Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Lost Wages, Nevada
    Posts
    2,671
    Country Flag: United States

    Global West vs. DSE control arms to include Guldstrand Mod , Page one (from old site)

    lyncs2
    Registered User
    Posts: 37
    (6/29/04 8:16 pm)
    Reply Global West vs. DSE Control Arms...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I am trying to decide which front suspension to go with,
    for my First Gen. Camaro. Global West or Detroit Speed & Engineering ?? Both seem to be "great" systems, but which would you choose ??


    ddennis68
    Registered User
    Posts: 197
    (6/29/04 8:48 pm)
    Reply Re: Global West vs. DSE Control Arms...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    How about Afco or Howe-save yourself like 400 bucks or so for the same design/quality part.

    slam 73
    Registered User
    Posts: 2
    (6/29/04 11:40 pm)
    Reply afco
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I would not run that roundy round crap on the street if you value your life. Its not meant to stand up to the rigors of street driving.I've seen that stuff break at the speed way and its not pretty, if you check out some of the pit areas you'll see alot of broken ones. there is a reason why they are so cheap. Later Jason

    baz67
    Registered User
    Posts: 156
    (6/30/04 7:42 am)
    Reply What ones
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To the point of your question. First, how far do you plan on upgrading your suspension? Is it just the arm swap or are you doing the Guldstrand mod? What about the DSE coilover conversion?



    If you were to stay stock than I would go with the GW. If for the only reason is they are 200 cheaper. The same with the Guldsrtand mod. Now with the DSE coilover kit the DSE arms may have a bit of an edge.

    If you go with the GW, be warned that some people have had customer service issues. I neve have with them, but some have. As for DSE I have not heard anything bad about them.
    Brian

    ddennis68
    Registered User
    Posts: 198
    (6/30/04 10:28 am)
    Reply control arms
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It's up to you, I was just throwing a suggestion out there. Exactly what do you think GW or DSE or ST are doing different, other than a pretty powder coat job. I happen to have some of each in front of me and other than than the AFCO arms being no nonsence all business without any fancy bends they are pretty much the same. The same style ball joint plate welded to the same size and appaers to be same wall thickness tubing with a nice steel cross shaft and solid bushings with teflon sleeves. Also how do you figure driving across town is more harsh than the chassis around a mile oval at 150MPH. Those things brake at like -3.0 g's under full lock. I'm quite sure my car cannot put that kind of stress on the arms. You need to understand when the arm is under stress-not driving around or even turning. Really the only time it is really pushed is during hard braking when the chassis wants to keep going and the tires are grabbing pavement.

    amcmike
    Registered User
    Posts: 20
    (6/30/04 7:51 pm)
    Reply Re: control arms
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Speed-Tech Performance arms are CA$575 (about US$435). They offered a 10% discount to members of this forum.

    ramz
    Unregistered User
    (6/30/04 9:59 pm)
    Reply roundy round crap?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    wow , i guess i should throw away all my afco double adj. shocks,afco gn hubs(front and rear),sweet manf. spindles and power rack&pinion,afco a-arms,c&r radiator,outlaw racing calipers(9000 & 4000),wilwood rotors,and that custom mark williams modular 9in full floater rearend that i am making,,,since roundy round stuff is easy to break,,i sure want to be safe ,fun fun

    o1mrquick
    Registered User
    Posts: 1930
    (7/1/04 12:45 am)
    Reply Afco
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dennis and I had a discussion the other day about the speedway arms and they look plenty strong.You could even beef em up abit by adding a cross brace , gussets and extra welds. all that work and you'd still be ahead of the game. I don't think they improve or add any caster or camber gain do they? I can see Jasons reasoning behind his thoughts.You do see alot of broken parts at the track but then Im not taking a curb shot at 60 mph when driving down the city streets....havent done that since high school. Holy ***** Rams, you ain't f***in around are you?!?! I can see breaking a mount before breaking an arm.I think frequent inspections would be wise. Vince

    streetfytr68
    Registered User
    Posts: 1132
    (7/1/04 5:40 am)
    Reply Re: Afco
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DAMN YOU RAMZ! When do we get to see pix of this Big Dog?

    The roundy round guys break A-arms because they participate in a CONTACT sport. They bang wheels. And every once in a while, they turn right instead of left. Oops! Concrete walls have a way of testing the limits of suspension parts. So prices are low because they are replaced frequently.

    I have AFCO upper A-arms and I assure you: They have survived through many NY potholes. I was able to specify the exact length and balljoint offset for my application.

    So the only difference between racing A-arms and DSE/GW is that the DSE/GW's are bolt-on. DSE/GW have done the geometry homework for you. If you want to figure out your own suspension geometry, there no reason not to get racing A-arms.
    /Steevo

    www.lateral-g.net

    70toTour
    Registered User
    Posts: 368
    (7/1/04 7:38 am)
    Reply Speedway a-arms
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    You do have to remember that there is a ballance b/t weight and strength in racing equipment. I would have reservations about putting dedicated race equipment on my street car because they are made as light as possible and in doing so sacrifice some strength. At a minimum they only have to last through one race.

    Also, I dont think 3g's on a banked oval track is equivalent to 3g's on a flat road. If a car was to corner at 3g's on a flat surface then more load would be input into the a-arms and chassis than if that same car cornered at 3g's on a banked oval. I could be wrong here though. I am too lazy to really think about it.

    By the way, I suggest the DSE a-arms.

    Michael

    ddennis68
    Registered User
    Posts: 201
    (7/1/04 10:06 am)
    Reply 3G's
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    That -3.0G is on braking, I don't think I've heard of a tire that would still hold at 3.0g lateral. I'm not sure but I think F1 cars are about the highest pulling lat g vehicle out there and they are only around high 1.5-2.0. So light weight means less strength-better tell NASA and Lockheed to stop using titanium as it is gonna fail.

    USAZR1
    Registered User
    Posts: 749
    (7/1/04 11:14 am)
    Reply Re: 3G's
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Is the circle track designed to handle the daily rigors of a street car? If so,why are the GW,DSE,and other A-arms so much more expensive?
    At their price level,it kinda sounds like the circle track stuff isn't designed to be used for street use.
    Clint Hooper
    Pro-Camino
    Clint's 69 SS-427 El Camino protourer
    Ultimate GT
    Clint's 91 Callaway Aerobody ZR-1

    Edited by: USAZR1 at: 7/1/04 3:25 pm

    ramz
    Unregistered User
    (7/1/04 11:14 am)
    Reply poo
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    i am currently up to my ears in that damn car,,redoing the rear frame,reskined a door,drawing up plans for a new frontend and trying to get a the tooling to finish the rearend,i wish i would have taking pics. of the mock up before i tore it apart,i am worried about it being all alum. ,,,time is hard to find,,i'm 31 and decided that i wanted to go back and get my degree in mech. eng.,,so i promiss i'll get pics,,,i am terrible about taking them,i just get focused and tear into things,,this is a street car with overkill components,,i only have 475hp,,it is not a bad ass,,,the 69 i have in the corner of the shop is going to stop hearts in 3 to 4 years.,,,,,oh,the crap,see i forgot,,i was just playing,if half these guys ever see me,,i think i could be getting some of it back ,,,,i have been around roundy round crap all my life,,,you can not break it,that is stupid,,alum. cross shafts on afco a-arms are the only thing i would worry about(don't get them),,4 years ago i put a set(off-set version)on my 69 with a stock frame,i did have to cut on it but they worked fine,,,,,use it or don't use it but don't talk about things you don't know,,,just put a ? after you comment to save your as*

    ramz
    Unregistered User
    (7/1/04 11:23 am)
    Reply price
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    why are they more expensive,,,,mmmmmm,,,,mmmmm,,,because you guys who can't or won't make your own or will not make some others fit will buy them for what ever they want ,,,,are those "high" dollared a-arms even made out of dom or are they just cold rolled?,,see question

    USAZR1
    Registered User
    Posts: 751
    (7/1/04 11:24 am)
    Reply Re: poo
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Must not be crap if you can't break it,ramz.
    Just curious but how much does the average Late Model circle track car weigh?
    Clint Hooper
    Pro-Camino
    Clint's 69 SS-427 El Camino protourer
    Ultimate GT
    Clint's 91 Callaway Aerobody ZR-1

    ramz
    Unregistered User
    (7/1/04 11:50 am)
    Reply wedges
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    oh, a test goody goody,,,here in da bible belt us hillbillies run your standard 434 alum. mills and those cars weigh about 2300 i think,,,lucky i was over at the guys shop who does most of the magnetos that mallory has rebuilt of the circle track world,, his is on the rebco 4-corner scales as we speak,,,,his weighs 2374 with out the driver and gas,as for other classes i would have to get out a rule book,,he says your funny and the web site is cool and to bring your guys cars out on the track and we see who's car is running last

    streetfytr68
    Registered User
    Posts: 1139
    (7/1/04 11:57 am)
    Reply Re: wedges
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    That must be a dirt late model. Asphalt cars generally have higher minimum weights--at least anything with fenders does. If you factor in everything from the lightest ASA 2600# to a cup car, the average is probably 3000#

    Uhh...Why?

    www.lateral-g.net

    ramz
    Unregistered User
    (7/1/04 12:31 pm)
    Reply damn got me
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    yep, its a dirt car,that hit the wall at a speed that should have broke something but it just bent the hell out of the front corner of the frame,,still tracks straight though?,,i think he was testing me not you,,,the car runs in 3 different classes so it could be different than what other people are use too

    ddennis68
    Registered User
    Posts: 203
    (7/1/04 12:43 pm)
    Reply Re: damn got me
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The titanium comment was directed at Michael who claims lightweight parts are more fragile-making a point that lightweight does mean weaker.
    Dennis-

    check out progress of Bondobucket

    ramz
    Unregistered User
    (7/1/04 1:30 pm)
    Reply a-arms
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    what about global west and fat man fab.,,,does everybody just think dse is the only way to go?i do not get it,,,any a-arm is going to be good(maybe),,the speed tech.(i think that is it),,looks the best of any,,,but why buy some arms that have some sort of alignment correction,,,when you can just by some good a-arms and do the Guldstrand tech. on them,,,i guess i'm old and funny about things,i suck

    TitoJones
    Registered User
    Posts: 695
    (7/1/04 2:36 pm)
    Reply My opinion-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Having seen both sets of arms, and seen Geometry testing on both, I'd recommend the DSE arms if you can swing them. You will not be disapointed. I say all of this while being a complete Global West Whore, and still recommend them.
    Tyler


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Lost Wages, Nevada
    Posts
    2,671
    Country Flag: United States

    Page two

    Mean 69
    Registered User
    Posts: 48
    (7/1/04 2:50 pm)
    Reply sheesh!
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Why buy the GW, DSE, ST, or any other arms on the market? As Ramz stated, you'd only buy these if you weren't going to really address the issue of the less-than-perfect geometry of the car you're dealing with, or that you're incapable. Neither are bad, mind you. In either case, any of the aforementioned arms will probably be just fine. None of them are fundamentally different, and all offer an incremental improvement over stock stuff, if done in conjuction with the "Gulstrand" mod to improve the crap camber characteristics of the stock geom.

