PDA

View Full Version : I have to ask



baz67
12-30-2004, 11:21 PM
Is it me or has there been many questions about C4 or C5 suff pertaining to what is better for handling. What is up with the Corvette woodies? It is not the parts it is the design. One could put F1 parts an a car and if it is not designed properly it will handle like zbugger in his sisters car on the 101. :enguard:

In fact, if one would use the same Corvette pick-up points on a first gen chassis it would increase RC height due to the narrower track width. With that comes some not so desirable things like messing with camber curves and added jacking effects. Both reduce efective cornering power. Now if someone modified the pick-up points to their specific chassis to obtain optimum geometry, that is different because the availibility of the parts make that attractive. I am not bashing anyone on their design ideas or products or trying to start a flame war. I am just curious why the fixation on the Vette stuff.
Brian

zbugger
12-30-2004, 11:38 PM
.... if it is not designed properly it will handle like zbugger in his sisters car on the 101. :enguard:

Heh... At least your still alive. Wanna try that again?

Norm Peterson
12-31-2004, 03:51 AM
I am just curious why the fixation on the Vette stuff.
BrianBecause it's fairly light, reasonably attractive, is designed for a car of generally similar weight and performance intent, and is mostly available without too much difficulty?

Other than that, I haven't the foggiest notion.

BTW, the devil is always in the details. You wouldn't have to try all that hard to screw up the best tuning for a stick axle arrangement either.

Norm

baz67
01-01-2005, 05:58 AM
Ya bugg I will be in your area on the 17th. We could try to get together.

I was incorrect on the roll center rising. It would actually lower slightly. I did not take into account the relative movement of the IC. That may not be good as well because of the increase roll moment. You would then need to increase either spring rate or roll bar stiffness. I guess my point is why add a bunch of expensive parts if the whole car is not taken into account.

This is one of the pitfalls of my job. I get way too many hours to think of crap like this.
Brian

spanky the wondermuffin
01-01-2005, 06:24 AM
name dropping-'i have joe cool's c4 stuff'.most projects never get completed,so bad reviews don't filter out.most of the few that ever run again get very light duty use like power tour and trips to the kwik-e-mart.

MoeBawlz
01-01-2005, 12:52 PM
The reason i got the Wayne due sub is because reading all this stuff on different subs and other options at the time. for the money i was willing to spend it was the best option i had. and i would have liked to have made my own suspension up. but i dont have the knowledge to design a proper suspension yet.

Along with that my fab skills arent up to par with what a professional like Waynes is.

Zefhix
01-01-2005, 02:00 PM
If you get stuck on the side of the road with a broken piece... chances are it's going to be alot easier to pick up a c5 replacement part than a one-off, custom cnc'ed piece with the heim joints on it. That would be my guess....... :injured:

Salt Racer
01-03-2005, 07:47 AM
I think everything that was said is true.

Typical street rodder types want Corvette stuff b/c, well, it's Corvette stuff. Those guys really don't care if their cars ride like crap and handle like "Allen in his sister's car", as long as they can say "I got Corvette suspension". They might as well use the king pin IFS found on '53-'62 Corvette. It's all about mystique of Corvette for those guys.

'88-'96 IFS and C5 IFS components have good LCA/UCA ratio, tall drop knuckles with moderate KPI. Hub face to KP offset is relatively small, especially on C5. This will help cut down on scrub radius w/o too much trouble. You can make a pretty good suspension using them if you know what you're doing.

Factory IFS geometry is a bit too mild for track use (otherwise C5-R would have used stock geometry). I don't care much for C4 IRS - I don't think you can get negative scrub radius with those things. C5 IRS is good IF used with factory offset rims, but it's rather hard to retro fit. Getting scrub radius right on IRS is far more important than IFS on RWD cars. It cracks me up seeing some street rod builders go so much trouble narrowing IRS a lot just so they can use dished wheels. If you've ever driven a FWD car, you probably know what torque steer is. Guess what causes it - Scrub radius and drive torque. That's why you NEVER see dished wheels on front of FWD cars, other than those low rider homie-mobiles with gold plated spoke rims. Even Eldorado and Toronado from late '60s had deep BS wheels to minimize scrub radius. Most IRS exhibit the same behavior. It gets really scary at the limit when you have large scrub radius. But then again, street rodders never drive their cars at the limit...

Parts availablity is a very good point. C5 knuckles and LCAs are even cold forged, and they're surprisingly reasonable over GM parts counter.

If I were to build a Cobra kit car or something, I would consider using C5 IFS components with appropriate geometry, and 3-link rear.

Note: I make fun of street rodders b/c, based on my observation (and I have observed a LOT of them), 99% of them TRUELY don't care about performance and even compromise safety in order to achieve the look they're after. Back when I was still into street rods, car shows, etc, I thought they're building the cars the way they do due to lack of information. Wrong. I tried to educate them about scrub radius and whatnot whenever I had opportunities - their replies go like "So what? Dished wheels look cooler!" If they are on budget and have to use rebuilt stock suspension, that's one thing but many of them spend big dollars on aftermarket IFS and intentionally make the hub width narrower just so they can use deep dish wheels. Driving a car like that on public highway is irresponsible if you ask me. It's sad, and kinda makes my job pointless.

BRIAN
01-03-2005, 04:29 PM
I would have to say Hot Rods, Pro Touring or whatever guys are using them for the WOW factor and very little other reason. Read the posts on this very board that is supposedly made up of cars designed to be driven, all you see are post that pertain to Corvette based suspension are those asking how big of a tire can I fit with a certain subframe. Same reason for the big brakes, etc. Come on everybody likes the looks of them you are kidding youself if not. Hey and as for the Street Rod guys they have trickled down a lot of technology as that is where the big money is. There is danger in backyard technology everywhere but I guess that goes with the territory. You also have to understand some guys simply like the feel of an old car and do not want to change it. Sometimes I like driving a loud, shaking, monster of a car. Dangerous??? How about 1000hp in a stock floored Pro Touring Car??? I am honest enough to say a lot of the parts I use are for the WOW factor. After all these are Hot Rod based cars that are built to gather attention and have FUN.

Salt Racer
01-03-2005, 05:48 PM
I would have to say Hot Rods, Pro Touring or whatever guys are using them for the WOW factor and very little other reason. Read the posts on this very board that is supposedly made up of cars designed to be driven, all you see are post that pertain to Corvette based suspension are those asking how big of a tire can I fit with a certain subframe. Same reason for the big brakes, etc...

I tend to agree. I'd rather see more emphasis on performance, but that's just me.


...Come on everybody likes the looks of them you are kidding youself if not...

Hmmm, it depends on what you're talking about. I like the look of race car suspension with heim ends and nice TIG-welded long suspension links, more than Corvette suspension. I like tasteful 17s and 18s on a muscle cars, but I'd rather see 15s than 20s. I like slotted rotors, but I'd pick plain rotors over drilled rotors.


...There is danger in backyard technology everywhere but I guess that goes with the territory. You also have to understand some guys simply like the feel of an old car and do not want to change it....

I agree, but my point was why would you spend $4K on aftermarket suspension and not build it right? Those who like the feel of old cars (not me) would probably stick with stock suspension.


...Dangerous??? How about 1000hp in a stock floored Pro Touring Car???

I wouldn't build a 1000hp street car on a basically stock platform without significant re-engineering on chassis/suspension and tons of safety features, like I said in another thread. Personally I feel 600hp is the borderline of practicality in a 3500-lb street car. I'm totally with you here.


...I am honest enough to say a lot of the parts I use are for the WOW factor. After all these are Hot Rod based cars that are built to gather attention and have FUN.

Most of my parts purchasing decisions are based on my performance requirements and the size of my wallet. Aside from the car itself, about the only thing that I picked up based on image/aesthetics is a pair of Flowmasters, but I'm actually looking for lighter mufflers now. I'd give up cool sound if I can save 10 lbs. I do like the look of 18s on my car, but if someone made magic wide white wall 195/85R15s that have better turn-in response and more grip, I'd swap those on in a heartbeat assuming I can afford them.

I'm being honest to myself just like you are. I admit I have some quackiness, but perhaps I'm a little too practical to be a real hot rodder. I personally don't like much attention (I didn't paint my car yellow) and honestly, I really don't care what other people think of aesthetics of my car. I'd rather impress people with its performance. Like I said somewhere else, I get more satisfaction from driving on road course as fast as I can, than getting a lot of ooh-ahh's at car shows. I'm having fun just like you're, but in a little different way.

Having fun is good, but you should also need to be responsible at the same time. That's my point.

dennis68
01-03-2005, 06:05 PM
Well not everyone here gives a flying whoop about looks. Allen will back me up, I don't care how it looks......

