|
Re: ALTERKATION HATED BY MOPAR ACTION??
[Re: A57_RT ]
#1228685
05/08/12 10:58 AM
05/08/12 10:58 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,254
Canada
WO23Coronet
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,254
Canada
|
Quote:
Yep, one of them....
THAT is a nice F body. Dimes to Doghnuts though the front end of those cars, firewall forward, are probably heavier (ie heavier frame stube, etc) than a comparable A body? Plus, as already stated, they did have some pretty significant issues in the front end with cracking. Also those were some pretty dark years for anything performance, or reliability from Mopar (they also have the much loved rubber isolated rear suspension), so I'm hesitant to use anything that Mopar did in those years as proof.
I'm not hating on the Alter K, and I'm not saying it can't be made to handle,it's definitely got it's place. I just think that guys beef on the torsion bar stuff unnecessarily and want change just for change sake.
The Green Brick is testament that torsion bars do work, that beast licked the best of the best time and time again with an "ancient" torsion bar suspension
Last edited by WO23Coronet; 05/08/12 02:10 PM.
|
|
|
Re: ALTERKATION HATED BY MOPAR ACTION??
[Re: Rhinodart]
#1228687
05/08/12 02:27 PM
05/08/12 02:27 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
patrick
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
|
Quote:
I have driven several cars with the Alter-K and the Mr. Norms design plus a few other of the designs, and all were based off the Alter-K except the Magnum Force. I have been over 150 MPH and through the twisties a few times at speed and my opinion is the Alter-K is the best. Yes there is some bump steer with some of the designs, but the Alter-K seems to have the least IMHO. The main difference between stock k-frames and Alter-K types are the removal of the torsion bars and addition of coil overs, less weight, better brakes, plus rack and pinion steering. I do agree that the unibody was not designed for the loads on the shock towers that the coil overs have and to be honest tying the frames and gusseting the shock towers should be done if the car is to be street driven alot. Son't forget the infinite adjustability of the new suspensions to your taste, while the stock suspensions are very limited. 
I thought the alterKtion Kframe/crossmember has integral shock towers on it, much like the F/M/J's do, and don't really load the OEM shock tower.....
it's biggest advantage is the R&P steering (which should save weight and improve feedback over an OEM power steering system), and ability to quickly and easily adjust spring rates with the coil overs, as well as an assortment of affordable brake options, using a mustang II type spindle.
While Rick is a pretty bright guy, I take some of what he says with a grain of salt. I'd call some of the "testing" methods he's shared here dubious at best...
1976 Spinnaker White Plymouth Duster, /6 A833OD
1986 Silver/Twilight Blue Chrysler 5th Ave HotRod **SOLD!***
2011 Toxic Orange Dodge Charger R/T
2017 Grand Cherokee Overland
2014 Jeep Cherokee Latitude (holy crap, my daughter is driving)
|
|
|
Re: ALTERKATION HATED BY MOPAR ACTION??
[Re: WO23Coronet]
#1228688
05/08/12 02:33 PM
05/08/12 02:33 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
patrick
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
|
Quote:
So what exactly are you saying Cab? I'm not suggesting one way or the other, but in you statement are you referring to the original poster or E-Booger. If it's E-Booger the guy has an SAE in engineering (I don't think he has an engineering degree but he's been given the SAE status, not sure how that work's but it does go toward his credibility), and has never been anybody's advertising bit#h.
SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) is a trade group. pay your dues, and you're a member. if Flo from the Progressive commercials joined and paid her dues she could
claim she's an SAE member.
