Ridetech kit vs Hotchkis tvs

[Ben@SpeedTech]

Jeeze Rod you've tried them all...wait I didn't see Speedtech in that list. Call me tomorrow, I think it's time to get a new pair of control arms on your car. lol!

[79-TA]

just replying to your statement..not ambiguous...just my interpretation.

I have experience with with many companies (as you well know) I wasn't bashing or negative about any of them the OP asked ridetech kit vs Hotchkis tvs, and I gave him my evaluation, between the two its ridetech (with Hotchkis subframe connectors and Global West sub frame bushings) I have won titles on both Hotchkis and RideTech, I have used Global west arms and leafs, DSE arms and leafs, CPP arms, Hotchkis Arms and leafs, as intended by the builders and in different combos, you say both kits are using stock suspension mounting points and there is only so much that can be done. yes and no...were the arm mounts is the same the amount of caster we add is greater and that is split between the upper and lower arm to keep the wheel centered then we angled the ball joints for the exact ride height that happens with our coil-over and the predetermined preload on that coil-over next we use a tall spindle and that changes the pivot angle of the arm and its camber curve....and even with the bolts holding the arms are in the same place as factory the tall spindle moves the mounting point, just plot it on a suspension analyzer you will see the roll center drops....ok with that tall spindle if you add our tru-turn with the steering arms we use and the inner tie rod location of the new drag-link brace we have also speed up steering and changed the ackerman to assist steering

and on my own car my mounting points and anti-dive are changed from factory

Ambiguous yes. What you were doubting was not clear. If I wanted to be facetious, I could assume your first post was doubting anything good I said about Ridetech (which there is a lot of.)

I'm very familiar with double a arm suspension geometry and familiar with the design of suspension parts for various muscle cars. None of that's lost on me. Excuse me if I'm cynical and don't buy that cars switching from current Hotchkis parts to current Ridetech parts are miraculously and radically transformed. Tru Turn in the case of the 1st gen Camaro is your best bet and getting a big difference in results. By all means continue to be (rightfully) enthusiastic about Ridetech, but this thread was taking an unreasonable turn. For instance, dippedinsauce just bashes Hotchkis whenever he gets the chance.

Yes, additional caster split between upper and lower arms with the ball joint angles relieved. I'm not trying to marginalize Ridetech for doing a good job here, but that's not a huge deal. There are certainly companies that skip over these design features. Since this is about Hotchkis vs Ridetech, I'm not sure that's an advantage to note.

I originally pointed out that the spring determines what part of the suspension travel range is used.

The spring length and stiffness determines the lower arm angle in this case. The knuckle cannot change the lower arm angle. I know they were chosen to work together. To rephrase and correct what you said, the lowering steering knuckle or "spindle" allows Ridetech to use a spring that keeps the lower arm at a flatter angle relative to the ground that minimizes scrub and uses a different part of the camber gain curve (than a car lowered with springs) and doesn't overly lower the roll center. (To illustrate that the knuckle does not affect lower arm angle, change the Ridetech steering knuckle for a stock one and you'll have raised the car while using the same lower arm angle and part of the suspension travel range.)

I very much appreciate that Ridetech lowers the car primarily with the knuckle while providing an appropriate stiffer spring.


I was unaware that ackerman was changed significantly. That's a nice consideration by Ridetech. Since you say it assists steering, I'm assuming it's focused on auto-cross where pro-touring cars spend most of their time. That is, open road racing generally uses more negative or "anti-ackerman." There is no single right or universally better answer for suspension setup unless a dedicated purpose and goal are defined. The wide range of uses for pro-touring cars is what makes it complicated and fun.

[79-TA]

Rodney, we know each other. Not well, but well enough for me to consider you one of my car friends. I'm sorry for responding in a confrontational manner in the last two posts. It comes across poorly in the cold context of an internet forum.



Please understand my original intent of trying to keep Hotchkis from getting unfairly shorted in the way the exchange was going on the thread. I tried to give both companies a fair shake, and I do like what both of them do. Nothing in my first post warranted any kind of mockery and my points about suspension design stand on their own. You're not going to introduce anything new about double A-arm suspension to me. But that doesn't excuse me for escalating things.

[Rod]

Jeeze Rod you've tried them all...wait I didn't see Speedtech in that list. Call me tomorrow, I think it's time to get a new pair of control arms on your car. lol!

LOL!!! I should have called for the Rambler project!!! Suzys Rambler has DSE lower arms, Global upper west arms, Hotchkis front sway bar, ridetech shocks, CPP C5 spindles and brakes, helwig rear sway bar, DSE steering Rack.....and so on!!!!

[Rod]

I'm sorry for responding in a confrontational manner in the last two posts.

yep internet sucks for that

You're not going to introduce anything new about double A-arm suspension

there isn't anything new, just the metamorphoses of current parts

dippedinsauce just bashes Hotchkis whenever he gets the chance.

thats his M.O.

[jlwdvm]

"Here's my concern. ridetech appears to offer a 4 link with no panhard bar. Is this correct? My under-invested Mustang has a 4 link. It has 99 problems and lateral location of the beam axle with only 4 links is definitely one. A common Mustang upgrade would be to add a panhard bar. The DSE quadralink includes a panhard bar. "

I'm dealing with this with my Ride Tech 4-link install in my 69 firebird at the moment. With my new Strange 9" and lower arms installed (rear built leaf perches in stock locations) The rear is shifted over 3/4" to the driver's side. We initially thought this was only due to the car having 2 aftermarket quarters on. I measured everything about 1000 times as far as subframe square, wheel base equal, WMS diagonally square, etc and found that the WMS of the rear axle with the lower arms installed was nearly 1" to the driver's side as it relates to the center line of the car. However, with the rear hanging where the lower arms want it, the rear axle yoke was right on center line with the car and with the motor-trans center line. After talking with Ron Sutton (starts at #122), he suggested moving the rear 1/2 inch towards the passenger side to get the rear tire center line equal to the front:http://www.lateral-g.net/forums/show...=42568&page=13 The drive shaft u-joints will still be in phase since the trans center line is perpendicular to the rear axle. I also talked with Ride Tech about this: https://www.pro-touring.com/threads/...on-69-FIrebird
I guess my concern is: I now have the rear where i want it and am ready to weld in the upper tabs, is the rear going to just move back towards the drivers side after I remove the strap holding it where I want it for welding in the upper tabs? I didn't mean to hijack the thread, but the issue of needing a Panhard bar came up.

[dhutton]

I'm no expert but the ridetech canted four bar suspension doesn't need a panhard bar because the canted bars position and hold the rear end centered. GM A body cars have canted four bars and they don't have panhard bars. Parallel four bars like the Quadralink need a panhard bar because the parallel bars do not hold the rear end centered. At least this is my understanding.

Don

[marolf101x]

a panhard (track) bar is not required when using a triangulated 4 link.

You can read about triangulated and parallel 4 links here:
http://www.ridetech.com/tech/air4link-tech/

[jlwdvm]

Thanks!

[Ben@SpeedTech]

LOL!!! I should have called for the Rambler project!!! Suzys Rambler has DSE lower arms, Global upper west arms, Hotchkis front sway bar, ridetech shocks, CPP C5 spindles and brakes, helwig rear sway bar, DSE steering Rack.....and so on!!!!

Lol!. PM me an address and I'll ship you a Speedtech Key Chain! ;)

[Rod]

I now have the rear where i want it and am ready to weld in the upper tabs, is the rear going to just move back towards the drivers side after I remove the strap holding it where I want it for welding in the upper tabs? I didn't mean to hijack the thread, but the issue of needing a Panhard bar came up.

that is correct.....I actually put my wheels on the rear end and measured wheel to inner well clearance and simply cut wooden shims to the correct width to center the rear end and wedged them into place and welded up the rear, that way my tires have the exact inner clearance from side to side....simple