1: does it work?
2: can I afford it and if not can I make it or modify something else to do the same thing?
3: will it make the car corner flatter, safer, stop faster, or help with off corner acceleration?

Those are the only questions I ask myself when deciding what to buy/make/steal or whatever. (I should also add to the list of questions- 4:can I hide it from my wife)


I agree using off the shelf makes life much easier should something break, but I live close to work so worst case I can always pedal my ass there.

zbugger
01-03-2005, 08:54 PM
Well not everyone here gives a flying whoop about looks. Allen will back me up, I don't care how it looks......

Yeah, even crap looks good to you....

In all seriousness, I think performance should take precedence over looks. Some people are impressed by the "Corvette suspension" thing. Like it automatically makes the car handle well. Not always true. You have to make sure you have the 'Vette specs as well to make it work even close. There's even some mods you may have to make so that you can tune it better to your car. I'm gonna stick with what I know. Nothing.

nancejd
01-03-2005, 09:17 PM
I think this discussion is at the core of what pro-touring is. If it was pure performance, and aesthetics didn't matter, it would be a race car. If it is all aesthetics, and no performance, it's a trailer queen. Pro-touring is that great big gray area in the middle, searching for the perfect balance of it all How boring would it be if we all wanted to build the same thing?

dennis68
01-03-2005, 10:16 PM
Don't get me wrong, I like a good looking ride as much as the next guy. I can't remember the last time I said "whoa, those are great looking spindles". Body and paint is for "pretty", underpinnings are for work-who cares what it came from or how it looks, does it work is the question.

touring67
01-03-2005, 10:37 PM
The gray area covers looking good and performing just as well. And hey, if it can perform with the best of them and look awesome then I'll be really impressed. It all comes down to intended usage of the car IMO. If its gonna be a track car then by all means spend the money and effort on making the car track worthy. And if it is made just to look good but have performance as a second then fine, buy the billet and chrome. But I would prefer something that worked than something that was pretty. I.R.S may look fancy in a First-Gen, but without proper tuning it just won't work on the track. I agree with Denny, who cares who it came from...does it work?

Fuelie Fan
01-04-2005, 09:26 AM
I can't remember the last time I said "whoa, those are great looking spindles".

I said that last week at the desert looking at a sandrail! :) Then I made fun of them becuase, being billet, they were also wasteful and bulky despite being polished to perfection. Performance versus looks in a nutshell.

Cdog
01-04-2005, 01:08 PM
If performance was all of our true goal in building a Touring car's then we'd all have pinto's and datsun 210's with full race car chassis.

There is something to be said about the nostalga of a muscle car mixed with the tech. of race car suspension.

I'd bet you can build a datsun 210 with a turbo'd 4 banger that would kill just about any of these cars on this board for what most of us have in to a shell of a car and body work.

First you bought your cars because they look cool. Then you bought all the cool looking stuff to make it fast. Let's keep it real!

Cdog
01-04-2005, 01:22 PM
If performance was all of our true goal in building a Touring car's then we'd all have pinto's and datsun 210's with full race car chassis.

There is something to be said about the nostalga of a muscle car mixed with the tech. of race car suspension.

I'd bet you can build a datsun 210 with a turbo'd 4 banger that would kill just about any of these cars on this board for what most of us have in to a shell of a car and body work.

First you bought your cars because they look cool. Then you bought all the cool looking stuff to make it fast. Let's keep it real!


Secondly I'd like to add that I am waiting to hear about actual performance of these subframes before I through down 5-7'g for one. So far I have considered Wayne D's C4 & C5 and the 21's century C5. From my understanding the 21's Century does not need any fire wall cutting. If so that's great news for all of us. Bottom line is that all of these subframes including the Art Morrison looks more impressive and gives a couple of more bragging rights that a stock frame does. But if a stock frame with DSE mods out performs these C4 & C5 frames I'll have some extra cash for turbo's. Remember a bitchen car is both Form and Function.

Salt Racer
01-04-2005, 01:53 PM
Cdog,
Point well taken. I admitted that I bought a '65 Riv b/c of its aesthetic value and I thought unassuming fullsize car was perfect to showcase my suspension designs. Otherwise, I'd be driving a '93 RX-7 R1 (light, fast, and Wankel fascinates me). I still want one of those.

