Ridetech Strong Arms and Tru Turn with Speedtech Chicane and Guldstrand Mod

[b17brian]

I bought the Ridetech Strong Arms upper and lower and the Tru Turn Package for my 67 Camaro. I'm using the OEM subframe.

Question 1: Are the above parts compatible with the Speedtech Chicane Coilover mount?

Question 2: Should I do the Guldstrand Mod with the Strong Arms and Tru Turn Package?

Right now it will be street driven, but I want to Autocross it. I've heard Autocrossing is addicting so I want to build it right the first time, rather than have to go back and redo it later.

[Rod]

Question 1: Are the above parts compatible with the Speedtech Chicane Coilover mount?


the chicane kit requires a longer shock with a eye-loop upper mount...call speed tech for the correct length shock





Question 2: Should I do the Guldstrand Mod with the Strong Arms and Tru Turn Package?


I say yes, some say no, but I don't think a Guldstrand can be done with the chicane bracket



I want to build it right the first time, rather than have to go back and redo it later.

you will redo it, again, that's racing.... to go fast we modify and redo, test and build continuously, look at every top car in the industry they are different than last year and the year before

[b17brian]

Rod,

Thanks for the reply, I love your car Plain Jane. I'm subscribed to your thread over on Lat-G. I kept running into your posts during my research on the Tru-Turn Package. Thanks for all the great info, it led me to decide on that package. Congrats and good luck at OUSCI.

I was aware that the Chicane Mount required different shocks. Still saving for the shocks anyway. I haven’t done the research on how to figuring out the required length. I'll call Speedtech as you suggested to get their recommendation on the length.

On the Guldstrand Mod, I recently ran across a post on how you did the G-mod to your car and highly recommended it. Now I can't find that post again. Since the Chicane Mount doesn't change the upper A arm mount location I assumed that I could still do the G-mod too. Another question I'll ask Speedtech.

I did notice the industry leaders change all the time. In the beginning I thought I'd model my front suspension off of the OneLapCamaro. Now I see that James's subframe is up for sale. In the end I decided to pick a package from one company and decided that would be Ridetech.

[killer69]

You can do the G mod with the chicane kit. it will take more work fitting the brackets but we have done it. but with the Tall spindle on the truturn do you really need to?

[Rod]

Rod,

Congrats and good luck at OUSCI.



Thank you VERY much, it has been a crazy trip over the last 5 years since I built "Jane" in a two car garage by myself, now to be racing with top names in the industry with my home-build, I would write it all down (everything I have done in 5 years) but most wouldn't believe it


Rod,

I'll call Speedtech as you suggested to get their recommendation on the length.



Blake is a cool dude and will steer you right (another guy I have meet, hung out, traveled and raced with in the last few years) crazy right




On the Guldstrand Mod, I recently ran across a post on how you did the G-mod to your car and highly recommended it. Now I can't find that post again. Since the Chicane Mount doesn't change the upper A arm mount location I assumed that I could still do the G-mod too. Another question I'll ask Speedtech.


I do recommended the Guldstrand mod, I was told for years that you don't do that with tall spindles and I listened at first, but after racing hard for months I kept chewing up tires and feathering the outer edges LIKE MAD! the guldstrand reduced that on my car and on the few other cars I have also work with on front suspension

[b17brian]

You can do the G mod with the chicane kit. it will take more work fitting the brackets but we have done it. but with the Tall spindle on the truturn do you really need to?

Blake, I guess that is my question, do I really need to? Will it hurt anything to do the G-mod with tall spindles? Will I gain anything by doing the G-mod, or does the Ridetech tall spindles negate the G-mod?


Thank you VERY much, it has been a crazy trip over the last 5 years since I built "Jane" in a two car garage by myself, now to be racing with top names in the industry with my home-build, I would write it all down (everything I have done in 5 years) but most wouldn't believe it

I do recommended the Guldstrand mod, I was told for years that you don't do that with tall spindles and I listened at first, but after racing hard for months I kept chewing up tires and feathering the outer edges LIKE MAD! the guldstrand reduced that on my car and on the few other cars I have also work with on front suspension

Rod, I too am building my car in a two car garage by myself. I'll be happy if my car turns out half as good as yours has. Do you have a number of how many others are running G-mod with Strong Arms and Tru Turn?

[b17brian]

Starting point for the suspension upgrade. I bought the Tru Turn system and StrongArms from MCB during a sale around Thanksgiving. Purchased the Speedtech Chicane mounts during a Christmas sale, should be here Monday. I started mocking up the parts to see how they all fit. All of these parts are going on another subframe I bought that will be re-welded and painted prior to install. Trying to use OEM brakes for now. Realized that my 15" wheels won't work during mock up. I planed to upgrade wheels eventually, but wasn't ready for that change yet. Saving for the RideTech coilover shocks now.

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2014/12/DSC00175_zps149f7df6-1.jpg (http://s1355.photobucket.com/user/b17brian/media/Suspension/DSC00175_zps149f7df6.jpg.html)

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2014/12/DSC03275_zpse7d57a4c-1.jpg (http://s1355.photobucket.com/user/b17brian/media/Suspension/DSC03275_zpse7d57a4c.jpg.html)
Parts mocked up on another subframe.

