|
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D
[Re: TC@HP2]
#1386408
04/12/13 04:36 PM
04/12/13 04:36 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,699
Newport, Mi
Evil Spirit
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,699
Newport, Mi
|
Quote:
This actually is a good solution, IMO. You raise the engine, fit the rack. So now you raised the center of gravity, right, so how is that good? Well, you drop the car lower around the engine. An engine is, lets say, 500#. A car is 3400#. So you raised 500# up two inches, now lets drop 2900# 2 inches since you have increases oil pan and header clearance with the lifted engine. Which will have a greater impact on the COG, 500# or 2900#?
Factory suspensions are designed around the frame to be at a given height - at that height the UCA's + LCA's are at angles that minimize unwanted caster/camber gain/loss, etc. - their "sweet spot". Dropping the frame - and those suspension points - can't have a positive effect on that. 
Free advice and worth every penny...
Factory trained Slinky rewinder.........
|
|
|
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D
[Re: brads70]
#1386410
04/16/13 10:11 AM
04/16/13 10:11 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,407
Pikes Peak Country
TC@HP2
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,407
Pikes Peak Country
|
Quote:
I think you tricked me, and I fell for it, but TC, weren't you the one that brought up Ackerman in the first place, and now we decide its no big deal anyway, oh well, I get to learn something anyway, big thumbs up goes here.
Anyway its an interesting idea, has this been done before? I wouldn't think it was easy to mount a lower ball joint/arm assembly from the back, but I'll have to find one and see for myself.
Nah, I'm not usually that calculating to be able to pull off a manipulative thread witha preduicated outcome like that. Besides, I think we could all count the number of dedicated road race style competition cars on this site on one hand. That means ackerman in QA1 designs would be germain for the vast majority of cars out there who may be buying their product.
Quote:
Factory suspensions are designed around the frame to be at a given height - at that height the UCA's + LCA's are at angles that minimize unwanted caster/camber gain/loss, etc. - their "sweet spot". Dropping the frame - and those suspension points - can't have a positive effect on that.
True, but those can be manipulated to some degree to overcome the changes involved. People who are insistent about optimization will take those steps, those who aren't wont and they won't be as fast as the former. I just said it was possible, not that it was necessarily easy.
Quote:
What we really need is a lower ball joint/steering arm that uses screw in or press in ball joint and bolt on steering arms so we can put them where we want them! Then move the motor back enough to fit a rack in there. Moving 500-600 pounds as far back and low as possible is always a good thing!
Agreed. That is additional adjustability that can only help. Aren't the guys up at Firm Feel mocking up some set ups similar to this using post '72 B body parts?
|
|
|
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D
[Re: 1fastabody]
#1386421
07/19/13 11:24 AM
07/19/13 11:24 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 780
Woodinville, WA
Viol8r
OP
super stock
|
OP
super stock
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 780
Woodinville, WA
|
Quote:
Why didn't they make the UCA adjustable?
The arm has caster built into it plus you can use get new mounting bolts and cams with them. There should be no reason you can't get a 3 to 6 degrees out of them.
I run right around 4 currently.
|
|
|
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D
[Re: brads70]
#1386422
07/19/13 11:33 AM
07/19/13 11:33 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 780
Woodinville, WA
Viol8r
OP
super stock
|
OP
super stock
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 780
Woodinville, WA
|
Quote:
I'm wondering if the tall "gusset" around the ball joint on the UCA would limit rim offsets and diameters?
I do not think this will be an issue. It is not designed with only large diameter wheels in mind. Have to remember this set-up is intended to cross over between street, drag and Pro-touring applications. Obviously wheels sizes wheel vary.
I can get some visual clearances posted here once I can get to that point in the install.
|
|
|
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D
[Re: autoxcuda]
#1386424
07/19/13 12:18 PM
07/19/13 12:18 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,598
So Cal
autoxcuda
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,598
So Cal
|
If they just ran paralell brackets for the front strut rods, they could eliminate the expensive custom one-off machined front strut adapter. That piece has to add a retail of $100+. They could just sell strut rods without that piece and a little longer rod for their custom K-member cars. But I realize there will be no interchangablity with stock pieces or people that would slowly upgrade into a custom K-member. 
Last edited by autoxcuda; 07/19/13 04:52 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Moving 500-600 pounds as far back and low as possible is always a good thing! 
