Coilover bracket design

[dipren443]

Ok, looking for some constructive criticism. Preliminary design for an upper coilover mount. Will slot right into the existing frame. Factory upper shock mounts have already been removed.

Looking for any and all comments.

[monteboy84]

Looks good, but it's hard to say what's ideal without seeing what it will tie into. Have any models or pictures of where it will mount?

[dipren443]

Looks good, but it's hard to say what's ideal without seeing what it will tie into. Have any models or pictures of where it will mount?

Matt, the second drawing shows some line traces. Those represent the frame itself.

These parts are going to be sent to a rapid prototype machine this week and I will mock them up on the frame and take more pics later.

[Tiger]

Looks good,
I closed mine a bit on the top as well to triangulate a bit

[silver69camaro]

I think it would be just fine, but I would widen the radius on the on the Y (vehicle-relative) axis side of the hole just a bit.

I would also increase the area mating to the frame - although I can't tell how many linear inches of weld there will be. Is there a reason for the empty space underneath the brackets?

Edit: I now see the coilover hole underneath. Is the brackets being welded to the UCA bracket as well?

[dipren443]

I think it would be just fine, but I would widen the radius on the on the Y (vehicle-relative) axis side of the hole just a bit.

I would also increase the area mating to the frame - although I can't tell how many linear inches of weld there will be. Is there a reason for the empty space underneath the brackets?

Edit: I now see the coilover hole underneath. Is the brackets being welded to the UCA bracket as well?

The brackets will be fully welded to the upright for the A-arm. The kickout on the inside is to follow the contours of the upright all the way down to the frame. Going to add a flat plate on the outer edge of the frame and brackets for the bump-stop to contact. The notches on the top of the brackets will lock under the lip of upright.

[James OLC]

It looks very similar to the original ATS (Stielow) design before they changed to the wider layout. IIRC there was some concern about the potential for deflection with the parallel configuration - I am assuming that you are trying to mitigate that with the low mounting point for the shock (?) One thing that I see with that (the low mounted shock) is that it could limit your shock length and that may be an issue with fitment if you're going to have a lower ride height. If I were to do mine over again I would go the oppoiste way and would have mounted the shock higher so that I could run a longer body and have more travel/compression at low ride height. Another thing that I would suggest checking is what clearance you will have at the upper end of the shock. Some of the adjustables, like the Penskes, have a larger adjustor at the top which is wider than the actual top of the shock:

[dipren443]

James,

That was the other option to go with the wider design. I am still not completely sold on the flat plate. I just wanted to get everyones thoughts. I have some prototype pieces from Lateral dynamics that I originally intended on using, but I think I can improve upon them.

Nick

[dcozzi]

Nick, was the LD bracket made of thinner guage than you plan to use as well? I thought I remembered it to be alot thinner guage than the ATS mount previously pictured.

The ATS unit looks pretty bullet-proof.

I would think the obvious (gusset the sides) but there's no room to clear the UCA. The only way I can think of is a semi-ghetto 1/4" thick bolt on cover for access to the shock top.
I'm just throwing out crap to see what sticks or sparks your mind. I am far from a fabricator, just an chronic "overbuilder".
You said any and all comments. Heh Heh Heh.

[dipren443]

Nick, was the LD bracket made of thinner guage than you plan to use as well? I thought I remembered it to be alot thinner guage than the ATS mount previously pictured.

The ATS unit looks pretty bullet-proof.



I would think the obvious (gusset the sides) but there's no room to clear the UCA. The only way I can think of is a semi-ghetto 1/4" thick bolt on cover for access to the shock top.
I'm just throwing out crap to see what sticks or sparks your mind. I am far from a fabricator, just an chronic "overbuilder".
You said any and all comments. Heh Heh Heh.

LOL. ALL comments. Hey, nothing wrong with some constructive criticism. The gauge of the LD brackets bothered me a bit. I want something a little beefier. I am going to combine ideas from my design and the ATS setup and will come back with a new 3D model in the next few days.

[MrQuick]

Nick, was the LD bracket made of thinner guage than you plan to use as well? I thought I remembered it to be alot thinner guage than the ATS mount previously pictured.

The ATS unit looks pretty bullet-proof.

I would think the obvious (gusset the sides) but there's no room to clear the UCA. The only way I can think of is a semi-ghetto 1/4" thick bolt on cover for access to the shock top.
I'm just throwing out crap to see what sticks or sparks your mind. I am far from a fabricator, just an chronic "overbuilder".
You said any and all comments. Heh Heh Heh.

I believe both are(were) 3/16" but the LD had a longer span. Dipren, are you going to have a cage?


Vince

[dipren443]

I believe both are(were) 3/16" but the LD had a longer span. Dipren, are you going to have a cage?


Vince

Vince,

I am not going to go with a full cage. I want to do a weld in roll bar to run harnesses and stiffen the uni-body.

[dcozzi]

I believe both are(were) 3/16" but the LD had a longer span. Dipren, are you going to have a cage?


Vince

Cool, the ATS just looks like 1/4" or bigger in the pic.
Vince, you were born 1 day before me.....old man!

[dipren443]

Cool, the ATS just looks like 1/4" or bigger in the pic.
Vince, you were born 1 day before me.....old man!

Put the calipers on the LD mount earlier. 3/16th's ;)

[MrQuick]

Cool, the ATS just looks like 1/4" or bigger in the pic.
Vince, you were born 1 day before me.....old man!

LOL, but i look like im 12. haaa


Vince

[mrn2obelvedere]

Why the curved profile on the diagonal part of the bracket? I think you should just make it straight because the stresses and deflections will be less. I did a quick n dirty FEA on it to illustrate.

Straight profile:


FEA, straight on top, curved on bottom (this is the stress distribution):

[dipren443]

Sean,

The profile is curved for control arm clearance. I still may need to mod my brand new control arms, but trying to avoid it

Nick

[mrn2obelvedere]

I wouldn't worry about it in either case. I was really just picking nits. The safety factor on it is really big anyway, I'm guessing 10+.

[tmcmillan5]

Hey I'm in the middle of a coil-over swap on my 68 Chevelle and like your design. I have a question on shock length, my plan was to use a 4.25 Varie shock w/ a max measurement of 14.25 extended length.
What I have done so far though is to move my lower mount outboard about 3" with your design I may need a longer shock which also means a taller spring , from 9" to 12" to equal a 16" extended eye to eye. I think I will also have to Shave my frame to allow for clearence on the outside of the spring. I am currently using the 12" 5.15 travel Varie Shock on the rear of my car that I can use to mock this up. Any thoughts here, spring weight, travel ect ?

Thanks, Tony

[Bowtie1z28]

Here is the setup I fabbed up for my 2nd Gen Camaro. I used the 6.150 travel VariShock and inverted the coilover giving free and clear access to the adjuster from the topside. The LCA is stock but modded with bolt in mounts for the lower coilover eye.