Cool suspension upgrade-New product coming. What ya think? - Page 2 - Vintage Mustang Forums

 25Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #16 of 66 (permalink) Old 09-05-2016, 12:02 AM
Senior Member
 
coolblue65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Algonquin, IL
Posts: 665
Garage
Send a message via AIM to coolblue65
Look like a new take on these from Ridetech: StrongArms :: 1967-1970 Ford Mustang - StrongArm Lower - RideTech.com - Suspension Specialist - Online Store
bobma likes this.



ET: 12.7@109 mph
ENGINE: FiTech EFI, DSS 347, AFR 185s, Vic Jr, XE274HR cam, MSD ign, Hooker Headers, Magnaflow exhaust
DRIVELINE: Tremec 3550, Pro 5.0, Fidanza AL Flywheel, McCleod clutch, 3.55's, 13" GT Front & Cobra Rear brakes
SUSPENSION: 17" TTII's, 235/45 tires, 620 coils, Shelby drop, 1" & 3/4" sway bars, Monte Carlo bar, S&T strut rods, Bilsteins, & roller perches
coolblue65 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #17 of 66 (permalink) Old 09-05-2016, 12:13 AM
Senior Member
 
Woodchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Peoples Republic of Vermont
Posts: 1,744
Send a message via Yahoo to Woodchuck
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolblue65 View Post
With some definite improvements!
Woodchuck is offline  
post #18 of 66 (permalink) Old 09-05-2016, 01:39 AM
Senior Member
 
blkfrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Anaheim Hills, CA
Posts: 2,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by GT289 View Post
I understand what everyone is saying.
I haven't modeled it. I'm concerned about the
areas circled in the photo.
And yes. I know the similarity to the stock lower arm and
its interface/connection with the stock strut rod.

ex-Global West GM
1991-1995
Is your concern a strength issue? It's the same .625 cold rolled stud used in our strut rod brackets. The DOM tube is .188 wall DOM with .625 ID. The stud slips into the DOM and is welded all around with a deep root. 14,000+ lbs of yield strength there per side. The strut rod portion is the same as our adjustable strut rods from the stud forward except for the turnbuckle length.

Tracy Blackford

65 Mustang FB, 331 custom built with 289 H beam rods and 383W piston, 282S cam, self ported '70 351w heads, Dougs Tri-Y headers. 1.7 shaft rockers and 26986 beehives. Hurricane Single Plane and custom 750 HP. T5z and 3.50 9" posi rear.
430 HP @ 6500...not too shabby for old school heads!


'65 Fastback
blkfrd is offline  
post #19 of 66 (permalink) Old 09-05-2016, 01:48 AM
Senior Member
 
blkfrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Anaheim Hills, CA
Posts: 2,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodchuck View Post
With some definite improvements!
and more points of adjustment...and they're not made of gold

I wonder how that design can have enough frame clearance during suspension compression without a notch in the outer side of the frame.

Tracy Blackford

65 Mustang FB, 331 custom built with 289 H beam rods and 383W piston, 282S cam, self ported '70 351w heads, Dougs Tri-Y headers. 1.7 shaft rockers and 26986 beehives. Hurricane Single Plane and custom 750 HP. T5z and 3.50 9" posi rear.
430 HP @ 6500...not too shabby for old school heads!


'65 Fastback
blkfrd is offline  
post #20 of 66 (permalink) Old 09-05-2016, 08:48 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
coupster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 938
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huskinhano View Post
No, that's not what I'm talking about. I understand all three point have movement. OK, let's call the LCA pivot point A, the BJ/strut rod point B and the strut to frame point C. With strut rod set at one setting the distance between between point A&C is going to be X". As you lengthen the the strut since the angle of the strut at the control arm is fixed, the distance between points A&C is going to be X+Y". If you shorten the strut it will be X-Y". It's like taking a right triangle. You have 2, 45* angles. Now that means if we make 2 sides 1" long, the hypotenuse will be 1.41" long...
I knew I should have paid more attention in geometry and algebra....my teacher was right...."someday you will need this"...

65 FB 289/3sp Rangoon Red/Red interior
67 FB 351C? Springtime Yellow?/? interior
68 Coupe 200/6 T-5 Diamond Blue/Blue interior
69 Coupe 250/6 C4, Blue/Black interior
70 Coupe 302/Auto Gold Metallic/Ginger interior
2010 Gold V6/Auto Sunset Gold/Black interior
65 Falcon Vintage Burgundy/Palomino interior

Last edited by coupster; 09-05-2016 at 08:53 AM.
coupster is offline  
post #21 of 66 (permalink) Old 09-05-2016, 10:31 AM
Senior Member
 
dobrostang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 1,887
Yea, I also think you could have an issue on that fixed angle. Very cool design and work but that fixed angle is gonna bind if you exceed or undercut the optimal angle or castor. This is all doable if you design it for a built-in fixed caster like 4 degrees with the UCA neutral (no or equal shims front and back), get rid of the caster adjustment on your system and let folks fine tune to their chosen castor with their upper control arm, would reduce the cost also. Otherwise, you need to be able to change that third angle, could be a locked down angle with two bolts like stock, in other words it doesn't have to dynamically change.

Simple test if you want to prove it; place your system on a pizza box. Mark the box at both ends that hit the frame e.g. LCA and "control arm" points. Now change the castor by moving the spindle end while pivoting around the LCA sperical bearing as if a bolt was holding the center of the bearing in place. The the "control arm" end will move in a direction the control arm spherical bearing cannot accommodate - if we are correct. Every degree of caster equals roughly 1/8" of movement at the spindle if my memory serves me. So move it 0.5" for 4 degrees castor...

The key here is the original ford design with a fixed angle was never intended to change. All Caster change was relegated to the UCA. When folks modify the stock system and alter it, slop in the two bolts at the LCA take up the slack in the system. For any fixed caster setting that angle can be locked down but that angle must change with each new setting IMHO...

Best regards,

Mark

Heavy Metal Thunder Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW3L_O7N_xs

Last edited by dobrostang; 09-05-2016 at 10:48 AM.
dobrostang is offline  
post #22 of 66 (permalink) Old 09-05-2016, 12:33 PM
Senior Member
 
blkfrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Anaheim Hills, CA
Posts: 2,573
The lower control arm is longer then the distance between the ball joints. Lower control arm is 13.25 inches long and the distance between the ball joints is 8 inches. Changing the Caster by 1 degree or one eighth of an inch changes the angle of the lower control arm by only .5 degrees. Even if you change the length of the lower control arm with the adjustment to like 13 inches the change of the angle of the lower control arm is still going to be about .5 degrees.

The spherical bearing will accommodate up to 14 degrees of offset which will never be approached. You could dial in 4 degrees of caster and the lower control arm angle changes by 2 degrees. The strut rod angle changes too, but it does not change enough to cause any frame clearance issues.

Most of the time the length of the lower control arms is going to be increased to add negative camber. On my car though one side is set to 13.25 degrees and the other side is set to 13 degrees to get -.75 degrees of negative camber... These old cars are just like that.

When I started making adjustable lower control arms I was curious about how the change in lower control arm length would affect the camber curve. So I did a CAD simulation to see what the effects would be. The change had negligible effects on the camber curve attributed to the fact that the upper control arm is so much shorter than the lower control arm. I have a book called stock car set-up secrets which discusses the same thing
blkfrd is offline  
post #23 of 66 (permalink) Old 09-05-2016, 12:53 PM
Senior Member
 
65coupei6_2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: S.F., CA
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by GT289 View Post
I understand what everyone is saying.
I haven't modeled it. I'm concerned about the
areas circled in the photo.
And yes. I know the similarity to the stock lower arm and
its interface/connection with the stock strut rod.

ex-Global West GM
1991-1995
This is all mostly over my head. But, if the design for the strut rod to lower arm mounting point was changed to something similar to Mike Maier's. It would take care of the triangle debate.

https://www.mikemaierinc.com/product...-rod-assembly/

...Marco

'65 Mustang Inline 200. Oz 250 Head, Holley 350,
Schneider 260/270 cam, Headers, DSII, MSD 6A, and a whole lotta other stuff!
65coupei6_2 is offline  
post #24 of 66 (permalink) Old 09-05-2016, 01:17 PM
Senior Member
 
Woodchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Peoples Republic of Vermont
Posts: 1,744
Send a message via Yahoo to Woodchuck
For Tom....
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Untitled.jpg (55.1 KB, 71 views)
Woodchuck is offline  
post #25 of 66 (permalink) Old 09-05-2016, 02:06 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
coupster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 938
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolblue65 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by 65coupei6_2 View Post
This is all mostly over my head. But, if the design for the strut rod to lower arm mounting point was changed to something similar to Mike Maier's. It would take care of the triangle debate.

https://www.mikemaierinc.com/product...-rod-assembly/
I know very little about these other set ups, and I am sure they are awesome, but I am immediately priced out of both of these options. It's all I can do to afford stock stuff. I guess I could sell a car or two...NaaaaH.

But in all fairness, buying QUALITY stock parts-lower arms, and strut rod bushings is fairly cheap...150 bucks or so. If you want to add adjustable strut rods, then your spending 400 bucks. I see upgrading to screw in BJ and spherical bearing worth another 100 bucks in my limited buget, and this product could be something to swing me in that direction. That's what got me started in all of this posting- I wanted a DIY adjustible strut rod. I was looking at several designs from dazecars, rosehill performance and others. And then a member asked about suspensions, and here we go... But I must say it has been a great conversation.

I don't daily drive my cars, and surely don't race or beat on them, so all of this is overkill for my needs. Price is always a consideration...but I have learned about buying the cheapest parts...too.
I will splurge for something I believe to be a solid and safe upgrade.

65 FB 289/3sp Rangoon Red/Red interior
67 FB 351C? Springtime Yellow?/? interior
68 Coupe 200/6 T-5 Diamond Blue/Blue interior
69 Coupe 250/6 C4, Blue/Black interior
70 Coupe 302/Auto Gold Metallic/Ginger interior
2010 Gold V6/Auto Sunset Gold/Black interior
65 Falcon Vintage Burgundy/Palomino interior

Last edited by coupster; 09-05-2016 at 02:27 PM.
coupster is offline  
post #26 of 66 (permalink) Old 09-07-2016, 08:30 AM
Senior Member
 
dobrostang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 1,887
I think you are right Tracy the angle can be accomodater for nicely, I think the issue will be a lateral translation at that mount - a sideways motion unless you accounted for it somehow. As you lengthen the rod, the strut rod mount will want to move outboard - pivotting around the lca heim. Prrhaps there is enough slop in the mount hole to accomodate the movement, i certainly have not done the math. It would be a simple enough calc. Essentially, as the strut rod gets longer, the distance between the heims also gets longer.

Again, i love the idea...

M
dobrostang is offline  
post #27 of 66 (permalink) Old 09-07-2016, 11:18 AM
Supporting Vendor
 
Shaun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Michigan, USA
Posts: 4,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huskinhano View Post
The problem I see with them is as you adjuste the strut rod the angle of the strut rod needs to change or the distance between the strut rod and lower pivot has to increase or something is going into a bind or bend after a while. As you change the length of the strut all the angles must change. With a triangle you can't just change 1 angle and all three side stay the same length.

On the typical 2 piece where it bolts to the arm can be loosened for the changing angle when the length of the strut changes.
This is exactly why the holes on our Strut Rod LCA end are slotted on an arc to accommodate this change.

In the original product listed, as the tube gets adjusting longer/shorter there will be a binding in the threads of the tube.

Last edited by Shaun; 09-07-2016 at 11:28 AM.
Shaun is offline  
post #28 of 66 (permalink) Old 09-07-2016, 11:21 AM
Supporting Vendor
 
Shaun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Michigan, USA
Posts: 4,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by GT289 View Post
I understand what everyone is saying.
I haven't modeled it. I'm concerned about the
areas circled in the photo.
And yes. I know the similarity to the stock lower arm and
its interface/connection with the stock strut rod.

ex-Global West GM
1991-1995
Big time stresses there, especially under hard braking. Many years ago we bent 5/16" plate at that location in one 20 minute track session. Some computer modeling suggested we needed 1/2" plate and much wider than what we had been using.
Shaun is offline  
post #29 of 66 (permalink) Old 09-07-2016, 07:47 PM
Senior Member
 
blkfrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Anaheim Hills, CA
Posts: 2,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun View Post
Big time stresses there, especially under hard braking. Many years ago we bent 5/16" plate at that location in one 20 minute track session. Some computer modeling suggested we needed 1/2" plate and much wider than what we had been using.
Considered 5/16" plate for adjustable strut rods at one time, but came to the same conclusion and went with thicker wider bracket.

Tracy Blackford

65 Mustang FB, 331 custom built with 289 H beam rods and 383W piston, 282S cam, self ported '70 351w heads, Dougs Tri-Y headers. 1.7 shaft rockers and 26986 beehives. Hurricane Single Plane and custom 750 HP. T5z and 3.50 9" posi rear.
430 HP @ 6500...not too shabby for old school heads!


'65 Fastback
blkfrd is offline  
post #30 of 66 (permalink) Old 09-07-2016, 08:46 PM
Senior Member
 
blkfrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Anaheim Hills, CA
Posts: 2,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by dobrostang View Post
I think you are right Tracy the angle can be accomodater for nicely, I think the issue will be a lateral translation at that mount - a sideways motion unless you accounted for it somehow. As you lengthen the rod, the strut rod mount will want to move outboard - pivotting around the lca heim. Prrhaps there is enough slop in the mount hole to accomodate the movement, i certainly have not done the math. It would be a simple enough calc. Essentially, as the strut rod gets longer, the distance between the heims also gets longer.

Again, i love the idea...

M
I'll try to explain in more detail.

The front strut rod frame mount and the inboard LCA mount are the only fixed points. The strut rod angle at the Strut Arm is fixed, but the ball joint isn't. The ball joint location is defined by the adjusted length of the strut rod and the LCA.

I'll start out with the Strut Arm installed with a neutral LCA that is perpendicular to the frame and there is no offset angle at the strut rod heim and no offset angle at the spherical bearing.

As the strut rod is lengthened, the LCA moves back and the ball joint moves back and in following an arc as it pivots around the spherical bearing, the offset angle of the heim will become non-zero and the offset angle of the spherical bearing will become non-zero. Lets say for clarity the offset angles are positive from neutral for this case. The strut rod does not bind, because the Strut arm is pivoting at the spherical bearing. The approaching angle of the strut rod to the front does change resulting in an offset angle at the heim joint.

Back to neutral. As the strut rod is shortened, the LCA moves forward and the ball joint moves forward and in following an arc as it pivots around the spherical bearing, the offset angle of the heim will become non-zero and the offset angle of the spherical bearing will become non-zero (for this case lets say the angles are negative from neutral). The strut rod does not bind, because the Strut arm is pivoting at the spherical bearing. The approaching angle of the strut rod to the front does change resulting in an offset angle at the heim joint.

There will be no bind unless I were to exceed the maximum misalignment angles which are 14 degrees or if the hardware were to interfere with some other part of the car. If I were lengthening the strut rod, I'd have to move the ball joint back over 3 inches to reach an offset angle of 14 degrees at the spherical bearing, but before I got it moved back that far, the strut rod would run out of adjustment...no one moves their wheel back over 3 inches...that would be more than 23 degrees of castor... Even if it could move it back that far, the strut rod would start to interfere with the sway bar before i got it moved back that far. Same kind of story if I were shortening the strut rod...no one moves their wheel forward over 3 inches...23 degrees of castor anyone?

Here is a pic of what came off the car when I installed the Strut Arms a few weeks ago:

http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/100...g?v=1472171400

These adjustable strut rods and adjustable LCAs were on the car for many years. The heim joints are as tight as the day I installed the parts. There has never been any issue with bind with this hardware. Many happy customers who have purchased these separately or together. The strut rod angle is fixed. The Strut Arm is just a melding of both these parts into one.

Hope this helps to clarify the situation
Woodchuck likes this.

Tracy Blackford

65 Mustang FB, 331 custom built with 289 H beam rods and 383W piston, 282S cam, self ported '70 351w heads, Dougs Tri-Y headers. 1.7 shaft rockers and 26986 beehives. Hurricane Single Plane and custom 750 HP. T5z and 3.50 9" posi rear.
430 HP @ 6500...not too shabby for old school heads!


'65 Fastback

Last edited by blkfrd; 09-07-2016 at 09:09 PM.
blkfrd is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Vintage Mustang Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome