Enter your username:
Do you want to login or register?
  • Forgot your password?

    Login / Register



    Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
    Results 21 to 40 of 97
    1. #21
      Join Date
      Apr 2001
      Location
      Central CA USA
      Posts
      6,108
      Country Flag: United States
      In an effort to clarify things a bit. ridetech has recently re-engineered their rear suspension mostly by changing the upper links to converge as they run forward from the axle. The new upper links are longer.

      67 Camaro RS that will be faster than anything Mary owns.


    2. #22
      Join Date
      Mar 2013
      Location
      Napier, New Zealand
      Posts
      220
      Country Flag: New Zealand
      Quote Originally Posted by slammed68 View Post
      Cool, glad you were able learn something.

      I certainly dont mind someone saying, hey i'm switching this up because I would like to make improvements on XYZ. Here is what I have designed, here are the specs, does anyone have any input, ect,.

      Just seemed like this was a case of someone looking to bash a product that a lot of members on this forum are using with positive results. He has complained and moaned about his experience with ridetech in the past despite his experiencing being way off center from that of other people who are running their products. This main complaint here is roll steer which is possible with triangulated or parallel 4- links and is heavily dependent on a number of variables including installation. I'm curious about how much articulation is required to get significant rear steer while on the road and if he calculated the amount of roll steer expected with the ridetech setup before designing his own solution. I dont think anyone considers the ridetech 4 link to be the best performing 4 link, it's intended to be a convenient solution that performs well.

      Deciding to cut up a product that a lot of people would love to have if they could afford it, rather than sell it at a discount or give it away is pretty ****ty. I hate to hear about someone spending a lot of money on a product only to be let down but this is just petty. /rant

      As an application engineer who works to support a popular version of CAD software I would have been very interested to hear more about the design process. I think everyone would have found the process of developing your own suspension very interesting, what software was used, critical measurements, simulations, challenges.
      If your going to stalk me, please get your facts straight.
      Your beating up on me!!!

      I had issues with there tru turn, correct, it failed our very strict certification process here in NZ. I acknowledged the tru turn is a great concept, but yes the R&D process was flawed.
      I ended up re-engineering there concept and got better than their claimed results, so the tru turn can work fantastic, but if you want it awesome, it needs to be custom engineered to your specific setup. Ride height plays the biggest part.
      I originally bought there complete front and rear kits as I was new to car modification and blindly believed there xxx.
      Now I have more confidence i'm re-engineering my rear.
      "Cutting up" may have been an exaggeration on my part, given.
      But there wont be any parts to sell, I will leave most of the cradle in for shock mounts and I will use the links if I can, and change to poly and heim joints for Jonny joints.
      And I live in New Zealand, who's going to pay the frieght, would cost more than new parts.

      I was unaware they had changed there top pick up points, so I guess the question is Why? Something wrong?
      I'm going down a watts linkage path as its the one for me. Top arm length is always an issue in 1st gens, but my CAD simulations are coming along nicely
      Damien
      Napier, New Zealand
      Project Page: https://www.pro-touring.com/showthread.php?99096-Project-Camaro-68-P-T-Muscle
      Next Project: 1956 Chevy Truck, Full C3 Suspension, Nascar Inspired

    3. #23
      Join Date
      Mar 2013
      Location
      Napier, New Zealand
      Posts
      220
      Country Flag: New Zealand

      dimensions

      Quote Originally Posted by David Pozzi View Post
      In an effort to clarify things a bit. ridetech has recently re-engineered their rear suspension mostly by changing the upper links to converge as they run forward from the axle. The new upper links are longer.
      Thanks David
      Any chance I could get those dimensions and run them threw my cad model?
      Damien
      Napier, New Zealand
      Project Page: https://www.pro-touring.com/showthread.php?99096-Project-Camaro-68-P-T-Muscle
      Next Project: 1956 Chevy Truck, Full C3 Suspension, Nascar Inspired

    4. #24
      Join Date
      May 2009
      Posts
      52
      Quote Originally Posted by Tweak View Post
      If your going to stalk me, please get your facts straight.
      Your beating up on me!!!

      I had issues with there tru turn, correct, it failed our very strict certification process here in NZ. I acknowledged the tru turn is a great concept, but yes the R&D process was flawed.
      I ended up re-engineering there concept and got better than their claimed results, so the tru turn can work fantastic, but if you want it awesome, it needs to be custom engineered to your specific setup. Ride height plays the biggest part.
      I originally bought there complete front and rear kits as I was new to car modification and blindly believed there xxx.
      Now I have more confidence i'm re-engineering my rear.
      "Cutting up" may have been an exaggeration on my part, given.
      But there wont be any parts to sell, I will leave most of the cradle in for shock mounts and I will use the links if I can, and change to poly and heim joints for Jonny joints.
      And I live in New Zealand, who's going to pay the frieght, would cost more than new parts.

      I was unaware they had changed there top pick up points, so I guess the question is Why? Something wrong?
      I'm going down a watts linkage path as its the one for me. Top arm length is always an issue in 1st gens, but my CAD simulations are coming along nicely

      I didnt stalk you lol, I was apart of your post regarding the issues you experienced with the truturn setup. Your results were far from typical but you bashed them pretty good. Perhaps you had an out of spec part, perhaps your car or some of its components were out of spec. You mentioned ride height and ridetech is very specific about where the rideheight should be. Same thing with the 4 link, ride height can have a big effect on roll steer but they tell you where to set the ride height.

      Regarding the changes to the upper links, my understanding is that they changed the mount position to lower the roll center. You would probably need to chat with them about the exact result of the changes or plug the specs into a calculator and see what the results are. They mentioned that there wont be much of an effect for street cars but autocross/road course there should be a small improvement.

    5. #25
      Join Date
      Apr 2001
      Location
      Central CA USA
      Posts
      6,108
      Country Flag: United States
      I'm guessing their changes were for better roll center movement but I really don't know for sure. I don't have access to dimensions or a car near me. I did drive the old version at an autocross a few years ago at Del Mar Goodguys event and I did very well with it and I liked how it handled. I was able to hop in and turn a great time with no difficulty. I did not drive it on the street.

      I think with the original shorter upper links, the geometry "sweet spot" was going to be at one ride height only and if you run a different ride height it will not be so good. The original was designed as an easy bolt in or optional weld in, with minimal to no cutting. That has it's limitations on what can be achieved.

      I'd like to see what you come up with in a four link. A Watts link can be easily adjusted to move the rear roll center so that's a nice benefit.
      Last edited by David Pozzi; 01-29-2020 at 02:42 PM.
      67 Camaro RS that will be faster than anything Mary owns.

    6. #26
      Join Date
      Mar 2013
      Location
      Napier, New Zealand
      Posts
      220
      Country Flag: New Zealand

      Your input greatly appreciated David

      Quote Originally Posted by David Pozzi View Post
      I'm guessing their changes were for better roll center movement but I really don't know for sure. I don't have access to dimensions or a car near me. I did drive the old version at an autocross a few years ago at Del Mar Goodguys event and I did very well with it and I liked how it handled. I was able to hop in and turn a great time with no difficulty. I did not drive it on the street.

      I think with the original shorter upper links, the geometry "sweet spot" was going to be at one ride height only and if you run a different ride height it will not be so good. The original was designed as an easy bolt in or optional weld in, with minimal to no cutting. That has it's limitations on what can be achieved.

      I'd like to see what you come up with in a four link. A Watts link can be easily adjusted to move the rear roll center so that's a nice benefit.


      1st image shows where I am so far.
      Diff is at my ride height, front lower arm is ride height and OEM location front, rear pickup of bottom arm is middle hole on ridetech weld on bracket
      The top arm front pickup point is where i get the most gains and losses, this position is Inside the frame rail and doesn't require cutting into floor. Not that im apposed to doing so if required.
      I have the diff at 90deg. so its easier to measure change, as its relative once I have set drive angle.
      Name:  #01.JPG
Views: 946
Size:  56.2 KB
      2nd image shows how much the axle moves forward threw 2" of compression and rebound
      the wheel base shortens 2.9mm (0.12")
      Name:  #02.JPG
Views: 937
Size:  49.6 KB
      3rd image shows 1deg of pinion angle change at 2" rebound, however I think I can get this to around 0.8deg
      Name:  #03.JPG
Views: 945
Size:  34.2 KB
      4th image shows 0.5deg of pinion angle change at 2" compression, i will give a little back to the rebound with fine adjustment.
      Name:  #04.JPG
Views: 939
Size:  33.3 KB
      5th image interested me, you can see the angle change of the bottom arm axle pickup point has huge angle changes.
      Name:  #06.JPG
Views: 922
Size:  26.6 KB
      6th image shows axle movement forward with centre of axle at ride height and 2" of articulation
      Watts link and arms hidden for easy viewing and measuring, but totally impressed with how it keeps the axle located threw all movement, vertically and articulation.
      Name:  #08.JPG
Views: 930
Size:  46.9 KB

      I really look forward to your views David as I'm pretty green when it comes to 4 link design.
      Damien
      Napier, New Zealand
      Project Page: https://www.pro-touring.com/showthread.php?99096-Project-Camaro-68-P-T-Muscle
      Next Project: 1956 Chevy Truck, Full C3 Suspension, Nascar Inspired

    7. #27
      Join Date
      Mar 2013
      Location
      Napier, New Zealand
      Posts
      220
      Country Flag: New Zealand

      Here's my ride

      We have pretty awesome roads here in NZ, I have car set up with plenty of clearanceName:  82945833_10218778892558069_3715192929183072256_n.jpg
Views: 925
Size:  53.0 KBName:  42966959_10156789119847915_4377068026814529536_o.jpg
Views: 900
Size:  69.7 KB.
      Damien
      Napier, New Zealand
      Project Page: https://www.pro-touring.com/showthread.php?99096-Project-Camaro-68-P-T-Muscle
      Next Project: 1956 Chevy Truck, Full C3 Suspension, Nascar Inspired

    8. #28
      Join Date
      Aug 2004
      Location
      Jacksonville, FL
      Posts
      1,651
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by Tweak View Post
      Thanks David
      Any chance I could get those dimensions and run them threw my cad model?
      For someone that seems to bash ridetech (this and your last one), it just seems funny you want “their” numbers to run through “your” CAD model.
      Chris
      1968 Chevy Camaro SS
      LS3/T56 DSE suspension


    9. #29
      Join Date
      May 2018
      Location
      San Diego County
      Posts
      72
      Country Flag: United States
      I think you could benefit from playing around with a suspension analyzer to help with the geometry. Packaging should follow function.

      In the first pic, and this is arm's length, I would not recommend having the lower links (in side view) dropping - at all - from rear to front. As you show, in modest bump, the rear moves forward, even 1/8" is something that "may" be felt as a rough ride depending upon the compliance of the link ends you use - with rod ends being the least forgiving in this instance.

      I see that you have a lot of adjustment available, this is always a good thing. Pinion angle change is probably a third order consideration, I'd focus first on the overall envelope of Instant Center Length and Height, then calculate the resulting A/S. If your roads are rough, you will benefit from having LESS anti squat under hard throttle exit.

      Ditch the driver's side upper link to create a 3-Link. 4 links with additional lateral restraint (Watt's in your case, or PHB) are over-constrained - it's actually a 5 link in this case.

      Hat's off to you for diving in, this will likely be one of the most educational and hopefully gratifying things you can do to an early muscle car. Absolutely bad-a$$ to have a first gen Camaro in NZ!
      Mark Magers

      Founder and Principal, Lateral Dynamics LLC
      [email protected]
      lateral-dynamics.com

      One tenth of a second on the race track is often the difference between first place, and fourth.

    10. #30
      Join Date
      May 2009
      Posts
      52
      Quote Originally Posted by Mark@lateral-dynamics View Post
      I think you could benefit from playing around with a suspension analyzer to help with the geometry. Packaging should follow function.

      In the first pic, and this is arm's length, I would not recommend having the lower links (in side view) dropping - at all - from rear to front. As you show, in modest bump, the rear moves forward, even 1/8" is something that "may" be felt as a rough ride depending upon the compliance of the link ends you use - with rod ends being the least forgiving in this instance.

      I see that you have a lot of adjustment available, this is always a good thing. Pinion angle change is probably a third order consideration, I'd focus first on the overall envelope of Instant Center Length and Height, then calculate the resulting A/S. If your roads are rough, you will benefit from having LESS anti squat under hard throttle exit.

      Ditch the driver's side upper link to create a 3-Link. 4 links with additional lateral restraint (Watt's in your case, or PHB) are over-constrained - it's actually a 5 link in this case.

      Hat's off to you for diving in, this will likely be one of the most educational and hopefully gratifying things you can do to an early muscle car. Absolutely bad-a$$ to have a first gen Camaro in NZ!
      Mark, is the lateral dynamics 3 link be re-introduced? if so there is the OP's solution.

    11. #31
      Join Date
      Jul 2018
      Posts
      433
      Quote Originally Posted by David Pozzi View Post
      In an effort to clarify things a bit. ridetech has recently re-engineered their rear suspension mostly by changing the upper links to converge as they run forward from the axle. The new upper links are longer.
      Good to know, thx

    12. #32
      Join Date
      Mar 2013
      Location
      Napier, New Zealand
      Posts
      220
      Country Flag: New Zealand
      Quote Originally Posted by Mark@lateral-dynamics View Post
      I think you could benefit from playing around with a suspension analyzer to help with the geometry. Packaging should follow function.

      In the first pic, and this is arm's length, I would not recommend having the lower links (in side view) dropping - at all - from rear to front. As you show, in modest bump, the rear moves forward, even 1/8" is something that "may" be felt as a rough ride depending upon the compliance of the link ends you use - with rod ends being the least forgiving in this instance.

      I see that you have a lot of adjustment available, this is always a good thing. Pinion angle change is probably a third order consideration, I'd focus first on the overall envelope of Instant Center Length and Height, then calculate the resulting A/S. If your roads are rough, you will benefit from having LESS anti squat under hard throttle exit.

      Ditch the driver's side upper link to create a 3-Link. 4 links with additional lateral restraint (Watt's in your case, or PHB) are over-constrained - it's actually a 5 link in this case.

      Hat's off to you for diving in, this will likely be one of the most educational and hopefully gratifying things you can do to an early muscle car. Absolutely bad-a$$ to have a first gen Camaro in NZ!
      Hey Mark
      thanks heaps for your input, I really appreciate it
      its taken me awhile to get my head around anti squat, starting to understand

      Do you think I should weigh my car to establish CG?
      cheers
      damien
      Damien
      Napier, New Zealand
      Project Page: https://www.pro-touring.com/showthread.php?99096-Project-Camaro-68-P-T-Muscle
      Next Project: 1956 Chevy Truck, Full C3 Suspension, Nascar Inspired

    13. #33
      Join Date
      May 2018
      Location
      San Diego County
      Posts
      72
      Country Flag: United States
      If you can weigh the car, by all means it is great data. But it's not really critical, you can estimate the CG height and fudge a typical 53% front weight bias. The numbers won't be perfectly accurate but it's good enough to see the changes when you go through the range of link locations. I personally feel it is far more important to consider the "SVSA" for link-stick axle rear suspension systems. Making it short and high off the ground will result in an increase in A/S but to the detriment of very hard braking (potential for wheel hop, just like the NASCAR into the hairpin at Sears Point), or under heavy throttle corner exit on rough courses/roads. 100% A/S means that the suspension is effectively "locked up" under full throttle, which means that the springs and shocks do nothing to soak up the bumps, which means the car can/will scamper. Note also that A/S is ONLY a condition when torque is applied, if you are just cruising down the road under light throttle it doesn't come into play and the suspension will react as you'd expect.

      Best of luck, you'll get it.
      M
      Mark Magers

      Founder and Principal, Lateral Dynamics LLC
      [email protected]
      lateral-dynamics.com

      One tenth of a second on the race track is often the difference between first place, and fourth.

    14. #34
      Join Date
      Mar 2013
      Location
      Napier, New Zealand
      Posts
      220
      Country Flag: New Zealand

      Svsa

      Quote Originally Posted by Mark@lateral-dynamics View Post
      If you can weigh the car, by all means it is great data. But it's not really critical, you can estimate the CG height and fudge a typical 53% front weight bias. The numbers won't be perfectly accurate but it's good enough to see the changes when you go through the range of link locations. I personally feel it is far more important to consider the "SVSA" for link-stick axle rear suspension systems. Making it short and high off the ground will result in an increase in A/S but to the detriment of very hard braking (potential for wheel hop, just like the NASCAR into the hairpin at Sears Point), or under heavy throttle corner exit on rough courses/roads. 100% A/S means that the suspension is effectively "locked up" under full throttle, which means that the springs and shocks do nothing to soak up the bumps, which means the car can/will scamper. Note also that A/S is ONLY a condition when torque is applied, if you are just cruising down the road under light throttle it doesn't come into play and the suspension will react as you'd expect.

      Best of luck, you'll get it.
      M

      Hey Mark

      Found a good explanation on SVSA and how to calculate A/S
      My car is predominately a street driven car, in saying that our rounds are what you would call canyon type roads. Would like to start doing track days soon.

      What would you consider a good A/S percentage to aim for?
      Approx 3200 lb car, ls408 545hp 490ft/ lb. chassis dyno Numbers.

      Cheers
      Damien
      Damien
      Napier, New Zealand
      Project Page: https://www.pro-touring.com/showthread.php?99096-Project-Camaro-68-P-T-Muscle
      Next Project: 1956 Chevy Truck, Full C3 Suspension, Nascar Inspired

    15. #35
      Join Date
      Mar 2013
      Location
      Napier, New Zealand
      Posts
      220
      Country Flag: New Zealand

      85% Anti Squat

      This model has 85% Anti Squat. New starting point
      CG red cross
      Name:  #09.JPG
Views: 759
Size:  35.9 KB
      Damien
      Napier, New Zealand
      Project Page: https://www.pro-touring.com/showthread.php?99096-Project-Camaro-68-P-T-Muscle
      Next Project: 1956 Chevy Truck, Full C3 Suspension, Nascar Inspired

    16. #36
      Join Date
      Apr 2001
      Location
      Central CA USA
      Posts
      6,108
      Country Flag: United States
      I’d be at 40% Anti-squat & not ever go above 50% unless you are drag racing.
      67 Camaro RS that will be faster than anything Mary owns.

    17. #37
      Join Date
      Apr 2009
      Location
      Michigan
      Posts
      322
      Country Flag: United States
      As one point of reference, modern straight axle Mustangs had 32% anti-squat.

      See data here: https://www.pro-touring.com/threads/...rformance-cars
      - Ryan

    18. #38
      Join Date
      Oct 2013
      Posts
      105
      Country Flag: Norway
      I'd just get some 200-225lb composite leafs, a watts link and double adjustable quality shocks. Raise the front leaf mount about 3/8" up. Delrin shackle bushings. And stiffen that body up.

      No need to overthink this stuff if you're not being competitive about it or really want to learn suspension geometry. But in real life you want less unsprung weight on a solid rear car, all these control arms doodads and whatnot just adds to it.

    19. #39
      Join Date
      Mar 2013
      Location
      Napier, New Zealand
      Posts
      220
      Country Flag: New Zealand
      Quote Originally Posted by David Pozzi View Post
      I’d be at 40% Anti-squat & not ever go above 50% unless you are drag racing.
      Hey David

      What effect does the instant centre have when moving forward of the front axle?

      51 % A/S.
      Name:  #10 long 51deg.JPG
Views: 735
Size:  31.5 KB
      45 % A/S
      Name:  #10 long 45deg.JPG
Views: 727
Size:  35.0 KB
      42 % A/S
      Name:  #10 long 42deg.JPG
Views: 715
Size:  37.0 KB
      39 % A/S
      Name:  #10 long 39deg.JPG
Views: 727
Size:  30.0 KB
      Damien
      Napier, New Zealand
      Project Page: https://www.pro-touring.com/showthread.php?99096-Project-Camaro-68-P-T-Muscle
      Next Project: 1956 Chevy Truck, Full C3 Suspension, Nascar Inspired

    20. #40
      Join Date
      Mar 2013
      Location
      Napier, New Zealand
      Posts
      220
      Country Flag: New Zealand

      🦗

      Here’s my weights and CG in metric
      Name:  87519DDD-4329-4973-BDDA-B02775A0597D.jpg
Views: 634
Size:  8.3 KB
      Name:  8898ABC5-60B7-4B16-B54D-3B291F48CEC9.jpg
Views: 629
Size:  9.0 KB
      No driver weights
      Damien
      Napier, New Zealand
      Project Page: https://www.pro-touring.com/showthread.php?99096-Project-Camaro-68-P-T-Muscle
      Next Project: 1956 Chevy Truck, Full C3 Suspension, Nascar Inspired

    Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast




    Advertise on Pro-Touring.com