    That said, the DSE parts are the best of the bunch, always have been, always will be. Best quality, and by far best customer service. For the record, I run the GW uppers on my car, for now, nothing wrong with them either. Pictures of the ST pieces look like they are as good as the others. Your call, not a terribly difficult one.

    If you want to take a step up, understand what the control arms actually do, and why, then you'll come to the conclusion that all of them are essentially designed to be a "bolt-in" compromise to the overall design approach (flaws) that GM engineered 35 years ago.

    Mark

    My vote: DSE, but only if the application is a stock front stub.

    70toTour
    Registered User
    Posts: 369
    (7/2/04 7:56 am)
    Reply a-arms
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dennis,
    I, now, realize I should have been more specific in my statement. I was simply discussing the weight vs strength characteristics of steel. No aftermarket supplier does or probably ever will make a-arms out of titanium or any other exotic metal for that matter (maybe they will use Al if they are feeling really crazy) so there is no need in discussing these materials. But yes you are correct Titanium is both stronge and light.

    **
    Maybe I am reading this wrong, but there seems to be some confusion regrading a-arm geometry. If you buy a DSE a-arm this is no reason to do the Gulstrand mod as the new a-arm geometry changes the camber characteristics. This may apply to GW and others, but I am not sure.

    Michael


    DLinson
    Registered User
    Posts: 70
    (7/2/04 8:53 am)
    Reply A-arms
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I believe DSE uses DOM on their arms. I believe I recall Kyle mentioning that. The arm itself doesn't change the camber characteristics, just the caster. He also has a fixture you can rent to relocate the upper a-arm mount to achieve a better camber curve.

    Remember, when you buy the GW or DSE stuff, you're paying for the engineering that went into the arms, the liability that they must carry selling a product ment for the streets, and their quantities probably are not as high as the circle track stuff.

    I used some Lefthander Chassis upper and lowers on my Nova but I also made my own spindles and had a custom rack made. Everything was from scratch. I'm sure there are lots of people who don't have the time or the abilities to design a suspension and/or build it.

    For a lot of people it is best left to those that know what they are doing.

    Dennis Linson


    Mean 69
    Registered User
    Posts: 49
    (7/2/04 9:25 am)
    Reply Dennis is right
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Michael, Dennis is correct in stating that the camber characteristics are not determined by the upper arm, when using a stock spindle and the frame mount bracket that is on the stock frame. Dennis is also correct that there is a decent amount of positive caster applied to the aftermarket A-arms, the GW units I have are on the order of 6 degrees or so, which is alot (too much?). The DSE cross shaft has a trick setup that allows two different caster basic settings, alignment of the arms can dial in a bit more/less than these starting points.

    There is a lot of hoopla regarding the Gulstrand mod, and for darn good reason. It is well documented that the stock configuration is not optimal for road cornering, and the G mod is a good improvement for using stock suspension components. Don't take this as saying that this is the best thing since sliced bread, this was originally done to improve the handling within the rules of the Trans Am requirements, back in the "day." For a serious racing effort where the rules allow, you can bet that the majority of the front suspension pieces would go in the trash, if not all. Knowing how complex suspension systems are from a design standpoint, designing a front SLA system is way out of the reach of most people, so modifying the stock stuff is a good way to go for some very good improvements overall.

    As far as DOM versus welded tubing, any serious builder would use DOM. An equivalent strength welded tube would have a thicker wall than DOM, which would be heavier. My guess is that all of the tubing used in these arms is overkill, and that all are plenty strong. The same argument comes from mild steel versus cro-mo, an equivalent strength tube can be made in thinner wall section for cro-mo. However, cro-mo needs to be tig welded, and stress relieved after construction, so the overall cost is quite alot higher. My personal feeling is that anything is going to break on these arms, it will be a weld, or the cross shaft, but it would have to take a very serious hit. The aftermarket arms are very likely not going to be the weak point in terms of frailty on our cars.

    In the end, just realize that the a arms don't make your car faster, it is the tuning of the system that is critical. The aftermarket arms offer some opportunity to make the tuning easier.

    Mark

    trapin
    Registered User
    Posts: 1223
    (7/2/04 12:02 pm)
    Reply
    Re: My opinion-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Lyncs2....it's real simple. What are you going to use them for?

    If your building a race car, go with Global West or DS&E. If it's a matter of money...buy the Global Wests, they're cheaper.

    If you don't plan to race the car, do the Guldstrand Modification and re-use your stock control arms with some very-well-greased polygraphite bushings. Not polyurethane.

    If your looking to buy them for just cosmetic reasons and for the luxury of having Del-a-lum bushings with grease fittings...then go with the Speed Tech arms as they are the cheapest amongst the bunch (DS&E, Global, Speedtech). I left Speedtech out of consideration for competition because they have not been tested yet under severe racing conditions. At least there's nothing on their site that speaks about it.

    Nuff said.
    Tony

    www.infamouscamaro.com
    Man feed machine. Machine feed man.

    chicane67
    Registered User
    Posts: 106
    (7/2/04 12:06 pm)
    Reply | Edit Re: Dennis is right
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Well, the decision on which control arm to purchase basically sits on what spring rate you will be running.

    The softer rates (which 90% of you run) I believe will work better with the DSE arms......and on the other hand, the higher spring rates will work better with the Global West arms.

    I have done a physical analysis on both arms mounted to a stock front stub with two different location points, and what I have 'seen' is summued up in my previous statement.....it depends on your spring rate but it also depends on other vehicle weights as well.

    And for the record, the GW arms are DOM.....as for the ST arms, who knows?

    Edited by: chicane67 at: 7/3/04 2:32 pm

    Mean 69
    Registered User
    Posts: 51
    (7/2/04 4:04 pm)
    Reply Really?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Tom,

    Whatcha mean about spring rate versus upper A arms? I think I have an idea of where you're going with this, but please, be specific. If this is a pure camber gain (from the alignment/chassis attachment point) versus roll resistance issue, just say "yup." I'd like to know where you're coming from, always wanting to learn. And teach!

    M

    chicane67
    Registered User
    Posts: 108
    (7/2/04 8:44 pm)
    Reply | Edit Re: Really?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Yo M,

    Yup.

    The GW/relocation camber gain increase from static ride going toward bump, is of a non-linear/more exponential function because it is at the roll over or it is getting more toward top of the curve.

    The DSE/relocation camber gain increase is more linear and I believe it would be better suited for softer street spring rates, although it does require more static negative camber to achieve the same total negative camber gain as the other product in comparison.

    Using a higher spring rate and a curve that is more exponential just makes sense. You said it, it is more of a camber gain to roll resistance issue.

    Static alignment in comparison with chassis set to designed ride height and alignment set to manufacturers recommended street spec's:
    GW:
    10* cross shaft angle
    0* camber
    +5* caster

    Negative net gain at -2" = -1.645*
    Negative gross gain = -1.645*


    DSE:
    10* cross shaft angle
    -0.5* camber
    +4* caster

    Negative net gain at -2" = -1.3225*
    Negative gross gain = -1.823*

    BTW Mark, a handfull of Habana Montecristo # 2's are waiting.....

    lyncs2
    Registered User
    Posts: 38
    (7/2/04 9:40 pm)
    Reply Re: Really?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Well people, this has been "educational" to say the least !!
    I'm building the car to have the Pro-T "look and feel".
    As everyone knows, performance is the feel.
    DS & E, GW, and Speed Tech all seem great for the street and the "Street" is where I'm planning on running.
    Maybe a few times on the track but mostly street. Now, do all of these "arms" require the Guldstand Mod ?? ...and what do all of these manufactures have the corresponding lowers ??


    lyncs2
    Registered User
    Posts: 39
    (7/2/04 9:41 pm)
    Reply Re: Really?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    oops...I meant do all of these manufactures have corresponding lowers ??

    chicane67
    Registered User
    Posts: 109
    (7/2/04 10:02 pm)
    Reply | Edit Re: Really?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Well to answer your question on weather the arms 'need' a relocation is somewhat questionable.

    With GW, you can leave them mounted to the stock location which is more recommended for street set-ups or you can utilize a relocation for more spirited drive to the tune of autocross and/or road racing to further the camber gain with the higher spring rates associated with.

    The DSE arms actually have their own relocation points to mount them to as well, which are different from stock and also different from the Guldstrand modification.

    The tests that I have preformed, both geometries used the DSE relocation point, which is not too far off from the Guldstrand modification. In the initial tests, I wanted to keep them in tight comparison. Since the GW arm does not require a relocation to achieve better geometry, but the fact that you can use it with a relocated point to further improve it, I did everything on a like-like basis.

    As for the lowers, GW has had them out for a long time. DSE is about to release their own....and its sure to be a work of art just like every thing else they make. I am pretty sure ST is or already has released their lower, but I havent heard too much lately. It is also rumored that Mr. Hotchkis is going to release a lower to 'get-in' that market and give more choices to the end consumer.

    If one were to not relocate the arm mounting point, both the tested arms are still an excellent upgrade just by themselves.



    Q ship
    Posts: 5
    (7/3/04 7:48 am)
    Reply Real tech!
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mark, Tom-thank you both very much. By giving real(objective, not subjective) tech info out on this forum, you are advancing the learning curve of all of us here. Now if there were just more parts for 2nd Gens!

    Mean 69
    Registered User
    Posts: 52
    (7/3/04 9:23 am)
    Reply Nice info
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Great writeup, Tom, nice tech. Out of curiosity, do you know what the side view inclination of the stock upper arm configuration is? I wonder if the guys are trying to dial in more (or less) anti-dive. I seem to recall that when I did my Gulstrand mod, that the inclination was pretty much the same (it was a couple years ago, I may be wrong). But since the arms are closer together, the convergence point will be different anyway, so anti-dive will change. I'll have to think about that one a bit. Not a really nasty issue because folks that will mod their front suspension as such will change to stiff spring rates too, so dive won't be nearly as much an issue as with a stock setup.

    #2's, eh!?!?! Those are big cigars, big in size, and big in flavor. I think a pairing with a nice 21 year old scotch would be just the ticket.

    Great thread. And to think it started with a question that has been asked here pretty much on a weekly basis!

    Mark

    Q-ship: The more I learn, the more I realize that I have more to learn. Glad to be of help.

    davidpozzi
    Moderator
    Posts: 1207
    (7/3/04 1:40 pm)
    Reply
    Re: Nice info
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mark
    The Guldstrand mod lowers the front more than the rear reducing anti-dive, AND reducing caster gain under bump.
    David
    67 RS Camaro, 69 Camaro vint racer, 65 Lola T-70 Can-Am vint racer.
    ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/David_Pozzi/

    chicane67
    Registered User
    Posts: 111
    (7/3/04 2:01 pm)
    Reply | Edit Re: Nice info
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Well as I see it, **** and Kyle took out some of the shaft angle in their relocation's. I will have to drag Baz into the shop and finish his subframe so that I can get the stock shaft angle for comparison, as I dont know where that little piece of paper with all of the stock quantities went too......its probably at the shop......

    The DSE location points measure (relative front to rear) -0.8125" and -0.7656" from the stock location and the Guldstrand points measure -0.875" and -0.7750" along with a shift of 0.125" reward. That is actually a decrease in shaft angle for both geometries.

    Just a little more FYI, the Thrasher spindle and relocation moves only the front location down (off the top of my head) by near -0.850" by itself !! But is done with a taller spindle as well......thats something to think about.

    The suspension analysis has really been showing the difference in approach and different schools of thought, that is for sure. Not saying that any of them are more correct than the next, but to see what the individual was trying to accomplish with their location move is insightful to say the least.

    It also shows a relative range in where they like their springs rates and what the suspension was more re-designed to accomplish. Look at **** (Guldstrand), old school road racer and king of larger spring rates as well is Doug (GW) until you get into his "Negative Roll" designs(and if you race it they go right back up to the 800 pound mark).......they both use larger spring rates from their collective road racing experience and marketing of their product to the end consumer. And then there is Kyle (DSE).......with his compliant approach to a truly street worthy ride which is ultimately geared toward the street where most spend their time.

    Notice the differences ?? Road race and street........its either detune a road race chassis that is use to a groomed surface or tune to the point where enough is enough. **** is more of a "K.I.S.S." theorist and does what just plain and simply WORKS and it has worked beautifully for 35 years. Doug's non-race track venture has put the creature comfort back into all of this and has done that with his negative roll suspension and actually uses some pretty soft front spring rates up to the point of racing the suspension, but it is a true 'street' suspension. Kyle is right in between the two. Which I think is an excellent compromise for a duality vehicle. And you know me, I like my spring rates too......

    Hey Mark, I also have a few assorted Ramon's.....and a couple of 1964 Anniversary Padron's. Now if I could just afford a bottle of 30 year Laphroaig.........or maybe a 37 year Glenlivet Cellar Collection......... or maybe even their 1957 Limited Release..........

    Or maybe I could get my damn car back on the road.

    Edited by: chicane67 at: 7/3/04 2:13 pm

    harshman
    Registered User
    Posts: 104
    (7/3/04 3:19 pm)
    Reply scotch
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    try oban
    it's a 14 year old but smells and tastes every bit of an 18 year old. That's just plain goodness.

    baz67
    Registered User
    Posts: 159
    (7/3/04 9:53 pm)
    Reply damn
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wow I have soooo much to still learn. Chicane I will be home next Sunday. Call me if we can get this done.
    Brian

    jon
    Unregistered User
    (7/4/04 7:51 am)
    Reply x
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    a couple thoughts:roudy-round is much tougher on cars than it looks.and i've had street parts from popular makers discussed in this thread fail under pothole abuse.and i know that others on this board have had breakage also on famous cars by famous builders.don't let the arm choice slow down your project,if you have a budget do what it takes to get the car on the road.if you are just bolting on a-arms you can do that in a few hours when you get more funds.i do have both dse and global west arms and both are very nice.i see the advantage of a tubular upper arm as providing clearance for coil overs if you are cutting out the spring pockets and moving the bottom of your coil over closer to the ball joint,a standard trick.

    MarcusUSA1
    Registered User
    Posts: 125
    (7/4/04 8:39 am)
    Reply Re: x
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A couple thoughts here. Note that the almost all of the - camber gain in the measurments shown here are due to the relocation of the cross shaft mounting points NOT the UCAs! Geometry is dependant on where the components pivot,the shape of the arms has almost nothing to do with it. If the pickup points remain in the stock location the UCA can be shaped like a pretzel and it won`t make any difference at all. The DSE,GW etc. arms are able to add some + caster by moving the UBJ toward the rear of the car,which as a side effect adds a very small amount of - camber when turning. Add too much + caster though and the car begins to feel numb in transitions and deadens the steering feel. The only way to make a truly notable difference in geometry is to move the pickup points thought the G mod (or a variation of it) or by running a taller spindle (`69 Penske TA Camaro) or a taller UBJ,both of which raise the outter pickup point. As for strength of the UCAs,look at the UCAs that NASCAR cars run on super speedways which load the UCAs hundreds of times more than any street driving conditions. Not to mention all the tire rubbing and bumping at 200mph! They`re much lighter than any of the aftermarket UCAs being discussed here. The LCA and LBJ take most of the suspension loads,due to the springs acting on the LCAs and the close proximity of the spindle snout to the LBJ. The UCA takes mostly inboard/outboard loading and basically just keeps the top of the spindle from flopping over. Note the NASCAR UCAs are also flat,no droop in them like many stock UCAs which makes them more rigid for their weight. When you have taller outter/upper pickup points you can use a flat arms with no interference in droop. Marcus

