Drop member V3- Scotts bolt in front-

[jmedero]

I know. 0 to 60 in 8 blocks flat!!
Posted via Mobile Device

[JNJchev77]

Now that's fast!!

[edflores]

Originally Posted by robnolimit

NEWS FLASH
Although I wasn't planning on letting this out until next month when the invites go out, You guys get the info first. Early this summer, in june, we will be co-hosting the first ever C-10 Suspension Drive-off. This will be an "invite only" event designed to showcase the different suspensions and upgrade kits avaible for these trucks. As both Porterbuilt and Scott's are on the invite list, and we want both to be there, this seems like a great place to let the word out. Entrants must bring a 67-72 short bed, with their suspension parts installed. Any motor/trans combo, wheel/tire, and brake kit are allowed. All entrants MUST provide a COMPLETE parts list of ALL chassis, suspension, brake, and drive line component. Including part #, origen, and list price. Any "custom" or "one-off" items or mods must also be listed. The event will take place in Riverside, Ca. and will feature several magazine editors, two professional drivers (well known), and a know TV personality, as test drivers. The trucks will be driven by all drivers on a 12 mile "street drive" loop, and on a Time Attack road coarse by no less than two editors two pro drivers, and the truck owner. All of the results will be published including build stats, street drive comments, and track times. Our goal is not to try and show who's is best, but to show the strengths of each product, so that the enthusiests can get the results they're after. Other invites will go to Hotchkis, ECE, Jim Meyer, Marquez Design, CPP, KP pomponents, Ride Tech and others. If you don't see your name, and you want your company invited, pm me.

Are spectators welcome?

[Tony@AirRideTech]

Originally Posted by edflores

Are spectators welcome?

no... but Tony and a 12pack of cold beer is....

[65Gregg]

Can I have the beer/pizza concession rights?

[robnolimit]

OK guys, my bad. No spectators due to insurance. I'll start a thread as info is avail. I don't want to "thread jack" from Porterbuilt and/or Scotts. I'll stay out of this one.

[PBFAB.COM]

No worries Rob!

I figured I would go ahead and include some more technical information in regards to the suspension/steering geometry of the Porterbuilt Dropmember and some background as to "why".

When I first designed the Dropmember back in 2004-2005 I spent a lot of time tweaking the geometry in order to make it accomplish exactly what I wanted. This system was never designed to be an "ultimate performance" suspension system... but I wanted to develop a system that was an improvement from the factory design, could be driven at an extremely low height, and plant the rails on the ground with a big wheel... without the need to "Z" the frame.

First on the list was the necessary ground clearance. The Dropmember moves the suspension up in the chassis so that the lowest part of the front suspension is actually 1.25" off the ground when the frame is resting flat (the lowest point is the lower control arm outer bushing sleeve). This allows the truck to be driven extremely low without hangin up on all the imperfections on the road.

Second was to narrow up the trac-width. The Dropmember narrows the track width right at 1.5" per side (from stock) allowing more tire clearance while riding and turning when extremely low.

Third, we wanted to move the wheel center-line forward to center the wheels in the wheel wells... mission accomplished. You can run a 22" wheel and not even worry about cutting into the firewall for tire clearance.

And while striving to accomplish these key points we also wanted to make some "improvements" to the C10 geometry.... as in it's factory design there is a lot to be desired. As many have been learning, thanks to Rob from No Limit and his "make it handle" thread, one of the key points to making these trucks handle better is to add caster. The Dropmember has 6.97 degrees of caster in its design.

Another key point we implememted was to design the camber curve to where it didn't gain a lot of camber through compression. We didn't want the truck to have extreme camber when aired out and have that "broken" look. Some might argue that camber gain is essential to a performance suspension... and it is... but that was not the overall goal of the Dropmember. The Dropmember only gains 1 degree of negative camber through 6 inches of compression. Doesn't make it stick in the corners like a porsche, but looks good at the show.

We also wanted to adapt a rack and pinion steering gear to the design, not just because we had to in order to get the trac-width narrowed, but it also decreased the sprung weight considerably. We mounted the rack high on the crossmember in order to accomplish all we wanted (with it being a factory replacement rack we didn't have the liberty to put it anywhere else). The downfall to this was the necessity to notch the frame for the rack's tie-rod clearance. Not too big of a deal for most guys looking for this type of product, as they would expect a little cutting and welding. The big upside is the angle for the steering linkage. On most motors and header combos its a straight shot. It was important to keep the bumpsteer in check as well, and we were able to hold to the standard of .1 degree of bumpsteer per inch of wheel travel.

If anybody has any more technical questions they can feel free to ask, as I will be more than happy to answer any questions.

On a side note... keep your eyes peeled for our performance version of the Dropmember as it is just around the corner.

[jimmydean]

Nate, post a picture of the prototype you had buried in the corner compared to the V3. Or just have Dino post up his fleet. He has one of each version by now, right?

<edit> Rob, as long as you get enough video of the event and make it available, that would be awesome.

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by Tony@AirRideTech

no... but Tony and a 12pack of cold beer is....

You're not fooling anyone here..... If you didn't have that cold 12pk, you wouldn't be invited either .

[edflores]

Originally Posted by robnolimit

OK guys, my bad. No spectators due to insurance. I'll start a thread as info is avail. I don't want to "thread jack" from Porterbuilt and/or Scotts. I'll stay out of this one.

Darnn.. can I "volunteer" that day? lol
I passed by your shop today, dropping of parts to your nieghbor.. I never realized you were so close. If you ever need a tow, let me know. We are off arrowhead and central.

Back to the topic, I vote porterbuilt, mainly because off the fact that you can reuse stock arms, and upgrade as you go. Both are quality pieces with great reputations. Realisticly, they are both at a good price for what you get.

[gringoloco]

Originally Posted by porterbuilt

On a side note... keep your eyes peeled for our performance version of the Dropmember as it is just around the corner.

Way to sneak that one in Any hints? Stock arms? Coil over? Anything to correct that camber issue?

[PBFAB.COM]

Originally Posted by gringoloco

Way to sneak that one in Any hints? Stock arms? Coil over? Anything to correct that camber issue?

Don't know if I would refer to it as an "issue" as I designed it that way for a reason.

However, the "DM Touring" is a different animal... I can actually call it a "performance suspension". 6" ride height with a 2" spindle and 28" tall tire (measured from flat section of frame-rail under cab to ground) Wider trac-width, coil-over... tube arms. That's all I will say for now...

[65Gregg]

This thread is really getting good...

[gringoloco]

Originally Posted by porterbuilt

Don't know if I would refer to it as an "issue" as I designed it that way for a reason.

However, the "DM Touring" is a different animal... I can actually call it a "performance suspension". 6" ride height with a 2" spindle and 28" tall tire (measured from flat section of frame-rail under cab to ground) Wider trac-width, coil-over... tube arms. That's all I will say for now...

Crap! My original draft of that post had quotations around "issue", though I think I originally was calling it a "problem". Oops...

Hmmm... 2" drop spindle. Does anyone make a C10 spindle in a 2" drop? Tuned-in. This could be cool

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by gringoloco

Hmmm... 2" drop spindle. Does anyone make a C10 spindle in a 2" drop? Tuned-in. This could be cool

I know of one . . ....

[54Caddy]

dang hats off to porterbuilt and scotts hot rods for laying out all the differences of eachothers kits with explanations with why chose the products they have for there kits. Soon i hope ill be able to order one of them when my wallet will allow. Nate the dm touring kit sounds very interesting will stayed tune for that for my 68 and still awaiting more info on the rear trailing arm kit for the 79. Keep this thread up can get very interesting with more developments from each company.

[PBFAB.COM]

Originally Posted by gringoloco

Crap! My original draft of that post had quotations around "issue", though I think I originally was calling it a "problem". Oops...

Hmmm... 2" drop spindle. Does anyone make a C10 spindle in a 2" drop? Tuned-in. This could be cool

No worries Gringo... I know what you meant.

CPP's modular spindle is a 2" drop... it's the spindle that comes with all the large diameter Wilwood kits.

[SCOTTMO]

Nathan,
you are always up to something...

[gringoloco]

Originally Posted by porterbuilt

CPP's modular spindle is a 2" drop... it's the spindle that comes with all the large diameter Wilwood kits.

Hmmm... Now I'm contemplating the "wider track-width" comment. A standard DM narrows it by 2" and the CPP spindles another 1.5". Longer arms? Wider mounting points? Different R&P?

[PBFAB.COM]

Originally Posted by gringoloco

Hmmm... Now I'm contemplating the "wider track-width" comment. A standard DM narrows it by 2" and the CPP spindles another 1.5". Longer arms? Wider mounting points? Different R&P?

Well... keep in mind the previous posts stated regarding what narrowing the trac-width did to the placement of the rack and pinion on the regular Dropmember. We had to mount it high to get the steering geometry where we needed it. This moves the motor up slightly, and necessitates notching the frame rails for clearance... big bonus was the steering linkage angles.

This new version I am discussing, has a wider trac-width built in. This allows us to mount the rack a bit lower than the original Dropmember (almost 3 inches") and will also mount the tie-rod ends on the bottom of the steering arms. The ground clearances of the Dropmember V3.2 and the new "Dropmember Touring" are both the same, as we needed to design the "Dropmember Touring" to be as high in the chassis as possible, to achieve the combination of a low ride height an an acceptable Roll Center (this is more of a challenge than one would think). We are also able to keep the motor from being moved upward (this keeps the center of gravity and roll center closer together).

Longer arms will also be an option to widen the trac-width even more. I will eventually open up a new thread to discuss this new product as it has still not yet been officially released. Until then, if there are any questions feel free to contact me via e-mail: nathan@porterbuiltstreetrods.com

Don't want to let the entire cat out of the bag... yet!

[jimmydean]

Not to go too far off topic, but besides the use of Corvette arms/spindles, what are the differences in the C4 vs. the V3 dropmember in terms of steering, stance, and perfomance?

I guess I always thought of the C4 DM as the touring model.

[SCOTI]

DM-C4 = Touring Lite .

[gringoloco]

Originally Posted by porterbuilt

Don't want to let the entire cat out of the bag... yet!

Coolness Thanks for the info you have provided thus far. Sounds like a good addition to the lineup, with the possibility of not welding in frame notches. I like the possibilities here and look forward to more updates.

[jimmydean]

Nathan, any plans for a C50 DM for Dino's latest acquisition?

[gostranger]

Originally Posted by porterbuilt

No worries Rob!

I figured I would go ahead and include some more technical information in regards to the suspension/steering geometry of the Porterbuilt Dropmember and some background as to "why".

When I first designed the Dropmember back in 2004-2005 I spent a lot of time tweaking the geometry in order to make it accomplish exactly what I wanted. This system was never designed to be an "ultimate performance" suspension system... but I wanted to develop a system that was an improvement from the factory design, could be driven at an extremely low height, and plant the rails on the ground with a big wheel... without the need to "Z" the frame.

First on the list was the necessary ground clearance. The Dropmember moves the suspension up in the chassis so that the lowest part of the front suspension is actually 1.25" off the ground when the frame is resting flat (the lowest point is the lower control arm outer bushing sleeve). This allows the truck to be driven extremely low without hangin up on all the imperfections on the road.

Second was to narrow up the trac-width. The Dropmember narrows the track width right at 1.5" per side (from stock) allowing more tire clearance while riding and turning when extremely low.

Third, we wanted to move the wheel center-line forward to center the wheels in the wheel wells... mission accomplished. You can run a 22" wheel and not even worry about cutting into the firewall for tire clearance.

And while striving to accomplish these key points we also wanted to make some "improvements" to the C10 geometry.... as in it's factory design there is a lot to be desired. As many have been learning, thanks to Rob from No Limit and his "make it handle" thread, one of the key points to making these trucks handle better is to add caster. The Dropmember has 6.97 degrees of caster in its design.

Another key point we implememted was to design the camber curve to where it didn't gain a lot of camber through compression. We didn't want the truck to have extreme camber when aired out and have that "broken" look. Some might argue that camber gain is essential to a performance suspension... and it is... but that was not the overall goal of the Dropmember. The Dropmember only gains 1 degree of negative camber through 6 inches of compression. Doesn't make it stick in the corners like a porsche, but looks good at the show.

We also wanted to adapt a rack and pinion steering gear to the design, not just because we had to in order to get the trac-width narrowed, but it also decreased the sprung weight considerably. We mounted the rack high on the crossmember in order to accomplish all we wanted (with it being a factory replacement rack we didn't have the liberty to put it anywhere else). The downfall to this was the necessity to notch the frame for the rack's tie-rod clearance. Not too big of a deal for most guys looking for this type of product, as they would expect a little cutting and welding. The big upside is the angle for the steering linkage. On most motors and header combos its a straight shot. It was important to keep the bumpsteer in check as well, and we were able to hold to the standard of .1 degree of bumpsteer per inch of wheel travel.

If anybody has any more technical questions they can feel free to ask, as I will be more than happy to answer any questions.

On a side note... keep your eyes peeled for our performance version of the Dropmember as it is just around the corner.

????????????i didnt notice 1.5" narrower tracking on mine