Ridetech OUT, 4 link Watts-link in.

[Tweak]

Time to throw the ridetech rear out and get better diff control with a custom 4 link and Watts linkage.
171952

[badazz81z28]

Have you looked into Detroit Speed?

[BMR Sales]

We make Suspension Kits with Watts Links

https://i.hmjimg.com/images/2018/09/28/_MG_2959.jpg

[Tweak]

Cheers BMR, yeah a buddy down here has just installed one of your kits.

I'm going to design and build my own.

Cheers

[67CamaroLSX]

What you going to do with the Ridetech 4 link?

[BMR Sales]

Cheers BMR, yeah a buddy down here has just installed one of your kits.

I'm going to design and build my own.

Cheers

if you want some of the small pieces ( like the Watts Link Pivot) so you don't have to machine them, let me know

https://i.hmjimg.com/images/2020/01/23/wl.png

[Merritt5]

if you want some of the small pieces ( like the Watts Link Pivot) so you don't have to machine them, let me know

https://i.hmjimg.com/images/2020/01/23/wl.pngWhat about the lca brackets, are they offered individually?

[Tweak]

What you going to do with the Ridetech 4 link?

Cutting it up

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah I've had a good look, its a nice piece. Cheers


if you want some of the small pieces ( like the Watts Link Pivot) so you don't have to machine them, let me know

https://i.hmjimg.com/images/2020/01/23/wl.png

[67CamaroLSX]

Cutting it up? I would take it off your hands.

[Tweak]

Cutting it up? I would take it off your hands.
I couldn't bring myself to give this junk to anyone.

[BMR Sales]

What about the lca brackets, are they offered individually?

if you can screenshot what you mean, I'll let you know. There are some pieces I can't sell.

[Merritt5]

if you can screenshot what you mean, I'll let you know. There are some pieces I can't sell.This lower control arm bracket

172030

[stab6902]

I couldn't bring myself to give this junk to anyone.

Out of curiosity, what specifically don't you like about the Ridetech 4-link? I don't have any first hand experience with it, but I don't see any glaring flaws based on pictures.

[67CamaroLSX]

Would have saved me a lot of money. I'm planning on buying a Ridetech 4 link this winter. Have read mostly good reviews about there setup.

[Tweak]

Out of curiosity, what specifically don't you like about the Ridetech 4-link? I don't have any first hand experience with it, but I don't see any glaring flaws based on pictures.

When it articulates, ie going down a driveway in reverse and the rear end twist due to uneven surface, the diff rear steers.
This also happens on very uneven roads.

If you only drive on flat roads you have no issue, here in New Zealand we have awesome roads that really test a cars suspension

The issue is the top arms being to short and triangulated. As it articulates it drags the diff forward and back on different sides.

With a conventional 4 link the diff may move forward, but will always stay square in the car.
The goal is to control diff roll as it goes up and down

I have it now where the diff rolls down 0.5 degree over 5" of travel with zero twist.

There R&D processes are pretty poor at best. I had to re-design there tru turn also due to failing certification and **** bumpsteer, but thats another story

[slammed68]

Is this a build thread on your custom 4 link or just more boohooing about your experience with ridetech?

[Tweak]

Is this a build thread on your custom 4 link or just more boohooing about your experience with ridetech?

lol, just answering questions.

Yeah its a thread, you probably shouldn't follow

[BMR Sales]

This lower control arm bracket

172030

the Answer is Yes AND No!

The Bracket you are referring to does not have it's own Part # - it is in Box J ( there are typically Six Boxes for a Torque Arm Kit) , but there is another Piece in that Box that you wouldn't use and since they don't have individual part #s I can't separate them

[anguilla1980]

Is this a build thread on your custom 4 link or just more boohooing about your experience with ridetech?

I appreciate the information being shared in this thread so quit your b*tchin.

[slammed68]

I appreciate the information being shared in this thread so quit your b*tchin.

Cool, glad you were able learn something.

I certainly dont mind someone saying, hey i'm switching this up because I would like to make improvements on XYZ. Here is what I have designed, here are the specs, does anyone have any input, ect,.

Just seemed like this was a case of someone looking to bash a product that a lot of members on this forum are using with positive results. He has complained and moaned about his experience with Ridetech in the past despite his experiencing being way off center from that of other people who are running their products. This main complaint here is roll steer which is possible with triangulated or parallel 4- links and is heavily dependent on a number of variables including installation. I'm curious about how much articulation is required to get significant rear steer while on the road and if he calculated the amount of roll steer expected with the ridetech setup before designing his own solution. I dont think anyone considers the ridetech 4 link to be the best performing 4 link, it's intended to be a convenient solution that performs well.

Deciding to cut up a product that a lot of people would love to have if they could afford it, rather than sell it at a discount or give it away is pretty ****ty. I hate to hear about someone spending a lot of money on a product only to be let down but this is just petty. /rant

As an application engineer who works to support a popular version of CAD software I would have been very interested to hear more about the design process. I think everyone would have found the process of developing your own suspension very interesting, what software was used, critical measurements, simulations, challenges.

[David Pozzi]

In an effort to clarify things a bit. Ridetech has recently re-engineered their rear suspension mostly by changing the upper links to converge as they run forward from the axle. The new upper links are longer.

[Tweak]

Cool, glad you were able learn something.

I certainly dont mind someone saying, hey i'm switching this up because I would like to make improvements on XYZ. Here is what I have designed, here are the specs, does anyone have any input, ect,.

Just seemed like this was a case of someone looking to bash a product that a lot of members on this forum are using with positive results. He has complained and moaned about his experience with Ridetech in the past despite his experiencing being way off center from that of other people who are running their products. This main complaint here is roll steer which is possible with triangulated or parallel 4- links and is heavily dependent on a number of variables including installation. I'm curious about how much articulation is required to get significant rear steer while on the road and if he calculated the amount of roll steer expected with the ridetech setup before designing his own solution. I dont think anyone considers the ridetech 4 link to be the best performing 4 link, it's intended to be a convenient solution that performs well.

Deciding to cut up a product that a lot of people would love to have if they could afford it, rather than sell it at a discount or give it away is pretty ****ty. I hate to hear about someone spending a lot of money on a product only to be let down but this is just petty. /rant

As an application engineer who works to support a popular version of CAD software I would have been very interested to hear more about the design process. I think everyone would have found the process of developing your own suspension very interesting, what software was used, critical measurements, simulations, challenges.
If your going to stalk me, please get your facts straight.
Your beating up on me!!!

