Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom
[Re: Stroker Scamp]
#2109886
07/14/16 01:09 PM
07/14/16 01:09 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,978 Hilltown Pa
1967dartgt
master
|
master
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,978
Hilltown Pa
|
Sounds like the harder hit in top hole topping out shocks and causing it to bounce.
Brett Miller W9 cnc'd heads STR Chassis fabraction
|
|
|
Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom
[Re: Stroker Scamp]
#2109890
07/14/16 01:12 PM
07/14/16 01:12 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 13,496 Marion, South Carolina [><]
an8sec70cuda
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 13,496
Marion, South Carolina [><]
|
So maybe the top hole (harder hit) w/ a stiffer rebound shock setting may be faster?
CHIP '70 hemicuda, 575" Hemi, 727, Dana 60 '69 road runner, 440-6, 4 speed, Dana 60 '71 Demon 340, no drivetrain, on blocks behind the barn '73 Chrysler New Yorker, 440, 727, 8.75 '90 Chevy 454SS Silverado, 476" BBC, TH400, 14 bolt '06 GMC 2500HD LBZ Duramax
|
|
|
Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom
[Re: Stroker Scamp]
#2109966
07/14/16 03:50 PM
07/14/16 03:50 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,978 Hilltown Pa
1967dartgt
master
|
master
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,978
Hilltown Pa
|
Chip it could be, only one way to know for sure.
Brett Miller W9 cnc'd heads STR Chassis fabraction
|
|
|
Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom
[Re: Stroker Scamp]
#2109969
07/14/16 03:53 PM
07/14/16 03:53 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 13,496 Marion, South Carolina [><]
an8sec70cuda
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 13,496
Marion, South Carolina [><]
|
I may give that a try soon...I'm still not sure exactly what this car of mine likes on these slicks.
CHIP '70 hemicuda, 575" Hemi, 727, Dana 60 '69 road runner, 440-6, 4 speed, Dana 60 '71 Demon 340, no drivetrain, on blocks behind the barn '73 Chrysler New Yorker, 440, 727, 8.75 '90 Chevy 454SS Silverado, 476" BBC, TH400, 14 bolt '06 GMC 2500HD LBZ Duramax
|
|
|
Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom
[Re: Stroker Scamp]
#2109974
07/14/16 03:56 PM
07/14/16 03:56 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,978 Hilltown Pa
1967dartgt
master
|
master
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,978
Hilltown Pa
|
I know mine stopped doing it when I switched away from rancho shocks.
Brett Miller W9 cnc'd heads STR Chassis fabraction
|
|
|
Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom
[Re: 506RR]
#2110211
07/14/16 11:19 PM
07/14/16 11:19 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 512 Illinois
Mopar_Ray
mopar
|
mopar
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 512
Illinois
|
The top hole moves the instant center closer, and made my car more prone to wheelie.
When I first put them on, Calvert told me that you want to put the bars in whichever hole makes them more parallel with the ground.
For me, that was the bottom hole. Started out that way and had good success.
Tried putting them in the top hole for a while, but with the short 20" front segment in the Duster it always wanted to pull the wheels.
Does this look right, or should I be on bottom hole?
|
|
|
Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom
[Re: Mopar_Ray]
#2110239
07/14/16 11:51 PM
07/14/16 11:51 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,657 fredericksburg,va
cudaman1969
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,657
fredericksburg,va
|
The top hole moves the instant center closer, and made my car more prone to wheelie.
When I first put them on, Calvert told me that you want to put the bars in whichever hole makes them more parallel with the ground.
For me, that was the bottom hole. Started out that way and had good success.
Tried putting them in the top hole for a while, but with the short 20" front segment in the Duster it always wanted to pull the wheels.
Does this look right, or should I be on bottom hole? Do you have shims-spacers between spring and housing-perch? Perch sitting on the spring I mean?
|
|
|
Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom
[Re: cudaman1969]
#2110812
07/15/16 09:40 PM
07/15/16 09:40 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 512 Illinois
Mopar_Ray
mopar
|
mopar
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 512
Illinois
|
Does this look right, or should I be on bottom hole?
Do you have shims-spacers between spring and housing-perch? Perch sitting on the spring I mean?
No, I don't have any spacers or shims. Not sure what difference that would make?
