Make it handle

[taank]

Originally Posted by Grimee

Raising the arms in the cross member will change the amount of anti squat and the pinion angle. the springs will set the ride hight

so you would have to shim the axle to put back to angle

[Grimee]

Originally Posted by taank

so you would have to shim the axle to put back to angle

If it needs to be shimmed you can, but do it after you get your ride height set

[hairlesshobo]

Originally Posted by robnolimit

TO ALL USING URATHANE Drill the outer sleave and install your own grease zerk fittings in EACH bushing. Use poly-graphite grease. We dont want them to flex, but we do want them to rotate easily. CAUTIONThe inner steel sleave of the bushing shoud be as long as the urathane parts. When the bolt is tight, it should torque up onto the inner sleave, NOT crush the urathane bushing sides. MANY MANUFACTURERS dO NOT GET THIS. it is up to you to check. If there not right, don't use them.

I hate to bring up a (really) old post..

Rob, any chance you could go into this a little more? Were you referring to control arm bushings? If so, any chance you have a pic of what it looks like once this is done?

Next weekend I plan to move the lca forward 1" to gain much needed caster and I ordered an energy suspension poly bushing kit. I want to make sure I do it right the first time.

Steve
Posted via Mobile Device

[Skellington]

The discussion of the antisquat is very interesting to me.
Where would you calculate the IC on a 4 link or 3 link set up? would you take the average of the the front's top and bottom bars?

[hgs_notes]

Just thinking out loud here, but wondering if its possible to convert the trailing arms to a solid mount link, then just add another pair triangulated from beside the differential going forward and outboard the current trailing arm mounts. Double triangulated 4 link, no track bar.

[Midniteotto]

Well... I picked up a 69 frame last week, and have been really trying to figure out how I wanted to start this thing... Subscribed to learn stuff!!

[robnolimit]

here's a bushing drawing. The inner sleave should be slightly noger than the urathane. If you are buying the Energy kits, they get it right. This is a good test of aftermarket parts. At a show, you can look at the bushings in a manufacturers A-arms, or rear bars, if the sleave is short, the parts are sh!#.

[Conundrum]

Hey Rob, have you figured out how much is a good amount to lower the upper A-arm mounting points on the 60-87s?
Posted via Mobile Device

[robnolimit]

Originally Posted by Conundrum

Hey Rob, have you figured out how much is a good amount to lower the upper A-arm mounting points on the 60-87s?
Posted via Mobile Device

working on it.

[gofastnut]

TMI! TMI! Wait, what am I saying?!?! Need more input!!
Thanks EVERYONE for their input, 'specially Rob, who flat out ROCKS with his wealth of knowledge and willingness to share. This separates a good forum from a FANTASTIC one!

[gringoloco]

Originally Posted by robnolimit

working on it.

Sweet. Curious how this would combine with the caster mod...
Posted via Mobile Device

[Conundrum]

Originally Posted by robnolimit

working on it.

Thanks Rob
Posted via Mobile Device

[aggie91]

Rob, I know that this picture is not one our your products, but can you explain why this is better/worse then say a panhard bar that is just from the driver side frame mount to the passenger side trailing arm, that is level at ride height?
http://www.hotchkis.net/_uploaded_fi...639image_5.jpg

To me, it looks like the upper bar and the driver side bracket just stiffens and lowers the driver side mount.

[hairlesshobo]

Originally Posted by robnolimit

here's a bushing drawing. The inner sleave should be slightly noger than the urathane. If you are buying the Energy kits, they get it right. This is a good test of aftermarket parts. At a show, you can look at the bushings in a manufacturers A-arms, or rear bars, if the sleave is short, the parts are sh!#.

I assume this only applies to the older trucks (72 or older), right? My bushings look nothing like the above picture is why I ask.

[jmlcolorado]

Originally Posted by aggie91

Rob, I know that this picture is not one our your products, but can you explain why this is better/worse then say a panhard bar that is just from the driver side frame mount to the passenger side trailing arm, that is level at ride height?
http://www.hotchkis.net/_uploaded_fi...639image_5.jpg

To me, it looks like the upper bar and the driver side bracket just stiffens and lowers the driver side mount.

Looks to me like this drops the drivers side mount so the bar is level at ride height. Then the other stiffens the mount.
Looks like a pretty good setup.
Posted via Mobile Device

[jmlcolorado]

It also looks likt the mount on the drivers side.... bulk head i'd guess you call it, it mounted with a bracket on the frame, then a bolt. Without the top bar supporting it to the poassangers side, the vertical mount would sway and take the axle with it.
I would think it would have been better with a 1 piece solid mount on the drivers soide, then keep the brace in place to help avoid frame twist with heav side load.
But im no engineer

[robnolimit]

Originally Posted by aggie91

Rob, I know that this picture is not one our your products, but can you explain why this is better/worse then say a panhard bar that is just from the driver side frame mount to the passenger side trailing arm, that is level at ride height?
http://www.hotchkis.net/_uploaded_fi...639image_5.jpg

To me, it looks like the upper bar and the driver side bracket just stiffens and lowers the driver side mount.

No problem, this is the Panhard kit included in the Hotchkis TVS kit. The idea here is to lower the Roll Center. Lowering the RC can help to increase the loading of the outside tire in a corner. This will also tend to increase the body roll. So, the addition of a rear sway bar is more important. On the Hotchkis kit, the upper bar is a brace for the lowered mount on the drivers side, to stop it from flexing or twisting the rails. The lower bar is the panhard rod, or locator, and the mount on the trailing arm is on the drivers arm, down low.

[jimmydean]

He is a question for you, Rob.

My '66 long bed will be running Nate's C4 front and back half. i know in the truck, the the CG is much higher than it is on the donor C4, so the handling suffers there. i also know the weight distribution is bad due to it being a truck, especially a long bed.

But to get the most, my idea is to mount the fuel cell between the rails as far back with the batteries on either side of the frame rails. With my tank and compressors just forward of the fuel cell just behind the rear axle centered in an Accuair eXo hidden under the bed as low as possible.

Or should I mount it closer to the cab in front of the axle for weight? Thinking front to back weight distribution, I am using the LT1 and 4l60e out of the donor C4 as well. Know that I am not looking to autocross this truck, just want it as fun to drive as possible on the street.

<edit> The donor is so damn fun to drive, but the seats are better in the truck.

[robnolimit]

I know you may hear about the rear 'swing' effect of weight if you move it too far behind the axle. - dont worry about it. Make sure it's safe. With the tank, keep it a bit forward of the rear crossmember, just incase you get into an accident. Move everything you can, every little bit helps. Even think about shifting the motor/trans to the pass side 3/4", for side/side balance. should be a fun driver

[jimmydean]

Awesome, thanks Rob. Sounds like I should do the fuel tank behind the axle, then the air tank and compressors furthest aft. In the event of an accident, the air tank is less likely to explode vs the fuel cell.

Now I am fully giddy with anticipation.

[Matt R]

I've gotten some more done on my project. I'm guessing its almost time to move on to a 3 and/or 4 bar discussion in this thread.

[ItsRandy]

Originally Posted by robnolimit

I know you may hear about the rear 'swing' effect of weight if you move it too far behind the axle. - dont worry about it. Make sure it's safe. With the tank, keep it a bit forward of the rear crossmember, just incase you get into an accident. Move everything you can, every little bit helps. Even think about shifting the motor/trans to the pass side 3/4", for side/side balance. should be a fun driver

Hey Rob...any news on the 67-72 Chevy c10 rear sway bar like the one on JT? Are they ready for sale yet?

[robnolimit]

This is a side view of a basic 4-bar, or three link. We'll start here. Upper bar, lower bar, these are each mounted on the axle, and on the chassis. This is a SIDE VIEW only, to start the conversation. These pars push and pull to apply force to the chassis. The amount of force, and direction of the force would be a 'Vector', but we will keep it simple. For now, it is the center of each mounting point that we are interested in.

[robnolimit]

from the side view, if you draw a line through the mounting points, and farther forward, the upper line and lower line will cross. This intersection is the 'Instant Center'. A line from the Contact center through the Instant center will cross the CG line, and tell you where the Anti-squat is. Look at this for a while, and you will see that there are all sorts of ways to change the IC, and Anti-squat.

[robnolimit]

I'm gonna hear it for this one. From the side view, if the bars are parallel, there is NO Instant center. No I.C. means 0% Anti-squat. These are the 4-bars you see on roadsters and others. They look cool, but no hook & book.

Next, Side view of Triangulated 4 bar will also point to the I.C. These are more difficult to adjust. remember the Moroso "hop-stop" kit for A body chevy's? It raised the rear top mount of the Triangulated 4-bar on a chevelle. This moved the I.C. bach, and the A.S. up the scale.