I had issues with there tru turn, correct, it failed our very strict certification process here in NZ. I acknowledged the tru turn is a great concept, but yes the R&D process was flawed.
I ended up re-engineering there concept and got better than their claimed results, so the tru turn can work fantastic, but if you want it awesome, it needs to be custom engineered to your specific setup. Ride height plays the biggest part.
I originally bought there complete front and rear kits as I was new to car modification and blindly believed there xxx.
Now I have more confidence i'm re-engineering my rear.
"Cutting up" may have been an exaggeration on my part, given.
But there wont be any parts to sell, I will leave most of the cradle in for shock mounts and I will use the links if I can, and change to poly and heim joints for Jonny joints.
And I live in New Zealand, who's going to pay the frieght, would cost more than new parts.

I was unaware they had changed there top pick up points, so I guess the question is Why? Something wrong?
I'm going down a watts linkage path as its the one for me. Top arm length is always an issue in 1st gens, but my CAD simulations are coming along nicely

[Tweak]

In an effort to clarify things a bit. Ridetech has recently re-engineered their rear suspension mostly by changing the upper links to converge as they run forward from the axle. The new upper links are longer.
Thanks David
Any chance I could get those dimensions and run them threw my cad model?

[slammed68]

If your going to stalk me, please get your facts straight.
Your beating up on me!!!

I had issues with there tru turn, correct, it failed our very strict certification process here in NZ. I acknowledged the tru turn is a great concept, but yes the R&D process was flawed.
I ended up re-engineering there concept and got better than their claimed results, so the tru turn can work fantastic, but if you want it awesome, it needs to be custom engineered to your specific setup. Ride height plays the biggest part.
I originally bought there complete front and rear kits as I was new to car modification and blindly believed there xxx.
Now I have more confidence i'm re-engineering my rear.
"Cutting up" may have been an exaggeration on my part, given.
But there wont be any parts to sell, I will leave most of the cradle in for shock mounts and I will use the links if I can, and change to poly and heim joints for Jonny joints.
And I live in New Zealand, who's going to pay the frieght, would cost more than new parts.

I was unaware they had changed there top pick up points, so I guess the question is Why? Something wrong?
I'm going down a watts linkage path as its the one for me. Top arm length is always an issue in 1st gens, but my CAD simulations are coming along nicely


I didnt stalk you lol, I was apart of your post regarding the issues you experienced with the truturn setup. Your results were far from typical but you bashed them pretty good. Perhaps you had an out of spec part, perhaps your car or some of its components were out of spec. You mentioned ride height and ridetech is very specific about where the rideheight should be. Same thing with the 4 link, ride height can have a big effect on roll steer but they tell you where to set the ride height.

Regarding the changes to the upper links, my understanding is that they changed the mount position to lower the roll center. You would probably need to chat with them about the exact result of the changes or plug the specs into a calculator and see what the results are. They mentioned that there wont be much of an effect for street cars but autocross/road course there should be a small improvement.

[David Pozzi]

I'm guessing their changes were for better roll center movement but I really don't know for sure. I don't have access to dimensions or a car near me. I did drive the old version at an autocross a few years ago at Del Mar Goodguys event and I did very well with it and I liked how it handled. I was able to hop in and turn a great time with no difficulty. I did not drive it on the street.

I think with the original shorter upper links, the geometry "sweet spot" was going to be at one ride height only and if you run a different ride height it will not be so good. The original was designed as an easy bolt in or optional weld in, with minimal to no cutting. That has it's limitations on what can be achieved.

I'd like to see what you come up with in a four link. A Watts link can be easily adjusted to move the rear roll center so that's a nice benefit.

[Tweak]

I'm guessing their changes were for better roll center movement but I really don't know for sure. I don't have access to dimensions or a car near me. I did drive the old version at an autocross a few years ago at Del Mar Goodguys event and I did very well with it and I liked how it handled. I was able to hop in and turn a great time with no difficulty. I did not drive it on the street.

I think with the original shorter upper links, the geometry "sweet spot" was going to be at one ride height only and if you run a different ride height it will not be so good. The original was designed as an easy bolt in or optional weld in, with minimal to no cutting. That has it's limitations on what can be achieved.

I'd like to see what you come up with in a four link. A Watts link can be easily adjusted to move the rear roll center so that's a nice benefit.



1st image shows where I am so far.
Diff is at my ride height, front lower arm is ride height and OEM location front, rear pickup of bottom arm is middle hole on ridetech weld on bracket
The top arm front pickup point is where i get the most gains and losses, this position is Inside the frame rail and doesn't require cutting into floor. Not that im apposed to doing so if required.
I have the diff at 90deg. so its easier to measure change, as its relative once I have set drive angle.
172341
2nd image shows how much the axle moves forward threw 2" of compression and rebound
the wheel base shortens 2.9mm (0.12")
172342
3rd image shows 1deg of pinion angle change at 2" rebound, however I think I can get this to around 0.8deg
172343
4th image shows 0.5deg of pinion angle change at 2" compression, i will give a little back to the rebound with fine adjustment.
172344
5th image interested me, you can see the angle change of the bottom arm axle pickup point has huge angle changes.
172345
6th image shows axle movement forward with centre of axle at ride height and 2" of articulation
Watts link and arms hidden for easy viewing and measuring, but totally impressed with how it keeps the axle located threw all movement, vertically and articulation.
172346

I really look forward to your views David as I'm pretty green when it comes to 4 link design.

[Tweak]

We have pretty awesome roads here in NZ, I have car set up with plenty of clearance172347172348.

[130fe]

Thanks David
Any chance I could get those dimensions and run them threw my cad model?

For someone that seems to bash Ridetech (this and your last one), it just seems funny you want “their” numbers to run through “your” CAD model.

[Mark@lateral-dynamics]

I think you could benefit from playing around with a suspension analyzer to help with the geometry. Packaging should follow function.

In the first pic, and this is arm's length, I would not recommend having the lower links (in side view) dropping - at all - from rear to front. As you show, in modest bump, the rear moves forward, even 1/8" is something that "may" be felt as a rough ride depending upon the compliance of the link ends you use - with rod ends being the least forgiving in this instance.

I see that you have a lot of adjustment available, this is always a good thing. Pinion angle change is probably a third order consideration, I'd focus first on the overall envelope of Instant Center Length and Height, then calculate the resulting A/S. If your roads are rough, you will benefit from having LESS anti squat under hard throttle exit.

Ditch the driver's side upper link to create a 3-Link. 4 links with additional lateral restraint (Watt's in your case, or PHB) are over-constrained - it's actually a 5 link in this case.

Hat's off to you for diving in, this will likely be one of the most educational and hopefully gratifying things you can do to an early muscle car. Absolutely bad-a$$ to have a first gen Camaro in NZ!

[slammed68]

I think you could benefit from playing around with a suspension analyzer to help with the geometry. Packaging should follow function.

In the first pic, and this is arm's length, I would not recommend having the lower links (in side view) dropping - at all - from rear to front. As you show, in modest bump, the rear moves forward, even 1/8" is something that "may" be felt as a rough ride depending upon the compliance of the link ends you use - with rod ends being the least forgiving in this instance.

I see that you have a lot of adjustment available, this is always a good thing. Pinion angle change is probably a third order consideration, I'd focus first on the overall envelope of Instant Center Length and Height, then calculate the resulting A/S. If your roads are rough, you will benefit from having LESS anti squat under hard throttle exit.

Ditch the driver's side upper link to create a 3-Link. 4 links with additional lateral restraint (Watt's in your case, or PHB) are over-constrained - it's actually a 5 link in this case.

Hat's off to you for diving in, this will likely be one of the most educational and hopefully gratifying things you can do to an early muscle car. Absolutely bad-a$$ to have a first gen Camaro in NZ!

Mark, is the lateral dynamics 3 link be re-introduced? if so there is the OP's solution.

[Just 1 More]

In an effort to clarify things a bit. Ridetech has recently re-engineered their rear suspension mostly by changing the upper links to converge as they run forward from the axle. The new upper links are longer.

Good to know, thx

[Tweak]

I think you could benefit from playing around with a suspension analyzer to help with the geometry. Packaging should follow function.

In the first pic, and this is arm's length, I would not recommend having the lower links (in side view) dropping - at all - from rear to front. As you show, in modest bump, the rear moves forward, even 1/8" is something that "may" be felt as a rough ride depending upon the compliance of the link ends you use - with rod ends being the least forgiving in this instance.

I see that you have a lot of adjustment available, this is always a good thing. Pinion angle change is probably a third order consideration, I'd focus first on the overall envelope of Instant Center Length and Height, then calculate the resulting A/S. If your roads are rough, you will benefit from having LESS anti squat under hard throttle exit.

Ditch the driver's side upper link to create a 3-Link. 4 links with additional lateral restraint (Watt's in your case, or PHB) are over-constrained - it's actually a 5 link in this case.

Hat's off to you for diving in, this will likely be one of the most educational and hopefully gratifying things you can do to an early muscle car. Absolutely bad-a$$ to have a first gen Camaro in NZ!

Hey Mark
thanks heaps for your input, I really appreciate it
its taken me awhile to get my head around anti squat, starting to understand

Do you think I should weigh my car to establish CG?
cheers
damien

[Mark@lateral-dynamics]

If you can weigh the car, by all means it is great data. But it's not really critical, you can estimate the CG height and fudge a typical 53% front weight bias. The numbers won't be perfectly accurate but it's good enough to see the changes when you go through the range of link locations. I personally feel it is far more important to consider the "SVSA" for link-stick axle rear suspension systems. Making it short and high off the ground will result in an increase in A/S but to the detriment of very hard braking (potential for wheel hop, just like the NASCAR into the hairpin at Sears Point), or under heavy throttle corner exit on rough courses/roads. 100% A/S means that the suspension is effectively "locked up" under full throttle, which means that the springs and shocks do nothing to soak up the bumps, which means the car can/will scamper. Note also that A/S is ONLY a condition when torque is applied, if you are just cruising down the road under light throttle it doesn't come into play and the suspension will react as you'd expect.

Best of luck, you'll get it.
M

[Tweak]

If you can weigh the car, by all means it is great data. But it's not really critical, you can estimate the CG height and fudge a typical 53% front weight bias. The numbers won't be perfectly accurate but it's good enough to see the changes when you go through the range of link locations. I personally feel it is far more important to consider the "SVSA" for link-stick axle rear suspension systems. Making it short and high off the ground will result in an increase in A/S but to the detriment of very hard braking (potential for wheel hop, just like the NASCAR into the hairpin at Sears Point), or under heavy throttle corner exit on rough courses/roads. 100% A/S means that the suspension is effectively "locked up" under full throttle, which means that the springs and shocks do nothing to soak up the bumps, which means the car can/will scamper. Note also that A/S is ONLY a condition when torque is applied, if you are just cruising down the road under light throttle it doesn't come into play and the suspension will react as you'd expect.

Best of luck, you'll get it.
M


Hey Mark

Found a good explanation on SVSA and how to calculate A/S
My car is predominately a street driven car, in saying that our rounds are what you would call canyon type roads. Would like to start doing track days soon.

What would you consider a good A/S percentage to aim for?
Approx 3200 lb car, ls408 545hp 490ft/ lb. chassis dyno Numbers.

Cheers
Damien

[Tweak]

This model has 85% Anti Squat. New starting point
CG red cross
172493

[David Pozzi]

I’d be at 40% Anti-squat & not ever go above 50% unless you are drag racing.

[stab6902]

As one point of reference, modern straight axle Mustangs had 32% anti-squat.

See data here: https://www.pro-touring.com/threads/127371-Free-suspension-Kinematics-and-Compliance-data-modern-performance-cars

[kimosabi]

I'd just get some 200-225lb composite leafs, a watts link and double adjustable quality shocks. Raise the front leaf mount about 3/8" up. Delrin shackle bushings. And stiffen that body up.

No need to overthink this stuff if you're not being competitive about it or really want to learn suspension geometry. But in real life you want less unsprung weight on a solid rear car, all these control arms doodads and whatnot just adds to it.

[Tweak]

I’d be at 40% Anti-squat & not ever go above 50% unless you are drag racing.

Hey David

What effect does the instant centre have when moving forward of the front axle?

51 % A/S.
172516
45 % A/S
172517
42 % A/S
172518
39 % A/S
172519

[Tweak]

Here’s my weights and CG in metric
172720
172721
No driver weights

[David Pozzi]

Let me read up a bit on it. I don't want to give you bad advice. I've tuned rear suspension but not designed any.

[Tweak]

Have measured and locked in my CG with no passengers now, will re-measure with driver and passenger next weekend.

New image shows CG and rear arms at 43% anti squat

Can anyone help me with how to establish front roll centre with my Ridetech setup?

172744

FYI
Left Front 415kg (915lbs)
Right Front 416kg (917lbs)
Left Rear 325kg (716lbs)
Right Rear 333kg (734lbs)

As built with zero effort in moving weight around

[stab6902]

I think it's really cool that you're designing your own rear suspension, but I can't help but notice that your design is converging into something that looks a lot like this: https://www.detroitspeed.com/rear-suspension-1/detroit-speed-inc-quadralink-rear-suspension-kit-1967-69-camaro-firebird-041703-group

Have you considered the above kit? It's proven and regarded as one of the best in the business. In my mind, DSE is the way to go if you want a 4 link and you're comfortable cutting up your car. I see no reason to reinvent the wheel unless you're just doing it for fun. You seem to prefer a watts link, which you could add to the DSE kit, but I'm not convinced it's worth the additional weight, space, and complexity for this application.

