Lower control arm mounting splay, why?

[ace_xp2]

I've noticed that DSE is the latest suspension company which splay the rearward mounting locations outward in relation to the fronts in plan view. Is there something I'm missing here?
I'd always thought that the biggest reason to use lower arm splay was to increase ride compliance, but I'm starting to think that having the lower arm splayed might be to maintain anti dive percentages as the car rolls. Is that what's going on?
The only other thing I can come up with is that with the rear facing strut rods these conversions have there isn't enough space to make a cross member with the engine in the way, and so having the mounting locations closer to the frame reduces the bending forces on those mounts.
Anyone know what's going on, or have any other ideas?

[Bryce]

Like this picture?

one thing is it adds more caster during suspension compression.

[ace_xp2]

I don't see the picture, but it's set up so the balljoint moves backwards as the suspension compresses, which generally decreases caster.
That is one of the things I've always found curious about the design, but maybe it's a valid trade off compared to anti dive migration? I find that doubtful at first glance, but I can't imagine these suspensions doing what they do for ride quality. Especially Griggs, which was one of the first aftermarket suspensions I noticed it on.

Thinking more on it, the lower arm will have the rear mount drop further than the front under compression in side view, which would *I think* drop the anti dive IC. Not keep it closer to static.
Here's the DSE one:
http://www.detroitspeed.com/1964-1970-Mustang-Products/032050-aluma-frame.html

[Randy67]

The stock subframe on my 81 Camaro has the rear mounts farther outward than the front ones on the lower control arms as well.

[ace_xp2]

Well, I'm starting to wonder if the idea is to drop the anti dive percentage in roll. That way you can keep a fairly high percentage and not have to deal with the outer tire generating more anti force in a corner and tightening the front end.

[andrewb70]

I just looked at the new DSE Mustang frame. Now, I don't know much about suspension geometry, but it certainly looks like this design really adds room for packaging headers, etc...That is certainly a valid reason for doing it.

Andrew

[Ron S]

I agree with Andrew, the Mustangs are pretty narrow at the frame anyway, but that cast aluminum subframe has to be robust enough to support the LCA, mount to the frame, and still have header clearance. Alot going on there, and it still looks super sexy. All I saw was that Mustangs tail lights at Kershaw, and Gingerman.