Last edited by Mopar_Ray; 07/15/16 09:42 PM.
|
|
|
Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom
[Re: Stroker Scamp]
#2110859
07/15/16 10:34 PM
07/15/16 10:34 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,972 Romeo MI
MR_P_BODY
Master
|
Master
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,972
Romeo MI
|
You have to try both.. lots of variables to play with here.. how much torque, weight distribution, gear ratio and the front end set up.. the only way to make sure is testing it... and that includes adjusting the shocks... and if the shocks are good enough to control it.. its never as easy to say.. this way or that.. do you have a low ratio first gear is just another thing
|
|
|
Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom
[Re: Mopar_Ray]
#2110898
07/15/16 11:59 PM
07/15/16 11:59 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,657 fredericksburg,va
cudaman1969
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,657
fredericksburg,va
|
Does this look right, or should I be on bottom hole?
Do you have shims-spacers between spring and housing-perch? Perch sitting on the spring I mean?
No, I don't have any spacers or shims. Not sure what difference that would make? Raising or lowering that bottom plate in relation to the housing changes the instant center just like the first or second hole in the front pivot. Pretty much the same way moving the bottom bar in a four link at the housing. One way of getting the bar level to ground and the farther away the hole is from the center of housing, more leverage, closer, less
|
|
|
Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom
[Re: cudaman1969]
#2556411
09/29/18 09:52 PM
09/29/18 09:52 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,806 Wichita
GY3
master
|
master
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,806
Wichita
|
I raced my car again this weekend and it was hooking really well, but doesn't 60 ft. like it did with SS springs.
The car leaves smoother and more level and felt really good, though.
It had done a best of 1.54 60 ft. with SS springs but not consistently. It did 1.67 all day long with the Cal-Trac setup last Saturday. I have 3.54 gears ET Street Pro's and leave off idle. The engine is like a low rpm diesel and makes massive torque.
I use the Calvert (Rancho) 9 position shocks set on 7. We did change the upper mount on the shocks to get them more vertical.
The car drives excellent but I would really like to shave a tenth off consistantly.
Should I move the bar to the upper hole? I thought about rear sliders, too, but use the car a lot on the street and have heard they are noisy.
Will double adjustable shocks help?
'63 Dodge 330
11.19 @ 121 mph Pump gas, n/a, through the mufflers on street tires with 3.54's. 3,600 lbs.
9.92 @ 135mph with a 350 shot of nitrous and 93 octane pump. 1.43 60 ft. 3,750 lbs.
|
|
|
Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom
[Re: GY3]
#2556441
09/29/18 11:02 PM
09/29/18 11:02 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,744 Bend,OR USA
Cab_Burge
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,744
Bend,OR USA
|
I raced my car again this weekend and it was hooking really well, but doesn't 60 ft. like it did with SS springs.
The car leaves smoother and more level and felt really good, though.
It had done a best of 1.54 60 ft. with SS springs but not consistently. It did 1.67 all day long with the Cal-Trac setup last Saturday. I have 3.54 gears ET Street Pro's and leave off idle. The engine is like a low rpm diesel and makes massive torque.
I use the Calvert (Rancho) 9 position shocks set on 7. We did change the upper mount on the shocks to get them more vertical.
The car drives excellent but I would really like to shave a tenth off consistantly.
Should I move the bar to the upper hole? I thought about rear sliders, too, but use the car a lot on the street and have heard they are noisy.
Will double adjustable shocks help?
The only way to find out what your combination and car likes the best is to test, test, and then test some more Have you tested leaving at different RPM yet? If not try that also
Mr.Cab Racing and winning with Mopars since 1964. (Old F--t, Huh)
|
|
|
Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom
[Re: Cab_Burge]
#2556450
09/29/18 11:29 PM
09/29/18 11:29 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,806 Wichita
GY3
master
|
master
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,806
Wichita
|
I raced my car again this weekend and it was hooking really well, but doesn't 60 ft. like it did with SS springs.
The car leaves smoother and more level and felt really good, though.
It had done a best of 1.54 60 ft. with SS springs but not consistently. It did 1.67 all day long with the Cal-Trac setup last Saturday. I have 3.54 gears ET Street Pro's and leave off idle. The engine is like a low rpm diesel and makes massive torque.
I use the Calvert (Rancho) 9 position shocks set on 7. We did change the upper mount on the shocks to get them more vertical.
The car drives excellent but I would really like to shave a tenth off consistantly.
Should I move the bar to the upper hole? I thought about rear sliders, too, but use the car a lot on the street and have heard they are noisy.
Will double adjustable shocks help?
The only way to find out what your combination and car likes the best is to test, test, and then test some more Have you tested leaving at different RPM yet? If not try that also Not yet, but planned on that too! Not gonna experiment until next spring. Have some paying races coming up and always do well at both so don't want to change much..
|
|
|
Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom
[Re: Cab_Burge]
#2556623
09/30/18 01:44 PM
09/30/18 01:44 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439 Val-haul-ass... eventually
BradH
Taking time off to work on my car
|
Taking time off to work on my car
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
|
I raced my car again this weekend and it was hooking really well, but doesn't 60 ft. like it did with SS springs.
The car leaves smoother and more level and felt really good, though.
It had done a best of 1.54 60 ft. with SS springs but not consistently. It did 1.67 all day long with the Cal-Trac setup last Saturday. I have 3.54 gears ET Street Pro's and leave off idle. The engine is like a low rpm diesel and makes massive torque.
I use the Calvert (Rancho) 9 position shocks set on 7. We did change the upper mount on the shocks to get them more vertical.
The car drives excellent but I would really like to shave a tenth off consistantly.
Should I move the bar to the upper hole? I thought about rear sliders, too, but use the car a lot on the street and have heard they are noisy.
Will double adjustable shocks help?
The only way to find out what your combination and car likes the best is to test, test, and then test some more Have you tested leaving at different RPM yet? If not try that also x2 on Cab's comments. I ran a best of 1.54 on SS springs, then switched to CalTracs with standard leaf springs and the same Rancho 5-way dampers I was using with the SS springs and dropped to a best of 1.51 and more consistency. Better engine and changing to split mono-leaf springs saw a best of 1.45, and still with the same old-style Ranchos. But there were preload & damping adjustments, launch RPM changes, tire pressure changes, etc., along the way.
|
|
|
Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom
[Re: 506RR]
#2556654
09/30/18 02:59 PM
09/30/18 02:59 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 19,318 State of confusion
Thumperdart
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 19,318
State of confusion
|
The top hole moves the instant center closer, and made my car more prone to wheelie.
When I first put them on, Calvert told me that you want to put the bars in whichever hole makes them more parallel with the ground.
For me, that was the bottom hole. Started out that way and had good success.
Tried putting them in the top hole for a while, but with the short 20" front segment in the Duster it always wanted to pull the wheels.
Hole location has zero to do with IC as that is fixed however it changes the "hit" lower softer, upper harder.........
72 Dart 470 n/a BB stroker street car `THUMPER`...Check me out on FB Dominic Thumper for videos and lots of carb pics......760-900-3895.....
|
|
|
Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom
[Re: an8sec70cuda]
#2556731
09/30/18 06:48 PM
09/30/18 06:48 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,225 Charleston
sixpackgut
Drag Week Mod Champion
|
Drag Week Mod Champion
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,225
Charleston
|
I may give that a try soon...I'm still not sure exactly what this car of mine likes on these slicks. To be 1000lbs lighter.....
Gen 3 power 6.22@110, 9.85@135 Follow @g3hemiswap on instagram
performance only racing, CRT, ultimate converter, superior design concepts, ThumperCarbs
|
|
|
Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom
[Re: Stroker Scamp]
#2556876
10/01/18 02:30 AM
10/01/18 02:30 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1,096 Australia
ozymaxwedge
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1,096
Australia
|
Would love to try bottom hole on mine but they had been cut off already when I purchased the car.
1963 Plymouth Max Wedge 1971 Barracuda
|
|
|
Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom
[Re: ozymaxwedge]
#2556890
10/01/18 06:34 AM
10/01/18 06:34 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,490 Sydney,Australia
tex013
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,490
Sydney,Australia
|
Would love to try bottom hole on mine but they had been cut off already when I purchased the car. You can buy replacement side plates , just call Calverts Tex
New best ET 10.259@129.65 . New best MPH 130.32 Finally fitted a solid cam, stepped it up a bit more 3690lbs through the mufflers New World block 3780lbs 10.278@130.80 . Wowser 10.253@130.24 footbraking from 1500rpm Power by Tex's Automotive
|
|
|
Re: cal trac top hole vs bottom
[Re: dizuster]
#2556914
10/01/18 10:27 AM
10/01/18 10:27 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,540 Milwaukee WI
TRENDZ
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,540
Milwaukee WI
|
Read dizus’ reply. I think I can add to it though... The forward hole changes the angle of the link bar. If the link bar is angled upwards in the front, the rotation of the housing (or the force trying to do so) forces the axle downward, effectively causing chassis separation. More traction. More shock needed to control separation. If you could get the front of the bar low enough, you could theoretically cause the chassis to squat, even with the same instant center location. (Spring eye)
A simple way to visualize this... Try pushing a car with a 20” long pry bar. If it is parallel to the force you are applying, the pry bar will move the car without pushing your arms up or down. Now try pushing the car with the pry bar at an upward angle. The more force you apply, the more your arms will be pushed toward the ground. That same effect causes separation with the Caltrac bar.
"use it 'till it breaks, replace as needed"
|
|
|
|
|