Speed Tech Lower Control Arm Clearance Problems

[NovaPwr]

Hey guys,
Just got my lower Speed Tech control arms after a 3 1/2 month wait and runaround. (That is another story). If they would not have had my money already I would have just used my original lower arms. Got the new uppers and lowers installed, attatched the spindle and installed the new Baer rotor and calipers(very nice stuff). Everything looked good until I jacked the lower arm up to my old ride height. And that is not very low at all, 13 1/4" center of spindle to fender lip. I would like to go lower eventually. The lower ball joint ring that the tubes are welded into just makes contact with the rotor. That ring extends down beneath the ball joint assy approx. an inch but it is still in line with the tubes which makes me leary about grinding any material from it. As I lower the wheel the angle of the ring starts to align with the rotor and clearance increases. As I raise the wheel the angle increases sharply and the lower edge of the ring quickly contacts the rotor. Lowering the wheel an inch gave me a full 1/4" clearance. So would I need a 1/4" for every inch travel the other way also? Or more? I am wondering if I could clearance that ring without weakening the arm? Looks like that would give me the clearance but would it make the arm weak? Any advice would be appreciated. I tried to take a couple of pictures of the ring and of the clearance issue. One other thing I noticed was my wheel has moved out some. Gonna need some more backspacing and new wheels. Thanks guys.
Dave

[astroracer]

Looking at your photo's I can see that the ball stud pivot point is well above the stud to arm interface. Compare that to your stock lower arm. Where is the pivot point on the stock arm in relationship to the ball stud to arm interface? I'll bet they are much closer together. What you have with the new arm is a bunch of extra material hanging down under the pivot point which makes for a longer lever arm. This, in effect, moves that material "farther" during suspension travel then the stock arm when articulating.
You could probably grind the lip off the outboard side of the ball stud cup but you should talk to the manufacturer before you do. All of the stress in the arm will take a path through the welds and ball stud mounting ring so removing this skirt of extra material shouldn't hurt the arm's integrity. You need to check clearances at full jounce and rebound AND full right and left lock while in jounce and rebound. You may have other issues caused by the "tall" ball stud to arm connection.
The other issue is why the wheel mounting face is moving outboard. I would verify you have the correct arm for your application before cutting it up...
How does the ball stud press into the arm? Or is it a screw in stud? It looks to me that it goes in from the top. If that is the case I wouldn't use the arm. even if it is a screw in this puts the ball stud to arm joint under tension and this will cause the ball stud to pop out after a couple of good bumps. The spring will push the ball stud and arm apart under load. Please say the stud pushes in from the bottom...
Mark

[Travis B]

By looking at the pics it doesn't appear to be pressed in from the bottom.......

[NovaPwr]

Thanks Mark. The ball joints do go in from the bottom. I spoke to the mfg and they are going to get back with me. The machine guy answered and said it must be a problem with the brake setup. Baer says no brake setup problems, make sure they sent the correct arm and clearance the skirt area just as you suggested. Said they have the same issue with some new Camaros and Eclipses. Once I hear back from the mfg, I will probably get the sparks flying. Thanks for the help.
Dave

[chicane67]

Its not a brake issue.

Is or has your car been aligned yet ?? If not, you may have too much static camber in the alignment and this will effect the clearence between the rotor and the LBJ mount.

But in my opinion, even with no shims in the UCA, it shouldnt be anywhere near as close as it is. Looks like another issue within a lack of attention to detail in the LCA design and construction.

The picture says it all. The LBJ mount looks a little too long/deep...... maybe ??

[baz67]

I second chicane here. I would look at the arm(likely) or alignment(less likely) as being the issue. If you want to be sure just throw on your old lower. If it fits with everything else being the same you narrowed it down to the ST arm.

[sinned]

This is obviously a design issue with the LCA (terrible design). I have no idea why they left an additional inch or so below the actual ball joint retaining portion of the ring. My guess is that it is just easier (cheaper) to build it that way. That entire lower portion needs to be machined off. I would even look into cutting it off completely and welding on a screw in mount.

