1.21 sixty foot slo-mo video, Hey Monte and Al...
#2147634
09/04/16 11:10 PM
09/04/16 11:10 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 903
Saskatchewan, Canada
cudabin
OP
super stock
|
OP
super stock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 903
Saskatchewan, Canada
|
Tightened up the shocks so the front was 1.5 turns (Santhuff) from full stiff on extension, and the rears (Strange) were 2 clicks from full stiff. Check out the slo-mo video, and let me know what you would try next... https://youtu.be/gVIvybq1gCMRan 5.47 at 124.6mph with a 1.21 sixty foot. Tires were at 10.25psi With the front shocks at 2 turns out earlier, it went 1.32 60 foot on the rear tires...
Last edited by cudabin; 09/05/16 02:03 PM.
67 Cuda 8.48@ 158.7 mph 1.18 60' 2,600 DA(so far...)
70 Super Bee 440 Six Pack 4-speed. 13.2 @ 104 Stock exhaust/Street tires.
|
|
|
Re: 1,21 sixty foot slo-mo video, Hey Monte and Al...
[Re: Monte_Smith]
#2148160
09/05/16 06:21 PM
09/05/16 06:21 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 903
Saskatchewan, Canada
cudabin
OP
super stock
|
OP
super stock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 903
Saskatchewan, Canada
|
Monte, If I stiffen the extension on the rear 2 more clicks to be full stiff, should I leave the compression the same as it was, at 3 clicks away from full stiff, or tighten that too?
In the video, it is interesting to see that the Santhuffs in the front are still keeping the extension slow once the front is in the air. I was not using travel limiters, just a stiff extension setting...
67 Cuda 8.48@ 158.7 mph 1.18 60' 2,600 DA(so far...)
70 Super Bee 440 Six Pack 4-speed. 13.2 @ 104 Stock exhaust/Street tires.
|
|
|
Re: 1,21 sixty foot slo-mo video, Hey Monte and Al...
[Re: cudabin]
#2148566
09/06/16 03:42 AM
09/06/16 03:42 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 19,366
Las Vegas
Al_Alguire
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 19,366
Las Vegas
|
Looks way better to me. I agree it looks like the rear is still to stiff. I would try tightening them up more. It is possible there is not enough extension in them and they may need to be revalved, hard to believe for a Santhuff shock really but certainly possible. I might also try a tad less air in the back. As for the front, still a fair amount of travel there that I don't think your car needs frankly..Keep chipping away.
"I am not ashamed to confess I am ignorant of what I do not know."
"It's never wrong to do the right thing"
|
|
|
Re: 1,21 sixty foot slo-mo video, Hey Monte and Al...
[Re: cudabin]
#2148572
09/06/16 04:07 AM
09/06/16 04:07 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 19,366
Las Vegas
Al_Alguire
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 19,366
Las Vegas
|
Guess I missed that along the way. In that case I agree completely they are likely not gonna be tight enough without getting revalved or a different shock with stiffer valving.
"I am not ashamed to confess I am ignorant of what I do not know."
"It's never wrong to do the right thing"
|
|
|
Re: 1,21 sixty foot slo-mo video, Hey Monte and Al...
[Re: gregsdart]
#2154115
09/14/16 12:02 AM
09/14/16 12:02 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 903
Saskatchewan, Canada
cudabin
OP
super stock
|
OP
super stock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 903
Saskatchewan, Canada
|
Greg, we previously Scaled the car and after leveling everything and adjusting the torsion bars to equalize as much as posible, we ended up adding 1 flat of preload to the RR ladderbar. This gave us the following corner weights:
LF= 854 RF=740
LR= 596 RR= 589
Total wieght with 190# driver = 2,779#'s
total front = 1,594 or 57%
Total rear = 1,185 or 43%
41.2% of left side weight on LR, and 44.3% of right side weight on RR
67 Cuda 8.48@ 158.7 mph 1.18 60' 2,600 DA(so far...)
70 Super Bee 440 Six Pack 4-speed. 13.2 @ 104 Stock exhaust/Street tires.
|
|
|
|
|