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2014/12/DSC03276_zps02b4fed0-1.jpg (http://s1355.photobucket.com/user/b17brian/media/Suspension/DSC03276_zps02b4fed0.jpg.html)

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2014/12/DSC03336_zps5b76b14b-1.jpg (http://s1355.photobucket.com/user/b17brian/media/Suspension/DSC03336_zps5b76b14b.jpg.html)

[Ryanater]

Does anyone happen to have the camber curve of the Ridetech setup with the Guldstrand mod added? I set up my chicane kit with both the stock and Gmod upper A-arm mounting positions and I'm still trying to figure out whether to run with or without the Guldstrand mod.

Also, what does it do to bumpsteer? I know the Ridetech setup has very minimal bumpsteer, but would adding the Gmod have a noticeable effect bumpsteer?

[b17brian]

Ryanator,

I would love to see a couple pics of your Chicane Mount with the Guldstrand Mod if you could post them.

My Chicane Mounts arrive Monday and I plan on doing the Guldstrand Mod even though some say its not required. I'd like to see actual measurements also, but I don't have the tools to do the measuring myself.

[Ryanater]

Sure. I just finished mocking everything up and now I am ready to paint so I don't have any pictures with the A-arms and coilovers installed. As you can see the forward bolts are no problem, but the rear bolts BARELY cleared the chicane bracket. Some say you have to modify the bracket for this to work but it seemed to go together for me alright. I still don't know if I want to run the Gmod or not so I wanted to make sure to keep my options open. I used the 4.1" stroke coilovers as suggested to do so by Speedtech.

I used the template I found on pozziracing.com to do the Gmod.

http://www.pozziracing.com/first_gen_suspension_geome.htm

106947

106948

Well I do have this absolutely useless picture of everything mocked up....

106949

[b17brian]

Ryanator,

Thank you for the pics, that's what I was hoping to see. I want to do the G-mod like that and I'll have the option to use it or the standard mounting holes.

[H8rDave]

Looks like a good set-up. Do you have a complete cost as to the build at this time? It looks like this is the best way to go with an OE sub, but, I'm wondering about the total build cost for all of the parts. Any idea? True turn, coil-over, spindles, brakes, sway bar.... Thanks again for the coverage.

[b17brian]

For the Ridetech Tru Turn, StrongArms, coilovers, swaybar and Speedtech Chicane it's $4185.00. There are cheaper parts to use, but I decided I wanted to use one company that engineered their parts to work together. I haven't factored in brakes yet, because I'm still saving for them. I'm hoping to use OEM brakes for now, but there are some fitment issues I'm working through there.

[Buryingthesun]

Not to be a negative Nancy, But I have the same set-up on my 1967 Firebird and the Gulstrand Mod is useless with the Ridetech strong arms. The Ridetech arms have camber built into them so you are actually causing your geometry to be off by doing the Gmod.

[Ryanater]

Not to be a negative Nancy, But I have the same set-up on my 1967 Firebird and the Gulstrand Mod is useless with the Ridetech strong arms. The Ridetech arms have camber built into them so you are actually causing your geometry to be off by doing the Gmod.

They have caster built into the arms, not camber. The tall spindles are what will give you a better camber curve. But some are using the Guldstrand mod with the tall spindles to get an even more aggressive curve.

[Buryingthesun]

They have caster built into the arms, not camber. The tall spindles are what will give you a better camber curve. But some are using the Guldstrand mod with the tall spindles to get an even more aggressive curve.

Yeah I did that wrong in my mind. . . texting and driving is a bad idea. Either way, with the Tru-turn you gain whats needed from the spindles in the kit. i understand you can gain more of an aggressive angle but you think Ridetech would have factored in the geometry when they did the R&D on the kit?

[Ryanater]

Yeah I did that wrong in my mind. . . texting and driving is a bad idea. Either way, with the Tru-turn you gain whats needed from the spindles in the kit. i understand you can gain more of an aggressive angle but you think Ridetech would have factored in the geometry when they did the R&D on the kit?

Agreed. That is why I am hesitant to run the Guldstrand mod. But on the other hand, it seems like there has been some success with both. Rod being a great example. He has run both configurations and has had better success with running the Gmod along with the Tru-Turn package. That's why I want the option to go either way.

Rod: Do you know if the 48 Hour Camaro is using the stock suspension points or the Guldstrand mod?

[Rod]

Rod: Do you know if the 48 Hour Camaro is using the stock suspension points or the Guldstrand mod?

the 48 Hour Camaro uses stock suspension points...

[Buryingthesun]

I would contact Ridetech and ask their opinion before you start re-engineering something they designed. It could lead to some sort of catastrophic failure or premature wear on joints.