Also, the claim that all the load of the front suspension isn't supported forward of the firewall is wrong. Draw a free body diagram of the lower control arm, looking at it from the front of the car. the lower control arm mount point (LCA bushings) react all the vertical and side load on the tire. this gets transferred to the car in the K frame mounts....ahead of the firewall. In a traditional coil spring suspension, the moment created from the tire rotating about the LCA mount point is reacted vertically on the LCA at the spring mount. with the torsion bar setup, the moment is generated about the pivot point, and reacted at the torsion bar mount. Again, draw a free body diagram of the alterKtion's front cradle. Since the alterKtion is a self contained suspension, the forces on the coil over mounts will be shared by all of the alterKtion's mount locations. but a lot of that "added load" of the spring reaction will be offset by a different load path, mainly different loading at the LCA mount. in the torsion bar example, say you have a 100lb upward force, 18" from LCA to center of tire. the reaction at the LCA mount is a corresponding 100lb downward force, and a 150 ft-lb torque reacted at the t-bar mount (sum of forces=0, sum of moments=0). in a coil over conversion, with say the coil over reaction point 12" from the pivot point, you have a 100lb upward force at the tire, you then have a 150 lb downward reaction at the coil over mount to make the sum of moments = 0. to make the sum of forces=0, that means you end up having a 50lb UPWARD force on the LCA pivot point. so, the actual Y direction load seen by the k-frame mount bolts are the same. load path/locations of reactions are different, so that will change load distribution to the 4 mount bolts somewhat, but not a monumental amount.
Last edited by patrick; 05/08/12 03:08 PM.
1976 Spinnaker White Plymouth Duster, /6 A833OD
1986 Silver/Twilight Blue Chrysler 5th Ave HotRod **SOLD!***
2011 Toxic Orange Dodge Charger R/T
2017 Grand Cherokee Overland
2014 Jeep Cherokee Latitude (holy crap, my daughter is driving)
|
|
|
Re: ALTERKATION HATED BY MOPAR ACTION??
[Re: patrick]
#1228689
05/08/12 03:14 PM
05/08/12 03:14 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,388
Pikes Peak Country
TC@HP2
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,388
Pikes Peak Country
|
Quote:
When it comes to "out of the box" suspension designs that handle well..... Mopar doesn't top the list..... Yes you can make it better with aftermarket stuff, but the overall design is very outdated
Quote:
If you really take a look at how a stock Mopar front suspension works you'd realize what a piece of crap it is.
While its caster adjustments are a limiting factor, it overall is a very decent design, even by standards of today. In context of the era, it was significantly better than the Ford and GM offerings. So what exactly sucks about the mopar design, toe changes? You can fix those you know. Anti-dive, again that can be changed. fixed strut rods, agian changes are possible. The mopar design has a pretty decent camber curve, is very solid and works pretty decent.
BTW, you do know that t-bar suspension a very popular in the modern truck and SUV market. Wanna guess why? They are tough, effective, and efficient.
Quote:
Rick is all about making things "bomb proof" and I can see where the RMS may have its shortcoming in an application that sees thousands of street miles in all conditions.
True, and the factory has, by comparison to a one guy shop, almost limitless resources to prove out the longevity of a product. Combine that with hundreds of thousands of cars sold that have travelled millions of miles, and the robustness has been proven. Again, a small shop has no way to compete against that type of record. Conversely, I think we have all seen our share of broken stock parts.
Quote:
Nice front end set up, but not worth the $$$ to me. I like to see more return for the investment on the parts I buy.
Agreed. I’d love to have an Alterkation too, but the gains are not worth the $$ spent in my opinion either. If you want weight loss, the Alterkation will cost you around $56 a pound if the fully optioned cost is $4500 and the weight lost is 80#. By comparison, losing 50# with a fiberglass hood only costs me $7 a pound at a $400 purchase price. Similarly, the geometrics corrections provided by an aftermarket suspension can usually be duplicated with some effort on the stock layout for a fraction of the cost of an entire front end. To address its superior handling, this is the result of a better trained designer specifying spring and shock rates that are better matched to the car’s set up than a layman buying whatever is on sale. You buy a system, it had better be speced out to perform. No different than if you buy an engine from a reputable builder.
Quote:
With the RMS, now everything centers around the 4 bolts retaining the K member.
This is no different than stock. With the OEM K frame, all vertical loading is supported by those same four bolts and through the same frame rails. The rear anchor and t-bars only support the twisting motion of the bar, not the vertical displacement.
Quote:
As much as it is a pisser for header clearance, REAR steer is better for weight balance since the weight of the components are closer to the center of the car.
The rear steer weight balance is there, but is marginal. Polar moment of inertia is what this impacts. The change from 45 pounds of rear steer to 20 pounds of front steer is a change in polar moment of fractions compared to the reduction of overall weight benefit.
Quote:
Would you rather have this....
Certainly less than ideal, but it is still a popular swap with the street rod crowd because of its self contained nature. Maybe if more of them knew about the tubular conversions, they would be using them instead, although I have a suspicion that this need has driven some other, less well known with the mopar crowd conversions to the market place.
FWIW, in my opinion, the advantages of all the tubular after market suspensions are 1) the loss of weight 2) the ability to rapidly change spring rates and ride height 3) component clearance 4)geometric improvements. SO, in response 1) The weight loss thing is a tangible that benefits every aspect of driving, but like I said further above, there are more economical ways of achieving it. 2)Since I'd venture a guess to say most classic mopar users rarely use their car in venues where they are concerned about and NEED to make a 50 to 100# spring rate change in 15 minutes, then advantage 2 is really no advantage to the average driver. 3) Components have been made for decades to fit within the confines of the stock set up so the added clearance is merely a nicety, not a requirement to fit components in the engine bay. 4) clean sheet design has allowed tube frame designers to put better geometric angles in thereto support their design, but the stock layout needs only minor tweaking to make things better. It already has a good camber curve, the caster can be tweaked, and the anti-dive adjusted.These changes can be accomplished with bolt on kits costing many thousands less than a full blown coil over conversion kit.
Are the tubular set up nice, heck yeah. If had had the money to spend, I’d probably install one in my car and not look back. Are they the end all be all because of their new design, not necessarily. Will they make your car the center of attention at the drive in, probably. Can they increase performance, potentially. Will they fail on the highway, unlikely and probably not at a rate any higher than the stock stuff for how most of these cars are used now days.
Now, one thing I will slam the torsion bar suspension on is the lack of available rates and the cost of bars. However, I'd imagine higher and higher rate bars are a very limited market and you could probably count the people willing to buy huge rates on both hands. To go hand in hand with that, th elimited market means they would only be even more expensive.
You make your choice, pay your money, and enjoy the benefits/drawbacks regardless of system. Simple as that.
|
|
|
Re: ALTERKATION HATED BY MOPAR ACTION??
[Re: TC@HP2]
#1228690
05/08/12 03:53 PM
05/08/12 03:53 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,712
Sacramento, Ca
Darius
master
|
master
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,712
Sacramento, Ca
|
I read this article and my initial response was....Oh No!
I have installed an AlterKtion in my 70 GTX build.
Link to pics...http://www.forbbodiesonly.com/moparforum/showthread.php?t=1121
While I certainly can NOT comment on any durability or handling issues Rick mentioned in the article, I can agree with him on ONE point and that is where the thru-bolts go at the shock tower on the AlterKtion to the frame rails. It is VERY easy to "crush" the frame rail by over tightening.
I respected his opinion but wondered also about the mention of failures with out proof.I also respected the fact that he pretty much backed up his "opinion" with his justification for each opinion.
I am looking forward to driving this car and intend to drive the snot out of it as often as I can. I am not a racer, just wanted the look of the classic beauty with as close to modern convenience as I could (fairly ) reasonably accomplish.
Bottom line is this...If the AlterKtion was that bad, RMS would not still be selling them and our Beloved Moparters would have COMPLETELY discredited Bill Reiley a long time ago!
Driving modern convenience in classic beauty
|
|
|
Re: ALTERKATION HATED BY MOPAR ACTION??
[Re: cudaboone]
#1228692
05/08/12 04:33 PM
05/08/12 04:33 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,273
Greenville, South Carolina
BBLM23
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,273
Greenville, South Carolina
|
I have had mine since 2003. Wilwood brakes:
Walter
1969 Dart Swinger w/ARC Pump Gas 493 B1/BS 10.18 at 130mph
Racing Pro in street trim.
1981 Aries ARC 548 B1 8.88 at 147mph (footbraking)
1996 Ram 2500 V10 16.52 at 80mph
1981 Reliant 400
|
|
|
Re: ALTERKATION HATED BY MOPAR ACTION??
[Re: ProStDodge]
#1228694
05/08/12 06:23 PM
05/08/12 06:23 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,712
Sacramento, Ca
Darius
master
|
master
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,712
Sacramento, Ca
|
I did not get any spacers, I will contact Bill and get some since I am at the point of dis-assembly for final body and paint I can make that modification.
