Speed Direct's Shark Bite Rear Suspension Conversion
04-15-2014, 09:33 PM
#41
Melting Slicks
Member Since: May 2002
Location: Sulphur LA
Posts: 2,686
Received 105 Likes
on
95 Posts
St. Jude Donor '05-'06,'11,'13-'14,'16,'18,'19
I recently installed the DragVete system on my car (driven twice) and do agree with you about Steve. He is very knowledgeable of the rear suspension and always willing to talk with you about his products, can't say enough about how nice a guy he is.
Very impressed with the quality of his product and the detailed installation video is great to.
I also ordered the billet U-joint caps, drive shaft safety loop and the rear cross member support billet stabilizer discs.
Neal
Very impressed with the quality of his product and the detailed installation video is great to.
I also ordered the billet U-joint caps, drive shaft safety loop and the rear cross member support billet stabilizer discs.
Neal
04-15-2014, 10:15 PM
#42
Pro
Thread Starter
I recently installed the DragVete system on my car (driven twice) and do agree with you about Steve. He is very knowledgeable of the rear suspension and always willing to talk with you about his products, can't say enough about how nice a guy he is.
Very impressed with the quality of his product and the detailed installation video is great to.
I also ordered the billet U-joint caps, drive shaft safety loop and the rear cross member support billet stabilizer discs.
Neal
Very impressed with the quality of his product and the detailed installation video is great to.
I also ordered the billet U-joint caps, drive shaft safety loop and the rear cross member support billet stabilizer discs.
Neal
PLEASE keep me posted!
04-15-2014, 10:40 PM
#43
if you guys want a bad *** suspension at least start off with jri or a penski type shock set up.qa1 and Viking are like running bias ply tires versus modern high performance tires.
04-15-2014, 10:48 PM
#44
Tech Contributor
Member Since: Jun 2004
Location: I tend to be leery of any guy who doesn't own a chainsaw or a handgun.
Posts: 18,350
Received 767 Likes
on
549 Posts
One of the concerns I've had from the git go is how the independent suspension cant keep all the tread on the ground as the suspension travels up and down due to the design. I can remember years ago in the 70's seeing C1 Corvettes eat up the track with their solid axle, and I can remember seeing C2's from the 60's that either had a hook up issue or had changed to a solid axle. A month or so ago I spoke with Steve Yates, the creator of the Corvette Drag Link.
If you haven't seen his video, you should. Here's the link: http://youtu.be/RvxErdzPIb0
This was a month or two before I had purchased the SharkBite system, but had pretty much decided on it as soon as my piggy bank grew enough to splurge. My question then to Steve Yates, was if his 6 link was compatible with the SharkBite suspension. He told me yes, with a mod it would work, and several had already been completed. I thanked Steve for his time (a really great guy who's not only knowledgeable, but passionate about it and willing to share his knowledge as well) hung up the phone with a little smile, leaving me thinking.
When I was installing the SharkBite, and had completed it less the coil overs, I also did the bubble level test on my tires, and was frankly a little shocked at just how much the camber changed as I jacked the tire up, then let it down. It's all over the level. My real concern was when the car squats under acceleration. It this time and at this moment I need all the rubber I can get to the ground, and done so evenly. Since this is my first Vette, but certainly not a first street/strip drag car, I never had to deal with this issue, as I always ran a straight axle, either a Dana or a Ford 9". Getting a good enough grip without breaking parts was our only concern. And yes, I COULD suck it up and put a straight axle diff in, but I'd rather suck it up and find a solution. So today, I once again spoke with Steve after having a good understanding of the SharkBite suspension and digging back through his notes to ask what specifically had to be "modified" to work with the SharkBite suspension and was pleased to learn one u-bolt on each side had to have one end shortened, and if he knows it's going into a SharkBite suspension, he'll provide the mod with the kit! What a guy! As far as implementing a (bolt in at that) solution for the Rector Scale movement in the camber dept., I think the DragVette 6 link can go a LONG way towards achieving this goal and STILL keep that sexy SharkBite suspension. Could this be an example of having your cake and eating it too? Or is there a Pandora's box waiting to slam me back into reality? It may be days before we know the answer to that...
Although this is another "piggy bank" item I'll have to save for, it's made it on my list as well.
If you haven't seen his video, you should. Here's the link: http://youtu.be/RvxErdzPIb0
This was a month or two before I had purchased the SharkBite system, but had pretty much decided on it as soon as my piggy bank grew enough to splurge. My question then to Steve Yates, was if his 6 link was compatible with the SharkBite suspension. He told me yes, with a mod it would work, and several had already been completed. I thanked Steve for his time (a really great guy who's not only knowledgeable, but passionate about it and willing to share his knowledge as well) hung up the phone with a little smile, leaving me thinking.
When I was installing the SharkBite, and had completed it less the coil overs, I also did the bubble level test on my tires, and was frankly a little shocked at just how much the camber changed as I jacked the tire up, then let it down. It's all over the level. My real concern was when the car squats under acceleration. It this time and at this moment I need all the rubber I can get to the ground, and done so evenly. Since this is my first Vette, but certainly not a first street/strip drag car, I never had to deal with this issue, as I always ran a straight axle, either a Dana or a Ford 9". Getting a good enough grip without breaking parts was our only concern. And yes, I COULD suck it up and put a straight axle diff in, but I'd rather suck it up and find a solution. So today, I once again spoke with Steve after having a good understanding of the SharkBite suspension and digging back through his notes to ask what specifically had to be "modified" to work with the SharkBite suspension and was pleased to learn one u-bolt on each side had to have one end shortened, and if he knows it's going into a SharkBite suspension, he'll provide the mod with the kit! What a guy! As far as implementing a (bolt in at that) solution for the Rector Scale movement in the camber dept., I think the DragVette 6 link can go a LONG way towards achieving this goal and STILL keep that sexy SharkBite suspension. Could this be an example of having your cake and eating it too? Or is there a Pandora's box waiting to slam me back into reality? It may be days before we know the answer to that...
Although this is another "piggy bank" item I'll have to save for, it's made it on my list as well.
There's no free lunch in the suspension world. An IRS will work well for cornering or launching, but won't do both tasks equally well. A solid rear axle will keep the tires vertical for drag racing, but the large unsprung weight of those axles aren't the hot setup for road racing. You just have to pick which direction you want to go, and then live with the shortcomings.
04-16-2014, 12:43 AM
#45
Pro
Thread Starter
The camber curve on a C2, C3, and C4 suspension is determined by the length and angle of the lower strut rods. The camber change with wheel travel is there by design so that the tire camber compensates for the lean of the chassis during cornering. If you change the lower strut rods (to a parallelogram configuration with the halfshafts) to keep the tires completely vertical with travel, you'll get a Corvette that's decent at the starting line at the drags, but will be an ill handling POS on any road course.
There's no free lunch in the suspension world. An IRS will work well for cornering or launching, but won't do both tasks equally well. A solid rear axle will keep the tires vertical for drag racing, but the large unsprung weight of those axles aren't the hot setup for road racing. You just have to pick which direction you want to go, and then live with the shortcomings.
There's no free lunch in the suspension world. An IRS will work well for cornering or launching, but won't do both tasks equally well. A solid rear axle will keep the tires vertical for drag racing, but the large unsprung weight of those axles aren't the hot setup for road racing. You just have to pick which direction you want to go, and then live with the shortcomings.
Your up...
04-16-2014, 10:33 AM
#46
Tech Contributor
Member Since: Jun 2004
Location: I tend to be leery of any guy who doesn't own a chainsaw or a handgun.
Posts: 18,350
Received 767 Likes
on
549 Posts
If the upper strut rod and the lower strut rod are at equal length with the halfshafts, and all three are being lined up horizontally with one another, using the halfshafts as the horizontal reference point for both the upper and lower strut rods and the vertical pivot points of these strut rods lined up vertically with the halfshaft pivot joints it would seem this would alleviate a lot of the inherent issues with the factory camber problem. Wait. It wouldn't seem to, it would. Are you sure? Usher in the 6 link. This said, I cant get a grasp on this during hard cornering, but it should keep a lot more of the tire on and ground at all times. Once again, I cant help but see this as a HUGE improvement over stock.
Your up...
Your up...
Now, shim the frame on one side with a couple 2x4s so that the car/frame is at an angle to the ground. This simulates what the car looks like during cornering (the unshimmed side is the outside of the corner). Notice that when you move the suspension (on your above setup) that the outside tire (while moving up) is always at positive camber compared to the ground. Sure it stays at a right angle to the frame but who cares, because the all-important contact patch is between the tire and the road. Positive camber on the outside wheel results in greatly reduced traction, and as I mentioned earlier, this results in an ill handling (oversteering) POS.
Again, do you want your suspension geometry to be a straightline setup, or a sportscar setup? You can't have both at the same time.
04-16-2014, 11:48 AM
#47
Safety Car
Member Since: May 2004
Location: los altos hills california
Posts: 3,605
Received 1,125 Likes
on
729 Posts
Agree with 69 here. Let me suggest a geometrical visualization. At rest the six-link pivot points create a rectangle with the wheels vertical. Any roll in the car due to cornering turns these rectangles into parallelograms, with the outside line segment (i.e. the wheel) no longer perpendicular to the ground.
Last edited by ignatz; 04-16-2014 at 11:52 AM. Reason: perpendicular
04-16-2014, 12:24 PM
#48
Pro
Thread Starter
I've been studying the work of John Giovanni and the work of Steve Yates. What intrigues me about these guys, is instead of complaining about poor design of the C3, they were looking for solutions to improve it. And they both DID. They backed up their mouths with substance. No, I'm no engineer, but they were, and have proven their work with more than just words. Is there such thing as a perfect system? Probably not, as with each passing year improvements to even modern proven designs get better and better. But does a 6 link improve the rear suspension on a factory C3? How could it NOT. Also note, these systems can have the camber dialed to improve drag times or they can be set up for aggressive street driving as well. If you dial in 1 deg camber, you get 1 deg of camber throughout the range of travel, something you NEVER will be able to do with a stock C3 suspension. Is it PERFECT? No. Is it an improvement over stock? 
How could it not be. Another concern that should be added to the plus side of a 6 link, is it takes the halfshafts out of the equation of playing the role as an upper support strut rod. It also will alleviate the severe damage to the under body of your car should things with a halfshaft go awry, leaving your entire wheel assembly flopping around like a set noodle. So really, in the grand scheme of things, when you compare a stock C3 rear suspension against the proven works of Geovanni and Yates in designing a bolt in improvements for the C3 there simply is no comparison.
How could it not be. Another concern that should be added to the plus side of a 6 link, is it takes the halfshafts out of the equation of playing the role as an upper support strut rod. It also will alleviate the severe damage to the under body of your car should things with a halfshaft go awry, leaving your entire wheel assembly flopping around like a set noodle. So really, in the grand scheme of things, when you compare a stock C3 rear suspension against the proven works of Geovanni and Yates in designing a bolt in improvements for the C3 there simply is no comparison.
04-16-2014, 12:28 PM
#49
The ORIGINAL and bestest
Member Since: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto Ontario
Posts: 10,009
Received 234 Likes
on
143 Posts
Toronto Events Coordinator
The dragvette 6 link is good for straight line driving not cornering. Some camber change is required for good handling characteristics going around corners.
The inherent flaw in the c3 rear suspension is toe change not camber change. Neither the shark bite or the dragvette systems correct this flaw.
Since you don't seem to think anyone here is correct, then research this yourself.
The inherent flaw in the c3 rear suspension is toe change not camber change. Neither the shark bite or the dragvette systems correct this flaw.
Since you don't seem to think anyone here is correct, then research this yourself.
04-16-2014, 02:29 PM
#50
Tech Contributor
Member Since: Jun 2004
Location: I tend to be leery of any guy who doesn't own a chainsaw or a handgun.
Posts: 18,350
Received 767 Likes
on
549 Posts
I've been studying the work of John Giovanni and the work of Steve Yates. What intrigues me about these guys, is instead of complaining about poor design of the C3, they were looking for solutions to improve it. And they both DID. I did too, but you choose to ignore my advice. Why? They backed up their mouths with substance. No, I'm no engineer, but they were, and have proven their work with more than just words. Is there such thing as a perfect system? Probably not, as with each passing year improvements to even modern proven designs get better and better. But does a 6 link improve the rear suspension on a factory C3? How could it NOT. Also note, these systems can have the camber dialed to improve drag times or they can be set up for aggressive street driving as well. If you dial in 1 deg camber, you get 1 deg of camber throughout the range of travel, something you NEVER will be able to do with a stock C3 suspension. And that's fine, because you don't want a static 1* camber number with suspension travel. You want the camber number to increase with increasing roll to keep the tire perpendicular to the road surface. Static camber settings always result in an ill handling POS vehicle. Is it PERFECT? No. I guess we do finally agree on something. Is it an improvement over stock? How could it not be. Another concern that should be added to the plus side of a 6 link, is it takes the halfshafts out of the equation of playing the role as an upper support strut rod. It also will alleviate the severe damage to the under body of your car should things with a halfshaft go awry, leaving your entire wheel assembly flopping around like a set noodle. So really, in the grand scheme of things, when you compare a stock C3 rear suspension against the proven works of Geovanni and Yates in designing a bolt in improvements for the C3 there simply is no comparison.
How could it not be. Another concern that should be added to the plus side of a 6 link, is it takes the halfshafts out of the equation of playing the role as an upper support strut rod. It also will alleviate the severe damage to the under body of your car should things with a halfshaft go awry, leaving your entire wheel assembly flopping around like a set noodle. So really, in the grand scheme of things, when you compare a stock C3 rear suspension against the proven works of Geovanni and Yates in designing a bolt in improvements for the C3 there simply is no comparison. Spend your money any way you want. I think that's the only way you're going to convince yourself what works, and unfortunately what doesn't. For reasons that don't make any sense to me you choose to ignore valid facts and reasoning.
Last edited by 69427; 04-16-2014 at 03:59 PM. Reason: Spelling correction.
04-16-2014, 05:35 PM
#51
Pro
Thread Starter
I tell ya, I gotta agree with 7t2vette's comments.
Spend your money any way you want. I think that's the only way you're going to convince yourself what works, and unfortunately what doesn't. For reasons that don't make any sense to me you choose to ignore valid facts and reasoning.
Spend your money any way you want. I think that's the only way you're going to convince yourself what works, and unfortunately what doesn't. For reasons that don't make any sense to me you choose to ignore valid facts and reasoning.
Anyone here have any valid solutions? Or just more of the same, which is all the stuff we know WON'T work. I have a plethora of armchair engineers that fly off their easy chair, spilling their beer with what WON'T work at a moments notice. I get it, and you've had your opinions voiced AND spotlighted, and your insight is very much appreciated. This said, how about someone chiming in on what WILL work to IMPROVE a C3 suspension without destroying it to achieve the goal? (Preferably with real, first hand experience in the art of improving the rear C3 suspension). I really don't care about how much better a C6 or C7 handles than a C3. I have an old Mitsubishi 3000GT rice burner that will out handle my Vette big time, any day. Whoopee for you and me. I think that's great, however it has absolutely NOTHING to do with how the suspension on a C3 is designed, which is what we are trying to IMPROVE upon. *Note the word "improve". That doesn't imply that it is, or ever will be "the best handling car on the planet". We are looking to IMPROVE the handling from factory, without performing a total butcher job on the frame to achieve the goal. To think this isn't possible, I'd have to call bullsh*t. Sorry guys. It's always easier to shoot something down than it is to find a solution, and takes a lot less time doing so. Mission accomplished in that dept!. From what I gather here, it seems best to just scrap the idea of improved C3 suspension and keep it stock. (as if). Or go buy a C6 or C7, even though they can't hold a candle to a C3 in the looks dept, in my humble opinion of course. Oops. I said "looks". Shame on me! Somehow, I feel that leaving it stock with a rusty spring would be more pleasing to some of the masses, or at least offer a lot less to complain about. But then we'd be on the subject of a rusty spring for the next week. Talk about a viscous circle that leads to nowhere! As if there isn't already enough to complain about with a stock C3 suspension.
BTW, I like the color red....
I cant help but wonder what kind of a can of worms THAT will open up?
The following users liked this post:
scottjamison (08-28-2019)
04-16-2014, 07:04 PM
#52
Race Director
Member Since: Apr 2007
Location: South Western Ontario
Posts: 11,061
Received 845 Likes
on
721 Posts
Wow, this thread is getting rather stupid.
Every good sports car (plus many run of the mill cars) has a camber curve that decreases or goes more negative as the suspension compresses. Some also have a camber curve that increases or goes more positive under droop. This is to keep the tire contact patch evenly in contact with the road surface during cornering.
So, adding a system that fixes the camber during suspension travel will not help the cars cornering ability. There's a damn good reason the system is called Dragvette and that's because it only helps improve straight line performance.
As already posted, you could tune the camber curve of your suspension only by modifying the lower strut rod length and mounting bracket without buying any special kits.
Also as already posted, the rear C3 suspension suffers from the toe changing as the suspension travels. I've never seen a kit to fix this while keeping the rear trailing arms. To fix it you'd need to modify the front bushing to allow side to side movement (or make the arm hinge) and then add a toe link to the arm back by the wheel. This is basically what GM did with the C4 suspension.
Now you've had 3 people tell you the Dragvette system only improves straight line performance. I wonder how many more need to chime in before you believe anyone.
Every good sports car (plus many run of the mill cars) has a camber curve that decreases or goes more negative as the suspension compresses. Some also have a camber curve that increases or goes more positive under droop. This is to keep the tire contact patch evenly in contact with the road surface during cornering.
So, adding a system that fixes the camber during suspension travel will not help the cars cornering ability. There's a damn good reason the system is called Dragvette and that's because it only helps improve straight line performance.
As already posted, you could tune the camber curve of your suspension only by modifying the lower strut rod length and mounting bracket without buying any special kits.
Also as already posted, the rear C3 suspension suffers from the toe changing as the suspension travels. I've never seen a kit to fix this while keeping the rear trailing arms. To fix it you'd need to modify the front bushing to allow side to side movement (or make the arm hinge) and then add a toe link to the arm back by the wheel. This is basically what GM did with the C4 suspension.
Now you've had 3 people tell you the Dragvette system only improves straight line performance. I wonder how many more need to chime in before you believe anyone.
Last edited by lionelhutz; 04-16-2014 at 07:10 PM.
04-16-2014, 08:04 PM
#54
Tech Contributor
Member Since: Jun 2004
Location: I tend to be leery of any guy who doesn't own a chainsaw or a handgun.
Posts: 18,350
Received 767 Likes
on
549 Posts
I cant help but laugh my tail off, and please don't take it personally. Blame it on the 2 years of psychology I took way back in college. Gotta love the diversity of the human mind!
Anyone here have any valid solutions? Or just more of the same, which is all the stuff we know WON'T work. I have a plethora of armchair engineers that fly off their easy chair, spilling their beer with what WON'T work at a moments notice. I get it, and you've had your opinions voiced AND spotlighted, and your insight is very much appreciated. This said, how about someone chiming in on what WILL work to IMPROVE a C3 suspension without destroying it to achieve the goal? (Preferably with real, first hand experience in the art of improving the rear C3 suspension). I really don't care about how much better a C6 or C7 handles than a C3. I have an old Mitsubishi 3000GT rice burner that will out handle my Vette big time, any day. Whoopee for you and me. I think that's great, however it has absolutely NOTHING to do with how the suspension on a C3 is designed, which is what we are trying to IMPROVE upon. *Note the word "improve". That doesn't imply that it is, or ever will be "the best handling car on the planet". We are looking to IMPROVE the handling from factory, without performing a total butcher job on the frame to achieve the goal. To think this isn't possible, I'd have to call bullsh*t. Sorry guys. It's always easier to shoot something down than it is to find a solution, and takes a lot less time doing so. Mission accomplished in that dept!. From what I gather here, it seems best to just scrap the idea of improved C3 suspension and keep it stock. (as if). Or go buy a C6 or C7, even though they can't hold a candle to a C3 in the looks dept, in my humble opinion of course. Oops. I said "looks". Shame on me! Somehow, I feel that leaving it stock with a rusty spring would be more pleasing to some of the masses, or at least offer a lot less to complain about. But then we'd be on the subject of a rusty spring for the next week. Talk about a viscous circle that leads to nowhere! As if there isn't already enough to complain about with a stock C3 suspension.
BTW, I like the color red....
I cant help but wonder what kind of a can of worms THAT will open up?
Anyone here have any valid solutions? Or just more of the same, which is all the stuff we know WON'T work. I have a plethora of armchair engineers that fly off their easy chair, spilling their beer with what WON'T work at a moments notice. I get it, and you've had your opinions voiced AND spotlighted, and your insight is very much appreciated. This said, how about someone chiming in on what WILL work to IMPROVE a C3 suspension without destroying it to achieve the goal? (Preferably with real, first hand experience in the art of improving the rear C3 suspension). I really don't care about how much better a C6 or C7 handles than a C3. I have an old Mitsubishi 3000GT rice burner that will out handle my Vette big time, any day. Whoopee for you and me. I think that's great, however it has absolutely NOTHING to do with how the suspension on a C3 is designed, which is what we are trying to IMPROVE upon. *Note the word "improve". That doesn't imply that it is, or ever will be "the best handling car on the planet". We are looking to IMPROVE the handling from factory, without performing a total butcher job on the frame to achieve the goal. To think this isn't possible, I'd have to call bullsh*t. Sorry guys. It's always easier to shoot something down than it is to find a solution, and takes a lot less time doing so. Mission accomplished in that dept!. From what I gather here, it seems best to just scrap the idea of improved C3 suspension and keep it stock. (as if). Or go buy a C6 or C7, even though they can't hold a candle to a C3 in the looks dept, in my humble opinion of course. Oops. I said "looks". Shame on me! Somehow, I feel that leaving it stock with a rusty spring would be more pleasing to some of the masses, or at least offer a lot less to complain about. But then we'd be on the subject of a rusty spring for the next week. Talk about a viscous circle that leads to nowhere! As if there isn't already enough to complain about with a stock C3 suspension.
BTW, I like the color red....
I cant help but wonder what kind of a can of worms THAT will open up?
Several of us have tried to help you keep from wasting your money on things that don't work, and that also might make your car's handling worse. For reasons I don't understand, you don't seem to appreciate our help.
Unlike most of the kits you've mentioned, I've actually made changes to my C3 that get rid of the unwanted toe steer, and the annoying squat under acceleration. I don't call that armchair engineering. My car also has thousands of track miles on it so I have a working knowledge of suspension dynamics. Yet you just repeatedly respond with junior high sarcasm when I or other helpful forum members offer up technical advice. No big deal to me, but you're just wasting multiple opportunities to actually learn something.
Buy whatever you like, and have fun at the car shows, because the bling stuff will not make your car competitive on a road course.
04-16-2014, 08:30 PM
#56
Melting Slicks
Regarding improving the rear suspension with real world results
I have to say that I agree with alot of what 69427 is saying. I'm also a mechanical engineer and we are two of a few C3 owners that actually drive their cars really hard (i.e. on a race track pushing the car to its limits).
Let's see where to start. To your point about improving the rear suspensions without jumping all the way to a C5/C6 configuration. You don't need any fancy, huge dollar, rear suspension mods to make C3's handle. And when I say handle, I mean achieving over 1g in corners on street tires. If you can't hit 1g, you have work to do - plain and simple. Here is a picture of my rear suspension. Notice I have only purchased light weight brake calipers, good shocks, heavy duty strut rods, and a fiberglass spring. With this simplistic approach to the rear suspension I have recorded on a data logging system a sustained 1.1g's in a corner on non-competition tires.
The key is in the details, details, details.
Since that picture was taken I've also reduced the size of the rear sway bar by going to a factory 9/16" sway bar to create a more balanced handling.
Now as far as the Speed Direct's Shark Bite Rear Suspension goes. First let me say it is pretty and does add some bling to the rear suspension (very important for street machines - seriously). I'll admit, mine isn't anything to look at, which is why I still run the spare tire carrier
. However, if your talking improvements to handling here are two areas that I have concern with their design.
I would love to see a C3 with this suspension on a road coarse to see if my concerns show up as real world results .... I hope not, but the mechanics of the system just are not in your favor.
Let's see where to start. To your point about improving the rear suspensions without jumping all the way to a C5/C6 configuration. You don't need any fancy, huge dollar, rear suspension mods to make C3's handle. And when I say handle, I mean achieving over 1g in corners on street tires. If you can't hit 1g, you have work to do - plain and simple. Here is a picture of my rear suspension. Notice I have only purchased light weight brake calipers, good shocks, heavy duty strut rods, and a fiberglass spring. With this simplistic approach to the rear suspension I have recorded on a data logging system a sustained 1.1g's in a corner on non-competition tires.
The key is in the details, details, details.
- The cross member that holds the differential is set in rubber bushings from the factory. As the car corners the cross member actually shifts slightly from side to side due to compressing the rubber. This increases the outer wheel's toe angle and puts it into a toe-out condition (a bad thing). I fabricated poly bushings that are much stiffer and locate the whole suspension relative to the rest of the chassis better than the factory bushings. On C3 race cars, they just ditch the bushings all together and weld the cross member in, but that will increase gear whine inside the car so I didn't go that far.
- The rear differential needs to be moved up in the car to increase the angle of the half shafts. This will reduce the toe-out issue that is inherent in these cars.
- The camber strut rods inner bracket needs to be moved down ~1/2" relative to the half shaft joints at the differential. This does decrease camber gain some, but leaves enough for good handling characteristics. You don't want 0 camber gain except for drag racing. Lowering the inside of the strut rods also reduces the jacking affect of the rear suspension, which is also beneficial.
Since that picture was taken I've also reduced the size of the rear sway bar by going to a factory 9/16" sway bar to create a more balanced handling.
Now as far as the Speed Direct's Shark Bite Rear Suspension goes. First let me say it is pretty and does add some bling to the rear suspension (very important for street machines - seriously). I'll admit, mine isn't anything to look at, which is why I still run the spare tire carrier
. However, if your talking improvements to handling here are two areas that I have concern with their design.- The pivot points decrease the shock travel and makes them less effective.
- The springs/shocks are now forcing on the rear cross member horizontally instead of vertically like the leaf spring did. This will increase the side to side movement I mentioned earlier and increase the worst flaw in the rear suspension - the "rear steer" or toe out condition of the heavily loaded tire.
I would love to see a C3 with this suspension on a road coarse to see if my concerns show up as real world results .... I hope not, but the mechanics of the system just are not in your favor.
04-19-2014, 11:00 AM
#57
The key is in the details, details, details.
The cross member that holds the differential is set in rubber bushings from the factory. As the car corners the cross member actually shifts slightly from side to side due to compressing the rubber. This increases the outer wheel's toe angle and puts it into a toe-out condition (a bad thing). I fabricated poly bushings that are much stiffer and locate the whole suspension relative to the rest of the chassis better than the factory bushings. On C3 race cars, they just ditch the bushings all together and weld the cross member in, but that will increase gear whine inside the car so I didn't go that far.
The rear differential needs to be moved up in the car to increase the angle of the half shafts. This will reduce the toe-out issue that is inherent in these cars.
The camber strut rods inner bracket needs to be moved down ~1/2" relative to the half shaft joints at the differential. This does decrease camber gain some, but leaves enough for good handling characteristics. You don't want 0 camber gain except for drag racing. Lowering the inside of the strut rods also reduces the jacking affect of the rear suspension, which is also beneficial.
The cross member that holds the differential is set in rubber bushings from the factory. As the car corners the cross member actually shifts slightly from side to side due to compressing the rubber. This increases the outer wheel's toe angle and puts it into a toe-out condition (a bad thing). I fabricated poly bushings that are much stiffer and locate the whole suspension relative to the rest of the chassis better than the factory bushings. On C3 race cars, they just ditch the bushings all together and weld the cross member in, but that will increase gear whine inside the car so I didn't go that far.
The rear differential needs to be moved up in the car to increase the angle of the half shafts. This will reduce the toe-out issue that is inherent in these cars.
The camber strut rods inner bracket needs to be moved down ~1/2" relative to the half shaft joints at the differential. This does decrease camber gain some, but leaves enough for good handling characteristics. You don't want 0 camber gain except for drag racing. Lowering the inside of the strut rods also reduces the jacking affect of the rear suspension, which is also beneficial.
I have some questions on how you achieved your changes.
For the first adjustment on your list, do you think this part can help? (link)
How did you move up the differential? How did you move down the camber strut bracket?
Some pictures would be great.
Thanks,
Tobias
04-19-2014, 02:10 PM
#58
Safety Car
Member Since: May 2004
Location: los altos hills california
Posts: 3,605
Received 1,125 Likes
on
729 Posts
Hi there. I am looking at this thread from Germany. I have a '66 C2 and am very interested in improving the suspension. I already have the monospring from VBP with Bilstein shocks installed. This gave a huge improvement for my impression. But as always there is room for more.
I have some questions on how you achieved your changes.
For the first adjustment on your list, do you think this part can help? (link)
How did you move up the differential? How did you move down the camber strut bracket?
Some pictures would be great.
Thanks,
Tobias
I have some questions on how you achieved your changes.
For the first adjustment on your list, do you think this part can help? (link)
How did you move up the differential? How did you move down the camber strut bracket?
Some pictures would be great.
Thanks,
Tobias
The following users liked this post:
scottjamison (08-28-2019)
04-21-2014, 12:44 AM
#60
Melting Slicks