As you've noticed, Ridetech had to make a few compromises to make their kit bolt-in. I think they did a great job under those constraints, and it was good business to differentiate their product.

[Tweak]

I think it's really cool that you're designing your own rear suspension, but I can't help but notice that your design is converging into something that looks a lot like this: https://www.detroitspeed.com/rear-suspension-1/detroit-speed-inc-quadralink-rear-suspension-kit-1967-69-camaro-firebird-041703-group

Have you considered the above kit? It's proven and regarded as one of the best in the business. In my mind, DSE is the way to go if you want a 4 link and you're comfortable cutting up your car. I see no reason to reinvent the wheel unless you're just doing it for fun. You seem to prefer a watts link, which you could add to the DSE kit, but I'm not convinced it's worth the additional weight, space, and complexity for this application.

As you've noticed, Ridetech had to make a few compromises to make their kit bolt-in. I think they did a great job under those constraints, and it was good business to differentiate their product.

Hey
Yes I think your right, but I'm pretty keen to do this myself. The more I understand how it works, the more I can respond to change.
Once I can understand the engineering principles, i think it will resole itself.
As far as having more weight in the rear, probably a good thing with a first gen.
Watts are definitely the best for keeping the axle centered through varied articulation and movement, and not complex with the added bonus of easily being able to change roll centre height in the rear.
Its all new to me and I love learning new stuff.

Cheers for your input.

[Tweak]

My first quick measure, but not sure if I'm on the right path.
My car doesn't sit that low (hence the bump steer issues I had), but be cool to get some input from Ridetech on this, does this look similar to there Front Roll centre diagrams?
I forgot to measure my wheel track, so looks a bit off.
172774

[stab6902]

Hey
Yes I think your right, but I'm pretty keen to do this myself. The more I understand how it works, the more I can respond to change.
Once I can understand the engineering principles, i think it will resole itself.
As far as having more weight in the rear, probably a good thing with a first gen.
Watts are definitely the best for keeping the axle centered through varied articulation and movement, and not complex with the added bonus of easily being able to change roll centre height in the rear.
Its all new to me and I love learning new stuff.

Cheers for your input.

Fair enough - there are pros and cons to each. Roll center height can also be adjusted with a panhard bar - whether it's easier or harder than a watts link depends on the individual setup I suppose.

Here's some good reading on the age old watts link vs. panhard bar debate:
http://www.rhoadescamaro.com/build/?m=201102
http://www.rhoadescamaro.com/build/?cat=12

[dontlifttoshift]

What does the math show for roll steer now with the lower links running up towards the front vs the posts on the first page where the lower links were running downhill towards the front?

[Tweak]

What does the math show for roll steer now with the lower links running up towards the front vs the posts on the first page where the lower links were running downhill towards the front?

At this stage the rebound is very good
Compression not so good, wheel base shortens and would create rear steer on articulation
I think once I get a target anti squat % , I can start working on rear links

I will post updated front roll centre and roll axis tomorrow when I add dimensions

cheers

[Tweak]

Image below shows updated Front Roll Centre with CG. It's showing roll centre is 43% of the height of the CG.
172833

Image showing 41.5% anti squat with updated roll axis
172834

Input would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers

[Tweak]

This one has 42% Anti Squat with equal shortening of wheel base in compression and rebound, so when it articulates at the rear roll centre it has very minimal rear steer.
Top arm is falling down ever so slightly towards the front, almost level.

Thought?

172842

[Tweak]

Ok all the suspension pros out there. Crazy long instant center forward of front axle, but still has 24.4% Anti-squat.

Diff articulates through 4" incredibly well with very similar pinion angle creating almost no bind.
I was having trouble pin pointing the bind, have since worked out where it comes from on a 4-link.

Top link imaginary link almost goes straight through CG, is this good?

Is having the Instant Centre this far forward an issue?

172862
172863
172864

[David Pozzi]

172887172886Here is a page from the back of an old “Chevrolet Power” book published by Chevrolet 6th edition, 1988. It's mostly an engine build and parts book but has a few pages of Suspension info at the back. Ignore the first paragraph which refers to a previous page. The drawing shows lower link angles that are pretty severe but they are just an example. The theory used should be sound.

It shows an upper link intersection point "A". and in side view, a line drawn forward from "A" at the angle of the lower links. Where it crosses the axle center plane, is the RC location. If this is really how it works, this system has a very high roll center.

[David Pozzi]

The Ride Tech rear suspension has a designed or recommended ride height. I would double check if your car is set at that height. With the short upper links used to fit under the stock floor, I imagine the geometry would not work well if set very far from recommended height.

[Tweak]

The Ride Tech rear suspension has a designed or recommended ride height. I would double check if your car is set at that height. With the short upper links used to fit under the stock floor, I imagine the geometry would not work well if set very far from recommended height.

100% David, very small window. I have a mechanical engineer who specialising in automotive suspension design helping me now. I'm getting close for my custom setup.

[Tweak]

Working towards zero Rear Steer (tough with short UCA) and zero bind.
Currently have 4mm (0.157") Rear Steer at the axle flange when fully articulated diff.
Small amount of Rear Steer on bump.
Fully articulates with NO Bind now.

Would like to see half this amount.

172966

[dhutton]

How does wheel hop play into all of this? I understood that the lower links had to be parallel to the ground to avoid wheel hop.

Not an expert, just curious.

Don

[Tweak]

How does wheel hop play into all of this? I understood that the lower links had to be parallel to the ground to avoid wheel hop.

Not an expert, just curious.

Don

Hey Don

Yes we looking at the LCA front pick up point now, I'm certainly no expert either. But love a challenge.

So many variables, and at some point there will need to be compromise.
For me the rear steer is the major issue with my ridetech that I need to eliminate.
NZ roads test a suspension system to the max!!! Off chamber fast corners are quite common, with lots of bump. But very fun to drive when the car is nice.

cheers

[Tweak]

How does wheel hop play into all of this? I understood that the lower links had to be parallel to the ground to avoid wheel hop.

Not an expert, just curious.

Don

Hey Don, do you have a build thread for your Cameo.

Im about to start my 56 with C3 suspension. Was already fitted when I bought it, but needs to be re-done for vehicle certification here in NZ.

Cheers

[Tweak]

This road is 10 minutes from my home and a good example of NZ back roads.

172969

Road down south, but they are everywhere

172970

[dhutton]

Hey Don, do you have a build thread for your Cameo.

Im about to start my 56 with C3 suspension. Was already fitted when I bought it, but needs to be re-done for vehicle certification here in NZ.

Cheers

Sorry no build thread. I am using front and rear Dobbertin cradle adapters along with a longer torque tube. I have to run C6 offset wheels due to using the stock C5 track width.

Dobbertin website:

https://rick486.wixsite.com/dobbertinperformance

Don

[Tweak]

So I have amazing bump and No bind characteristics.

172987

The compromise is 5% of Anti-Squat

172988

Looks very DSE?

[Tweak]

So I thought it was about time to add the body and fix it to the Roll Axis to see if the results differ.
Excuse my crude body model, its about establishing movement. If anyone has a 3d scanned cad model of a 1st gen floor, id be happy to pay for a copy.

When moving the diff this model only had like 0.9mm of Rear Steer, but with the tyres fixed to the ground and the body rolling on the Roll Axis it now has 4.25mm of Rear Steer. Very Interesting.

That's with 2 degrees of body roll.. That's my next question...How much body roll does my car have?

173032

173033

[Tweak]

Halved the rear steer as you would expect after moving the top mounts inboard.

Should be able to tune it out, need to get under car and look and measure options.

173034

[stab6902]

That's with 2 degrees of body roll.. That's my next question...How much body roll does my car have?


I'd guess 2-3 degrees per g would be in the ballpark. You could do the math with spring rates, sway bar rates, center of gravity location, roll centers, etc, but at the end of the day it's still a calculation that will likely have quite a bit of error. If you really want to know, I think you'd be best off driving in a circle at maximum lateral g's (think skidpad test), have someone take a picture of the back of the vehicle, and then use photo editing software to measure the angle between the vehicle body and the rear axle (hopefully you'll be able to see it under the car). You don't want to measure body angle relative to the ground because then you'd be including tire deflection.

[Steve Chryssos]

When it articulates, ie going down a driveway in reverse and the rear end twist due to uneven surface, the diff rear steers.
This also happens on very uneven roads.
If you only drive on flat roads you have no issue, here in New Zealand we have awesome roads that really test a cars suspension......

For the record: Rear suspension does not experience anywhere near full articulation during high performance driving on any road at any appreciable speed. Effective spring rate, sway bar design and driver skills would keep your car close to level.

That little nugget of wisdom is common knowledge to anyone who has ever taken part in a high performance driving event. ...and most people agree that you should also drive slowly when backing out of your driveway -- especially at a steep angle. Complaining about rear roll steer while going in reverse at some speed approaching zero is silly and misleading.

If you ever visit the United States, I strongly encourage you to attend one of the dozens of high performance pro-touring driving events that take place from coast to coast. If that happens, you will see that the pro-touring community is STRONG. We don't bash each other. We HELP each other with tuning, and driving skills -- shade, and whatever is needed. We cheer each other on. In the evenings, we loiter together in hotel parking lots. You will also find that ALL of the available suspension options found on on typical 3400lb cars routinely compete within TENTHS of one second of each other at any given event. Sometimes that delta shrinks to HUNDREDTHS of a second with the biggest variable ALWAYS being DRIVER skill. ..and Ridetech-equipped vehicles are ALWAYS competitive. Ridetech cars win regularly and you can almost always find Ridetech cars finishing in the top ten. Our easy to install 4-link swaps the lead with products from our friendly competitors week in and week out -- Detroit Speed, Speedtech, Schwartz Performance, No Limit Engineering, TCI. You'll see the same brands at each event. That's how little difference exists in the real world. On public roads, that delta shrinks to zero point zero. As a company Ridetech works very hard to develop suspension that works well and is easy to install. The Easy-To-Install mandate may seem to be at odds with ultimate suspension geometry -- but only in the message board Keyboard Kung Fu universe. We don't race on paper.

..and I absolutely, positively A-100% assure you that the Ridetech cars -- Bolt-on 4-link and all -- experience loads far in excess to anything you might experience on any winding public New Zealand road at legal speeds or close.


Be part of the community. In the meantime.... Here's that same Ridetech 4-link rear suspension and TruTurn front suspension system in action experiencing well over 1g of lateral load on sticky 200 TW tires.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry0qhA2_bxY

Bolt-On 4-Links, click HERE (https://www.ridetech.com/products/bolt-on-4-links/bolt-on-4-links/)

Cheers,
Steve

[Tweak]

Wow!! Seems to me ridetch is a company that focuses on profit not performance
Very ignorant response

[2yellow69]

Wow!! Seems to me ridetch is a company that focuses on profit not performance
Very ignorant response

Ignorant response? Please. You are slamming a product that 99.9% of drivers will never see the full benefit of. I know the limiting factor would be me, not the Ridetech 4 link in the back of my Camaro. We are talking about a BOLT IN suspension for a car that is over 50 YEARS OLD!!! With a solid axle. That was originally designed with leaf springs. A unit body/subframe car that flexes like a wet noodle compared to a modern tube chassis race car.

Some modern cars actually design some rear steer into the rear suspension to prevent things like lift-throttle oversteer.

As for profit, if a company doesn't make any money they can't bring out new parts for people to buy. If there was an unsafe aspect to a part they would not still be in business. The negative reviews on this site alone would ruin most companies. There are a couple of companies that were prominent on this site who no longer exist because of bad business practices.

By no means am I saying you shouldn't design your own rear suspension. Kudos to you! I get it, you want perfection.
I don't have the time or the desire to do that so I bought what works for me, as have many others. I have dealt with Ridetech a few times and have nothing but good things to say about the experiences. I also have some of their competitors parts. I don't work for any them. I don't receive any money from them. The parts I bought work. Plain and simple. There is no reason to bash a company and their parts because you need that last 1% of performance and their product doesn't do it (and wasn't meant for it).

I typically stay out of these types of arguments/disagreements but I had to say something. I have dealt with many of the vendors on this site and have had good experiences.

[Tweak]

Ignorant response? Please. You are slamming a product that 99.9% of drivers will never see the full benefit of. I know the limiting factor would be me, not the Ridetech 4 link in the back of my Camaro. We are talking about a BOLT IN suspension for a car that is over 50 YEARS OLD!!! With a solid axle. That was originally designed with leaf springs. A unit body/subframe car that flexes like a wet noodle compared to a modern tube chassis race car.

Some modern cars actually design some rear steer into the rear suspension to prevent things like lift-throttle oversteer.

As for profit, if a company doesn't make any money they can't bring out new parts for people to buy. If there was an unsafe aspect to a part they would not still be in business. The negative reviews on this site alone would ruin most companies. There are a couple of companies that were prominent on this site who no longer exist because of bad business practices.

By no means am I saying you shouldn't design your own rear suspension. Kudos to you! I get it, you want perfection.
I don't have the time or the desire to do that so I bought what works for me, as have many others. I have dealt with Ridetech a few times and have nothing but good things to say about the experiences. I also have some of their competitors parts. I don't work for any them. I don't receive any money from them. The parts I bought work. Plain and simple. There is no reason to bash a company and their parts because you need that last 1% of performance and their product doesn't do it (and wasn't meant for it).

I typically stay out of these types of arguments/disagreements but I had to say something. I have dealt with many of the vendors on this site and have had good experiences.

I'm trying to build a better rear end. Why don't you all **** off if you have nothing productive to say.

If you read the whole thread and not just the bits that suit you you would see I haven't bagged there products like you suggest.
What I have said is if you don't have there ride height, they have issues.

Ridtech is a company that will say you are wrong, we are right!! Rather than listen to constructive advise regarding quality R&D experience.

That is why you are just as ignorant.

Move along mate.

Actually don't bother replying, ill **** off and deal with people that don't have there head stuck up there arse.

Sorry to anyone following that wanted my final specs to build there own quality rear end.

So much for being a " supportive community"

[slammed68]

I'm trying to build a better rear end. Why don't you all **** off if you have nothing productive to say.

If you read the whole thread and not just the bits that suit you you would see I haven't bagged there products like you suggest.
What I have said is if you don't have there ride height, they have issues.

Ridtech is a company that will say you are wrong, we are right!! Rather than listen to constructive advise regarding quality R&D experience.

That is why you are just as ignorant.

Move along mate.

Actually don't bother replying, ill **** off and deal with people that don't have there head stuck up there arse.

Sorry to anyone following that wanted my final specs to build there own quality rear end.

So much for being a " supportive community"

Steve @ ridetech has over 5k posts on this site. Pretty much the definition of supporting the community.

Call others ignorant all you want but you totally dismissed a product based on what you THOUGHT to be poor performance specs and thinking curved roads dont exist anywhere else. You seemed to have a decent understanding of engineering so when you initially said you could build something way better, I figured you had thought it through. Most of this thread has been you asking for information because you dont fully understand the theory behind suspension. That would be like setting your tesla on fire, telling them they dont know **** about electric motors, and then googling "how to build an electric motor".

[eville]

If you read the whole thread and not just the bits that suit you you would see I haven't bagged there products like you suggest.


You called their product junk. Meets my definition of bagging a product.

[jetmech442]

Man, I'm so conflicted posting here with all the anger, but I’m going to share my experiences on my Cutlass in hopes of furthering a better path for this thread.


Below are my lessons learned/thoughts/suggestions from designing and running my 3link at the road course.
1) 100% antisquat is not great for either coming out of corners or going into braking zones. Mine is adjustable from 30-160AS in ~30 degree increments. The next time I go to the track I'm starting off on the 30% mark because I never want to experience that wicked wheel hop coming down from speed ever again. I'd rather have to be smoother on throttle out of turns than bring a duffel bag full of clean underwear.

2) The 3 link will offer more articulation than parallel 4 bars, and if you have to adjust it at the track, 1 bar is much easier to move and deal with than getting 2 the exact same length while maintaining pinion angle(especially in the grass on a hot day). That being sad, our cars don't travel a whole lot in the rear, so I'm not sure I'd ever notice the extra articulation available. But I wanted what I considered the best and so I went the 3 link route. My advice here is to devour every word Ron Sutton has ever posted here on this subject. His posts along with the others that have contributed and debated with him improved my understanding in a way that wouldn't have been possible just by reading Milken in the bubble bath while Katy Perry sang away my frustration.

3) I purposefully designed 3 settings into my frame mount on the lower arms so I can could change my rear steer to turn out (helps rotate for autocross, turn in (high speed stability for roadcourses), and neutral. to do this I loaded 270lbs of salt into the driver seat(a sad sight) and welded the brackets in the right height. so now I have an asymetric setup. great when it's just me, but when a friend or instructor is in the car, the setup is not perfect. I'm not going to say that I'm good enough to fully notice when the instructor is in the car...I'm sure I eventually will, but by that time hopefully I'm on my own. Ride height severely effects this so for now I am kinda stuck with my current size tire and tire choices.

4) You need to have the front roll center nailed down before you set the range for your watts link. The pivot of the watts will create the roll center and the line connecting those two will be a roll moment. some of the best money I ever spent on my cutlass was the Fays2 Watts link. It is frame mounted, which means the roll center doesn't migrate with the suspension movement. Stable roll centers are key contributors to predictable cars. In less than 3 minutes, I can throw the pivot to the top and have a stupid fun street car that throttle steers everywhere, drop it way down to the point of understeer, or...find just the right position for the track I'm at for best grip. Unless you know the front roll center though, you would need a ton of adjustment range to cover all the bases.

I hope this helps in your design considerations. I also hope that you can be part of a community of gearheads that don’t insult and flame posters/sponsors. I’ve bought my share of parts that didn’t work out as advertised. I realize with all my old ass frame and mods to the car that some stuff just doesn’t work out(especially if it’s a bolt on). When stuff like that happens, I pass it on to the next guy at a discount and get to work learning and making something myself if needed(kinda like you are doing).
Some of the best knowledge comes about from open debate and idea exchange between experienced racers/manufacturers in environments that encourage open dialogue, I hope this thread can become one of those examples.


-Scott


173401


173402


173403

[SSLance]

^ Great post!!

[dhutton]

Man, I'm so conflicted posting here with all the anger, but I’m going to share my experiences on my Cutlass in hopes of furthering a better path for this thread.


Below are my lessons learned/thoughts/suggestions from designing and running my 3link at the road course.
1) 100% antisquat is not great for either coming out of corners or going into braking zones. Mine is adjustable from 30-160AS in ~30 degree increments. The next time I go to the track I'm starting off on the 30% mark because I never want to experience that wicked wheel hop coming down from speed ever again. I'd rather have to be smoother on throttle out of turns than bring a duffel bag full of clean underwear.

2) The 3 link will offer more articulation than parallel 4 bars, and if you have to adjust it at the track, 1 bar is much easier to move and deal with than getting 2 the exact same length while maintaining pinion angle(especially in the grass on a hot day). That being sad, our cars don't travel a whole lot in the rear, so I'm not sure I'd ever notice the extra articulation available. But I wanted what I considered the best and so I went the 3 link route. My advice here is to devour every word Ron Sutton has ever posted here on this subject. His posts along with the others that have contributed and debated with him improved my understanding in a way that wouldn't have been possible just by reading Milken in the bubble bath while Katy Perry sang away my frustration.

3) I purposefully designed 3 settings into my frame mount on the lower arms so I can could change my rear steer to turn out (helps rotate for autocross, turn in (high speed stability for roadcourses), and neutral. to do this I loaded 270lbs of salt into the driver seat(a sad sight) and welded the brackets in the right height. so now I have an asymetric setup. great when it's just me, but when a friend or instructor is in the car, the setup is not perfect. I'm not going to say that I'm good enough to fully notice when the instructor is in the car...I'm sure I eventually will, but by that time hopefully I'm on my own. Ride height severely effects this so for now I am kinda stuck with my current size tire and tire choices.

4) You need to have the front roll center nailed down before you set the range for your watts link. The pivot of the watts will create the roll center and the line connecting those two will be a roll moment. some of the best money I ever spent on my cutlass was the Fays2 Watts link. It is frame mounted, which means the roll center doesn't migrate with the suspension movement. Stable roll centers are key contributors to predictable cars. In less than 3 minutes, I can throw the pivot to the top and have a stupid fun street car that throttle steers everywhere, drop it way down to the point of understeer, or...find just the right position for the track I'm at for best grip. Unless you know the front roll center though, you would need a ton of adjustment range to cover all the bases.

I hope this helps in your design considerations. I also hope that you can be part of a community of gearheads that don’t insult and flame posters/sponsors. I’ve bought my share of parts that didn’t work out as advertised. I realize with all my old ass frame and mods to the car that some stuff just doesn’t work out(especially if it’s a bolt on). When stuff like that happens, I pass it on to the next guy at a discount and get to work learning and making something myself if needed(kinda like you are doing).
Some of the best knowledge comes about from open debate and idea exchange between experienced racers/manufacturers in environments that encourage open dialogue, I hope this thread can become one of those examples.


-Scott


173401


173402


173403
I agree, great post but all of Ron Sutton’s threads have been deleted. Sort of a shame, there was some good info to be gleaned from them.

Don

[David Pozzi]

They are available on the Wayback Machine internet archive:
Rear Suspension: https://web.archive.org/web/20170624045432/https://www.pro-touring.com/threads/111964-Rear-Suspension-amp-Geometry-for-Track-Performance
Front Suspension: https://web.archive.org/web/20180425125544/https://www.pro-touring.com/threads/111963-Front-Suspension-amp-Steering-Geometry-for-Track-Performance
Aero: https://web.archive.org/web/20180717025726/http://www.pro-touring.com/threads/101460-Designing-Aerodynamics-for-Track-Performance

[jetmech442]

They are available on the Wayback Machine internet archive:
Rear Suspension: https://web.archive.org/web/20170624045432/https://www.pro-touring.com/threads/111964-Rear-Suspension-amp-Geometry-for-Track-Performance
Front Suspension: https://web.archive.org/web/20180425125544/https://www.pro-touring.com/threads/111963-Front-Suspension-amp-Steering-Geometry-for-Track-Performance
Aero: https://web.archive.org/web/20180717025726/https://www.pro-touring.com/threads/101460-Designing-Aerodynamics-for-Track-Performance

Wow thank you David! I've been searching for the disc brake one with Ron and Tobin for about a month, didn't know they were actually removed.

[dhutton]

They are available on the Wayback Machine internet archive:
Rear Suspension: https://web.archive.org/web/20170624045432/https://www.pro-touring.com/threads/111964-Rear-Suspension-amp-Geometry-for-Track-Performance
Front Suspension: https://web.archive.org/web/20180425125544/https://www.pro-touring.com/threads/111963-Front-Suspension-amp-Steering-Geometry-for-Track-Performance
Aero: https://web.archive.org/web/20180717025726/https://www.pro-touring.com/threads/101460-Designing-Aerodynamics-for-Track-Performance
I can’t open these links.

Don

[68Formula]

I can’t open these links.

Don

I had no problem.:dunno:

[anguilla1980]

They work for me too.

[dhutton]

Working for me now.

Don

[Gmc427]

love the vid on ridetechs site promoting their new 'R joints' and basically rubbishing the old joints they still supply,btw probably 90% of ridetech 'equipped'cars are still running.

[MonzaRacer]

Ok so I'll jump in here a bit, probably not good idea BUT I personally know the founder of Ridetech, in fact much better than you know. First of all the 4 link was NEVER designed as a full on race designed kit. It was a way to FIX inherent design issues and restrictions of leaf sprung cars.
Coming in and bashing them for making a part or parts that "failed" for you. Well that's a stretch, then getting into a cussing match, because you think your current parts are junk when they are simply THE WRONG PART.
Now we have ALL bought some part that's not worked as well as they agould have.
Im a 30+ yr alignment tech, with engineering skills and chassis tuning under my belt, I bought " How to make your car handle" by Fred Kuhn,,,,twice.
I could reread it weekly while tuning cars. The biggest thing I see is you have bought a partor a kit that didn't meet your specifications, you're claiming that the front didn't do what you wanted to do or didn't function the way you were told it would, and you had to modify it to make it work. Well I'm sure David will agree with me that you can buy a kit from ridetech you can bolt it on, and you're possibly going to have to fine-tune some things to get everything perfect because those cars an eighth of an inch or 3/16 of an inch was accuracy when they were built because they were built as daily drivers not race cars. The precision in the front sub frames, well they weren't exactly what you would call precise. This is why we measure check and adjust. Now I'm not sure what your inspection criteria are in New Zealand, but just because it didn't pass their inspection doesn't mean it's a bad part, nor do your issues with the results indicate it's a bad system. It says that the combination of Parts being your OEM subframe and all the other bits and pieces you've cobbled together for that car we're playing nice and you had to adjust from there. When you consider the fact that that car probably had anywhere from 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch of bump steer from the factory on a good day and probably ran a tire anywhere from third to a half the size of what you're putting on it now width wise, also change things.
But when you consider the fact that this company build Parts in certain parts have a million and one mile guarantee, that says a lot about what they believe about their parts. You want to redesign stuff to meet something that you claim is necessary for what you're getting out of your car which is in whatever condition great that's wonderful that's hot rodding that's what we all do we all buy parts and modify them to work. Because that's what hot rodding always has been, taking one part and modifying and putting it in a different position a different job a different role, possibly even putting it aircraft part on a car, and the parks don't necessarily play nice.
Please understand you come on here with one of the Premier suspension companies that builds their cars builds their parts use their parts and beat the living garbage out of their part in if they break they redesign them if they have a problem or see something that isn't right they'll redesign or reinvent that part all over again. Look at their shocks I know for a fact they went through at least two or three shot-makers before they partnered up with a different company and design some of the Premier coil over shocks in the market now. I know for a fact because I've put several sets on for people, more than cerebral and I had a guy take a $4,000 set of Premium coilovers off and put ridetech on because that enormous set of professional-quality race oriented named perfectly tuned shock set we're absolute bear to deal with.
Now I know Brett's not with the company anymore, but the attitude you came on here with and some of the language you thrown out because people were trying to say and maybe you need to back up a little bit on bashing, and perhaps some people came at things the wrong way or the translation or the intent in writing didn't come through quite the way it should have. But I can tell you there's a lot of people on here who buy used and enjoy ridetech parts they've been treated like the only customer and taken well care of few people have had some issues and a lot of times it comes down to miscommunication somebody misunderstanding something or missing an email or a message or not conveying what they needed to say right off. But when it comes down to for the easiest part bashing a company built by a friend to many of us, and a company whose original founder literally would unbolt parts from his car and hand them to a customer if they needed, when coming on here and saying that it to bad design rather than simply the wrong design for your application, or possibly not quite installed 100% ride text way but your way and it's not functioning the way you think it should it comes off as a little petty and please don't misunderstand what I'm saying I'm just saying that ridetech came from nothing in the mid-90s started out building a niche air ride suspension for hot rods, a car magazine went out and tried to get some suspension companies to compete in a handling competition to prove that the materials parts and search would work and another suspension company president opening his fat trap and claiming that are ride couldn't handle like a regular suspension oh, and I heard round 1 bell ring and Brett Came Out Swinging and six months later we had air suspensions and they were competing with metal spring suspensions and running just as hard if not harder improving the air ride was not just something for a fairground. Round up a few years and Brett noticed he needed to change and build a better shock and did and needed to design better Springs and he did oh, he found companies to partner with and in all honesty they are the premier shock on the market when it comes down to the difference between straight race performance and straight Street ride comfort and they're back by one of the best warranties in the business.
Please understand I'm not trying to berate or Bosch you I'm just saying the way you came off swinging hard like you did against ridetech oh, well that doesn't make you any friends or Allies and honestly will make people who have more experience knowledge and compassion walkaway from you and your post and let you wander in the breeze and figure something out some other way.
I can tell you straight up I put a true turn on a friend of mine's car and we thought bump steer issues on her car for 6 months and we did Untold number of things trying to fix the issue, and finally we decided to Jack the car up support the front body drop the subframe out and we took it somewhere and measured and I mean measured it with a computer oh, and this thing had some issues that were in it from the factory you can tell this thing has never been wrecked or tweaked or anything so we went and found a different subframe checked it it was ten times better cleaned it all up powder coated at threw it back under there in our issues disappeared. And we had some issues with installation and ride height Etc, but we figured out where a problem was and we had some issues when we were moving away from where we were told to run the car even. But once we figured out that it worked better where they said it should run then she drove it, the car works so much better than we ever expected and we didn't have to do major adjustments and modifications, just because we moved away from where we were told it should be.
Anyway that book that I told you about that taught me a lot about suspensions and then I learned the Rest by experience and I got to go through a driving school that taught us how to modify cars many years ago, and I can guarantee you that it's taken 30 years plus to get to where I am and I'm over 50 now and I still don't know everything. But generally I can figure something out when other people can't, because I've learned paying attention to the car could possibly show me something that I didn't know.
You have a nice car you have a decent plan but losing your temper and showing something that you shouldn't be showing, rather than listening and asking questions and researching things and throwing out buckets of mud in the way you bash won't get you where you need to be. Good luck, good building, and safe driving.
Lee

[79T/Aman]

I just want to know why some are ganging up on a guy that is trying to design his own suspension system because he found that he could do better than a "bolt in system" that is a compromise ?

[raustinss]

I see the corona has everyone bent outta shape lol

[pitts64]

Its amazing the places some people can go without leaving the room......

[raustinss]

Lmao

[F-Body International]

I just want to know why some are ganging up on a guy that is trying to design his own suspension system because he found that he could do better than a "bolt in system" that is a compromise ?

x2

Yea, the OP downplayed the Ridetech setup but he is trying to design/build an interesting setup and is clearly making an effort.

I love this forum but some people are way too loyal to brand names and being in a club rather than understanding and processing technical aspects of subject. I have seen advice to questions a few times that go, “Go with a forum sponsor here and you’ll be good.” What kind of advice is that? Does sponsorship and advertising suddenly make parts good?

This reminds me, as you know I’m a leaf spring guy, we explain how a well-sorted leaf spring setup is all most people need.....but some people are dead set on changing what they have for some sort of internal satisfaction. I’m not against super expensive or extremely modified suspension but I feel it’s often not needed for many who go that route.

[Rod]

so much fun, but after reading it all, its not done?

[Tweak]

New top arms, watts link and sway bar installed. Still using the ridetech bottom arms.
Put 400 mile on new setup, really happy with how it feels. The 200lb springs that ridetech supply ride really nice, but don't offer the resistance on the big bumps and hi speed corners. Have done a heap of reading and am going to try a duel rate eibach spring setup.
178830
178831
178832
178833

[stab6902]

Looks good, nice job going through with it. I'm glad you're happy with the results.

What car did that watt's link setup originally come from?

[Tweak]

Looks good, nice job going through with it. I'm glad you're happy with the results.

What car did that watt's link setup originally come from?

Watts is out of a 2000 Australian falcon

[stab6902]

Watts is out of a 2000 Australian falcon

It looks like it was made for your car. You did a nice job integrating it. I like the rubber bushings for a street car vs the heim joints you see on a lot of the aftermarket stuff.

[Tweak]

It looks like it was made for your car. You did a nice job integrating it. I like the rubber bushings for a street car vs the heim joints you see on a lot of the aftermarket stuff.

Yeah putting rubber in was a no brainer, no need for the heim joints as I have smooth articulation through all travel know.

[Tweak]

The plan is dual springs next, keep the same rate as the existing 200lb springs at cruising, then adds lbs under extreme conditions.
It's a complex formula, so may need to trial a few different springs.
178835

[Tweak]

179786
179787

[Vogelsong]

Sorry no build thread. I am using front and rear Dobbertin cradle adapters along with a longer torque tube. I have to run C6 offset wheels due to using the stock C5 track width.

Dobbertin website:

https://rick486.wixsite.com/dobbertinperformance

Don

Are you mounting the transmission at the rear?

[anguilla1980]

Does anyone know of a company who makes a 1st gen IRS kit with cantilevered coil-overs that will mount in the trunk behind the rear seat and under the package tray? I think that is the route I'll be going.

[Gmc427]

Does anyone know of a company who makes a 1st gen IRS kit with cantilevered coil-overs that will mount in the trunk behind the rear seat and under the package tray? I think that is the route I'll be going.

speedtech