    amcmike
    Registered User
    Posts: 21
    (7/6/04 4:40 am)
    Reply Re: Global West vs. DSE Control Arms...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unless I'm doing something wrong, if you get the two variations of the Guldstrand mod to scale (see David's site):

    Variation 1: FRT -1.0" Rear -0.825" shift -.175" (from frt)
    Variation 2: FRT -1.0" Rear -.800" shift -0" (from frt)

    I'm curious about where the .875 and .7750 came from. (Actually I'm even more curious of what DSE numbers truely are).

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Lost Wages, Nevada
    Posts
    2,671
    Country Flag: United States

    Page three

    Mean 69
    Registered User
    Posts: 55
    (7/6/04 9:26 am)
    Reply Anti-dive?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    David,

    Unless I am seeing something totally different, it looks to me that the anti-dive will increase by lowering the front UCA attachment, not decrease it. The anti-dive is found by determining the SV IC, i.e. where the upper and lower arm axes converge, in side view. The anti-dive is proportional to the angle that is formed by intersecting this point with the contact point of the front tire (for outboard brake applications, like us poor folks have, I'm so jealous of those open wheel cars!). I don't have this mapped out in front of me, but it seems to me that the IC will move up if the front mount is lowered more than the rear mount, which would be an increase in anti-dive. Again, I have mapped this out from the stock to G mod, there may be more to the geometry than I am considering in this simple case.

    Tom, as far as the Thrasher is concerned, seeing that the front mount was the only one that moved, this seems like a clear attempt to increase anti-dive. Again, with the taller spindle, there may be more to it than I see.

    All: Read this thread, and then re-read it. There is a ton of great info here, and this only scratched the surface. As stated above, the geometry of our cars (first gen Camaro's in this case) can be modified, but the main restriction for dramatically altering it is the spindle. Going to a taller spindle in and of itself is not necessarily a better idea, all aspects of the geometry need to be considered. EVERY time you nudge one aspect of the geometry to improve a certain aspect, you will undoubtedly alter another aspect, that you may not even be aware of. Heck we haven't even considered roll center changes in this thread, and that is a huge issue!

    Mark

    katz
    Unregistered User
    (7/6/04 10:37 am)
    Reply re: anti-dive
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mark,
    I think David is correct here. You're right that SVIC gets higher by decreasing cross shaft angle on 1st gen suspension especially with lots of chassis rake, but SVSA gets longer as well. Unless LCA inner pivot centerline has the same or steeper incline angle than the neutral line, this would result in decrease in anti-dive.

    IMO, stock 1st gen's SVSA is too short. I'd gladly give up some anti-dive for longer SVSA.

    chicane67
    Registered User
    Posts: 113
    (7/6/04 10:54 am)
    Reply | Edit Re: Global West vs. DSE Control Arms...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    amcmike~ Two variations of the Guldstrand mod !?!! Where do you come up with that !?!!

    I have copies of the original 'full scale' suspension drawing from my employment at Guldstrand and there is nothing on it near the variation measurements of 1.0" frt and between 0.825/0.800" rear that you have come up with.

    The 0.875" and 0.775" are actual measurements and are within a couple of thousandths of the drawing.....in the reality migration in camber and caster changes, not enough to worry about.

    The DSE numbers were measurements off of a straight frame with the modification done, verified by the DSE location JIG, and then given the nod by Kyle from a lengthy conversation.

    To compare apples to apples here, one would have to obtain the actual drawings from each manufacturer and decipher the measurement of uncertainty from there. When I say 'a couple of thou', I mean a coupe of thou.....we're talkin +/- 0.010"ish, which in the amount of useable suspension travel that we use from static ride.....is negligible with concern to camber and caster movement. Frame ridigity negates more than that alone........

    Honestly the roll center height and roll couple distribution are the bigger stories here just as Mark pointed out. +/- 0.010" on control arm location can make a bigger change in this respect and that is what really needs to be addressed.

    As Mark stated, if you change one too much or maybe even too little.....it will still have an effect on something else. It alll has to be looked at in the "Big Picture" or its not gonna be right.

    Edited by: chicane67 at: 7/6/04 11:06 am

    amcmike
    Registered User
    Posts: 22
    (7/6/04 3:27 pm)
    Reply Re: Global West vs. DSE Control Arms...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chicane67, I got it from here:

    ourworld.compuserve.com/h...m#Geometry discussion

    I verified the first variation, by magnifying the drawing until the distance between holes = 6.50. The other one is actually marked. and measures as 1.0 (for the first hole). Let me know if I did something wrong. Or did it get skewed in the process of being put on the web?

    chicane67
    Registered User
    Posts: 118
    (7/6/04 3:39 pm)
    Reply | Edit Re: Global West vs. DSE Control Arms...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I took my measurements off of a direct copy at the shop.

    There has been some problems with sizing the template and using it off of the web and I had called **** to correct it by stenciling a scale onto the the drawing so that it could be enlarged or reduced to compensate for the "Format Error" of this type. But to this note, I still dont think it has been done. This might be the error in calculation were are finding, as this is normally the cause for it.

    You can however get a direct copy from him by calling or emailing him with your mailing address.

    gEtyOpapiOn
    Registered User
    Posts: 30
    (7/6/04 4:43 pm)
    Reply Re: Global West vs. DSE Control Arms...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    what is that afco website for the control arms ...never seen them ..thank you

    chicane67
    Registered User
    Posts: 122
    (7/6/04 6:53 pm)
    Reply | Edit Re: Global West vs. DSE Control Arms...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    AFCO's suspension page

    gEtyOpapiOn
    Registered User
    Posts: 31
    (7/6/04 8:53 pm)
    Reply Re: Global West vs. DSE Control Arms...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    thank you Chicane67

    davidpozzi
    Moderator
    Posts: 1215
    (7/6/04 9:19 pm)
    Reply
    Re: Global West vs. DSE Control Arms...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The template I have is direct from Guldstrand but I got it back in 1973. The guy who gave it to me said they tried several alternative hole heights, which are on my copy of the template. My copy measures 6.5" from the two A arm holes so I think it's not distorted in that direction, but who knows in the other direction?

    Measuring to the "new" holes ninety degrees from the line drawn between the two old holes, I measured: FT 1.160", R .890"

    The drawing on my web page is a CAD redraw of the original, when I print it out on my printer, it matches pretty well, but most people will not be so lucky.
    There is another one version below mine on my page described as a drawing that was sent to me, it was done on a PC, (I have a Mac) I think it's pretty close but maybe not as close as the one I did.
    David
    67 RS Camaro, 69 Camaro vint racer, 65 Lola T-70 Can-Am vint racer.
    ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/David_Pozzi/

    Edited by: davidpozzi at: 7/6/04 10:10 pm

    chicane67
    Registered User
    Posts: 126
    (7/6/04 9:25 pm)
    Reply | Edit Re: Global West vs. DSE Control Arms...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Well, even on the original drawing and the fax template he sends out, it states on the drawing itself next to the rear location hole:

    " UCA shaft lowered by 0.750" "

    And

    " Lower upper control arm to raise front roll center approx. 2" above ground "

    davidpozzi
    Moderator
    Posts: 1216
    (7/6/04 10:00 pm)
    Reply
    Re: Global West vs. DSE Control Arms...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Tom, Mine says near the rear hole: "UCA shaft lowered by 1.04" then the guy crossed it out on my copy and wrote with a flair pen "APP .75" but it measures .890!

    I think the 1.04 dimension was the one he said was the last one they tried and they felt this was too far. I do remember him dragging out another very large drawing that I think had the roll centers plotted but it was a very long time ago. I do remember his asking me if I was an engineer and explaining the effects of the higher roll center on front roll stiffness.
    David
    67 RS Camaro, 69 Camaro vint racer, 65 Lola T-70 Can-Am vint racer.
    ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/David_Pozzi/

    Edited by: davidpozzi at: 7/6/04 10:01 pm

    chicane67
    Registered User
    Posts: 127
    (7/6/04 10:26 pm)
    Reply | Edit Re: Global West vs. DSE Control Arms...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Now I dont qustion amcmike, as there IS conflicting numbers concerning all of this. Its great that amcmike brought this to the surface !!!!

    David~

    Yup, thats the drawing I looked at and studied too.

    The measurements of 0.875" front and rear of 0.775" match my napkin scribbles from my time of employment there, and both came from the engineering drawing and a known straight frame.

    So I think and feel that the differences must come from the frames themselves. I have an actual, exact copy of the template and wrote down what the table top drawing had annotated.

    WOW, 1.04".........that must of been for the high bank, high load springs for Daytona.

    Edited by: chicane67 at: 7/6/04 10:49 pm

    davidpozzi
    Moderator
    Posts: 1217
    (7/6/04 11:18 pm)
    Reply
    Re: Global West vs. DSE Control Arms...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Anyone who has "Untold Secrets" by Guinn, There is a copy of the template on page 138, but enlarged a lot, the two A arm holes are 7 1/8" apart.
    The lower pair of holes with arrows pointing to them marked "CENTER OF NEW HOLES" are barely visible on my copy, the upper pair are darker and were the ones recommended.

    I was wondering if they might have revised their template a little after mine was made.
    I'll post your specs on my page.
    David
    67 RS Camaro, 69 Camaro vint racer, 65 Lola T-70 Can-Am vint racer.
    ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/David_Pozzi/

    amcmike
    Registered User
    Posts: 23
    (7/7/04 4:58 pm)
    Reply Re: Global West vs. DSE Control Arms...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Guess I stirred up some controversy.

    I've requested the template from Guldstrand. The tech person said it's coming from their 1991 catalog, so I'm guessing it's going to match the one from David's site. I'll let everyone know.

    Heck, the numbers may be even different than any so far.

    lyncs2
    Registered User
    Posts: 43
    (7/7/04 5:30 pm)
    Reply Re: Global West vs. DSE Control Arms...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ...anyone know if DS&E are using GW Del-Alum Bushings
    on the UCAs ?? ...or are they bushings of their own design ??

    chicane67
    Registered User
    Posts: 128
    (7/7/04 7:36 pm)
    Reply | Edit Re: Global West vs. DSE Control Arms...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    They are of the same mechanics, but of their own design.

    J68Bird
    Posts: 6
    (7/8/04 9:05 am)
    Reply Re: Global West vs. DSE Control Arms & Guldstrand mod
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I'm getting ready to do the Guldstrand mod to my 68 Firebird in a couple of weeks. I've been looking for all the info I can find before I do this. With all the stuff that's out there I haven't found a site that shows the mod actually being done. I'm going to try and document how my attempt goes. (Unless I screw it up, then you'll probably never hear from me again) Chicane67, mentioned that the template could be improved by stenciling a scale onto the drawing. I'll redo the CAD dwg and add a scale if that's OK with everyone. Do we have numbers that everyone agrees on?

    J. Clear

    blown67
    Posts: 18
    (7/8/04 1:23 pm)
    Reply ingnorance is bliss
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I did the guldstrand mod to my 67 camaro. I called guldstrand and requested the templates and about 4-5 days later i recieved a catalog with the templates. I cut out the templates and placed them on the car made a ***** punch in the new locations and drilled the holes. It made the car handle so much better it seemed to really tighten the front end up.(less understeer)
    just my two cents

    ddennis68
    Registered User
    Posts: 221
    (7/8/04 3:00 pm)
    Reply a body
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I know we typically talk "f" body around here but what affect would relocating the UCA pivot down have on an "a" body-also what if it were done in conjunction with the tall spindle conversion? Would this lower RC too much(assuming I understand RC a little).

    amcmike
    Registered User
    Posts: 24
    (7/8/04 4:23 pm)
    Reply blown67
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Not to dilute the last post, but to blown67:

    Did you do anything else at the same time as the Guldstrand mod? Just wondering how much was mod and how much may be other things that changed.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Lost Wages, Nevada
    Posts
    2,671
    Country Flag: United States

    Page three

    davidpozzi
    Moderator
    Posts: 1222
    (7/8/04 6:48 pm)
    Reply
    Re: blown67
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I have a G-mod mag article you can view on my web page.
    Part 1: ourworld.compuserve.com/h...dmod1s.jpg
    Part 2: ourworld.compuserve.com/h...dmod2s.jpg

    I wouldn't do a taller spindle and lower the upper arm. Lowering the upper arm or using a taller spindle raises the roll center, if you go too far, the too high roll center will cause too much front roll stiffness. When you raise the roll center, you move it closer to the center of gravity height in addition to improving the camber curve, but if the RC is made too high, roll torque can be reduced to the point where changing the ft antiroll bar and ft spring rates has very little effect on handling balance. In addition, front end bobbing during cornering can happen due to RC jacking effects. Cars running on banked ovals can more easily ignore jacking effects or make use of them.
    David
    67 RS Camaro, 69 Camaro vint racer, 65 Lola T-70 Can-Am vint racer.
    ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/David_Pozzi/

    MarcusUSA1
    Registered User
    Posts: 130
    (7/8/04 7:01 pm)
    Reply Re: blown67
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dennis,it can be done but the UCAs are much closer to the top of the frame on A body cars so the frame would need to be clearanced. How well it would work with tall spindles and such depends on the ride height of the car. If it sits stock high it would probably be okay,if the car sits pro-touring low it would likely be too much,except for a track car. The stock RC height is so low to begin with you`ll have to go some to get it over +3" but the camber curves will get very aggressive. It might be better to forget the tall spindles and move the UCA instead since the tall spindle swap creates unwanted bumpsteer and slows the steering ratio. Mark

    ddennis68
    Registered User
    Posts: 223
    (7/8/04 10:08 pm)
    Reply Re: blown67
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Well, gotta go with the tall spindle cause I already have them with 13" C5 brakes. I'm gonna run Speedway UCA, adjustable rod ends at the outer tie rod position and Howe center link with bump adjustment. Also picked up a 12:1 steering box so with all that I should be able to adjust out all bump steer and the quick box will cover up the slow steering. A note about ride height-between the tall spindle swap and my springs I'll be running about 4" shorter than stock with 17X9.5" front wheels and 5.5" B/S to fit 255/40R17. Well, am I on the right track or a total waste of $$$.

    Note-front spring rate 700lb, 1.25" sway bar
    rear spring rate 200lb, no sta-bar
    Dennis-

    check out progress of Bondobucket

    amcmike
    Registered User
    Posts: 25
    (7/12/04 1:58 pm)
    Reply Guldstrand Numbers
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I received the Guldstrand template today (direct from Guldstrand). It matches chicane67's numbers.

    I verified the scale and it showed a .875" drop on the front and .75" drop on the rear. Claims to rail front roll center approx. .3"

    chicane67
    Registered User
    Posts: 146
    (7/12/04 2:11 pm)
    Reply | Edit Re: Guldstrand Numbers
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Good to know....thanks for the verification. I was hoping I wasnt going senile and read the dialmic wrong !!

    It does appear that my measurement of 0.775" is slightly different than the drawings stated 0.750"......I know 0.025" isnt all that much but could of been from the template and jig we fabricated and some heat warp during the welding..... ??......dunno, but that would make sense.

    Anywho, I am not going to split hairs about 0.025" right now.