ATS Spindle Thread Split

[BA.]

Well, I'm absolutely sure that I want a set as well, so I'd be interested in when the order taking will start too!

ASIDE FROM THAT, I do have this serious question:
If someone wanted the best suspension possible; one that offers better geometry for a 69 F body that is driven frequently, aggressively and an occasional short track/SCCA meeting, which would be the better option:



1. the new 1.4" taller spindle and 'stock geometry' UCA/LCA and good springs
2. the new 'stock height' spindle, with some aftermarket, geometry adjusting arms and say, the DSE coil-overs.


All thoughts/opinions welcome!

[baz67]

BA.,

That is a tough question because there is no really "best" combo out there. FWIW I am using your second combo. The final details of the exact geometry will be finished sometime soon.

Lets look at your options in what the differences are.

Option 1:
-all bolt on parts
-cheaper

Option 2:
-requires fabrication
-has more static caster options
-easier ride height adjustment
-easier spring rate changes
-more expensive

Remember any rules you may need to comply with to run SCCA.

[MoeBawlz]

That is indeed an SLS DuraformGF (glass filled) rapid prototype. If you go to quickparts.com they have a lot of information for material specs and tolerances for each of the different processes. You can also get an instant quote with an STL file for all the different operations. We made all the machine operations undersized so that we could machine it ourselves with better accuracy. And yes rapid prototyping rocks! I pulled this information from their site....

SLS Highlights:
Ideal for durable, functional parts with a variety of applications. Capable of producing snap fits and living hinges.
Maximum dimension for instant quote: 11”x13”x17”
SLS Material choices include Duraform, DuraformGF and Somos 201.
Standard Tolerances of +/- 0.005" for the first inch, and +/- 0.002" for each additional inch for Duraform and DuraformGF. For Somos 201, tolerances are +/- 0.04" for the first inch, and +/- 0.002" for each additional inch.
In the z height (vertical), standard tolerances of +/- 0.01" for the first inch, +/- 0.002” on every inch thereafter.
Standard Resolution: 0.004”

Excellent, thanks. Yah SLS is real strong, Ive only done FDM here and its fairly strong, I think SLS is the most if not one of the most accurate prototyping methods. We use a program here to estimate build time and cost. luckily my school has the FDM machine and im not paying out my rear end for each prototype i make.

and again thanks for the info.

[Steve68]

Brian and Shane, Yes, I understand, to answer the previous posts I read these the other day, and answered myself but forgot to reply, so when will we be ready to order?? Steve

[Marcus SC&C]

Wow,there`s a LOT of disjointed tech flying around here! There are no magic bullets,geometry is geometry. The 1.4" taller 7/8" drop spindles yield some very good numbers. I ran it with 1" drop springs also for a 1 7/8" total drop. Nice RC height (around 3" depending on several variables), pretty stable laterally (not great but good). Camber gain is mild,roughly -.5/in. *average*. Adding the G mod is not a good thing, it raises the RC too much,and shortens the FVSA dramatically although the camber gain gets pretty juicy (around -.85/in *average*). The numbers on the tall spindle with SC&C tall UBJs are better. RC height about 4" (you really don`t want to go any higher than that as a rule) with about 30% less lateral migration. Camber gain avg. about -.75/in. FVSA is a little short at about 95" but should work fine.
About UCAs. In stock form the UCAs droop,they`re low in their curve. Raising them moves them outward increasing + camber until you reach the apex of their curve,then it goes -. Raise them far enough past their apex to get back where you started and the UBJ will be in bind at ride height because the UCA was designed to keep it level when the UCA was drooping (in stock form). That`s why doing the B spindle swap on A and G bodys practically requires a shorter UCA. I say practically because people will hack just about anything together and drive it. ATS tall spindles will also require a shorter UCA IF you want full alignment range (especially on the - camber side) and full range of travel without UBJ stud bind. It`s not a shortcoming or flaw,just simple geometry.

This looks like a very good design. Taylor,will you be taking on dealers any time soon? I`d be interested in marketing them bundled with application specific adj. tubular UCAs with the tall modular UBJs as an option. Marcus SC&C

[chicane67]

FYI to the masses:

For clairification, the above statement, to be more specific, is A and G body related only. We all know the A and G body's have their inhearent geometrical problems. And if I may comment, in relation to the comments of the A and G body's UCA needing to be shorter, I will just say this...... just wait to see what we at ATS have up our sleeves to answer that problem.

