Ridetech Strong Arms and Tru Turn with Speedtech Chicane and Guldstrand Mod

[b17brian]

Ryanater,

I finally finished my front end upgrade back in June. So I'm running the full ridetech front with Speedtech Chicane and the G-mod. I have 3 autocross events with the new setup so far. Problem is I don't have enough experience to make a judgement about the camber curve. My rear suspension is still stock stuff waiting to be upgraded so the car still rides a little wonky.



Two possible suggestions to get rid of the corner exit push. More rebound on the rear to tie the front down longer during acceleration, but you probably already tried that. Or I just finished a Ron Sutton workshop and he talked about running a 600# spring in the back to give the front more grip. Maybe give him a call and talk to him about that strategy.

[Gmc427]

Ryanater,

I finally finished my front end upgrade back in June. So I'm running the full ridetech front with Speedtech Chicane and the G-mod. I have 3 autocross events with the new setup so far. Problem is I don't have enough experience to make a judgement about the camber curve. My rear suspension is still stock stuff waiting to be upgraded so the car still rides a little wonky.

Two possible suggestions to get rid of the corner exit push. More rebound on the rear to tie the front down longer during acceleration, but you probably already tried that. Or I just finished a Ron Sutton workshop and he talked about running a 600# spring in the back to give the front more grip. Maybe give him a call and talk to him about that strategy.

hi brian, i know this is a old post but are you still running this set up ?if so whats the verdict?regards

[Ryanater]

I think I would recommend against it. I never got it to work as well. The car wasn't as smooth and pushed really bad out of corners. I also feel like it was less predictable in high speed transitions. (granted, I never tried adding a bunch of rebound or spring rate to the rear. But I think that might be a band-aid to the problem)

However, I was able to make both sets of holes work so that I could swap between the settings. That way you could find out for yourself what works best.

[b17brian]

hi brian, i know this is a old post but are you still running this set up ?if so whats the verdict?regards

I’m afraid I still am not able to give a solid answer on how this setup works with the Gmod. It has been a much longer time than I expected to sort out my suspension upgrades. Ryanater has had the same setup for a long time and feels its not a good idea to use the Gmod.

I finally finished all my suspension front and back. In the front I have the Stong Arms, Tru Turn, Chicane Mount and Gmod. I was also able to make use of both set of holes for the UCA mounts. In the back I went with the Speedtech Torque Arm. I’ve been running this setup for a little while now. My experience so far is my car has been really loose in the back. The loose conditions I’m sure were caused by the cheap tires I have been running. I recently upgraded my tires to BFGoodrich Rival 1.5s and it absolutely changed the way my car handles. But as soon as I got the new tires on the virus struck and every event has been cancelled. So I’m waiting for life to return to normal so I can get on a track and finally do some testing and tuning now that my suspension is done (not sure if it’s ever done).

[Rod]

I have run the truturn and the gmod for years without issue and to great success, from goodguys events, and with optima at tracks all over the nation, the key is tuning the car, you cant ask or copy any other set up the the camber gain and anti dive curves are very rapid

Running optima Las Vegas



Running Goodguys Pleasnton California



Button Willow chasing down the Hotchkis cars



ready to run Michigan international

[Sleeper68]

First, I would like to state that I stumbled upon this thread looking for potential issues with the ridetech TruTurn system for use on my 68 Camaro. I have a factory subframe and modified suspension pickup points. In order to correct bumpsteer, I used a Chassisworks 7075 AL Z/28 steering arm https://www.cachassisworks.com/p-295...-aluminum.aspxand modified it to accept a 5/8-18 thread in place of the normal 7° tapered hole. Then, I used a Howe Quick Bump outer tie rod end, https://howeracing.com/collections/h...p-tie-rod-ends, to finely adjust the steering curve. This worked great, as I was able to dial out most of my instantaneous bumpsteer; however, I found that the outer tie rod end needed to be placed so close to the wheel that it rubbed. (Wheels are 18x9.5 +22mm). So, to combat this, a system like the truturn (which inludes a draglink that raises the inner tie rod end instead of lowering the outer tie rod end) is a great solution. In addition to improving the steering curve, raising the tie rod in its entirety would serve another purpose which is reducing the cantilever of the steering arm. I have found that my aluminum steering arms flex an insane amount, about 0.10" of tie rod movement before the wheel steers when the car is static. This, for me, is unacceptable. So I have decided to pursue a new draglink, such as the TruTurn, which moves this inner pivot up. I will not be using the rest of the TruTurn system and will be making my own steering arms from steel to reduce flex.

Hey guys,

I know I am beating a dead horse here, but the whole Guldstrand mod with the ridetech tall spindles has been killing me. So, after losing sleep for the last 2 years, I finally decided to measure the suspension points with the stock pickup points and then with the Guldstrand mod. Then I created an Excel spreadsheet that models camber curve.

While my measurements probably aren't EXACTLY perfect, I did test my calculated results by actually measuring the camber throughout the suspension travel (1" rebound through 2" of compression is all I could get because my gauge only goes from 0 to -6 degrees of camber). Turns out the calculated curve and the points I measured were within .1 degree, so I'm confident that I'm in the ballpark. The other thing to consider is that using the Guldstrand mod raises the roll center. Ridetech has a pretty balanced setup, and their 1.5" front sway bar might be too much when the roll center is raised.

Anyway, I found that it really depends on what ride height you are running.... My car is very low, and the lower control arms are actually pointing upward about 1 degree. In this case, the Guldstrand + tall spindle camber curve seemed too aggressive with around 1.7 degrees of camber gain per inch at static ride height. At 1" of compression, the camber gain was over 2 degrees per inch. However, with the stock suspension points, the camber gain was about 1 degree per inch at static, then increased from there. This seemed like a much better camber curve to use.

However, if the car is raised so that the lower control arms are sloping down about 4-5 degrees towards the wheels, using the Guldstrand mod seemed like the better option.

Below are a few screenshots of what I found. (keep in mind that this only takes into account camber gain. I'm not considering caster, anti dive, roll center, etc etc....)

Stock Control Arm Pickup Points: (-1 degree of static camber)

Attachment 136366
Attachment 136367

With Guldstrand Mod: (-1 degree of static camber)

Attachment 136364
Attachment 136365

Great info. I love to see this. I have some data similar to this for my car in three configurations:

1. factory GM short spindle, drum brake hub, low ride height, 0.9" taller howe upper ball joint, factory frame-side suspension pickup points

2. factory GM short spindle, drum brake hub, same low ride height, 0.9" taller howe upper ball joint, modified guldstrand mod inner upper control arm pickup points

3. factory GM short spindle, drum brake hub, same low ride height, 0.5" taller howe upper ball joint, modified guldstrand mod inner upper control arm pickup points

I will compile this data and post it here with better documentation of ride height/track width/etc.

The camber gain is what is in question here. Sure, more camber gain is better to a point. However, there is a point where there is too much. From everything I've read, the target camber gain is around 1 degree per inch. But that is what I've read... I don't have a lot of experience myself. (I did autocross the car last year with the more aggressive camber curve with some success.) I'm just curious if the Guldstrand mod with the Ridetech spindles is too much?

I am going to try running the stock pickup points this year and see how I like it. Who knows, maybe I will end up eating the outside of my tires up.

I agree, this is a very important question to answer. In my experience, you can have too much camber gain. I experienced this with setup #2 as mentioned above. This topic was discussed at length in the Thread: Total Lateral Load Transfer Distribution https://www.pro-touring.com/threads/...-Distribution/. Your experience and contribution to this thread would be greatly appreciated.

Ok I'm bringing this one back from the dead. I've been playing with this all year over the course of about 8 events. I've tried identical setups (other than static camber) with and without the G-mod and here are my findings...

With the G-mod, the front of the car seemed to grip better on turn entry. It was hard to tell if there was much of a difference mid corner. Maybe it helped the front stick a little, but it's hard to tell. The problem was that I picked up a corner exit push when I added the g-mod. This was probably do to the more aggressive camber curve. First of all, I ran less static camber with the g-mod because I didn't need as much to keep the tire flat mid corner (which is a nice bonus). That combined with the fact that more camber gain on compression means more camber loss on rebound. Which probably means the tire was not an optimal angle when I was on the throttle exiting the corner.

Overall, my car was more competitive when I was using the stock inner pickup points. But if I could get rid of the corner exit push, I think that the g-mod might have more potential. I'm going to try a smaller front swaybar next year to see if that helps.

I ended up keeping my modified guldstrand mod and using a shorter spindle (0.5" taller), which is setup #3. I found that I had to stiffen the rear greatly to deal with the now stiffer front end (thanks to raising the roll center) in order for the car to not push, however, my understeer condition was mainly prevalent on corner entry rather than corner exit. More info at https://www.pro-touring.com/threads/...-Distribution/.

[b17brian]

Sleeper68,

As you will find on the various threads about TruTurn, it works for some and not for others. I’m very happy with my TruTurn, but I haven’t had the fit issues and I modified my inner wheel wells and rolled my fender lip. ridetech has changed the design of the center link to be one piece. I still have the stock center link with the ridetech adapter to raise the tie rods. I’ve read the new center link creates different fit issues. Part of the TruTurn system is the steering arms. You might look into them also.

[Sleeper68]

Sleeper68,

As you will find on the various threads about TruTurn, it works for some and not for others. I’m very happy with my TruTurn, but I haven’t had the fit issues and I modified my inner wheel wells and rolled my fender lip. ridetech has changed the design of the center link to be one piece. I still have the stock center link with the ridetech adapter to raise the tie rods. I’ve read the new center link creates different fit issues. Part of the TruTurn system is the steering arms. You might look into them also.

Brian,

Thank you for the reply. I noticed this change in design. It appears that the change occurred sometime in 2017. Most of the fitment issue threads I came across were referencing the old two-piece bolt on adapter design, and I can see why. In addition to the space taken up by the fasteners, the whole drag link is practically doubled in width. Seems like most fitment issues were with oil pans and headers. What fitment issues have you come to understand exist with the new "one-piece" drag link design?

As far as ridetech's steering arms go, they are based on A-body arms and are designed for use with their tall, drop spindles. Thus, they will not work for my application as I am not changing to drop spindles.

[b17brian]

Brian,

Thank you for the reply. I noticed this change in design. It appears that the change occurred sometime in 2017. Most of the fitment issue threads I came across were referencing the old two-piece bolt on adapter design, and I can see why. In addition to the space taken up by the fasteners, the whole drag link is practically doubled in width. Seems like most fitment issues were with oil pans and headers. What fitment issues have you come to understand exist with the new "one-piece" drag link design?

Yes the fitment issue is the oil pan and headers. I was told the new drag link hits oil pans on LS swaps. I’m starting an LS swap on mine right now so I hope I don’t have fitment issues.

[Sleeper68]

Yes the fitment issue is the oil pan and headers. I was told the new drag link hits oil pans on LS swaps. I’m starting an LS swap on mine right now so I hope I don’t have fitment issues.

So it seems both the new and old design cause concern for header and oil pan fitment. Based on the pictures I have seen, the new deisgn should offer more clearance for oil pans and headers. Some people may still have issues with the new design, especially if they are not running a 1st gen F body specific swap oil pan or if they have a BBC. My personal opinion, based on limited info, is that if you use the same headers and oil pan as others who have successfully ran an LS swap with this kit, you should be fine.

I am currently in the process of trying to get ridetech to sell me only the draglink. Hopefully they have one extra or will be willing to break up a kit for me. My oil pan is for road racing and has a flat section all of the way up to the sump, so it should clear; headers are another concern but I have modified those headers twice already, so I can do it again.

Here's a pic of my modified Hooker super comp SBC-1st gen F-body headers in the car.