Driving modern convenience in classic beauty
|
|
|
Re: ALTERKATION HATED BY MOPAR ACTION??
[Re: cudaboone]
#1228696
05/08/12 10:56 PM
05/08/12 10:56 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,688
Marlboro, NY, USA
Rick_Ehrenberg
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,688
Marlboro, NY, USA
|
NO. It was not hated, I did NOT say that. Quite the contrary, I mentioned that I think it is a great drag race front end. This was not an "article", just a reply to a reader's question.
OK, to put this to rest, here's exactly what I (and the reader) wrote: (for now, you'll have to get the mag to see the diagrams and captions, I'll try to get them posted soon).
************************************************
SUBSTITUTE SUSPENSION
I have found a couple consecutive negative remarks about RMS products published in recent issues of Mopar Action and I am seeking to understand why. This came as a surprise to me because I can find no negative data on any RMS product no matter where I look. Many builds, including my own, that are pursuing handling related performance upgrades often include RMS.
A much smaller percentage use XV (due to cost and mods) and even less Magnum Force. Bill at RMS really seems to have his heart dedicated to building quality products capable of improving street and road race performance with more than 10 years of product application to support it. If you have experience with RMS quality problems, or
data to support the “questionable” status, please share it with us enthusiasts seeking to get our Mopars onto the tracks. This way we can make the necessary improvements, mods etc. to appropriately benefit from these kinds of upgrades. There should
not be fear, uncertainty and doubt between fellow enthusiasts. I understand how the RMS system distributes cornering forces on our car’s infrastructure differently from the T‑bar but is there data of failures resulting from this? I can’t find a single case of failure of any kind. If you know of any please share and help us understand what is “questionable” about these products. Maybe together we can make the perfect solution.
My ’71 Challenger is using XV in the rear and RMS in front with all XV bracing products including rad support, inner fender bracing and connectors.
Thank you for your help and expertise.
—Daniel Niclas, San Jose, CA
Dan—
On a drag car, the RMS AlterKtion stuff is great—takes out lots of weight, makes more exhaust room. But there’s a laundry list of potential problems with using this on the street and/or road course. In no particular order...
> Heim joints—anybody’s heim joints— just do not last on the street. Even with added boots, they still don’t come anywhere close to OEM tie rod end durability. And, as an artifact of their construction, they are much more prone to total failure than an OEM tie rod end.
> The cantilevered outer tie rod end, spaced up with a stack of shims and spacers (for bumpsteer correction, no doubt out of necessity, because the rack could not be installed correctly due to interference, and a “generic” steering arm is used), is a scary potential catastrophic failure point. The loads on that bolt, should you be in a hard corner and hit a pothole, are astronomical. Some photos I have seen show the spacer tube welded to the steering arm, which may offer partial mitigation.
> The suspension (spring) loads are now taken by the front rails. They were, in the OEM Chrysler design, primarily, imparted to the torsion bar crossmember. On a drag car, where you’ll have a roll cage tube passing thru the firewall and tied into the top of what was the shock tower, the problem is pretty well mitigated. But on a street car, where you seldom see that, you’ll be inducing lots more chassis flex. Just hook up a small video camera and watch how the steering shaft telescopes over bumps. The Chrysler OEM system had a lightweight front structure with springs (T-bars) mounted low and rearward, damn near “Formula One” technology. Why give that up?
> The “K”-member is no longer a “K”, drastically reducing its ability to prevent the front rails from “parallelograming”. This would significantly reduce crashworthiness (especially in an offset frontal crash) as well as reducing overall chassis rigidity.
> I believe that the spindle diameter is smaller than stock. In 1973, Chrysler increased the spindle diameter as weight, tire size, wheel width, etc., were all increasing.
> The frame thru-bolts will crush the frame as the bolts are tightened. There should be tubes welded into the frame, EG: stock transmission crossmember, etc.
> Every pix I have seen shows brake hubs that have no way to pilot the wheel. ESPECIALLY road racing, hub-centricity is paramount.
> There’s near-zero compliance—nothing to replace the OEM tension-strut bushing. Instantaneous impact loads are sky-high, exacerbating the above negatives. And the effective footprint of the LCA, which, in the OEM design, included that tension strut, is greatly reduced (nearly 50%) in the RMS
design, further reducing its ability to safely
handle impacts.
> The steering column’s pot coupling is eliminated. The pot coupling is what compensates for chassis flex; deleting it means that one of two things will occur over time/ abuse: Either the nylon shear pin on ’67-up non-E-bodies will break, or the upper column bearing will fail (possible on any Mopar).
> You’ll note that there is not one weld in the factory suspension components. By design. That’s not to necessarily say that welds are always bad, but, if they can be avoided, you’ve eliminated one area where, unless each weld is X-rayed, you just don’t know what to expect over the long term.
Mr. Reilly has always thought I’ve had it in for him. That’s simply not true, I think he has designed a very good drag-race suspension conversion. It’s just when you take a drag race front end, sell it for street use, with nothing even close to factory durability and stress testing, that I worry. Lack of reported or known failures isn’t proof of anything: Space shuttles made many flights “before,” the Silver Bridge carried tens of millions of cars safely, then one day it simply vanished into the Ohio River, killing hundreds, to cite just two well-known examples. When a fleet of test cars have spent 250,000 miles each being hammered at a PG, then get back to me. This applies to the competitor’s products as well. If I didn’t point these things out, I’d be complacent. Reilly, in fact, does point this out, go read the disclaimer that is in the RMS documentation:
“....By purchasing this product, the buyer/end user assumes all risks associated with its use and agrees to having the proper skills for it’s [sic] installation. Reilly MotorSports Inc. and its suppliers will not be held responsible, liable or accountable for any injury, damage, loss, penalties, or fines that occur from using this product in any manner.”
For my dime, upgrades to the basic T-bar system re the way to go. Firm Feel, XV’s level one, and even Hotchkis have parts and packages that get the job done, although Hotchkis’ swapping (giving up) brake anti-dive* for more camber gain doesn’t thrill me either. If you’re building a straight-line-only drag car, your opinion may vary.
Guys often confuse “race” parts with “durability.” Often the opposite is true. EG: Aluminum con rods and rocker arms, “race” axle shafts and gears, tiny radiators and fans, super high-lift cams, and many more. A lot of guys, of course, do get by with race parts on the street. How? Simple: The car sees 10 cruise-ins or 300 miles a year, smooth roads, 40 MPH, etc.
If I don’t take care to see that there’s some kind of disclaimer in articles featuring cars with these suspension conversions, we could be seen (legally) as endorsing them—which we are not.
To boil this down: Again, I’m sure the RMS setup has good geometry (even has anti-dive)and drives just fine. On a drag car, the extra header and oil pan real estate, and reduced weight, would be the hot ticket. It is the specter of sudden, catastrophic failure in “real street” use that worries me.
*— For more on this, see p. 67.
************************
End paste job...
I'll work on the diagrams...
|
|
|
Re: ALTERKATION - 1st dwg and caption
[Re: Rick_Ehrenberg]
#1228697
05/08/12 11:01 PM
05/08/12 11:01 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,688
Marlboro, NY, USA
Rick_Ehrenberg
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,688
Marlboro, NY, USA
|
 The RMS narrow lower control arm “stance” greatly increases stresses. If you hit a chuckhole, the weld where the front of the arm meets the pivot tries to rip apart; this artifact is multiplied by the fact that there’s near-zero compliance built into this design. For a quick demonstration of the narrow vs. wide stability and strength, try standing with your feet close together vs. spread apart. OEM strut (r.)absorbs all road shocks in pure tension, an inherently reliable design. -Rick E.
|
|
|
Re: ALTERKATION - 3rd dwg and caption
[Re: Rick_Ehrenberg]
#1228700
05/08/12 11:06 PM
05/08/12 11:06 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,688
Marlboro, NY, USA
Rick_Ehrenberg
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,688
Marlboro, NY, USA
|
 The cantilevered tie rod end thru-bolt is but one of the questionable engineering practices found on the RMS “AlterKtion” conversion suspension. This would probably be fine for a drag car, but street durability and safety remains a big question mark. ****************** That's all, folks. Rick E.
|
|
|
|
|
.