That is all.....

[Blown353]

FYI to the masses:

For clairification, the above statement, to be more specific, is A and G body related only. We all know the A and G body's have their inhearent geometrical problems. And if I may comment, in relation to the comments of the A and G body's UCA needing to be shorter, I will just say this...... just wait to see what we at ATS have up our sleeves to answer that problem.

That is all.....

All I ask guys is please do away with the dreaded shim pack, a-la the Pole Position and other arms. I put my car on a frame rack last time I aligned it and rolled the frame way out because I was out of shims, and even after opening the frame up 5/8" I'm still almost out of shims! A means of adjusting camber/caster without the shim pack would be HIGHLY appreciated.

The odd thing is, my car's UCA mounting flanges were within factory spec, although they had closed up a bit from nominal. Guys with super-high mileage or big-block cars will definately suffer from frame sag, and the added adjustability of an adjustable UCA would be a HUGE benefit and also a selling point to you. Lots of people out there are not willing to fix the root cause of their alignment issues (i.e. roll the frame) so if they can't run your UCA's because they will run out of shims you will lose a sale. Design the adjustability into the UCA itself (getting the shim pack out of the picture) and you now have more interested parties as your parts will now work with sagged frames. Might as well put in the taller UBJ while you're at it for a better compression camber gain.

Marcus, the prelim numbers with the tall UBJ's look very promising... all we need now is a longer UCA/LCA combo so you can run more backspacing and improve on scrub radius a bit (hint, hint.)

Things are starting to look up for us A-body guys. Guess I need to sell my front B-Body Baer setup while the gettin' is good... some ATS spindles, new upper control arms with internal adjustment provisions, and a set of those new Baer 6S calipers are looking mighty nice right about now. Now that a good solution for the front is on the horizon, I suppose I need to get more motivated to find an Elky/Convertible boxed frame and start working on the 3-link out back.

I don't know why I need this suspension stuff anyways, my car's steering response seems more tied to right foot input than steering wheel input. LOL.

[wickedmotorhead]

As a word of caution, I just wanted to point out that this is an open forum and there are people that will give input and opinions in which information can get confusing, cluttered, and/or incorrect. Hense the "disjoint" information.

We WILL be doing a full press release on this product and any package deals as soon as it gets close to having them available for sale. All the correct and tested information for different configurations based off of physical and computer analysis will be on our website or we can be contacted personally for any of your concerns or needs.

I do want to assure everyone that we have looked at all the options and will offer solutions for any circumstance (ie the A/G Body setups). Thus far most of the tech information that I have seen is indeed correct and if you need reasurance please contact a member of the ATS team: me, Tyler, or Chicane personally and we would be glad to clear anything up for you.

Well that's my rant. Marcus, good point out, looks like you've pretty much done your homework, but we already have that covered for the A/G Body platform. Also I will have Tyler contact you about our dealer program since I think we could put together something pretty tight. Thanks again for everyone's interest.

Shane

[wally8]

Wow! It's like dueling infomercials here :-)

Blown353,

These would solve the problem you're talking about. They have about an inch and a half of adjustment:
http://www.speedwaymotors.com/xq/asp...qx/product.htm

ATS,

Are you guys going to roll out some detailed numbers (specs)? It's not like everyone can just go manufacture a spindle so you might as well. Marcus's numbers did help some but more is better.

How about strength? I'd like to see how it compares to tubular fabricated spindles. I've raced those so I know what they're capable of. If you can't do that, maybe compared to a typical stock spindle since I also know how those hold up on a track.


Wally

[wickedmotorhead]

We do have all the hard numbers at our disposal. You'll have to wait to see what we present at the press release, I assure you that you will not be disappointed at the thoroughness and attention to detail that went into the design. We are currently doing the FEA analysis based on true track data so I assure you that it will be strong enough. Also several sets will be going on a few frequent track abused cars to beat on as well. I agree that numbers will help and we do have that information, but we do not want to present a little at a time. We want to show it all at once in a presentable and comprehendible manner with all the corresponding components and packages.

Infomercial huh?...yeah I'd have to agree.

I wish I could offer them for only $19.95

Blown353,

I also will be running long control arms and about 8.25"BS on an 11" rim for the WSS so watch for that. Custom narrowed frame, but hey you already got one foot in, why not jump in the rest of the way!

Shane

[chicane67]

**EDIT** Yeah, what Shane said....... and to add to his comments:

Wally,

Until the release of the product, I dont believe the actual numbers will be disclosed. And you are correct, not everyone can just go manufacture a spindle, but unfortunately, most of the competition is doing just that.

To further this and possibly give you some insight on your other questions concerning strength, the AFX spindle, unlike the tubular, plate construction and other fabricated spindles, have not gone through any FEA analysis or million cycle testing that we are aware of (with the exception of only one company). Our offering surpasses the stringent and even the most critical OEM testing to gain DOT certification as a minimum. To do anything less, would be a gross misjudgement concerning liability.

Trust me, our development chassis is my personal 67...... and I am not very nice to parts. I will abuse any and every part installed onto the chassis so that I may be armed with the knowledge of what parts will and will not take. Not to mention, we will have the emperical data to back our findings as it is instrumented with enough DA to tell me when the sun is shining or not.

I find it kinda funny, that everyone with a suspension program can sit behind a keyboard and bang away at it all day to form their own opinions and theories, but without an actual product and testing it in the real world, these opinions and theories are mearly assumptions. All that can be done with that, is an assertion, without knowing where our 'white paper' starts. The previously stated geometrical numbers for the spindles are just rough numbers. They are not of the final product. But, they are close enough to give some insight to those who understand basic geometry and dynamic kinematics. Thankfully, we do have our fair share of those in our ranks and it is good to see them asking appropriate questions.

It does however, take time to deliver emperical data and until we are comfortable with that information and are confident with this product's public release timeline, I hope that you can be patient with our decision on keeping this information under wraps.

That time is not very far away.....

[dennis68]

I find it kinda funny, that everyone with a suspension program can sit behind a keyboard and bang away at it all day to form their own opinions and theories, but without an actual product and testing it in the real world, these opinions and theories are mearly assumptions.

Quick question Tom, how exactly did Shane come up with the initial design specs for the new spindle? Did he use a crayon and some paper to just throw down some numbers or did he use a very complicated computer program that will quickly compile data and get you really damn close to the end numbers you will eventually unveil?

Just asking as I'm pretty sure all of the big 3 (Chrysler I know for sure) use computer programs to design and evaluate suspension systems and build off those blueprints. I would guess most successful race teams do as well.

I'm sure it wasn't intended as a knock to those who have a pretty good grasp of design theory and know what they are looking at when viewing analysis results, sounded awfully cocky though.

I posted only a few times in this thread to questions that pertain to “A” body geometry as that is what I am most familiar with. It is impossible to design a spindle that will fit multiple applications and optimize each of them equally. It is also pretty egotistical to say that that anyone with an opinion about the specs ATS has released thus far is off base, numbers don’t lie. The ATS spindle is the best thing thus far but is not even close to being the best thing possible.

My congratulations to Tyler and his team for being one of the first to attempt a real fix for 35+ year old geometry problems. I am not knocking what you have done in any way. At the same time I don’t want to see anybody getting slammed for disclosing the results of their own independent analysis. Good luck to you guys.

[wickedmotorhead]

Actually I used chalk and my driveway...all kidding aside. Yes we did use a suspension program as a start. Designing the suspension in a program is a very solid start and from what we found doing the physical testing is it also fairly accurate...but their are factors that are not attributed to the program and that is why we have also done extensive physical testing to back up what the program is spitting out. I understand the Big 3 use programs and design from there, but what Tom is saying is that we also are taking that extra step (as do the OEs) to do real track testing and collecting of data to optimize the setup. Since the AFX spindle is designed for multiple applications it alone is not the "ulitimate" combination for both body styles ALONE, but it still drastically improves both setups to the best of its capabilities and with the help of some components (like in the A body case) it can be obtimized to its full potential.

Obviously we could design a clean sheet spindle that uses custom UCAs and LCAs to reduce scrub and dial in better geometry and make it application specific, but then you get into buying new rims, more components, clearing out your wallet and drastically limiting your market to that one car. Our setup is more than adequate for the ride and handling that most of our customer base is after.

I respect those (like Dennis and Marcus) that do have a good grasp on suspension geometry and how it works and appreciate their input, we just wanted to make it clear that we took every step possible to make sure that real world data matches the computer data and they are not a perfect match. I gave credit to Marcus for his data and I stated that it was close to ours and never implied it was "off base." I also stated that thus far pretty much everything said was legit. We welcome opinions and comments. Thats what this thread is for.

[chicane67]

Actually, it was me with a blue crayon, some toilet paper and a pair of dial venier calipers........

Shane, quit cutting me off. (I just saw Shanes comments, AFTER I wrote all of the following):

Denny~ I take it you that you felt my comments were directed towards Marcus? Well, make sure you have clean underwear and socks on, because they were not. Just as well as you and I know, Marcus's thoughts and explainations are right on the money. I am not slamming Marcus or any of the big three for using software in their design or analysis process. Nor was anything I said presumed or meant to be read into as being cocky. Yes, we use the wiz bang programs as well.

Allow me to clarify. You know me. I dont do apples to apples...... unless the second apple was cloned from the first. But there is a trend of all sorts going out and purchasing software, that unfortunately, will not produce the same numbers.

But, for analysis of like models to even be compared, they need to start off of a same, and basic point. Unless all models to be compared are, there will be induced error. For example, if I gave you......say three numbers...... how about 2, 47.962 and 127894. What do you get? The answer is quite simple. You dont know. You dont know because you dont know what I measured or where I measured from for comparison. Unless we share those numbers, anything that you come up with is an assumption. Unless you start from the exact DRH, RH and all associated angles and geometries, it is an assumption. Is it close? I dont know, it may be. But Ill tell you that with the induced error, it may just end up to be like the circle of friends analogy. You wisper a comment into ones ear and by the time it gets back to you, your name is uncle cracker and you just screwed the neighbors cat.

We know that this spindle is not perfect the answer for all. The direction we chose from the get go was to concentrate on the F body. We havent even really gotten started on the final A and G body components yet (component's, yes plural). We also know that the A and G body's require a shorter UCA. Now, if you toss in my eairlier comment about having something else up our sleeves, and the fact that we have Shane in the right environment. He, who is also an A body owner that we wont let outside into the fresh air and sun until our collective minds agree on any final specific component, rest assured the feed back we get from everyone is going into the melting pot.

I too, appreciate all comments. But what you dont know, is that the previously stated numbers for the spindles are just 'rough numbers' and not of the final product. Therefore, anything with those numbers being used is, basically, an assumption. Be it an independant analysis or not, it is still not a like model.

But, Marcus does have this one in the bag and isnt off base at all.........

[dennis68]

I figured it was just a momentary lapse of sanity that made it sound like it did, somebody has to keep you in check.


Stir the pot, stir the pot.

[chicane67]

Why thank you Sir........

[chevymike]

Umm.... with all the talk of geometry this and that, no one answered my question above about brake compatibility. I feel like the red headed step child so here I go again...

Will this spindle work with LS1 ('98-'02 F-bodies) brakes? I know the calipers are C5 ones but will the 12" rotors work or do vettes have a different offset? I already have the calipers, cages and rotors and was going to adapt them over to stock spindles but if these will work, I'll wait for them.

Thanks for the info.... I hope.

[Marcus SC&C]

I just re read my last post and some of the others and realized that I didn`t point out that my numbers are based *only* off of stock geometry and the noted changes. The subtle design differences in KPI,offsets etc. are not represented. Don`t anyone take my #s as gospel (at least in this case ;) ). Although it`s good to know I was in the ball park.
The comments about the UCAs are based on SLA suspensions in general not this spindle or 1st Gen F cars in particular. For example when I redid the front suspension on a customer`s `46 Plymouth rod and did (among other things) a more radical version of the G mod it was necessary to move the UCA perched inboard more than 1/2" to compensate and keep the camber in the middle of it`s adj. range with 0 camber. You get the idea. Like all rules of thumb there are exceptions though. If the UBJ taper of a taller set of spindles were moved outboard slightly (decreasing KPI) and angled more along the KPI the stock UCAs would work better.
I LOVE outside the box thinking! I`m looking forward to seeing all the little details on these pieces. Marcus SC&C

[wickedmotorhead]

Chevymike,

Sorry we didn't reply back to you earlier. I was waiting to get to the shop today and measure them, but we had a customer in town, so we are going to measure the offsets between the two different rotors and get back to you tomorrow if that's ok. Once again sorry for the delay. Also you are correct about the calipers being the same. Later.

Shane

[chevymike]

OK, great. I just didn't want it to get lost with all the other talk. Thanks and hoping with fingers crossed.