. Yeah, that 4 bar system may be a little pricey, but way cheaper than backhalfing a car, plus anybody can install this at home. It would be an easy choice for me, if I could afford the link system, that is what I would buy. From what we have seen, the short upper bar 4 links, like this one, Mustangs and G-body's, work VERY well and will be much more predictable and adjustable than leafs, any day of the week.

Also, somebody said you can adjust the IC with Cal Tracks, no you can't. The IC is where the spring bolts into the car. The spring is attached solidly to the housing and the housing is bolted in the car, THAT point is the IC, period. You can adjust how the suspension reacts by moving the Cal Track bar, but not the IC. Like was stated, the CalTrack is a fancy slapper bar. It's only purpose is to try and keep the front segment from flexing.

Monte

---

Quote:

---

other than preload, its not adjustable.

---

Quote:

---

Cal-Tracs will make your car squat, which is wasted motion and time not going forward.

---

Quote:

---

Also, somebody said you can adjust the IC with Cal Tracks, no you can't. The IC is where the spring bolts into the car. The spring is attached solidly to the housing and the housing is bolted in the car, THAT point is the IC, period.

---

Quote:

---

I noticed you edited your post. You had originally said:

---

Quote:

---

If I changed my post, I no longer wanted to use it as an arguing point because I knew people would disagree, which is fine, but I didn't feel like starting a whole big argument. The fact that I removed it right away means I changed my mind and don't want it argued, but you point it out and argue it anyway.

---

Quote:

---

And I haven't bashed anyone's product.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Also, somebody said you can adjust the IC with Cal Tracks, no you can't. The IC is where the spring bolts into the car. The spring is attached solidly to the housing and the housing is bolted in the car, THAT point is the IC, period.

---

There are differences between a conventional slapper bars and Caltracs. The transfer links in a Caltracs setup emulate the bottom links in a 4-link system. The springs act like the top links. By selecting which hole the transfer links connect to (top hole or bottom hole) the IC is moved forward (bottom hole) or back (top hole).

Selecting the top hole gives you a harder hit (more separation between the chassis and rear end). Selecting the bottom hole gives you more wheelie.

---

Quote:

---

Incorrect. The spring and the Caltrack pivot from the same point, the front spring mount, so that is the IC and it can't be changed.

---

Quote:

---

Imagine what happens when you experience spring wrap up under hard acceleration... your IC moves backwards. I hope you agree with that.

---

Quote:

---

But I also have a upper and lower hole to mount on the front spring box so how many IC adjustments is that now....

---

According to me, 4! According to Caltracs & Leaf suspension haters, 0.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

But I also have a upper and lower hole to mount on the front spring box so how many IC adjustments is that now....

---

According to me, 4! According to Caltracs & Leaf suspension haters, 0.

---

I still fail to see any haters, just people discussing the pro's and con's.
I hear people saying that I use leafs because I can afford them, I hear others say they love them, I hear some say links are the better way, I hear some say it is too expensive.
At any rate, although not a replacement for any system, there are options for those who do want to try something different.

Now on a completely different note, some of you are cracking me up with the "my car is a street car" stuff!!! Not to debate the definition but if I can drive it to work 50 miles one way in traffic, sit in line at the bank or in the line leaving my kid's school without loading up or over heating, if I can drive it on the freeway at "FREEWAY" speeds (70+) for an hour, burn through some curves without dragging the rockers because of my /6 torsion bars, defrost my window and wipe away the water with the heater and wiper motor that the factory put there and then fills up with 87 octane then that is a street car!!!

I know, I know the "sanctioning bodies" call anything with doors a street car but my 2005 F250 is a street car. My RoadRunner, although far milder than many I see here called street cars, is not a "daily" streetable car due to failing to meet many of the "standards" stated above.
However, it does drive and handle like a new car, no rattles, no clunks but that DANG Dominator!!!! It likes to run fast, not slow

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

But I also have a upper and lower hole to mount on the front spring box so how many IC adjustments is that now....

---

According to me, 4! According to Caltracs & Leaf suspension haters, 0.

