Page 16 of 101 FirstFirst ... 6 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 26 66 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 320 of 2013
  1. #301
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    233

    Default

    PM Sent.

    Thanks much.

    Bob W.
    1964 Plymouth Fury
    2005 Cadillac CTS-V
    Build Thread


  2. #302
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    233

    Default

    When I first began looking into Watts Links a year or so ago I came across these .gifs, which I totally forgot about until you mentioned you're mounting your prop on the chassis, which made me scratch my head for a second.


    Watts Link mounted on Diff Housing


    Watts Link mounted on Chassis

    From a mechanical standpoint, do you think there's any real difference in the effectiveness between the two different mounting points? From my way of thinking the chassis mount is easier to fabricate and reduces a bit of un-sprung weight as opposed to the diff mounted but will need to have various vertically spaced mounting positions to accommodate varying ride heights.
    Bob W.
    1964 Plymouth Fury
    2005 Cadillac CTS-V
    Build Thread

  3. #303
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    san diego
    Posts
    5,107
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    Yes, I think chassis mounted watts prop are better than axle mounted. If you are driving the car the axle has a constant height to the ground except for tire sidewall deflection, so minimal height changes. The body moves up and down +-3". When the body moves up or down the center of gravity changes (CG). Since the body/chassis weighs more than the rearend the CG follows the body movement, but not exactly since the rearend does have weight. The watts link pivot point on the prop defines the roll center of the rear suspension. I think it is better to keep the roll center and CG height seperation the same throughout the suspension travel. The reason why; the sway bar is dialed in for that distance between CG and RC. I think it will give you more consistent handling during the suspension travel.

    I hope it made sence, I am off to work and just took my first sip of coffee.

  4. #304
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    233

    Default

    Yeah, it makes perfect sense, which is kind of frightening, actually!

    One thing I don't have ready access to is a machine shop, so fabbing up parts can be a pain in the butt, so I've found a couple companies that manufacture Watt's Link kits, one that mounts to the chassis and one that mounts to the rear housing, and based on your explanation and the fact I think the chassis mounting will allow me to more neatly package the suspension components, I'll probably go with the chassis mounted set-up as well.

    Thanks for the time and effort, I really appreciate it.

    Bob
    Bob W.
    1964 Plymouth Fury
    2005 Cadillac CTS-V
    Build Thread

  5. #305
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sharps Chapel, TN
    Posts
    937

    Default

    Awesome! Wheels and Parts! You are making a LOT more progress than I am! Looking great!
    Benjamin Kadron
    Sharps Chapel, TN

    Twin Dusters
    '72 Plymouth Duster "Aero Duster" project
    '72 Plymouth Duster "Daily Duster" project
    https://www.pro-touring.com/showthre...RO-DUSTER-quot

    '98 Subaru Legacy Wagon Daily

  6. #306
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    san diego
    Posts
    5,107
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjkadron View Post
    Awesome! Wheels and Parts! You are making a LOT more progress than I am! Looking great!
    Thanks Benjamin,

    Still long ways away from driving it again. But small progress is still progress. Good luck with your build.

  7. #307
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    san diego
    Posts
    5,107
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carnalsupply View Post
    Yeah, it makes perfect sense, which is kind of frightening, actually!

    One thing I don't have ready access to is a machine shop, so fabbing up parts can be a pain in the butt, so I've found a couple companies that manufacture Watt's Link kits, one that mounts to the chassis and one that mounts to the rear housing, and based on your explanation and the fact I think the chassis mounting will allow me to more neatly package the suspension components, I'll probably go with the chassis mounted set-up as well.

    Thanks for the time and effort, I really appreciate it.

    Bob
    I have a full machine shop at work but no mill or lathe at home. I desing with my limitations in mind. I never lack on the engineering side and I dont sacrafice weight or asthetics. Once I get my prop built I will post pictures and an explanation of how I built it.

  8. #308
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Salt Shake City, Utah
    Posts
    89

    Default

    super curious to see the new wheels on your car!!!
    Put em on!! or at least lets see them mocked up?? Thanks,

  9. #309
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    san diego
    Posts
    5,107
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    I am driving up to Driverzinc today to get the tire mounted. So pictures will follow tonight!

  10. #310
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Mesa, Az.
    Posts
    1,431
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    Hey Bryce, just got back in town from a trip over the weekend. That stuff looks great. It is interesting, as a lot of those parts look like UB Machine or Speedway Engineering parts that you got from TCI.
    Phillip
    64 Studebaker Daytona Twin Turbo- http://bit.ly/1SgxQ0g
    65 Cutlass F-85 - http://bit.ly/1W4lJm4

  11. #311
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    san diego
    Posts
    5,107
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PhillipM View Post
    Hey Bryce, just got back in town from a trip over the weekend. That stuff looks great. It is interesting, as a lot of those parts look like UB Machine or Speedway Engineering parts that you got from TCI.
    Actually only the cradle is from TCI. The other pieces are from speedway.

