Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 220
  1. #121
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,360
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    Ron, here's the early 2nd gen F spindle measurements. I stuck a threaded rod through the UBJ & LBJ holes in pic below to show the angle.



    A 2"
    B 6.75"
    C 5.5"
    D 6.25
    E 9.25"



  2. #122
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Sutton View Post

    I have a working relationship with Timken and access to all of their bearing designs, engineering, ratings, specs, etc. It helps me in designing race car components. Timken doesn't make that bearing, but they distribute it. I think it is made by SKF.

    I went through a merry-go-round with the SKF trying to learn the bearing load ratings of the C5/C6 bearings. I talked with the head of motorsports engineering at SKF & he gave me all the dimensions, but would not give ratings. I took all the specs to a bearing designer associate of mine & he calculated the thrust & radial load ratings for me. I could do that again ... or blow my brains out ... it's a toss up. JK.

    After looking at it & seeing dimensions, I have a feel for the ratings, which is slightly better than the common GM bearing package from the 60's-80's (which are very marginal IMHO). Most importantly, we know we're not putting on an inferior bearing. So get us measurements on the caliper pistons & rotors and we can see what that package looks like.

    Ron, the Blazer brake dimensions are as follows:
    Front rotors: 10.75" O.D. x 1.125" thick
    Front calipers: 2 piston, sliding PBR, each piston 43.7 mm diameter

    LOL at your experience on the Corvette bearings... we prefer you keep your brain intact From the dimensions provided, are the Blazer hubs even close in size to the Corvettes or smaller? Sucks they aren't much of an improvement, but as you said at least they aren't worse than the stock bearings.
    Luke
    '83 Hurst/Olds
    SC&C Stage 2, Blazer spindles/C6 brakes, Lee box, Eibachs, Currectrac rear arms... Olds 433 coming soon.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Kansas City, North
    Posts
    1,405
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NOT A TA View Post
    Ron, here's the early 2nd gen F spindle measurements. I stuck a threaded rod through the UBJ & LBJ holes in pic below to show the angle.

    A 2"
    B 6.75"
    C 5.5"
    D 6.25
    E 9.25"



    Just measured my g body spindle

    A 2 "
    B 5 9/16"
    C 3"
    D 7"
    E 6 5/8"


    Now I took these measurements with the spindle on the car, not at 0 and 0, but just for basic comparison between the g body and f body spindles

    F body looks similar to B body to me.
    Lance
    1985 Monte Carlo SS Street Car

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    2,376
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kustom71 View Post
    "First off, Ron, I've always loved your technical posts as a mechanical engineer(in school) it's always nice to see someone get into numbers on this site. Anyways, what you said about rotors in 13 or 14 inches diameter, are you saying there’s not so much of an advantage despite looks? I could imagine with a smaller rotor that there’s probably less weight(assuming the thickness is the same) meaning there’s less rotating and unsprung weight. However how does heat dispersion behave in regards to larger diameter rotors? I guess what I’m trying to get at is are all of those 14 inch rotor big brake kits nothing but looks opposed to a properly setup 12 inch rotor system for a car that frequently autocrosses with an occasional road course run? Also I’m not very clear on the difference between floating and non-floating calipers such as the D52 in the advantages and disadvantages of them, sorry to bombard you questions "


    Thanks to yu bergers59

    these are the exact questions i had but couldnt figure out how to word them
    Im seriously looking at the c6 hybrid brake setup from Tobin
    Part cause i like the idea of what the 14" rotor will look like but more because i thought the idea of big well working brakes was the size of the rotor to accept and dissapate heat.

    Hey bergers59 & kustom71 ... would you do me a favor & post your name. I like using names in conversations. Thanks !

    Heaven knows I'm not trying to steer you away from awesome brakes. If you end up with more braking force & a little more rotational rotor weight ... and don't "compete to win" in events ... you'll never notice the extra rotational weight ... just the great stopping power.

    Now I don't know much about production brake systems utilizing all factory components. But I "think" the C6 brake package uses a booster, large rotors & smaller area 6 piston calipers. That is a package designed to work together. We'd need to ask Tobin because this is his area of expertise, but I think it makes sense to keep that package as a package & not change stuff. We know the C6s have great braking. I think it is mid-to-high 3000# range.

    After we wrap up discussing manual race brakes, I'm hoping Tobin will show us boosted brake packages designed for optimum street performance.

    Feel free to chime in or ask technical questions. I am here to help where I can.

    Ron Sutton

    Ron Sutton Race Technology
    Your One Stop, Turn & Go Fast, Car Building Resource Center for Autocross, Track, Road Racing & Triple Duty Pro-Touring Cars

    Check out our 400 Page Car Building Catalog HERE

    Features: Suspension, Chassis, Cages, Brakes, Rear Ends, Engines, Transmisssions, Aero & Much, Much More!

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    2,376
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SSLance View Post
    Just measured my g body spindle

    A 2 "
    B 5 9/16"
    C 3"
    D 7"
    E 6 5/8"


    Now I took these measurements with the spindle on the car, not at 0 and 0, but just for basic comparison between the g body and f body spindles

    F body looks similar to B body to me.

    Lance,
    I'm having a problem with "C". Can you take a photo (front view like John's) & show us that is actually 3"?

    Feel free to chime in or ask technical questions. I am here to help where I can.

    Ron Sutton

    Ron Sutton Race Technology
    Your One Stop, Turn & Go Fast, Car Building Resource Center for Autocross, Track, Road Racing & Triple Duty Pro-Touring Cars

    Check out our 400 Page Car Building Catalog HERE

    Features: Suspension, Chassis, Cages, Brakes, Rear Ends, Engines, Transmisssions, Aero & Much, Much More!

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    2,376
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    John & Lance,

    I apologize, but I gave misleading instructions for E.

    What we need to know is what is the difference in height ... comparing the bottom of the steering arm (at the tie rod hole) to the bottom of the LBJ pad.

    If we were to sit the spindle on a table, resting on the LBJ pad, & set the camber & caster at 0.0° & 0.0° ... what would be the distance to bottom of the tie rod end pad on the steering arm?

    Feel free to chime in or ask technical questions. I am here to help where I can.

    Ron Sutton

    Ron Sutton Race Technology
    Your One Stop, Turn & Go Fast, Car Building Resource Center for Autocross, Track, Road Racing & Triple Duty Pro-Touring Cars

    Check out our 400 Page Car Building Catalog HERE

    Features: Suspension, Chassis, Cages, Brakes, Rear Ends, Engines, Transmisssions, Aero & Much, Much More!

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,360
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    The early F steering arm is 1/2" lower than the LBJ at the centers. The mounting pad surfaces are on different angles (planes).


  8. #128
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    2,376
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    Thanks John.

    That's the measurement we needed.
    Feel free to chime in or ask technical questions. I am here to help where I can.

    Ron Sutton

    Ron Sutton Race Technology
    Your One Stop, Turn & Go Fast, Car Building Resource Center for Autocross, Track, Road Racing & Triple Duty Pro-Touring Cars

    Check out our 400 Page Car Building Catalog HERE

    Features: Suspension, Chassis, Cages, Brakes, Rear Ends, Engines, Transmisssions, Aero & Much, Much More!

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Kansas City, North
    Posts
    1,405
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Sutton View Post

    Lance,
    I'm having a problem with "C". Can you take a photo (front view like John's) & show us that is actually 3"?


    3 1/8"

    I'll post the picture when I get back in the house
    Lance
    1985 Monte Carlo SS Street Car

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Kansas City, North
    Posts
    1,405
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Sutton View Post
    John & Lance,

    I apologize, but I gave misleading instructions for E.

    What we need to know is what is the difference in height ... comparing the bottom of the steering arm (at the tie rod hole) to the bottom of the LBJ pad.

    If we were to sit the spindle on a table, resting on the LBJ pad, & set the camber & caster at 0.0° & 0.0° ... what would be the distance to bottom of the tie rod end pad on the steering arm?

    Steering arm bottom 0.1660 " higher than bottom of LBJ pad
    Lance
    1985 Monte Carlo SS Street Car

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Kansas City, North
    Posts
    1,405
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SSLance View Post
    3 1/8"

    I'll post the picture when I get back in the house
    Crap, I measured it wrong, I measured to the rotor face, not the WMS...will re-do after lunch.
    Lance
    1985 Monte Carlo SS Street Car

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Kansas City, North
    Posts
    1,405
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Sutton View Post

    Lance,
    I'm having a problem with "C". Can you take a photo (front view like John's) & show us that is actually 3"?



    4 5/16 "
    Lance
    1985 Monte Carlo SS Street Car

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    2,376
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SSLance View Post
    4 5/16 "

    Thanks. That makes more sense.

    How wide is your front brake rotor?


    Feel free to chime in or ask technical questions. I am here to help where I can.

    Ron Sutton

    Ron Sutton Race Technology
    Your One Stop, Turn & Go Fast, Car Building Resource Center for Autocross, Track, Road Racing & Triple Duty Pro-Touring Cars

    Check out our 400 Page Car Building Catalog HERE

    Features: Suspension, Chassis, Cages, Brakes, Rear Ends, Engines, Transmisssions, Aero & Much, Much More!

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Kansas City, North
    Posts
    1,405
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Sutton View Post

    Thanks. That makes more sense.

    How wide is your front brake rotor?



    It is 1"
    Lance
    1985 Monte Carlo SS Street Car

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    2,376
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    Thanks for the measurements Lance.

    The biggest glaring challenge with you (specifically you) changing to F or B body spindles is the track width changes. The B-body (Impala) spindles & hubs would move your wheels out just under an inch & the F-body spindles & 1LE hubs would move your wheels out just over an inch. Neither would be acceptable unless you were ordering new front wheels with more backspacing. I think you just bought wheels, so that would not make money sense.

    The second issue is the UBJ would be 1-3/16" higher, so it would change your roll center & camber gain. For most G-body owners, this would be an excellent change. But we already worked yours out to be optimum. This could be re-worked out for your car, but requires new calcs, different ball joints & probably some UCA mounting modifications.

    The third difference is the length of the steering arm, which is shorter, and would make your steering 10.7% quicker. I think that would be a great thing. We'd need to confirm tie rod offset to see how the Ackerman will be affected. This may require a little modification to the centerlink or additional bump-out. But it's all doable.

    In conclusion, I see the B-Body spindle, with 12" rotors (11-7/8" to be specific) from either a 1LE Gen3 F-body or 78+ Impala ... combined with the Wilwood dual piston D52s ... as a good low-cost strategy to upgrade braking & geometry ... for guys currently building their G-body cars ... that haven't worked out their front geometry or bought wheels yet.

    You may need to go another route.

    Feel free to chime in or ask technical questions. I am here to help where I can.

    Ron Sutton

    Ron Sutton Race Technology
    Your One Stop, Turn & Go Fast, Car Building Resource Center for Autocross, Track, Road Racing & Triple Duty Pro-Touring Cars

    Check out our 400 Page Car Building Catalog HERE

    Features: Suspension, Chassis, Cages, Brakes, Rear Ends, Engines, Transmisssions, Aero & Much, Much More!

  16. #136
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Kansas City, North
    Posts
    1,405
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    That's what I was afraid we were going to surmise Ron. Next time in the shop I'll measure my track width with my 17x8s I used to run and my new 17x9.5s that I'll be running up front, but I'm afraid they are going the wrong way a bit and will only compound the issue we'd have if we converted to the F or B body spindle.


    Looks like my most logical choice is going to be between cutting these rotors down to make them hubs and cutting my spindle ears and mounting the LS1 calipers I have and running a LS1 brake setup or just upgrading my stock sized rotors and calipers and getting the best pad I can for them.

    If I went that route I could upgrade to the 2.75" piston Metric caliper for a little bit more clamping force.

    I don't really want to get into reworking all of the front end geometry that will be involved with a spindle change right now. Maybe next year... I don't plan on taking the car to any road course events any time soon anyway so autocross and street driving is my main concern right now.
    Lance
    1985 Monte Carlo SS Street Car

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    2,376
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    Hi Lance,

    I worked up some calcs for your brake system
    , including your current set-up & 3 options.

    IMPORTANT NOTES:
    a.
    I did NOT account for the power booster in the calcs, as I am not confident in the output of your booster.
    b. So I ran the calcs as a manual system with a 6-1 pedal ratio
    c. The end result numbers are on the low side ... but we can accurately compare brake combinations to each other.

    and ...
    d.
    Assuming the specs are correct, I think you have too much front brake bias, which will lead to pushing the front tires if you brake too hard entering a corner when autocrossing. I made the bias the same in the other calcs, but I feel you need to shift the bias to the rear some.



    Name:  Lances Brake System V3.jpg
Views: 1740
Size:  99.8 KB
    Feel free to chime in or ask technical questions. I am here to help where I can.

    Ron Sutton

    Ron Sutton Race Technology
    Your One Stop, Turn & Go Fast, Car Building Resource Center for Autocross, Track, Road Racing & Triple Duty Pro-Touring Cars

    Check out our 400 Page Car Building Catalog HERE

    Features: Suspension, Chassis, Cages, Brakes, Rear Ends, Engines, Transmisssions, Aero & Much, Much More!

  18. #138
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Kansas City, North
    Posts
    1,405
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    Thanks Ron, I really appreciate you working these options out for my scenario. I can consider putting in a proportioning valve, that's not that big of a deal.

    Curious of this though, is there a reason to not run a R4 pad in the rears in option #1? Would that bump the total brake torque up to 2955 with 26.1% rear \ 73.9% front?

    I'm not even sure if Porterfield makes a pad for that caliper, guess I should check that first...
    Lance
    1985 Monte Carlo SS Street Car

  19. #139
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    2,376
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SSLance View Post
    Thanks Ron, I really appreciate you working these options out for my scenario. I can consider putting in a proportioning valve, that's not that big of a deal.

    Curious of this though, is there a reason to not run a R4 pad in the rears in option #1? Would that bump the total brake torque up to 2955 with 26.1% rear \ 73.9% front?

    I'm not even sure if Porterfield makes a pad for that caliper, guess I should check that first...
    Lance you check if they have... or will make pads for that caliper ... and I'll run some calcs.

    Feel free to chime in or ask technical questions. I am here to help where I can.

    Ron Sutton

    Ron Sutton Race Technology
    Your One Stop, Turn & Go Fast, Car Building Resource Center for Autocross, Track, Road Racing & Triple Duty Pro-Touring Cars

    Check out our 400 Page Car Building Catalog HERE

    Features: Suspension, Chassis, Cages, Brakes, Rear Ends, Engines, Transmisssions, Aero & Much, Much More!

  20. #140
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    301

    Default

    I cleaned up the brake calculator spread sheet that I put together. Here is a screen shot of it:

    Name:  BrakeCalculator_V1-0.jpg
Views: 853
Size:  297.9 KB

    And the SS:

    BrakeCalculator_V1-1.zip

    Any questions, comments, or free beer is welcome...

    Note: newer version (V1.1) has been posted. Changed some wording and added a mm to inches conversion.

    Bob.
    Last edited by a67; 02-16-2014 at 02:35 PM. Reason: Updated the SS. now V1.1

Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •