Trailing and camber rod brackets!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Drifting
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,697
Likes: 454
From: Mass Mass
I've found that "AntiSquat" is a very poorly understood and sometimes volatile topic.
Drag racers believe the more (over 100%) the better for traction, Road racers seam to think less (less that 100%) is better for traction.
100% being no rear lift or squat on acceleration (neutral).
Can’t both be right … or can they?
The best discussion I’ve found about it, to date, is here:
http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.c...105947&page=12
It’s a tuff read, and they go off subject a bit, but some good information in it
Drag racers believe the more (over 100%) the better for traction, Road racers seam to think less (less that 100%) is better for traction.
100% being no rear lift or squat on acceleration (neutral).
Can’t both be right … or can they?
The best discussion I’ve found about it, to date, is here:
http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.c...105947&page=12
It’s a tuff read, and they go off subject a bit, but some good information in it
Last edited by SuperL98; Apr 9, 2008 at 05:55 PM.
Thread Starter
Former Vendor
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 9,615
Likes: 13
From: Burlington NC
I am still waiting on a few more of the 16 to trickle in here. I will put you on the list for the next go around.
Randy
Thread Starter
Former Vendor
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 9,615
Likes: 13
From: Burlington NC
I've found that "AntiSquat" is a very poorly understood and sometimes volatile topic.
Drag racers believe the more (over 100%) the better for traction, Road racers seam to think less (less that 100%) is better for traction.
100% being no rear lift or squat on acceleration (neutral).
Can’t both be right … or can they?
The best discussion I’ve found about it, to date, is here:
http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.c...105947&page=12
It’s a tuff read, and they go off subject a bit, but some good information in it
Drag racers believe the more (over 100%) the better for traction, Road racers seam to think less (less that 100%) is better for traction.
100% being no rear lift or squat on acceleration (neutral).
Can’t both be right … or can they?
The best discussion I’ve found about it, to date, is here:
http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.c...105947&page=12
It’s a tuff read, and they go off subject a bit, but some good information in it
I didn't read all of the link. But I know one thing from growing up and living as a full time racer. Many different ideas, and theorys cross the finish line first. Go to the local dirt track and look at how many different ways a car can be setup.
Randy
Drifting
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,697
Likes: 454
From: Mass Mass
But here, when you think more about it, the two conditions can be very different.
The Drag Racer has & is:
* Tall, soft flexible sidewall, very sticky tires (slicks).
* Accelerating from a dead stop (chassis settled).
* Relative smooth, sticky pavement.
* Going in a straight line.
These things favor a very quick responding (for reaction time), hard-hitting application of power, dynamically stiffer rear suspension (High Anti Squat). And also can better tolerate the quick unloading reaction that comes after the initial launch (flexible sidewall again).
The Road Racer has & is:
* Shorter, very stiff sidewall, not so sticky tires (compared to slicks).
* Usually accelerating from low speed out of a corner, with a very unsettled chassis.
* Typically a bumpy and sandy pavement.
* Maybe going straight, usually turning into the next corner.
These conditions usually favor a softer application of power and a more dynamically compliant rear suspension (Low Anti Squat).
This supports the DRM theory that softer, lower antisquat (from your trailing arm relocation) is good thing for road racers, and maybe street tire drag racers.
Probably not so good for the all out, slicked, drag car.
Burning Brakes
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 760
Likes: 1
From: Greenwich, CT
Originally Posted by ukchevybuilder
re anti squat
This is a very interesting and informative thread. I can only offer two comments
1) I have seen 18" shown as the CG height for a C4 in a book, many of whose illustrations looked as if they came from GM. The front roll center was, I think, 4.6" and rear RC was 8". From my own calculations I would support the 18" CG number rather than 15".
2) A lot of road cars have anti dive and anti squat because with relatively soft spring rates fore and aft weight transfer uses up a lot of suspension movement before you hit a bump or generate roll angles. For a track car with harder springs to limit roll the relative benefit of anti dive is less. The traditional argument against anti dive/squat on track cars is that it affects the transient handling by diverting some of the weight transfer to the "solid" method through the links as opposed to the springs. This, it has been argued, reduces "feel"and complicates roll stiffness and reduces the effective control power of the dampers.. I could guess that this might be a particular issue on autocrossing because of all the short duration transients involved mean that the dampers are the predominant control factor.
This is a very interesting and informative thread. I can only offer two comments
1) I have seen 18" shown as the CG height for a C4 in a book, many of whose illustrations looked as if they came from GM. The front roll center was, I think, 4.6" and rear RC was 8". From my own calculations I would support the 18" CG number rather than 15".
2) A lot of road cars have anti dive and anti squat because with relatively soft spring rates fore and aft weight transfer uses up a lot of suspension movement before you hit a bump or generate roll angles. For a track car with harder springs to limit roll the relative benefit of anti dive is less. The traditional argument against anti dive/squat on track cars is that it affects the transient handling by diverting some of the weight transfer to the "solid" method through the links as opposed to the springs. This, it has been argued, reduces "feel"and complicates roll stiffness and reduces the effective control power of the dampers.. I could guess that this might be a particular issue on autocrossing because of all the short duration transients involved mean that the dampers are the predominant control factor.
B. I would have done, but you haven't answered the two e-mails I sent you at the time -
one to you @ DRM and another @CF address in your profile. Thanks anyway, you can
delete them from your 'To Do' list now.
Tech Contributor
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 20,795
Likes: 959
From: I tend to be leery of any guy who doesn't own a chainsaw or a handgun.
In Randy's initial post (1/24) asking for expressions of interest
he gave a general overview of the benefits of the two sets of brackets.
Trailing and camber rod brackets, gauging interest
I do not recall anyone ever posting what the details of the changes
entail (geometry, precision measurements). My vote is that since this
amounts to someone's Intellectual Property, the details ought not be
displayed in the public domain unless the vendor chooses to do so.
.
he gave a general overview of the benefits of the two sets of brackets.
Trailing and camber rod brackets, gauging interest
I do not recall anyone ever posting what the details of the changes
entail (geometry, precision measurements). My vote is that since this
amounts to someone's Intellectual Property, the details ought not be
displayed in the public domain unless the vendor chooses to do so.
.
Regarding details of the part, and intellectual property, I disagree with your position. There is a lot of snake oil being sold in the Corvette aftermarket industry (I am not referring to DRM in this instance), and I see nothing wrong with asking how a new part is different from the old part. I'm going to take a wild guess, and assume you wouldn't buy a camshaft without all the specs to compare it to your original cam. Just saying "it's better" or "it's faster" doesn't cut it anymore.
(Disclaimer: I'm a design engineer by trade. I'm used to data, rather than generalities.)
Just my opinion.
Thread Starter
Former Vendor
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 9,615
Likes: 13
From: Burlington NC
I missed the earlier post that gave the general trend of the changes. I appreciate your forwarding the original thread posting.
Regarding details of the part, and intellectual property, I disagree with your position. There is a lot of snake oil being sold in the Corvette aftermarket industry (I am not referring to DRM in this instance), and I see nothing wrong with asking how a new part is different from the old part. I'm going to take a wild guess, and assume you wouldn't buy a camshaft without all the specs to compare it to your original cam. Just saying "it's better" or "it's faster" doesn't cut it anymore.
(Disclaimer: I'm a design engineer by trade. I'm used to data, rather than generalities.)
Just my opinion.
Regarding details of the part, and intellectual property, I disagree with your position. There is a lot of snake oil being sold in the Corvette aftermarket industry (I am not referring to DRM in this instance), and I see nothing wrong with asking how a new part is different from the old part. I'm going to take a wild guess, and assume you wouldn't buy a camshaft without all the specs to compare it to your original cam. Just saying "it's better" or "it's faster" doesn't cut it anymore.
(Disclaimer: I'm a design engineer by trade. I'm used to data, rather than generalities.)
Just my opinion.
Suspensions are one of the most important and hardest to engineer part of the car. It's even harder for internet talk. The engine are easiest to measure and internet it and are pretty simple to a point. Why don't you see dyno numbers from our shop?
I have never seen shock valving numbers on this forum, well besides drag guys talking about the "90-10". Same type of a deal with our trailing and camber rod brackets.
We made this parts for our own racecars, then installed them into street cars that get raced. Same results happened, more tire contact with the road and more weight to get the 3000 plus pound cars coming out of the corners.
So how does our company engineer a products. Well we don't spend time on the computer. We spend our time in the shop measuring, change measure, change measure again. Then bring a bunch of stuff to the track and race it. We were very lucky to be able to test products like we have. Back in the C4 days the tire companies paid for a lot of our testing which gave us a unfair advantage! Also we have had very good test drivers in our cars, they may not be the fastest but they can give feedback. We found working with tire companies is the best way of going faster. Those guys know more about the car's suspension then anyone else. Why? Because it is important to have the suspension working with the tire, unlike a lot of people now days making a tire work with their suspensions.
For $200 bucks isn't it worth the risk of going faster!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Randy
www.dougrippie.com
Corvette Stories
The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts
2027 Corvette vs The World: Every C8 vs Its Closest Competitor
Joe Kucinski
10 Most Common Corvette Problems of the Last 20 Years!
Joe Kucinski
5 MOST and 5 LEAST Popular Corvette Model Years in History!
Joe Kucinski
2027 Corvette Buyer's Guide: Everything You Need to Know!
Joe Kucinski
10 Things C8 Corvette Owners Hate (But Won't Tell You)
Joe Kucinski
10 Best Corvettes Coming to Barrett-Jackson Palm Beach 2026!
Brett Foote
Every Corvette Grand Sport Explained! (C2, C4, C6, C7, & C8)
Joe Kucinski
Grand Sport & Grand Sport X Launch Alongside All-New 535hp LS6 V8!
Michael S. Palmer
5 Reasons Bad Drivers Crash & 5 Ways to Avoid a Costly Mistake!
Joe Kucinski
Thread Starter
Former Vendor
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 9,615
Likes: 13
From: Burlington NC
Instructor
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 105
Likes: 1
Hi Randy,
I am interested in buying a set of the camber brackets but do have a question on how effective they would be for my application, which you may or may not be able to answer. I have a replica of the 1958 Lister Corvette that uses the early C4 suspension. The car is only 2000 lbs and I know that some of the rear components have been modified/narrowed from stock by the builder (leaf spring is shorter, camber rods not stock, not sure about half-shafts). Other components are completely stock (knuckles, trailing arms, toe rods). Any thoughts? I am willing to take some measurements and send them to you off line if it would help in your response.
Also I just checked your website and it indicates "1984-87 Corvette 22-020 Out of stock" for the camber brackets. Are you just giving us the first crack at them before you open it up for the general public?
Thanks,
Alan
I am interested in buying a set of the camber brackets but do have a question on how effective they would be for my application, which you may or may not be able to answer. I have a replica of the 1958 Lister Corvette that uses the early C4 suspension. The car is only 2000 lbs and I know that some of the rear components have been modified/narrowed from stock by the builder (leaf spring is shorter, camber rods not stock, not sure about half-shafts). Other components are completely stock (knuckles, trailing arms, toe rods). Any thoughts? I am willing to take some measurements and send them to you off line if it would help in your response.
Also I just checked your website and it indicates "1984-87 Corvette 22-020 Out of stock" for the camber brackets. Are you just giving us the first crack at them before you open it up for the general public?
Thanks,
Alan