[b17brian]

Buryingthesun,

I read your whole build tonight. Excellent work on your build so far, but I see you haven't actually driven your Bird with the Tru Turn yet. I intend to do the G-mod for two reasons. 1) I have easy access installing new suspension parts on a separate frame while I still drive my car. 2) Rod Prouty recommends it. As best as I can tell from his build thread, Ridetech is his 4th suspension system he's tried from some of the Pro-Touring's industry's best suspension manufacturers. And his car is a daily driver that was picked for OUSCI. If he's tried that many suspension systems and says the G-mod works, I'll take his word for it. But I intend to do the G-mod like Ryanator has done, so if I decide its not for me I'll still be able to install the upper arm in the stock location.

[Buryingthesun]

Buryingthesun,

I read your whole build tonight. Excellent work on your build so far, but I see you haven't actually driven your Bird with the Tru Turn yet. I intend to do the G-mod for two reasons. 1) I have easy access installing new suspension parts on a separate frame while I still drive my car. 2) Rod Prouty recommends it. As best as I can tell from his build thread, Ridetech is his 4th suspension system he's tried from some of the Pro-Touring's industry's best suspension manufacturers. And his car is a daily driver that was picked for OUSCI. If he's tried that many suspension systems and says the G-mod works, I'll take his word for it. But I intend to do the G-mod like Ryanator has done, so if I decide its not for me I'll still be able to install the upper arm in the stock location.

That's fine, I was just adding my $0.02

[H8rDave]

Thanks for the reply Brian. I don't doubt the performance possibilities here, as we have all seen cars with a similar set up. I have considered this, and it is a bit more expensive than I would have thought, considering that with a good steering box, pitman arm, bump steer correction, and then brakes, the total up front will be well over 6k. And that's OK if it delivers, but I'm wondering, in hind sight, do you see any advantages to buying a complete clip with new geometry?
BTW, keep up the good work, and have a Happy New Years.


For the Ridetech Tru Turn, StrongArms, coilovers, swaybar and Speedtech Chicane it's $4185.00. There are cheaper parts to use, but I decided I wanted to use one company that engineered their parts to work together. I haven't factored in brakes yet, because I'm still saving for them. I'm hoping to use OEM brakes for now, but there are some fitment issues I'm working through there.

[b17brian]

That's fine, I was just adding my $0.02

Thanks for your input I can surely use everyone's advise so I don't make any mistakes. This is my largest project on my Camaro so far.


Thanks for the reply Brian. I don't doubt the performance possibilities here, as we have all seen cars with a similar set up. I have considered this, and it is a bit more expensive than I would have thought, considering that with a good steering box, pitman arm, bump steer correction, and then brakes, the total up front will be well over 6k. And that's OK if it delivers, but I'm wondering, in hind sight, do you see any advantages to buying a complete clip with new geometry?
BTW, keep up the good work, and have a Happy New Years.

When its all said and done I will be approaching what it would cost for a new re-engineered subfame complete. I don't have the resources to drop down 7k in one purchase and didn't want to go into debt. Going this route I was able to buy a little at a time. If money wasn't an issue by all means buy the whole package.

[Rod]

When its all said and done I will be approaching what it would cost for a new re-engineered subfame complete. I don't have the resources to drop down 7k in one purchase and didn't want to go into debt. Going this route I was able to buy a little at a time. If money wasn't an issue by all means buy the whole package.

Agreed.....sorta I see that some one says that a new frame is new geometry.....not necessarily...a lot of frames I have looked at simply have a modified mustang two suspension...and the ones that use corvette stuff are pretty cool, but that geometry (in my opinion) was designed to work with with Higher roll steer from and independent rear suspension, or a triangulated 3 link, like the Lateral Dynamics old design, without a higher rear roll steer they push and have slower steering rate, yes you can compensate with heavier rear sway bars and faster rack and pinion ratio, the original factory '67-'69 Camaro/Firebird and '68-'74 Nova and clones were designed with no "camber gain" into its suspension geometry....Fortunately, the stock unequal-length double A-arm front suspensions on these cars can be easily modified to achieve natural camber gain by lowering the upper arms' pivot points.....
You might be wondering how drilling four simple holes could make much difference in how your car handles:

It's all about geometry and even the smallest change to a suspension's geometry can have a profound effect on how a car handles. The roll center is the central point about which a car's body rolls under cornering forces. The amount of body roll depends on the leverage effect between the vehicle's roll center and its center of gravity height. The higher the center of gravity and the lower the roll center, the greater the body roll. On the other hand, if you can lower the center of gravity and raise the roll center, your car will have less body roll and become more stable. You could dial in lots of negative static alignment camber, but that will quickly chew up the inside edges of your tires.

A better way is to generate camber gain by raising the roll center of your car, however, don't raise it too high or you will get excess tire scrub. Like everything in life, you need a balance.

There are three basic ways to gain camber on your front double A-arm suspension.
1) You can shorten the upper control arms
2) install a taller spindle
3) or change the pivot points of your control arms.
In this case, relocating the arms is the cheapest option (since you can't pay less than zero). Using the template designed by Guldstrand (for First Generation Camaros and Firebirds) will let you lower the upper control arm pivot points by .75 inch. This raises the front suspension roll center from below ground level, to a point well above the road. This will reduce the angle of the lower control arms and make them more parallel to the ground, giving you a more favorable camber curve. The new holes will also move the top of the spindle rearward .25 inch from stock. This will create more positive caster, which will make the steering feel more "snappy.

hope that helps

[eric1967]

Do the G mod. I did it last year after talking to Rodney. It changes the feel of the car for the better. I am short on time. But I can give more details tomorrow if you want.

[kirt70camaro]

Hey Rod what if any front clip would you suggest?

[b17brian]

Agreed.....sorta I see that some one says that a new frame is new geometry.....not necessarily...a lot of frames I have looked at simply have a modified mustang two suspension...and the ones that use corvette stuff are pretty cool, but that geometry (in my opinion) was designed to work with with Higher roll steer from and independent rear suspension, or a triangulated 3 link, like the Lateral Dynamics old design, without a higher rear roll steer they push and have slower steering rate, yes you can compensate with heavier rear sway bars and faster rack and pinion ratio, the original factory '67-'69 Camaro/Firebird and '68-'74 Nova and clones were designed with no "camber gain" into its suspension geometry....Fortunately, the stock unequal-length double A-arm front suspensions on these cars can be easily modified to achieve natural camber gain by lowering the upper arms' pivot points.....
You might be wondering how drilling four simple holes could make much difference in how your car handles:

It's all about geometry and even the smallest change to a suspension's geometry can have a profound effect on how a car handles. The roll center is the central point about which a car's body rolls under cornering forces. The amount of body roll depends on the leverage effect between the vehicle's roll center and its center of gravity height. The higher the center of gravity and the lower the roll center, the greater the body roll. On the other hand, if you can lower the center of gravity and raise the roll center, your car will have less body roll and become more stable. You could dial in lots of negative static alignment camber, but that will quickly chew up the inside edges of your tires.

A better way is to generate camber gain by raising the roll center of your car, however, don't raise it too high or you will get excess tire scrub. Like everything in life, you need a balance.

There are three basic ways to gain camber on your front double A-arm suspension.
1) You can shorten the upper control arms
2) install a taller spindle
3) or change the pivot points of your control arms.
In this case, relocating the arms is the cheapest option (since you can't pay less than zero). Using the template designed by Guldstrand (for First Generation Camaros and Firebirds) will let you lower the upper control arm pivot points by .75 inch. This raises the front suspension roll center from below ground level, to a point well above the road. This will reduce the angle of the lower control arms and make them more parallel to the ground, giving you a more favorable camber curve. The new holes will also move the top of the spindle rearward .25 inch from stock. This will create more positive caster, which will make the steering feel more "snappy.

hope that helps

Rod,
That answer made me pull out my chassis engineering book out. One follow up question though. When you say it levels the lower control arm, do you mean the lower ball joint and the lower arm pivot point are level? With the lower arm having such a large curve in it I don't know how else you would make it level.




Do the G mod. I did it last year after talking to Rodney. It changes the feel of the car for the better. I am short on time. But I can give more details tomorrow if you want.


eric1967,
Would love to hear more on your opinion of the G Mod and Tru Turn. Im looking for real world reviews from those already driving their Camaro in that configuration.

[eric1967]

I put the whole Ridetech package with arms, single adjustable shocks, sway bar, & Tru Trun. I also went from a 225 front tire to a 275. That was a major game changer. I was very pleased with the improvements on the autocross. The Tru Turn is really noticeable on the street. Sometimes when you drive an older car over a small hill they feel kind of twitchy. All of that drama is gone after the Tru Turn. As far as the G mod. I really notice when braking. The nose of the car does not fall as much & the car stops much better with less pedal effort. I drive my car all over. Most of the time drive to local autocross events about an hour away. Run it all day & drive it home. Usually put about 5000 miles on it thru the summer. I have went to triple adjustable shock now. They are a great tuning tool. If you are just starting to autocross the single adjustable shock work great. Hope this help
Thank Eric

[b17brian]

Thanks Eric. My front end is so loose and twitchy right now. I blasted my frame and will be taking it to the welder to get all the welds re-welded. I'm starting off with the triple adjustable shocks. I'm looking forward to getting my Ridetech parts on and feeling the improvement.

[b17brian]

I have a question about the Guldstrand Mod for those that have done it. I am still not 100% sure if I'm doing the G Mod yet, but I'm drilling the holes so I have the option. When I mock up the upper A arm in the G Mod holes, my A arm hits on the mount and won't mount flush. My question is, do the shims installed during alignment take up enough space to prevent it from hitting the mount or do I have to dimple the mount where it curves out? In the pictures you can see it hits where the "X" mark is and I marked where it curves out.

Question 2, what side of the Ridetech A arm shaft faces the mount? Do I have the A arm shaft in the correct position in the picture?

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2015/02/DSCN0150_zpso2ambhda-1.jpg (http://s1355.photobucket.com/user/b17brian/media/ProTouringcom/DSCN0150_zpso2ambhda.jpg.html)

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2015/02/DSCN0151_zpsz4jsx132-1.jpg (http://s1355.photobucket.com/user/b17brian/media/ProTouringcom/DSCN0151_zpsz4jsx132.jpg.html)

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2015/02/DSCN0153_zpscbsbwlhi-1.jpg (http://s1355.photobucket.com/user/b17brian/media/ProTouringcom/DSCN0153_zpscbsbwlhi.jpg.html)

[Ryanater]

Hey guys,

I know I am beating a dead horse here, but the whole Guldstrand mod with the Ridetech tall spindles has been killing me. So, after losing sleep for the last 2 years, I finally decided to measure the suspension points with the stock pickup points and then with the Guldstrand mod. Then I created an Excel spreadsheet that models camber curve.

While my measurements probably aren't EXACTLY perfect, I did test my calculated results by actually measuring the camber throughout the suspension travel (1" rebound through 2" of compression is all I could get because my gauge only goes from 0 to -6 degrees of camber). Turns out the calculated curve and the points I measured were within .1 degree, so I'm confident that I'm in the ballpark. The other thing to consider is that using the Guldstrand mod raises the roll center. Ridetech has a pretty balanced setup, and their 1.5" front sway bar might be too much when the roll center is raised.

Anyway, I found that it really depends on what ride height you are running.... My car is very low, and the lower control arms are actually pointing upward about 1 degree. In this case, the Guldstrand + tall spindle camber curve seemed too aggressive with around 1.7 degrees of camber gain per inch at static ride height. At 1" of compression, the camber gain was over 2 degrees per inch. However, with the stock suspension points, the camber gain was about 1 degree per inch at static, then increased from there. This seemed like a much better camber curve to use.

However, if the car is raised so that the lower control arms are sloping down about 4-5 degrees towards the wheels, using the Guldstrand mod seemed like the better option.

Below are a few screenshots of what I found. (keep in mind that this only takes into account camber gain. I'm not considering caster, anti dive, roll center, etc etc....)



Stock Control Arm Pickup Points: (-1 degree of static camber)

136366
136367

With Guldstrand Mod: (-1 degree of static camber)

136364
136365

[Rod]

Hey guys,

I know I am beating a dead horse here, but the whole Guldstrand mod with the Ridetech tall spindles has been killing me. So, after losing sleep for the last 2 years, I finally decided to measure the suspension points with the stock pickup points and then with the Guldstrand mod. Then I created an Excel spreadsheet that models camber curve.

While my measurements probably aren't EXACTLY perfect, I did test my calculated results by actually measuring the camber throughout the suspension travel (1" rebound through 2" of compression is all I could get because my gauge only goes from 0 to -6 degrees of camber). Turns out the calculated curve and the points I measured were within .1 degree, so I'm confident that I'm in the ballpark. The other thing to consider is that using the Guldstrand mod raises the roll center. Ridetech has a pretty balanced setup, and their 1.5" front sway bar might be too much when the roll center is raised.

Anyway, I found that it really depends on what ride height you are running.... My car is very low, and the lower control arms are actually pointing upward about 1 degree. In this case, the Guldstrand + tall spindle camber curve seemed too aggressive with around 1.7 degrees of camber gain per inch at static ride height. At 1" of compression, the camber gain was over 2 degrees per inch. However, with the stock suspension points, the camber gain was about 1 degree per inch at static, then increased from there. This seemed like a much better camber curve to use.

However, if the car is raised so that the lower control arms are sloping down about 4-5 degrees towards the wheels, using the Guldstrand mod seemed like the better option.

Below are a few screenshots of what I found. (keep in mind that this only takes into account camber gain. I'm not considering caster, anti dive, roll center, etc etc....)





good stuff ...I think that aggressive camber gain is necessary the wider the tires become

[Ryanater]

That may be true. I'm running 275/35/18s in the front.

I did notice that Detroit Speed publishes their hydroformed subframe camber curve on their website. It appears to have less than 1 degree per inch. Obviously there are a lot of other factors there, and who knows what their static ride height is.

[MonzaRacer]

Ok so as a 30+ yr tech, alignment specialist, and lifelong hot rodder lets under sta d if you want performance handling your ride heght should be closer to having lower arms closer to level. If you set lower then you not closest to zero bumpsteer zone. While Ridetech put the kit together to eliminate bumpsteer but that low puts you farther out of optimum running range. Too low is as bad as too hogh, bumpsteer or no neg camber gain. Set a 69 fbody up for friend except he used shockwaves, but was trying to push hard with shock close to bottomed out. Ride height needs to leave shock travel in 60/40 range. Britt and Rod made good points over on latg site better than I can, but my findings show the ore level the lower arm the closer you are. But a faster neg camber curve NEVER hurts. Few years back set up ACR Neon, the next year I had 28 to setup cause my customer and wife had ran on same set of Hoosier race tires for full season, and other drivers were eating 2--3 sets. With one driver.
Listen to Rod guys the guy has even figured out wheel offset can tighten or loosen the car and cost near nothing.

[Ryanater]

I agree that the 0 degree control arm angle is a good rule of thumb. I'm sure there are exceptions, but it seems accurate in this case. As I said earlier, I'm pretty close, with about 1 degree of slope (which is about .25" lower than 0 degrees).

The camber gain is what is in question here. Sure, more camber gain is better to a point. However, there is a point where there is too much. From everything I've read, the target camber gain is around 1 degree per inch. But that is what I've read... I don't have a lot of experience myself. (I did autocross the car last year with the more aggressive camber curve with some success.) I'm just curious if the Guldstrand mod with the Ridetech spindles is too much?

I am going to try running the stock pickup points this year and see how I like it. Who knows, maybe I will end up eating the outside of my tires up.

[Rod]

I am going to try running the stock pickup points this year and see how I like it. Who knows, maybe I will end up eating the outside of my tires up.

I like the fact your trying it yourself...that's how everything I have done started...... take pictures let us know....how you come along...I'm pretty sure I will know the result...but it will be good

[Ryanater]

Rod, are you running Delrin bushings?

[b17brian]

Ryanater,

Why do you think the camber gain is too much? You have been using the G-mod since you've installed the Ridetech parts, is that correct? Are you getting tire wear, front end not gripping, or is your steering performance not good?

I have mine set to use the G-mod, but I'm still a few months away from driving mine. This project has taken so much longer than I expected.

[Ryanater]

First of all, I don’t mean to disagree with Rod or anyone else. (Especially since they have more experience than me). I was just surprised on how much camber gain the Guldstrand + tall spindles provides. I thought it would be worth posting my findings. And from everything I have read, .7-1.0 degrees per inch seems like a good rule of thumb. But again, I don’t have enough real world experience to have a large opinion one way or another.

And yes, I have been running the Ridetech tall spindles with the Guldstrand mod. The car did push on corner entry, but that could be any number of things. Overall though, the car did really well. Plus, that is my baseline setup, so I don't have a lot of comparison.
So I will try moving back to the stock mounting points and see what happens. I will make sure to post my findings.

[Ryanater]

Ok I'm bringing this one back from the dead. I've been playing with this all year over the course of about 8 events. I've tried identical setups (other than static camber) with and without the G-mod and here are my findings...

With the G-mod, the front of the car seemed to grip better on turn entry. It was hard to tell if there was much of a difference mid corner. Maybe it helped the front stick a little, but it's hard to tell. The problem was that I picked up a corner exit push when I added the g-mod. This was probably do to the more aggressive camber curve. First of all, I ran less static camber with the g-mod because I didn't need as much to keep the tire flat mid corner (which is a nice bonus). That combined with the fact that more camber gain on compression means more camber loss on rebound. Which probably means the tire was not an optimal angle when I was on the throttle exiting the corner.

Overall, my car was more competitive when I was using the stock inner pickup points. But if I could get rid of the corner exit push, I think that the g-mod might have more potential. I'm going to try a smaller front swaybar next year to see if that helps.

[b17brian]

Ryanater,

I finally finished my front end upgrade back in June. So I'm running the full Ridetech front with Speedtech Chicane and the G-mod. I have 3 autocross events with the new setup so far. Problem is I don't have enough experience to make a judgement about the camber curve. My rear suspension is still stock stuff waiting to be upgraded so the car still rides a little wonky.

Two possible suggestions to get rid of the corner exit push. More rebound on the rear to tie the front down longer during acceleration, but you probably already tried that. Or I just finished a Ron Sutton workshop and he talked about running a 600# spring in the back to give the front more grip. Maybe give him a call and talk to him about that strategy.

[Gmc427]

Ryanater,

I finally finished my front end upgrade back in June. So I'm running the full Ridetech front with Speedtech Chicane and the G-mod. I have 3 autocross events with the new setup so far. Problem is I don't have enough experience to make a judgement about the camber curve. My rear suspension is still stock stuff waiting to be upgraded so the car still rides a little wonky.

Two possible suggestions to get rid of the corner exit push. More rebound on the rear to tie the front down longer during acceleration, but you probably already tried that. Or I just finished a Ron Sutton workshop and he talked about running a 600# spring in the back to give the front more grip. Maybe give him a call and talk to him about that strategy.
hi brian, i know this is a old post but are you still running this set up ?if so whats the verdict?regards

[Ryanater]

I think I would recommend against it. I never got it to work as well. The car wasn't as smooth and pushed really bad out of corners. I also feel like it was less predictable in high speed transitions. (granted, I never tried adding a bunch of rebound or spring rate to the rear. But I think that might be a band-aid to the problem)

However, I was able to make both sets of holes work so that I could swap between the settings. That way you could find out for yourself what works best.

[b17brian]

hi brian, i know this is a old post but are you still running this set up ?if so whats the verdict?regards
I’m afraid I still am not able to give a solid answer on how this setup works with the Gmod. It has been a much longer time than I expected to sort out my suspension upgrades. Ryanater has had the same setup for a long time and feels its not a good idea to use the Gmod.

I finally finished all my suspension front and back. In the front I have the Stong Arms, Tru Turn, Chicane Mount and Gmod. I was also able to make use of both set of holes for the UCA mounts. In the back I went with the Speedtech Torque Arm. I’ve been running this setup for a little while now. My experience so far is my car has been really loose in the back. The loose conditions I’m sure were caused by the cheap tires I have been running. I recently upgraded my tires to BFGoodrich Rival 1.5s and it absolutely changed the way my car handles. But as soon as I got the new tires on the virus struck and every event has been cancelled. So I’m waiting for life to return to normal so I can get on a track and finally do some testing and tuning now that my suspension is done (not sure if it’s ever done).

[Rod]

I have run the truturn and the gmod for years without issue and to great success, from goodguys events, and with Optima at tracks all over the nation, the key is tuning the car, you cant ask or copy any other set up the the camber gain and anti dive curves are very rapid

Running Optima Las Vegas
175180


Running Goodguys Pleasnton California
175181


Button Willow chasing down the Hotchkis cars
175182


ready to run Michigan international
175183

[Sleeper68]

First, I would like to state that I stumbled upon this thread looking for potential issues with the Ridetech TruTurn system for use on my 68 Camaro. I have a factory subframe and modified suspension pickup points. In order to correct bumpsteer, I used a Chassisworks 7075 AL Z/28 steering arm https://www.cachassisworks.com/p-2950-camaro-67-69-f-body-nova-68-72-x-body-z28-quick-ratio-steering-arm-billet-aluminum.aspxand modified it to accept a 5/8-18 thread in place of the normal 7° tapered hole. Then, I used a Howe Quick Bump outer tie rod end, https://howeracing.com/collections/howe-quick-bump-tie-rod-ends, to finely adjust the steering curve. This worked great, as I was able to dial out most of my instantaneous bumpsteer; however, I found that the outer tie rod end needed to be placed so close to the wheel that it rubbed. (Wheels are 18x9.5 +22mm). So, to combat this, a system like the truturn (which inludes a draglink that raises the inner tie rod end instead of lowering the outer tie rod end) is a great solution. In addition to improving the steering curve, raising the tie rod in its entirety would serve another purpose which is reducing the cantilever of the steering arm. I have found that my aluminum steering arms flex an insane amount, about 0.10" of tie rod movement before the wheel steers when the car is static. This, for me, is unacceptable. So I have decided to pursue a new draglink, such as the TruTurn, which moves this inner pivot up. I will not be using the rest of the TruTurn system and will be making my own steering arms from steel to reduce flex.


Hey guys,

I know I am beating a dead horse here, but the whole Guldstrand mod with the Ridetech tall spindles has been killing me. So, after losing sleep for the last 2 years, I finally decided to measure the suspension points with the stock pickup points and then with the Guldstrand mod. Then I created an Excel spreadsheet that models camber curve.

While my measurements probably aren't EXACTLY perfect, I did test my calculated results by actually measuring the camber throughout the suspension travel (1" rebound through 2" of compression is all I could get because my gauge only goes from 0 to -6 degrees of camber). Turns out the calculated curve and the points I measured were within .1 degree, so I'm confident that I'm in the ballpark. The other thing to consider is that using the Guldstrand mod raises the roll center. Ridetech has a pretty balanced setup, and their 1.5" front sway bar might be too much when the roll center is raised.

Anyway, I found that it really depends on what ride height you are running.... My car is very low, and the lower control arms are actually pointing upward about 1 degree. In this case, the Guldstrand + tall spindle camber curve seemed too aggressive with around 1.7 degrees of camber gain per inch at static ride height. At 1" of compression, the camber gain was over 2 degrees per inch. However, with the stock suspension points, the camber gain was about 1 degree per inch at static, then increased from there. This seemed like a much better camber curve to use.

However, if the car is raised so that the lower control arms are sloping down about 4-5 degrees towards the wheels, using the Guldstrand mod seemed like the better option.

Below are a few screenshots of what I found. (keep in mind that this only takes into account camber gain. I'm not considering caster, anti dive, roll center, etc etc....)

Stock Control Arm Pickup Points: (-1 degree of static camber)

136366
136367

With Guldstrand Mod: (-1 degree of static camber)

136364
136365

Great info. I love to see this. I have some data similar to this for my car in three configurations:

1. factory GM short spindle, drum brake hub, low ride height, 0.9" taller howe upper ball joint, factory frame-side suspension pickup points

2. factory GM short spindle, drum brake hub, same low ride height, 0.9" taller howe upper ball joint, modified guldstrand mod inner upper control arm pickup points

3. factory GM short spindle, drum brake hub, same low ride height, 0.5" taller howe upper ball joint, modified guldstrand mod inner upper control arm pickup points

I will compile this data and post it here with better documentation of ride height/track width/etc.


