|
Re: Caltracs Versus Triangulated system from Unlawfuls
[Re: Monte_Smith]
#494926
10/14/09 12:17 PM
10/14/09 12:17 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 127
Phoenix, Arizona
HerboldRacing
member
|
member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 127
Phoenix, Arizona
|
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.
|
|
|
Re: Caltracs Versus Triangulated system from Unlawfuls
[Re: HerboldRacing]
#494927
10/14/09 12:59 PM
10/14/09 12:59 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 439
Ortonville, MI
StyleElements
mopar
|
mopar
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 439
Ortonville, MI
|
Quote:
I noticed you edited your post. You had originally said:
Don't point out someones edited post. Not exactly polite. 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. And I haven't bashed anyone's product.
|
|
|
Re: Caltracs Versus Triangulated system from Unlawfuls
[Re: StyleElements]
#494928
10/14/09 01:18 PM
10/14/09 01:18 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 127
Phoenix, Arizona
HerboldRacing
member
|
member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 127
Phoenix, Arizona
|
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.
You may have removed it after you posted it but the email had already gone out to everyone who has subscribed to the thread. That is how I saw your original post, and that is how everyone else who subscribed to this thread saw it too. At that point its too late - you've already made the points you wanted to make.
Quote:
And I haven't bashed anyone's product.
Ok, maybe "bashed" is too strong a word, but you've been putting down Caltracs with wrong information. It's better not to say anything at all than to say something about someone else's product and risk being wrong. That's all I was trying to say.
|
|
|
Re: Caltracs Versus Triangulated system from Unlawfuls
[Re: HerboldRacing]
#494929
10/14/09 03:00 PM
10/14/09 03:00 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,295
U.S.
moparniac
master
|
master
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,295
U.S.
|
Caltracs for me  They are proven to work and allowed..... $3100 into the whole rear setup and all... Dana 60 is included in that $3100 oh and disc brakes....
Mopar Performance
|
|
|
Re: Caltracs Versus Triangulated system from Unlawfuls
[Re: HerboldRacing]
#494931
10/14/09 03:31 PM
10/14/09 03:31 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,890
North Alabama
Monte_Smith
master
|
master
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,890
North Alabama
|
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.
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. When you move the bottom bar on a Caltrack, all you change is the leverage, that is applied to the main leaf of the spring. You are NOT changing the instant center and the links are NOT emulating a 4 link setup. If you think this, you don't understand suspension at all. Not trying to be harsh, a "know it all" or anything else, but that information you were supplying is wrong. Do Caltracks work well, yes they do. They are a pretty good crutch for a suspension that was not desdigned well for racing. Somewhat affordable and easy to install. The original poster wanted pro/cons of each system and I did not see the link system getting a fair shake and the Caltracks were somewhat overglorified in my opinion. I have used both types, but I would only use leaf springs and or caltracks, if I HAD to. While having many pros, the only con I see to the link system, is price and the fact that it is likely not legal in a class that requires a "stock type" suspension, but since the original poster did not mention that, I did not see it as an issue.
Monte
|
|
|
Re: Caltracs Versus Triangulated system from Unlawfuls
[Re: Monte_Smith]
#494932
10/14/09 04:28 PM
10/14/09 04:28 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,266
Renton Washington
Triple Threat
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,266
Renton Washington
|
We are effectively comparing apples and oranges here.
One product is under $1000 complete and is a "crutch" to help a leaf spring suspension work when the rules dictate leafs must be used. The second is fully custom bolt in suspension that is greater than 4 times the price at $4000 but has more more potential and tune ability in the end.
It is up to you to decide what fits your budget and your goals.
-Dustin
67 Dart, 9 second, 392" G3 Hemi
68 Barracuda 340 F/SA
|
|
|
Re: Caltracs Versus Triangulated system from Unlawfuls
[Re: Monte_Smith]
#494934
10/14/09 04:59 PM
10/14/09 04:59 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 127
Phoenix, Arizona
HerboldRacing
member
|
member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 127
Phoenix, Arizona
|
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.
What you are saying is true, IC is simply defined as the pivot point that the rear wheels rotate about. We both agree on that.
Imagine what happens when you experience spring wrap up under hard acceleration... your IC moves backwards. I hope you agree with that.
Now with Caltracs preventing spring wrap up, it simply means the IC doesn't move backwards as much... with me so far?
With the 2-hole setup, you can select the amount of force the spring stop pushes down with. So in other words you have 2 IC's to choose from. 1) back from the front mount and 2) back a little further from the front mount.
Because springs flex under hard acceleration, you'll not ever get your IC truly at the front mount, it'll be behind it by some amount.
Now when I said it emulates a 4-link, I didn't mean mechanically. I meant it emulates a 4-link in the fashion where if you select the top hole your IC is further back, and if you select the bottom hole your IC is further forward. But in either case your IC will never be in front of the front mount.
Hopefully I explained myself better this time! :-)
If you're looking for IC adjustibility, 4-link is the way to go. I was only refuting the original comment that Caltracs had zero adjustibility for IC... I was saying it wasn't zero. :-)
|
|
|
Post deleted by Defbob
[Re: Triple Threat]
#494935
10/14/09 05:35 PM
10/14/09 05:35 PM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
|
|
Re: Caltracs Versus Triangulated system from Unlawfuls
#494936
10/14/09 05:40 PM
10/14/09 05:40 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,266
Renton Washington
Triple Threat
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,266
Renton Washington
|
I simply called them a "crutch" as they help solve some of the issues associated with Leaf spring suspensions, and that was the terminology Monte used earlier so i thought I'd keep it going.
Caltracs are on my wish list.
-Dustin
67 Dart, 9 second, 392" G3 Hemi
68 Barracuda 340 F/SA
|
|
|
Re: Caltracs Versus Triangulated system from Unlawfuls
[Re: HerboldRacing]
#494938
10/14/09 05:51 PM
10/14/09 05:51 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 127
Phoenix, Arizona
HerboldRacing
member
|
member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 127
Phoenix, Arizona
|
Quote:
Imagine what happens when you experience spring wrap up under hard acceleration... your IC moves backwards. I hope you agree with that.
I'm re-reading my posts to see where I glossed over things and made myself unclear. In the above quote I mean the IC relative to the resultant vector (vector from tire contact patch to the CoG) moves backwards. This is because when your spring wraps up, your wheel is moving forward closer to the front spring mount. Your IC relative to the body doesn't change. But if you drew a line from the new position of the tire (relative to the body) to the CoG you'll see the IC is now further away backwards from this line. If you want to be really nitpicky granted your CoG also moves forward when your spring wraps up but not nearly as much forward as your tire contact patch.
|
|
|
Re: Caltracs Versus Triangulated system from Unlawfuls
[Re: HerboldRacing]
#494939
10/14/09 06:01 PM
10/14/09 06:01 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,596
BX, CT, FL.
B1KILLER
pro stock
|
pro stock
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,596
BX, CT, FL.
|
I call my car a street car, it still has its street look, I run for $$ sometimes like I stated before no problem @ 140+ mph, do the math, CALTRAC, all the way. I mite even take the ladder bars offf my 70 Cuda and go to a Caltrac susp 
|
|
|
Re: Caltracs Versus Triangulated system from Unlawfuls
[Re: Kiddart]
#494940
10/14/09 06:09 PM
10/14/09 06:09 PM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
For background purposes, my drag car is a 1963 Plymouth Savoy set up with Cal Tracs, monoleaf springs, sliders in place of conventional shackles and AFCO double adjustable shocks. Lower bar is mounted in the bottom hole. Pinion angle is 4 degrees. Front suspension is six cylinder torsion bars, double adjustable AFCO shocks and suspension limiters to control suspension travel. Car weight with driver is approximately 3650 pounds with a 50/50 weight distribution. Engine is 572 CID, 727 with 2.28 1st gear to soften launch, Dana 60 with 4.30 gears and MT 31x15x10.5W tires. I have 100 pounds mounted over the rear axle with a 20 weight bar mounted under the radiator. Best 60 foot time to date was 1.29, 9.09 ET / 148 MPH at Milan Dragway. Three passes were made back-to-back with the same results. While this may have been the exception, 60' times are typically in the 1.31 to 1.33 range with Gary Jacobs/Jakes Automotive driving. Car launches at 1800 RPM, no brake I'm a firm believer in this system as demonstrated by the cars performance to date. I take a total system approach considering both front and rear suspension. One consideration is adjustability in terms of shock package and front suspension travel and initial set-up using scales. I will agree that the shocks were expensive, however, considering the total cost, much less expensive than a ladder bar or 4 link set-up. It can be done. I've included some websites. I hope you can access since I'm new to this. If you cannot access directly, type into Google and see what happens. Thanks. http://www.racefab-asi.com/gallery9.htmlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOLyjoARDII
|
|
|
Re: Caltracs Versus Triangulated system from Unlawfuls
[Re: moparniac]
#494941
10/14/09 06:19 PM
10/14/09 06:19 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 127
Phoenix, Arizona
HerboldRacing
member
|
member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 127
Phoenix, Arizona
|
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. 
|
|
|
Re: Caltracs Versus Triangulated system from Unlawfuls
[Re: HerboldRacing]
#494942
10/14/09 07:19 PM
10/14/09 07:19 PM
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,675
Ortonville, MI
RoadRnnr69
Keyster
|
Keyster
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,675
Ortonville, MI
|
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
|
|
|
Re: Caltracs Versus Triangulated system from Unlawfuls
[Re: RoadRnnr69]
#494943
10/14/09 08:38 PM
10/14/09 08:38 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,256
Salisbury North Carolina
8secDart
pro stock
|
pro stock
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,256
Salisbury North Carolina
|
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
Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Re: Caltracs Versus Triangulated system from Unlawfuls
[Re: 8secDart]
#494944
10/14/09 08:42 PM
10/14/09 08:42 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 127
Phoenix, Arizona
HerboldRacing
member
|
member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 127
Phoenix, Arizona
|
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Re: Caltracs Versus Triangulated system from Unlawfuls
[Re: HerboldRacing]
#494945
10/14/09 08:47 PM
10/14/09 08:47 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,596
BX, CT, FL.
B1KILLER
pro stock
|
pro stock
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,596
BX, CT, FL.
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