---

I still fail to see any haters, just people discussing the pro's and con's.
I hear people saying that I use leafs because I can afford them, I hear others say they love them, I hear some say links are the better way, I hear some say it is too expensive.
At any rate, although not a replacement for any system, there are options for those who do want to try something different.

Now on a completely different note, some of you are cracking me up with the "my car is a street car" stuff!!! Not to debate the definition but if I can drive it to work 50 miles one way in traffic, sit in line at the bank or in the line leaving my kid's school without loading up or over heating, if I can drive it on the freeway at "FREEWAY" speeds (70+) for an hour, burn through some curves without dragging the rockers because of my /6 torsion bars, defrost my window and wipe away the water with the heater and wiper motor that the factory put there and then fills up with 87 octane then that is a street car!!!

I know, I know the "sanctioning bodies" call anything with doors a street car but my 2005 F250 is a street car. My RoadRunner, although far milder than many I see here called street cars, is not a "daily" streetable car due to failing to meet many of the "standards" stated above.
However, it does drive and handle like a new car, no rattles, no clunks but that DANG Dominator!!!! It likes to run fast, not slow

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I know, I know the "sanctioning bodies" call anything with doors a street car but my 2005 F250 is a street car. My RoadRunner, although far milder than many I see here called street cars, is not a "daily" streetable car due to failing to meet many of the "standards" stated above.
However, it does drive and handle like a new car, no rattles, no clunks but that DANG Dominator!!!! It likes to run fast, not slow

---

Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I know, I know the "sanctioning bodies" call anything with doors a street car but my 2005 F250 is a street car. My RoadRunner, although far milder than many I see here called street cars, is not a "daily" streetable car due to failing to meet many of the "standards" stated above.
However, it does drive and handle like a new car, no rattles, no clunks but that DANG Dominator!!!! It likes to run fast, not slow

---

Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

---

Thank God I have more than 1 car

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

But I also have a upper and lower hole to mount on the front spring box so how many IC adjustments is that now....

---

According to me, 4! According to Caltracs & Leaf suspension haters, 0.

---

Quote:

---

OK - now I am going to have to do some research. But first here is what I "think".

It has been my understanding the IC is the EFFECTIVE lifting point of the suspension system not the mounting point of the suspension. This effective point is determined by the force vectors created by the mounting points. A 4-link IC is not at its mounting point but at an imaginary intersection point of the force vectors created by the bars.

So wouldn't the cal-trac bar be transferring an "effective" lift point different from the spring mount? Thereby changing the IC? It is at a different angle than the spring. With the spring wrap the shortening the front segment, it is effectively the top bar of a four link, and the leverage of the Caltrac bar being mounted lower than the axle, getting pushed forward, it would effectively be the lower bar of a four link. Changing the relationship between the two should move the effective IC. And moving the cal-trac bar up or down will change the forward force point, which would mean the IC would change.

My curiosity is peaked on this one, so I will go hit up a couple of PE's for answers.

Also, just because a system has more adjustment points (more IC's) doesn't make it "better" Only a few of the IC points are even close to correct on any given car even with a four link.

Don't get me wrong, I fully believe a leaf spring system is much less than ideal, but it can be made to work fairly well on many cars. Just for reference my last "street" car was a ladder bar setup and my new one is a true four link.

And looking back at an earlier post, I don't see the RMS Street Lynx having less strength than the Unlawful unit. Both have solid top and bottom bars, both mount the lowers at the original spring perch and the top bars to a bar welded between the frame rails. Both bolt to the housing using U-bolts. The RMS has three U-bolts per side, and I only see two in the posted Unlawful picture. Both allow for larger tires than leaf springs.

I do like the RMS Lynx having the shocks mount in front of the rear end housing, making it fit much more easily in a A-body even with the spare tire well.

So I guess it boils down to prices vs performance goals/gains.

Cal-Tracs w/ mono springs and rancho shocks - $815
RMS lynx - all parts included w/QA1 shocks $1795
Unlawful w/all parts included $3995
4-link $4,000 to - $9,000 depending on who, and what is done.

Scott

---

Or you could make your own triangulated 4-link set up for around $1000.00

Scott

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

other than preload, its not adjustable.

---

Again, not true. You can select one of the two holes to change the IC which affects how hard your tires hit, among other things.

And I noticed you edited your post. You had originally said:

Quote:

---

Cal-Tracs will make your car squat, which is wasted motion and time not going forward.

---

Definitely not true. My car does not squat when I launch with my Caltracs.

Now before you get all agitated, let me point out that you are affiliated with UnlawfulRacing and you're biased towards favoring your own products. That is perfectly understandable and just fine. Nothing wrong with that.

And then you've also got to realize that people have to take everything you say with a grain of salt because of that.

Now, an important thing to keep in mind when trying to sell your product, is to not bash anybody else's product. This is because when you say something that someone refutes, you just end up with your foot in your mouth and that is not going to help sales.

Just trying to be helpful and give you constructive criticism. Going back to my corner now.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

OK - now I am going to have to do some research. But first here is what I "think".

It has been my understanding the IC is the EFFECTIVE lifting point of the suspension system not the mounting point of the suspension. This effective point is determined by the force vectors created by the mounting points. A 4-link IC is not at its mounting point but at an imaginary intersection point of the force vectors created by the bars.

So wouldn't the cal-trac bar be transferring an "effective" lift point different from the spring mount? Thereby changing the IC? It is at a different angle than the spring. With the spring wrap the shortening the front segment, it is effectively the top bar of a four link, and the leverage of the Caltrac bar being mounted lower than the axle, getting pushed forward, it would effectively be the lower bar of a four link. Changing the relationship between the two should move the effective IC. And moving the cal-trac bar up or down will change the forward force point, which would mean the IC would change.

My curiosity is peaked on this one, so I will go hit up a couple of PE's for answers.

Also, just because a system has more adjustment points (more IC's) doesn't make it "better" Only a few of the IC points are even close to correct on any given car even with a four link.

Don't get me wrong, I fully believe a leaf spring system is much less than ideal, but it can be made to work fairly well on many cars. Just for reference my last "street" car was a ladder bar setup and my new one is a true four link.

And looking back at an earlier post, I don't see the RMS Street Lynx having less strength than the Unlawful unit. Both have solid top and bottom bars, both mount the lowers at the original spring perch and the top bars to a bar welded between the frame rails. Both bolt to the housing using U-bolts. The RMS has three U-bolts per side, and I only see two in the posted Unlawful picture. Both allow for larger tires than leaf springs.

I do like the RMS Lynx having the shocks mount in front of the rear end housing, making it fit much more easily in a A-body even with the spare tire well.

So I guess it boils down to prices vs performance goals/gains.

Cal-Tracs w/ mono springs and rancho shocks - $815
RMS lynx - all parts included w/QA1 shocks $1795
Unlawful w/all parts included $3995
4-link $4,000 to - $9,000 depending on who, and what is done.

Scott

---

Or you could make your own triangulated 4-link set up for around $1000.00

Scott

---

With my fabricating and welding skills that would end up looking like cobbled up piece of crap lol
So for me that's not a option I got a good deal on a "bandaid" Caltrac system so I hope I didn't waist my hard earned money.

Quote:

---

Scot, I have never had a 60' better than 1.54.
I was 1.60 before but I always had tire spin off the line. Now I am limited by horespower.

---

Nice car . Is it still spinning off the line? Was the 1.54 spinning with the new rear suspension?

Quote:

---

Suspension 101...

The IC (Instant Center) of any suspension system, is the point where the forces from the rearend housing, apply themselves to the chassis. Basically, a ladder bar, is like a leaf spring, but the advantage is the ladder bar will not give, plus it moves the IC forward because of bar length. This applies force to the chassis further forward, creating better leverage and increased weight transfer. If you could make your front spring segment dead stiff and move the mounting point out even with the ladder bar, it would be as good as a ladder bar. All this is why link suspensions, be it a 3 or 4 link, is far superior. You can place the IC where it NEEDS to be, to properly apply the force to the chassis, to get the results you desire........Oh, one more thing, if you followed this at all and learned anything about how suspensions work, you can also see why good SHOCKS are critical for a good working car. The whole exercise is about "controlling the housing and applying force". You can have the trickest suspension in the world, but junk shocks render it useless.

Monte

---

If I had talked to someone like Monte before I purchsed my Caltracs and split mono leafs, I would of bought Chevy length springs which are 5 inches longer in the front segment of the spring. This would of required a little more fabrication, but I think in my case of trying to hook up a 10.5 tire with a BB nitrous trans brake combo, it would of helped. Next step is "good" shocks, and maybe a glide($). I have to run the leafs to be legal in my heads up class, but that triangulated 4 link looks like a nice system. I hope the original poster got some helpful info from his question? I know I'm getting something out of it.

Quote:

---

Suspension 101...

.......Every car has an "anti squat line". This line extends from the center of gravity, down to the front of the contact patch of the rear tire. If the suspension pickup point, is below the anti-squat line, the car seperates in the rear on launch. If the pickup point is above the anti-squat line, the car squats on launch. If the the pickup point is on the line, the car does neither. Some suspension guys, theorize the IC ON the anti-squat is ideal for any application, because this is where the car has the least wasted movement and applies the most power, but my own testing does not seem to support that...........Basically, a ladder bar, is like a leaf spring, but the advantage is the ladder bar will not give, plus it moves the IC forward because of bar length. This applies force to the chassis further forward, creating better leverage and increased weight transfer.

If you could make your front spring segment dead stiff and move the mounting point out even with the ladder bar, it would be as good as a ladder bar. All this is why link suspensions, be it a 3 or 4 link, is far superior. You can place the IC where it NEEDS to be, (which, may be RIGHT ON the anti-squat line??? )to properly apply the force to the chassis, to get the results you desire........

Oh, one more thing, if you followed this at all and learned anything about how suspensions work, you can also see why good SHOCKS are critical for a good working car. The whole exercise is about "controlling the housing and applying force". You can have the trickest suspension in the world, but junk shocks render it useless.

Monte

---

Yeah, shocks are to keep the car from seperating or squatting IF the IC isn't on the anti-squat line?????......... .......just food for thought.......

Hey Monte, in your spare time, it'd be very interesting to test a 4 link car like this.......Put the IC on the anti-squat line, make three passes...........then take OFF the shocks and make three more passes and see what it does.........Those that claim that the IC needs to be on the anti-squat line also say that shocks don't do anything and aren't even needed on the rear because the body of the car is neither seperating or squatting.......(if the track is flat, but that's another story)..........

Quote:

---

plus, how you going to hold the car up.

---

Is this a trick question? Shocks don't hold the car up. The springs do. If you remove shocks from a car at rest, the car doesn't fall down.

Wayne has an excellent point - if your IC is exactly on your resultant vector then the rear shocks don't do anything at all. The springs aren't compressing or decompressing.

That is until you hit that nasty pothole in the track and then bazoing-oing-oing-oing-oing-oing...

Quote:

---

Hey Monte, in your spare time, it'd be very interesting to test a 4 link car like this.......Put the IC on the anti-squat line, make three passes...........then take OFF the shocks and make three more passes and see what it does.........Those that claim that the IC needs to be on the anti-squat line also say that shocks don't do anything and aren't even needed on the rear because the body of the car is neither seperating or squatting.......(if the track is flat, but that's another story)..........

---

Quote:

---

As far as taking the shocks completely off, I don't think so. That would not be safe nor smart, plus, how you going to hold the car up........

---

Quote:

---

.........I know where you get this stuff Wayne, I read it, but I am not buying it all.

Monte

---

Yeah, Billy stuff is interesting.......but he probably hasn't tuned a suspension on a race car since the High and Mighty........

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

plus, how you going to hold the car up.

---

Is this a trick question? Shocks don't hold the car up. The springs do. If you remove shocks from a car at rest, the car doesn't fall down.

Wayne has an excellent point - if your IC is exactly on your resultant vector then the rear shocks don't do anything at all. The springs aren't compressing or decompressing.

That is until you hit that nasty pothole in the track and then bazoing-oing-oing-oing-oing-oing...

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

plus, how you going to hold the car up.

---

Is this a trick question? Shocks don't hold the car up. The springs do. If you remove shocks from a car at rest, the car doesn't fall down.

---

How many 4-link race cars you seen that don't have coilovers.

---

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. The coil part of the coilover is what holds the car up. If you surgically remove the shock from the coilover, leaving the coil intact, the car is not going to fall down. The coil is the spring.

Anyhoo - you still need shocks anyway. It is wrong to assume the IC is in a fixed spot relative to the anti squat line, regardless of what suspension you have. Things like tire stacking, chassis flex, etc will change it. So you couldn't get rid of the shocks anyway. But in theory if you could magically force the IC to stay on the anti squat line and the track was perfectly flat then you wouldn't need shocks. Heck, you wouldn't need springs either - solid metal bars welded from the axle to the body would do.

Just to be clear, I totally with you, Monte. I am just . Everything you've said is and I'm not with you. I'm all and we should have a one day.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Scot, I have never had a 60' better than 1.54.
I was 1.60 before but I always had tire spin off the line. Now I am limited by horespower.

---

Nice car . Is it still spinning off the line? Was the 1.54 spinning with the new rear suspension?

---

No spin at all. And Thank You

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Hey Monte, in your spare time, it'd be very interesting to test a 4 link car like this.......Put the IC on the anti-squat line, make three passes...........then take OFF the shocks and make three more passes and see what it does.........Those that claim that the IC needs to be on the anti-squat line also say that shocks don't do anything and aren't even needed on the rear because the body of the car is neither seperating or squatting.......(if the track is flat, but that's another story)..........

---

sorry i'm late to the party here, but i want to try and clear up some suspension misconceptions. The Instant Center of a suspension group is the point where suspension rotates around. What this means, is each type of suspension has to be evaluated differently. On a leaf spring car it is the front spring perch. On a ladder bar setup it is the front mounting point of bar. Now, on a 4 link car its an imaginary point where if you were to extend line through each suspension, it would be where the 2 intersect. Because of this you can get adjust the instant center to about anywhere you want on an adjustable 4 link. The Caltracs is a band aid fix, and in my opinion it has its uses, but because its limited adjustability its not maximizing the potential of the vehicle. Now I dont know who dug up the Anti-Squat info, Anti-squat is not a line from the CG to the contact patch, but its close to that, its a line from where the horizontal component intersects intersects a verticle line drawn through the front tire drawn through the rear contact patch. That line is 0 for anti squat, and 0 for squat. This means that the suspension will not lift the chassis, or the axle under torque. If the instant center of the suspension is above this line it has anti squat, which means it will try and lift the chassis under torque, if its below this line, it will lift the axle causing squat. Now we have to consider the dynamics of weight transfer next, when a car accelerates the horizontal compenent of G the accleration, moves the CG back so because of the different acceleration vector of gravity, its moving more weight to the rear tires, which will compress the suspension. Any time a spring moves, it must have a shock on it, because a spring will naturally want to resonate, the shock 1, controls the oscillation of the spring, and 2 also controls, the speed at which the spring and compress, and expand. So just because a car lowers in the rear doesnt necessarily mean its squatting. In the ideal launch, you want as much energy used to move the car forward, Not up, and not to move the suspension, and definiately not wasted at excess tire spin. So you have to balance the suspension to move forward as fast as it can, while still putting enough downward force on the rear tires. Anyways I wrote this quickly, and will add more later, I just wanted to clear up some suspension myths I noticed on here.

---

Seve is my hero

Quote:

---

Scott!

Man, it's great to hear from you. I have wondered about you off-and-on for a while now, but had lost my contact information for you. Let's keep in touch/
The other fellow is correct and for the reasons he said. The success of the Cal-Trac bar is defined in a science known as kinimatics (the study of links). Any dirt track racer will tell you that if you want more bite coming out of a corner, you need to increase the upper angle of the lower bar on a fourlink. From an IC point of view, this is explined by the fact that the IC is moved upwards and rearwards. By changing the angle of the Cal-Trac bar, the lower bar pushes up against the chassis and therefore downwards against the housing. I did not know of these effects when you and I were together and it's been an upgrade to my seminar presentation.

Dave Morgan

---

Quote:

---

As far as the Caltracs go they do have the ability to change the IC,IMO. Sure the front eye spring mount remains the same and fixed, and its a single point.

But the two seperate contact points of the front swivel, upper{spring] and lower[bar] gives it the abilty to change the IC,IMO.

It reacts to the car,IMO like a Mini 2 point, 4 link, and I mean Mini. It also stiffens up that front segment a bunch. All in all the Caltrac setup is not a bad design and works great for alot of 9, 10 second combos.

Sure its not nearly as good as a 4 link or the triangulated system, but I wouldnt hesitate to use it.

mike

---

Then why does it work on my 10/28" tire car, in the 8's, and some other cars I now

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

As far as the Caltracs go they do have the ability to change the IC,IMO. Sure the front eye spring mount remains the same and fixed, and its a single point.

But the two seperate contact points of the front swivel, upper{spring] and lower[bar] gives it the abilty to change the IC,IMO.

It reacts to the car,IMO like a Mini 2 point, 4 link, and I mean Mini. It also stiffens up that front segment a bunch. All in all the Caltrac setup is not a bad design and works great for alot of 9, 10 second combos.

Sure its not nearly as good as a 4 link or the triangulated system, but I wouldnt hesitate to use it.

mike

---

Then why does it work on my 10/28" tire car, in the 8's, and some other cars I now

---

Hey,Im not running down the Caltracs!! Where did you get that from Maybe from the word [nearly] I didnt mean to take away anything from the Caltrack design. I like it!


My intent was to find out if the Caltrac design {does or does not} have any ability to change the IC by its Single 2 point lower bar adjustment.

IMO I think it does, or did. But now Im unsure. Monte says no, and as I interpreted Dave Morgans response in Scotts thread as it does.

But Scott replied back with his interpretation that both Dave and Monte are in agreement, that it doesnt.

So I dont know But I have Nothing against Catracs. I have nothing but up for them, mike

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

As far as the Caltracs go they do have the ability to change the IC,IMO. Sure the front eye spring mount remains the same and fixed, and its a single point.

But the two seperate contact points of the front swivel, upper{spring] and lower[bar] gives it the abilty to change the IC,IMO.

It reacts to the car,IMO like a Mini 2 point, 4 link, and I mean Mini. It also stiffens up that front segment a bunch. All in all the Caltrac setup is not a bad design and works great for alot of 9, 10 second combos.

Sure its not nearly as good as a 4 link or the triangulated system, but I wouldnt hesitate to use it.

mike

---

Then why does it work on my 10/28" tire car, in the 8's, and some other cars I now

---

Hey,Im not running down the Caltracs!! Where did you get that from Maybe from the word [nearly] I didnt mean to take away anything from the Caltrack design. I like it!


My intent was to find out if the Caltrac design {does or does not} have any ability to change the IC by its Single 2 point lower bar adjustment.

IMO I think it does, or did. But now Im unsure. Monte says no, and as I interpreted Dave Morgans response in Scotts thread as it does.

But Scott replied back with his interpretation that both Dave and Monte are in agreement, that it doesnt.

So I dont know But I have Nothing against Catracs. I have nothing but up for them, mike

---

My bad

Quote:

---

WOW..... this is really deep... squate this, dampen that... it makes me dizzy

Now which suspension system is best for stopping my head from spinning?

Dallas

---

If you find it PM me . I can see what Monty is saying about the pivot on the Cal-Tracs and the IC not changing. But, how does the IC change on a four link? The bars are only moving up and down, the mounting point is not moving, it's welded in the car. It all seems to be theory to me. The Cal-Tracs have a single mounting point but so does the four link, the spring eye for the Cal-Trac and the front bracket on the four link.

I'm probably way out in left field on this and by no means an expert. Oh, I have Cal-Tracs on my pig .

This the kind of thread I like to read, hopefully I can learn something .

Quote:

---

Wow, I started this post as a simple, Cal-Tracks DO NOT change the IC. But it obviously became much more. Hopefully this helps explain things further.

---