That sure looks like a MIG weld…I hope those arms were fairly inexpensive, that ring is subjected to quite a bit of stress and really should have been TIG welded together. It may just be the work of a sloppy welder though.

[rattus]

FWIW. The DSE LCAs have the lower outside portion of the ball joint housing cut away:

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif

[TitoJones]

Speed-Tech must have forgotten to copy that part of it too.
Tyler

[Steve Chryssos]

I don't mean to sound obnoxious (which I usually do), but take those A-arms off and nail them to the wall in your garage as a reminder not to buy questionable products--especially questionable SUSPENSION parts. Between the BJ clearance issue and the wheel clearance issue, you have to wonder if they EVER tested their product on actual cars and with a variety of different brake packages.

Yes, you can grind off the the lower BJ foreskin, but ask yourself how and why they did not discover this issue during the product testing phase. What else might be wrong with the design and execution? What if you find another flaw while driving the car at speed? If we were talkng about an air cleaner wing nut, I'd say grind away til the cows come home. In this case--a suspension part, I would try to return the arms or cut your losses. Better yet, just call your credit card company, and submit a charge-back. For all you know the problem may be the length of the UPPER a-arm, which throw off your suspension geometry and explain your wheel clearance issue.

Look at the pieces of the puzzle, connect the dots, put yourself in the position of a suspension parts designer (don't forget the dot labelled 3-1/2 month wait) and ask yourself if the dots line up. If not, walk away.

Given the two primary symptoms, something doesn't make sense here. Sorry, but I don't want to see you get hurt.

[David Pozzi]

There is a lot of extra material that should be trimmed off for use with stock brakes. I'm amazed they obviously didn't test these arms with stock brakes. They sell their own late Corvette/Camaro disc kits so must have built the arms to fit those.

I do think these arms are much stronger than stock arms, but if you have any doubts about that, it's not worth keeping them and worring about it.

[NovaPwr]

Thanks guys for taking the time to look at this issue for me. I appreciate all the replies. After seeing the DSE arm with the skirt area cut away I am pretty sure I will try that. I had a paint pencil line on mine pretty close to the same shape they ended up with. Had I known all this going in, my original lower arms would have been blasted and had the new bushings in and been on the road right now! This may help someone else from having to go through the same problems.
Dave

[Woody]

What brake system are you running? I initially had a Baer Serious Street system on the front of my 68 Camaro and ran into the same clearance issues when I installed my DSE lower control arms. DSE's arms did not used to have the angled cut out area for added clearance. I ended up switching to the Baer Track system and there is not a clearance problem.

[NovaPwr]

What brake system are you running? I initially had a Baer Serious Street system on the front of my 68 Camaro and ran into the same clearance issues when I installed my DSE lower control arms. DSE's arms did not used to have the angled cut out area for added clearance. I ended up switching to the Baer Track system and there is not a clearance problem.

Woody, I am trying to install the serious street 11" setup also. I like my 15"wheel and tire combo and that is the only reason I went with this setup. Those bigger tires and wheels are really starting to grow on me though:) Thanks,
Dave

[Mkelcy]

I initially had a Baer Serious Street system on the front of my 68 Camaro and ran into the same clearance issues when I installed my DSE lower control arms. DSE's arms did not used to have the angled cut out area for added clearance.

Okay, I'm waiting for all the Speed Tech bashers to start bashing DSE's product design and testing processes, since they also apparently had the clearance issue on their early production LCA's.

[TitoJones]

Okay, I'm waiting for all the Speed Tech bashers to start bashing DSE's product design and testing processes, since they also apparently had the clearance issue on their early production LCA's.

I'll be the first.
When a company such as DSE makes a new product, I'm positive that Kyle tests it, and makes sure his product fits like it is supposed to. Kyle obviously found out that the ball joint ring caused interference with some brake systems, and changed the design.