    All of them will be modified for my applcation.

  12. #312
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Mesa, Az.
    Posts
    1,431
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    Lol! Okay. Sorry if you mentioned that earlier. I was just glancing at the pictures
    Phillip
    64 Studebaker Daytona Twin Turbo- http://bit.ly/1SgxQ0g
    65 Cutlass F-85 - http://bit.ly/1W4lJm4

  13. #313
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Salt Shake City, Utah
    Posts
    89

    Default

    pictures????

  14. #314
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    san diego
    Posts
    5,107
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 65BBODY View Post
    pictures????
    Not yet. I know I am boring. I am still waiting for valve stems from centerline. None of the ones i have fit the wheel lip shape. So I cant mount the tires until I get the valve stems. They were supposed to ship friday from 100 miles away. I guess I am making a call today.

  15. #315
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Mesa, Az.
    Posts
    1,431
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    "I will have 4" of travel 2" up and 2" down. I am mounting the cradle and prop to the chassis, so I wont tie into the UCA housing mount. But I am tying into the rear coilover crossmember."

    I don't know Bryce... That seems like very little travel.?.
    Phillip
    64 Studebaker Daytona Twin Turbo- http://bit.ly/1SgxQ0g
    65 Cutlass F-85 - http://bit.ly/1W4lJm4

  16. #316
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    san diego
    Posts
    5,107
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    You think so Phillip? Shooting from the hip I dont think I will have any issues with that amount of travel. It will be a street car but not a lot of street miles. I hope to see more track and autocross time withe the car.

  17. #317
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    san diego
    Posts
    5,107
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    So I gave it some thought and decided to do some calculations. Rear end weight is 1250lbs with approx 250lbs in unsprung weight. Lets say the springs (coilovers) are 1:1 motion ratio and vertical. I want to design in enough spring and travel to handle a 1G bump. My sprung mass is 1000lbs or 500 per side, spring rate is 200lbs and my travel is two inches.

    F=kx
    F=500lbsx1G=500
    k=200
    x=? how much travel do I need

    x=F/k
    x=500/200=2.5"

    Therefore, I might hit the bumpstops on a 1G bump. So I can lighten the rearend, increase rear spring stiffness but consider spring frequencies before I make changes there. Or I can increase travel of the spring before the bumps stops make contact. Or live with the fact that I might be using my bumpstops.

    Here is an example. My daily driver, a lowered 95 mustang, has stock spring rates in the back with 0.5" of travel before I contact the bumpstops. It compresses the bumpstops about 0.5" as well. The ride is fine under 95% of all driving with only me in the car. When I see a huge bump I slow down. It seems to work just fine for me.

  18. #318
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Mesa, Az.
    Posts
    1,431
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falcon65 View Post
    So I gave it some thought and decided to do some calculations. Rear end weight is 1250lbs with approx 250lbs in unsprung weight. Lets say the springs (coilovers) are 1:1 motion ratio and vertical. I want to design in enough spring and travel to handle a 1G bump. My sprung mass is 1000lbs or 500 per side, spring rate is 200lbs and my travel is two inches.

    F=kx
    F=500lbsx1G=500
    k=200
    x=? how much travel do I need

    x=F/k
    x=500/200=2.5"

    Therefore, I might hit the bumpstops on a 1G bump. So I can lighten the rearend, increase rear spring stiffness but consider spring frequencies before I make changes there. Or I can increase travel of the spring before the bumps stops make contact. Or live with the fact that I might be using my bumpstops.

    Here is an example. My daily driver, a lowered 95 mustang, has stock spring rates in the back with 0.5" of travel before I contact the bumpstops. It compresses the bumpstops about 0.5" as well. The ride is fine under 95% of all driving with only me in the car. When I see a huge bump I slow down. It seems to work just fine for me.
    It's definitely up to you, and it sounds like you have it all under control. Our Oldsmobile had about 2.5" of bump in it until I C notched it. Now it has 4" and rides awesome. I don't have any math to back it up but real world testing around town and on Power Tour has taught me to go with 7" travel shocks and at least 3.5" of bump for a smooth uninterrupted ride. If you plan to keep yours on the track more than this will not be as important.
    Phillip
    64 Studebaker Daytona Twin Turbo- http://bit.ly/1SgxQ0g
    65 Cutlass F-85 - http://bit.ly/1W4lJm4

  19. #319
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    ohio
    Posts
    1,127
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falcon65 View Post
    Not yet. I know I am boring.
    keep the wheels a spinning and the Beavers a grinning(burt reynolds-smokey and the bandit)

  20. #320
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    san diego
    Posts
    5,107
    Country Flag: United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by craigs73 View Post

    Dude, Im driving up saturday to pick up the tires. Hopefully I will have some valvestems. I cant seem to find any that fit the wheels.

Page 16 of 101 FirstFirst ... 6 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 26 66 ... LastLast


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •