Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Peoples Republic of Vermont
Doesn't look like an issue to me. The key is to not think of the motion of the lower ball joint in a straight line, up and down. As the control arm swings down, the strut rod is going to pull the ball joint forward. That's going to cause caster gain on the inside wheel of a turn, which is beneficial. More caster gain on the inside wheel also results in more positive camber gain, which you also want on the inside wheel.
Yes, on movement the strut rod, itself, is going to rotate, torsionally, clockwise on extension and counter-clockwise on compression. The rod end at the frame mount will allow this movement without binding.
This looks like a GREAT set-up, IMHO and "fixes" the issues with the stock rubber-mounted lower control arm and strut rod set-up.
PS: Your attached image is of a triangulated lower control arm which is different than Tracy's set-up. The attachment angles of the 2 LCA mounting points are such that movement of the ball joint is in an arc parallel to a line intersecting both LCA mounting points. Therefore, the front and rear arms remain perpendicular to the mounting bolts. Tracy's is much more dynamic in that the arc transcribed by the lower ball joint is not a simple arc but, as the LCA drops, the ball joint not only moves inward, but also forward, with the movement accelerated as the amount of extension increases.
Last edited by Woodchuck; 09-04-2016 at 10:27 PM.