Speed-Tech on the other hand is the copy cat of the Pro-Touring world. When they see a cool DSE/GW product, they copy it, and change it just enough to not be an exact replica.
They followed in DSE's tracks, but forgot to copy the updated design.
Here is where the 2 companies differ-
Kyle would take the arm back, fix it, and send it back, no ifs, ands or buts.
Todd on the other hand...
Well, the customer is doing the mod himself. Enough said.
Tyler

[Woody]

Dave, I initially wanted to keep my 15" wheels as well. However, finding good tires was a big problem and after my clearance problems, I decided to move to 17" wheels. I am very happy of the look of the 17" wheels.

Mkelcy, Kyle and Stacy at DSE were excellent in working with me to fix the problem. They figured out the problem and redisgned the control arms and then offered me the option of switching out the control arms or changing to the Track system even though my Serios Street kit was in used condition. I elected to change out the brakes and go with larger wheels. Their customer service is top nothch.

[yody]

i hate speedtechs customer service!! but i do like their control arms!! :) I wouldn't be suprised if what tyler said was correct about not copying the updated design. Did you call speedtech? maybe i missed that?

[Mkelcy]

I didn't see anything in this thread to indicate that Speed Tech refused to correct the clearance problem on their LCA's, although they may have.

I also didn't see anything in this thead to indicate that DSE took back their early LCA's and corrected the clearance problem, although they may have.

Clearly, DSE didn't "test" their early production LCA's they way you would have Speed Tech "test" theirs now, or else there wouldn't have been a clearance problem on the early DSE arms.

Finally, as a hot rodder, pro-tourer and consumer, I don't think it helps the folks who come to this board to bash products because you think a product may have been copied. That, frankly, is irrlevant to me and to many others if the product works as advertised. It also doesn't help to bash a product because it may have MIG versus TIG welds, when (so far as I'm aware) no one has done any objective testing on whether TIG welds on the tubular LCA's are needed.

In short, objective, fact based information is useful; biased "information" based on personal animosity is not.

However, if anyone who was bashing the Speed Tech product has any actual facts about any actual failure to work as advertised, I'd like to hear about it so I can steer people away from a bad product. Until then, what I think I'm seeing is bias against a manufacturer who is not a member of the club.

[TitoJones]

Mike-
Come on, do we really need to go here again?
I don't think a DSE product was copied. I know it. I can document this back to early 2003 when a guy by the name of 'Mountie' was on Camaros.net asking very specific info regarding a GW tubular A arm. He then came to Camaros.net with a new tubular control arm, and later switched his screen name to Todd Smith. Care to guess where the offset leaf spring shackles came from? Oh, that's right, DSE.
Care to guess where their C5 brake bracket came from?
Baer Racing.
Kyle knows it, as does half the board who chooses not to look the other way.
Being part of a club has little to do with it.
Stealing from within our little PT 'club', and then bringing it right back to the market you stole it from is tacky to say the least.
Look up a few posts, and you find that Kyle did what he could to fix the issue. Try and get Todd on the phone to fix this issue, and you'll know why David is choosing to fix the problem himself.
Tyler

[wickedmotorhead]

I also didn't see anything in this thead to indicate that DSE took back their early LCA's and corrected the clearance problem, although they may have.

Woody stated that DSE took care of the problem and that this is only a problem with certain brake systems therefore not all the control arms would need to be recalled (which they would have if needed). Speedtech may or may not take care of the problem, but I'm a little weary when they start blaming the brake manufacturer for the problem as their initial solution. And it does sound like that was the final answer since he was going to modify them himself (NOTE: which was posted two business days after his initial post!).

In order for either vendor to check clearance issues they would have to invest A LOT of money to get every single brake kit that someone might run. This is hot rodding, everyone has different setups and not every single avenue can be known every time. Hopefully vendors have a good idea of what they are up against and design accordingly, but in some rare instances things like this happen and the corrective action is to fix it as fast as possible and at no charge and maybe some incentive for the problem.

I agree on the welds. Without any test data to back either one up as far as rigidity goes, comments are mearly opinions and not fact based.

Some may or may not care if a company "copys" anothers products. In fact it could be considered an act of flattery, BUT looking at the products for those that do care its obvious ST products are byproducts of other vendors ideas and just makes you wonder how much actual thought, design, and engineering is behind their products and how much R&D was actually spent. For example look at their UCAs in the middle of DSE and GW arms. See any similarities.

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif (http://img302.imageshack.us/my.php?image=0408050052dr.jpg)

Or the offset shackles....Either way I don't think anyone here is "bashing" anyone just putting pieces of the puzzle together of things we do know.

[Mkelcy]

LOL, no I REALLY don't want to go back there again. However . . .

Kyle fixed the subsequent DSE LCA's. On the basis of this thread, I don't know what happened to the LCAs Woody had because he changed brake systems to solve the problem. [Edit - I didn't see Woody's post on what DSE did to resolve the problem. And I agree, DSE's customer service is top notch.]

As for the leaf spring hangers and the brake brackets, I just don't think there's a copying complaint available. The brake brackets are just obvious: I've got a set someone made out of steel; what Speed Tech is doing is much nicer and doesn't require machining of drum brake spindles, but is still pretty obvious. The same goes for the leaf spring hangers.

I'm guesssing you weren't the first person ever to put a T56 in a first gen. Did you copy the cross member or hydralic MC bracket of the folks who did? Probably not because all of the dimensions are obvious from the car and parts themselves. Just like the brake brackets and spring hangers.

As for the UCA's, I read and participated in the infamous Speed Tech UCA thread. I wasn't convinced then and I'm not convinced now that Speed Tech copied. But that said, why should I care if they WERE copied if the product works as advertised. All Speed Tech's copying does is create another source for parts at (perhaps) a lower price point.

And that's my point. There is the product itself, which should (in my opinion) be evaluated on its own merits. Then there is the manufacturer. If the product works, but you don't like the manufacturer, then say that; but don't fault the product because you don't care for the manufacturer.

I respect your knowledge and experience. My quibble is that some guy out there working on his car may spend more than he needs to for a particular part because he's afraid the Speed Tech parts are functionally inferior, when no one to date has proven they are and the only objective guy I've seen on this issue (David Pozzi) hasn't yet found any reason to criticize them that I'm aware of.

[chicane67]

...........Its like the blind........ leading the blind............


And that's my point. There is the product itself, which should (in my opinion) be evaluated on its own merits. Then there is the manufacturer. If the product works, but you don't like the manufacturer, then say that; but don't fault the product because you don't care for the manufacturer.

If you dont do any R&D, then how do you know that you can get away with MIG welding the final product (to cut down on cost, obviously) not knowing if it is a strees point (FEA or distructive testing) that needs to be addressed. OBVIOUSLY ..... The two origniators did the R&D necessary to include TIG welding their respective products.

I'll call it the way I see it.... and we KNOW what we've been seeing from a specific manufacturer, for quite some time now. Design and execution are the relevent factors here and this thread BLATANTLY shows the were certain products stand in this circle.

If your gonna copy someting..... at least do it right.

[yody]

looks like the guys from ATS have some kind of personal problem with SPeedtech, funny that a company that doesn't offer any suspenion parts would care so much if speedtech copied. If they didnt' copy you, why are you guys so determined to prove them wroong? Didn't take any money out of your pockets? Not that i really care either way if speedtech copied

[yody]

BTW speedtechs are looks like a global west frame with a DSE crossshaft!

[Steve Chryssos]

No. I believe that one of the primary purposes of this forum is to save people from headaches--or worse--save them from harm.
Case in point: I bought a Harley Davidson V-Rod back in 2003. After dropping $18,500 on something with only two wheels and no trunk, I opted for the cheapie $350 pipes (cause every Harley needs pipes).

The pipes were junk. They practically fell off after 100 miles. Five days later, I discovered v-rodforums.com. Of course there were dozens of threads stating "DO NOT under any circumstances buy Samson pipes. If only I had found that forum earlier. True to form, Samson refused to take the pipes back, so I planted them in my backyard amidst the Hostas so that every morning, when I drink my coffee, I can be reminded not to get sucked into "too good to be true deals". As a manufacturer, I ordinarily keep my mouth shut, but when it comes to suspension and brake parts--safety parts, I'll speak up. Between the customer service, the brake clearance issue, and the new, expensive backspacing issue, I'd be pulling those arms.

[TitoJones]

looks like the guys from ATS have some kind of personal problem with SPeedtech, funny that a company that doesn't offer any suspenion parts would care so much if speedtech copied. If they didnt' copy you, why are you guys so determined to prove them wroong? Didn't take any money out of your pockets? Not that i really care either way if speedtech copied

Cody-
I, like yourself, call bull**** for what it is. DSE doesn't frequent the boards here, so they won' be in to defend themselves anytime soon. I feel that as manufacturers, we have the obligation to make good original parts that work like they are supposed to, for the best value we can to the end user.

Speed-Tech is taking other manufacturers R&D, and making a copy-cat, sub standard part. I'll be the first to point out that this is the wrong way to go about it. No other company on this board, save for ATS, knows more about what each tubular control arm really does on a frame. GW and DSE did their homework on the arm, did FEA testing on them, and released a solid product to the market. The DSE design has special beveled washers and machining on the cross shaft that was put in because of a stress point that casued shaft breakage. ST did not incorparate this into their mimic version of DSE crossshaft for reasons unknown. I'd guess to say that they never did an FEA test of their product to see what will really happen under load. You want to save $200 bucks for an untested copied part? I'll pay the extra cash to make sure I'm safe in my car at speed, and on track days.
You guys a say you don't care that they copied parts, but at least you aknowledge they they did.
As soon as ST comes out with an original part that shows some of their own R&D was put into the product, I will evaluate the part for what it is.

The Detroit Speeds and Global West's of the world are in no harm of being put of out business by guys like Speed Tech. Without the leaders and innovators that make the first part, they would have nothing to copy from.
Tyler

[harshman]

looks like the guys from ATS have some kind of personal problem with SPeedtech, funny that a company that doesn't offer any suspenion parts would care so much if speedtech copied. If they didnt' copy you, why are you guys so determined to prove them wroong? Didn't take any money out of your pockets? Not that i really care either way if speedtech copied
Smartass comments like that tend to get many people turned off by forums. It isn’t the product itself that is being copied that is the issue it is the fact that a high quality company built a product with many hours of R&D to make sure it is dead on only to have another company take their product without any creativity of its own, lower the price and take a good portion of the profit away from those that truly deserve it. I trust that you do not own a business or have been in manufacturing at all to appreciate what has occurred. I on the other hand have and it is most disturbing. Unfortunately a Copyright can only go so far to protect the person who invented the product.

I appreciate the guys on this board who give a damn and look out for us. That is what a forum of this quality is all about. I value the many years of experience that these members have on helping those who may only be 25 years old attain the expertise on products that someone may have no clue about and that could potentially harm him/herself. I look to those who have been there to help me when I need it the most. If a product has been developed that potentially could harm us why are you so insistent to silence the warnings?

Liability is a huge overhead in the manufacturing world and that is why there are 500 companies offering the same friggin’ wheel. Have you ever noticed that those lesser known wheel companies tend to close their doors only after a short time after a product has been on the market?

[Mkelcy]

...........Its like the blind........ leading the blind............

If you dont do any R&D, then how do you know that you can get away with MIG welding the final product (to cut down on cost, obviously) not knowing if it is a strees point (FEA or distructive testing) that needs to be addressed. OBVIOUSLY ..... The two origniators did the R&D necessary to include TIG welding their respective products.

I'll call it the way I see it.... and we KNOW what we've been seeing from a specific manufacturer, for quite some time now. Design and execution are the relevent factors here and this thread BLATANTLY shows the were certain products stand in this circle.

If your gonna copy someting..... at least do it right.

Chicane: I'm not blind, and no one's leading me anywhere.

So you're saying that GW and DSE made up a bunch of LCAs using MIG welds, tested them and determined that they weren't strong enough? Really? I'm sort of surprised by that because neither of them mentions TIG welding as an aspect of the STRENGTH of their product. DSE says on-line "The arms are then TIG welded in a fixture for accuracy and repeatablity of geometry." GW doesn't think it's important enough to even mention how their arms are welded in their on-line materials. If TIG welding is critical to a safe product, I know I'd mention that I do it and that it was important.

I'm pretty sure I know who's blind here, and it's not me.

Tito: You say "The DSE design has special beveled washers and machining on the cross shaft that was put in because of a stress point that casued shaft breakage." That may be, but GW says you can use their arms with the stock cross shaft. Is that bad or dangerous advice because the stock shaft doesn't have "special beveled washers and machining on the cross shaft that was put in because of a stress point that caused shaft breakage?" You and Chicane can say all you want about what DSE and GW did do and what you think ST didn't do, but the fact of the matter is that all of this stuff is probably MUCH stonger than the 37 year old stock pieces that a lot of us are still riding around on.

Srteetfytr: You went on v-rodforums.com and read posts that reviewed the product, not panning the product because the manufacturer had copied someone else's design. That's all I'm asking for: is the product good, bad or a compromise?

Harshman: David Pozzi says about the ST UCA "I'm going to try a pair of these arms on my 67 Camaro, they look like they will do what I want and the quality is great. The Global West and DSE are, of course, good products and improve geometry and alignment the same way, I recommend them too." Your point about the cost of doing the R&D is fair, and if that is reason enough for you not to buy the ST products, fair enough. I assume you also refuse to use generic drugs and only drive "Duryeas" - the first gasoline powered car in America. But don't start mixing in quality with copying - the two aren't related.

[yody]

ME??? smartass comment????? how dare you! :)

[yody]

BTW trust me i would listen to the ATS guys over Todd anyday! I just didn't see the need to be so passionate, also mkelcy makes some good points, I am interested to see the re-butt's. Also don't pull that weenie; "people get turned off of forums" card. If they didn't want any copies they should of got a copyright......

[NovaPwr]

Guys, I did not want to start anything negative here. I've been around long enough to see that half of what is bought or manufactured out there needs some tweaking or repaired or replaced. I own a cabinet shop and do custom woodworking and stairway installs, trim new homes etc. I see products everyday that need customized, repaired or replaced before I can use them. That is part of life so I am not too excited about this. I just needed some good advice from people who know their stuff. I sent Todd two e-mails, he answered one. Has not answered the other yet. Did not offer to modify the arms or replace them. I did not ask him to do so. He is hard to get hold of, I agree. Took forever to get the arms, but they look super. If I had been on this forum longer I would have bought from DSE. But all in all, I am not mad about any of this. Just want to solve the problem and move on. I am going to cut away a small section of the skirt area under the ball joint and smile from ear to ear as the suspension gets finished up. Maybe this weekend. Thanks to everyone who offered advice and their opinions, I appreciate them all. It's super to have a place to ask a question like this and get so much help. Thanks again.
Dave Smeal

[Steve Chryssos]

Good point Dave. I think your pix and comments tell the tale. We've all had two rounds at this. It's time to put the smackdown on yet another Speedtech thread.

I, for one, am pissed because nobody commented on my nice Hostas.

[68protouring454]

nice hostas steve

[Ralph LoGrasso]

Speedtech debates all end up the same way-- Steevo's request is a good one. Thread closed.