But you have to understand that you have to give up some traditional aesthetic values that hot rodders are accustomed to, both for good performance and safety. Just because everyone has been using shallow BS'ed wheels up front and IRS on hot rods for the past 50 years, it doesn't mean it's right. Why do you think ALL late model vehicles have flat-faced rims with deep BS?

Why do we modify suspension? B/c we want to make our cars handle better. If you can do it with cool sheetmetal surrounding the improved chassis, that's even better. Now would you slap on a set of shorter control arms just so you can run deep dish wheels at the expense of performance AND safety? I'm sure you won't.

The reason why I made comments on street rodders is that 99% of them flat-out don't care. Period. And believe me, I deal with lots of them on daily basis. It's not the lack of education - sales guys here try to share the info, but most of them just choose not to listen b/c end products will not suit their taste aesthetically. Giving up performance for aesthetics is one thing, but safety really shouldn't be compromised if they intend to drive their cars on public highway. Sure, there is always some dangers and risks involved driving an automobile, but minimizing risks is your responsibility especially if you know how. What they're doing is like blowing cigarette smoke on your face just because they can, knowing it may cause second-hand smoking effect. I'm sure people on this board know better.

Allen summed it up nicely.


...In all seriousness, I think performance should take precedence over looks. Some people are impressed by the "Corvette suspension" thing. Like it automatically makes the car handle well. Not always true. You have to make sure you have the 'Vette specs as well to make it work even close. There's even some mods you may have to make so that you can tune it better to your car...

baz67
01-04-2005, 10:44 PM
I started this thread because of the increasing amount of "what c stuff is better" type questions. It is not my intention to degrade anything about the vette and I do not feel it was taken that way. In fact this thread is discussing just the ideas I intended.

It may be that some of the newer members think it must be better because it is from a Corvette. That is not true. Good gains can be made for free with the Gulstrand mod. Also it could be that some people lean more towards hot rodding, but want the pro-touring look. That is not bad as long it is what they want and understand what they are getting.

Nancejd may have the right idea. "I think this discussion is at the core of what pro-touring is. If it was pure performance, and aesthetics didn't matter, it would be a race car. If it is all aesthetics, and no performance, it's a trailer queen. Pro-touring is that great big gray area in the middle, searching for the perfect balance of it all How boring would it be if we all wanted to build the same thing?" I dissagree with the no perfomance with a trailer queen somewhat. It may be that they are not willing to chip thier multibillion dollar paint.

touring67
01-04-2005, 11:13 PM
It's about the intended purpose of the car and the builder I think. Sure vette stuff can be had without too much trouble, its easy to get replacement parts and the forged aluminum parts make it light relieving some unsprung weight but like said before it has to be mounted the same way with the same specs. I have a fairly good personal experience that involves form (looks) over function. I personally would rather have the car perform than look great. I have a certain car *82 camaro* that my best friend and cousin also has *85 camaro though*. At some point, I don't know when, I was struck with the idea to add to its performance. I built an engine, swapped transmissions and rear gears, added a strut tower brace and some bigger BFG KDW tires to help keep it planted. While the car didn't look any prettier, in fact it looked worse with time and no fancy dress up parts, it did perform much better. In the meantime my cousin who has the same love for cars did nothing to aid performance but rather added a stereo, did some fancy bodywork and repainted the whole car, restored the interior, got a steering wheel and added a big 'cat-back' 3 inch exhaust (no headers!) with some 4 inch tips. The latter may have added some to performance but it was more for sound appeal. He would scoff at my, by his standards, ugly car that was fast while I could not see why he would not do SOMETHING to aid in the performance despite spending over 10k on looks. While he is my best friend and has the same *nearly* car and interest in them I prefer function while he prefers form. I recall this story because he is always pressing me to use Corvette suspension for some reason and I cannot see why he would do this other than that he 'thinks' or has 'heard' that it will make your car perform better. For someone who hasn't looked at any other options he automatically comes up with corvette suspension. In this such case, it is ignorance that leads one to 'want' corvette suspension. This may not always be the case but it is one point that I thought I would bring up. This did get off-topic I know but I think it really shows how it is the builders/drivers preference and knowledge when it comes down to making the decisions.

Steve Chryssos
01-05-2005, 05:48 AM
I will come clean.

When I bought one of the first C4 clips back in 1999, I was totally impressed by the thought of having cool forged aluminum A-Arms/spindles and rack & pinion steering in my 1st gen. I'd pick up an A-arm and wave it at my homies bragging "Forged aluminum baby!"

When I drove the car for the first time, it felt like all four wheels were pointing in different directions. As I am not a fabricator or a suspension expert, I used the blank check approach to fix the car--but still did not have a clue about suspensiond design. Money wasted.

In order to get the car right, I found another (and more expensive) fabricator and before I pulled out the checkbook (again), I stopped and researched as much as possible about front suspension design so that I could take an active role in the revisions. Clips have come a long way since then, but the logic is still sound:
For those who think that a "bolt-on" a clip and fancy C4/C5 parts will turn their ride into a supercar, I offer some advice:

1) Buy a Book or Two
Read and understand them before you spend the $$$. You CANNOT effectively comparison shop for a clip without a good working knowledge of suspension design. Start with the Herb Adams book.

2) 100% Bolt-on Bla Bla Bla
The clip that is the easiest to bolt-in may NOT be the best performing design! Compromises may be (are usually) necessary to make the frame, suspension and steering parts fit within the factory platform.

You are changing the frame on your car. It is a big decision and a big job. Take it seriously.

Mean 69
01-05-2005, 08:23 AM
Very, very well put, Steve.

M

Kenova
01-05-2005, 09:19 AM
At the risk of showing how little I know, I'll toss out my two cents (CDN). When I first heard of Wayne's sub frame (before the passing of Art), I was more interested in weight savings and bigger brakes. Being able to go to the nearest GM dealer and order replacement parts is a big plus. In this case, form follows function and looks good doing it. And I'd bet that Wayne has been trying to improve his suspension design, given the demanding nature of some of his customers.
Unfortunatly, I don't have the resources to test and tune a car on a proper race track. That pretty well leaves me at the mercy of whoever is building the sub frame that I choose. To complicate things even more, there is no way to subjectively compare the different suspension systems out there. I would hope that all such systems would come with a suggested starting point for suspension/shock/spring settings.
Before I lay down the cash for a new sub frame or suspension system, I will certainly have to do some serious reading and note takeing. It would be most interesting to hear what others have had to do to make their after market suspension perform properly, other than testing and tuning. How about it? Another thread perhaps about pleasant and unpleasant surprises when setting up after market suspensions and sub frames?
Ken

Salt Racer
01-05-2005, 12:23 PM
...I would hope that all such systems would come with a suggested starting point for suspension/shock/spring settings...

EVERY suspension manufacturer needs to be able to do this IMO.


For those looking to buy an aftermarket subframe, take Steevo's words. I couldn't have said it any better.

What makes C5 suspension a great performer is how GM engineers arranged the pivot point locations. The fact that the parts are forged aluminum has very little to do with it. In fact, you could swap in stamped steel A-arms on a Z06 and lose very little performance, and quite possibly none at all on smooth race tracks, so long as factory pivot locations are maintained.

Let me put it in a little different way, since most people have better understanding on engines...

Suppose you have two nice aluminum intake manifolds of the same make and model. You send one out for porting job to a very experienced shop with in-house flowbench, dyno, etc, while some toothless Billy Backyard with no engine building experience offered to port the other one for $5. Which manifold produces better hp/torque curve? Probably the one ported by a good shop.

Both manifolds look the same externally, yet there is a significant difference. It's the exact same deal on suspension. You can have the look of C5 suspension, but you may in fact have a suspension worse than the stock suspension unless the pivot points are carefully designed and located. The shape, material and construction of A-arms and knuckles DO NOT determine the geometry (or kinematics) of suspension. Pivot locations define that.

Unfortunately moving pivot points around is inevitable when you try to adapt C5 (or C4 for that matter) suspension into a Camaro because back in mid '60s, GM engineers didn't design '67 Camaro to accept yet-to-be-born '97-'04 Corvette suspension.

If you want a subframe with C5/C4 components in the interest of improving performance, pick up few books and learn what makes suspension actually work well. Then, spend a couple of hundred bucks and visit the manufacturers if possible. Have them demonstrate simple tests such as bumpsteer and camber curve. Airplane tickets are much cheaper than $4K mistake. Narrow down your choices based on suspension kinematics first, then pick up the best subframe for your use/preference - frame rigidity/weight, aesthetics, or whatever.

You're swapping a major chassis component. Like Steevo said, it is a BIG deal. Take it VERY seriously.

touring67
01-05-2005, 01:17 PM
As far as Kenova is getting and what we may be touching on is the thread I started about subframes. It was this thread that prompted me to start that other thread in fact. It is hard to choose in some cases what to do and what to use. In almost all cases it is far more important to get the pivot points and the geometry correct than the components themselves, otherwise we would see titanium parts all over the place despite the price.

And yes, quite often 'bolt-on' means 'modify' and I have seen this quite often, and I believe that in some cases the term is used just to sell the component. It is a huge part of the car's characteristics and it's very serious, I know that I would NOT go buy a sub without crawling all over it and trying to find out everything about it. Again, my reason for the other thread. I myself am not impressed if it's just corvette suspension, because my next question would be almost word for word "Ya, but does it work in your car?". In my case I am probably a year away from buying anything, my books are in the mail, and my education is starting so I don't make any mistakes or fall into the marketing traps.

Tony@AirRideTech
01-05-2005, 02:36 PM
:hmm: this thread to me is getting a little confusing.... lets dissect what we are really talking about here and lets more or less try to put a generic definition on "Pro Tour"....
The definition will very much resemble like mentioned above.... "Pro Tour" in alot of opnions refers to the vast grey area of cars that are being built and that are the most popular car to be built these days. They are not "Pro Street".... they are not "tour" cars.... they are not "Hot Rods" ...and they are not lead sled cruisers and they definitely aren't trailer queens. What they are by most definitions is everything in between. It would be a mid or full size car that does everything "well". A good representative of a good Pro Tour car is one that can turn a respectable quarter mile time, hold its own on an open road coarse, and give you quality, comfortable confines getting you there. A prime candidate would be a car like the Chicayne... although the horsepower in that example may be slightly overkill.... :eek: . Now I know some of you are going to have a different view of what a pro tour car is or should be and that is great! That is what its about because I think for the most part we can all agree that it is for those "grey" area cars.
Now that we have depicted a somewhat rough definition of "Pro-Tour"... we all need to sit back and take a blinderless look at what we are all attempting to catagorize as how a "pro tour" car should be built. Even though we are currently discussing the validity or practicality of Corvette suspension components it really boils down to how each of indepedently feel of what our interpretation of what a Pro-Tour car is.
Justifying the use of C-4 components or C-5 components is actually pretty easy. First off... when installed properly... it is pretty darn good geometry to work with. We all know here that in order to get it to work and perform how GM intended it to, that you will need to keep it in the Corvette. But if you take and compare it to the suspension geometry of alot of the cars it is being put on it is a far superior set up. Other major benifits are parts availability, and aesthetics. You can damn near find any brake package, gear ratio, and differential upgrade parts you could ever want. They are also affordable and obtainable by those that are of men of average means..... That says the most. Besides that... back to reality.... when it comes to what some peoples definition of what a "died in the wool" pro-tour car should be, it sounds like we should all be building complete, purpose built, tube chassis that could compete in the 24hrs of Daytona. And lets face it... that can be just as bad as anything else when not installed properly or set up properly. Keep in mind, there are compromises with any route we take. The importance of what you are compromising can only be determined by the owner and his intended use for the car.... Anyways... I will now retreat from my soapbox....

nancejd
01-05-2005, 05:53 PM
I think one issue though is that everyone remembers the horror that became prostreet, where just about every car was made in the "style", but didn't have any performance to speak of it. Maybe there should be a "Pro-Showing" type of car.

touring67
01-05-2005, 05:56 PM
I think that those are referred to as trailer queens already hehe.

Ripper
01-06-2005, 02:02 AM
What makes C5 suspension a great performer is how GM engineers arranged the pivot point locations.

sorry for asking, but I'm used to Swedish litterature... Which one is the pivot point? :help!:

Beige
01-06-2005, 06:44 AM
The pivot points would be the ball joint and control arm bushing locations.

Norm Peterson
01-06-2005, 06:45 AM
sorry for asking, but I'm used to Swedish litterature... Which one is the pivot point? :help!:I'm not sure I understand the "which one" part of your question. A pivot point is any connection between two locating parts that acts like a hinge in either 2-D or 3-D. Most (but not all) suspension components that locate either a wheel or an axle have two such points, typically involving bushings of some sort at chassis and stick axle attachments and balljoints or rod ends at steering knuckles and tie rods.

Norm

Ripper
01-06-2005, 06:53 AM
Thanks!

NOW I understand why the "pivot points" are so important :pat:

baz67
01-06-2005, 07:57 AM
Sorry for the late post, but VERY well put Steevo.

Brian