The camber gain is what is in question here. Sure, more camber gain is better to a point. However, there is a point where there is too much. From everything I've read, the target camber gain is around 1 degree per inch. But that is what I've read... I don't have a lot of experience myself. (I did autocross the car last year with the more aggressive camber curve with some success.) I'm just curious if the Guldstrand mod with the Ridetech spindles is too much?

I am going to try running the stock pickup points this year and see how I like it. Who knows, maybe I will end up eating the outside of my tires up.

I agree, this is a very important question to answer. In my experience, you can have too much camber gain. I experienced this with setup #2 as mentioned above. This topic was discussed at length in the Thread: Total Lateral Load Transfer Distribution https://www.pro-touring.com/threads/134609-Total-Lateral-Load-Transfer-Distribution/. Your experience and contribution to this thread would be greatly appreciated.


Ok I'm bringing this one back from the dead. I've been playing with this all year over the course of about 8 events. I've tried identical setups (other than static camber) with and without the G-mod and here are my findings...

With the G-mod, the front of the car seemed to grip better on turn entry. It was hard to tell if there was much of a difference mid corner. Maybe it helped the front stick a little, but it's hard to tell. The problem was that I picked up a corner exit push when I added the g-mod. This was probably do to the more aggressive camber curve. First of all, I ran less static camber with the g-mod because I didn't need as much to keep the tire flat mid corner (which is a nice bonus). That combined with the fact that more camber gain on compression means more camber loss on rebound. Which probably means the tire was not an optimal angle when I was on the throttle exiting the corner.

Overall, my car was more competitive when I was using the stock inner pickup points. But if I could get rid of the corner exit push, I think that the g-mod might have more potential. I'm going to try a smaller front swaybar next year to see if that helps.

I ended up keeping my modified guldstrand mod and using a shorter spindle (0.5" taller), which is setup #3. I found that I had to stiffen the rear greatly to deal with the now stiffer front end (thanks to raising the roll center) in order for the car to not push, however, my understeer condition was mainly prevalent on corner entry rather than corner exit. More info at https://www.pro-touring.com/threads/134609-Total-Lateral-Load-Transfer-Distribution/.

[b17brian]

Sleeper68,

As you will find on the various threads about TruTurn, it works for some and not for others. I’m very happy with my TruTurn, but I haven’t had the fit issues and I modified my inner wheel wells and rolled my fender lip. Ridetech has changed the design of the center link to be one piece. I still have the stock center link with the Ridetech adapter to raise the tie rods. I’ve read the new center link creates different fit issues. Part of the TruTurn system is the steering arms. You might look into them also.

[Sleeper68]

Sleeper68,

As you will find on the various threads about TruTurn, it works for some and not for others. I’m very happy with my TruTurn, but I haven’t had the fit issues and I modified my inner wheel wells and rolled my fender lip. Ridetech has changed the design of the center link to be one piece. I still have the stock center link with the Ridetech adapter to raise the tie rods. I’ve read the new center link creates different fit issues. Part of the TruTurn system is the steering arms. You might look into them also.

Brian,

Thank you for the reply. I noticed this change in design. It appears that the change occurred sometime in 2017. Most of the fitment issue threads I came across were referencing the old two-piece bolt on adapter design, and I can see why. In addition to the space taken up by the fasteners, the whole drag link is practically doubled in width. Seems like most fitment issues were with oil pans and headers. What fitment issues have you come to understand exist with the new "one-piece" drag link design?

As far as ridetech's steering arms go, they are based on A-body arms and are designed for use with their tall, drop spindles. Thus, they will not work for my application as I am not changing to drop spindles.

[b17brian]

Brian,

Thank you for the reply. I noticed this change in design. It appears that the change occurred sometime in 2017. Most of the fitment issue threads I came across were referencing the old two-piece bolt on adapter design, and I can see why. In addition to the space taken up by the fasteners, the whole drag link is practically doubled in width. Seems like most fitment issues were with oil pans and headers. What fitment issues have you come to understand exist with the new "one-piece" drag link design?
Yes the fitment issue is the oil pan and headers. I was told the new drag link hits oil pans on LS swaps. I’m starting an LS swap on mine right now so I hope I don’t have fitment issues.

[Sleeper68]

Yes the fitment issue is the oil pan and headers. I was told the new drag link hits oil pans on LS swaps. I’m starting an LS swap on mine right now so I hope I don’t have fitment issues.

So it seems both the new and old design cause concern for header and oil pan fitment. Based on the pictures I have seen, the new deisgn should offer more clearance for oil pans and headers. Some people may still have issues with the new design, especially if they are not running a 1st gen F body specific swap oil pan or if they have a BBC. My personal opinion, based on limited info, is that if you use the same headers and oil pan as others who have successfully ran an LS swap with this kit, you should be fine.

I am currently in the process of trying to get Ridetech to sell me only the draglink. Hopefully they have one extra or will be willing to break up a kit for me. My oil pan is for road racing and has a flat section all of the way up to the sump, so it should clear; headers are another concern but I have modified those headers twice already, so I can do it again.

Here's a pic of my modified Hooker super comp SBC-1st gen F-body headers in the car.