|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
You are not logged in. Would you like to login?
Offline
on August 14, 2010, 10:20 pm, Daze wrote:
upper watts link, what if a person used newer hubs I have a set of X308 hubs that I am going to use on my Galaxie because I want the outboard disc brakes for that application. What if a person took a set of these hubs and used them with the inboard dis brakes and then used the caliper mounting tabs and the ABS sensor hole as a mounting location for the upper watts bracket??
The hubs are interchangeable as long as you use newer half shafts so it would be a fairly simple swap. thoughts???
Offline
Guldstrand with a Jag? You know I'm back to thinking about using the Guldstrand style. This setup is a proven winner. It was designed and used for racing. I will need to tip my shocks anyhow so this would reduce some load on the halfshafts.
Hear this, the Corvette C4 design is basically the same. The C4 removed the camber issues the C3 had. A plus you get is anti squat. Hard acceleration drives the body up for a better launch!
Anyhow my thinking is that adapting it to a Jag rear would be very easy. You could even use your factory bearing carriers. Most of the parts, links and heim joints can be bought right off the shelf at places like summit! You can and probably go to an after market coilover. A as in one only, so much easier to dial in. So think about this one!
With this setup I can move my wheels anywhere with no bind!
The coilover mounts at the bottom left or the leaf mounts to the top right. The camber rods mount to the outside fore and aft. The two bolts are where the forward links mount.
He raised the price to $2,700.00 that's OK I can make my own!
The C4 Vette has a camber rod underneath and another behind and above the halfshaft. These control and adjust the camber and caster.
Guldtrand Style Found With A Jag
post
Last edited by Daze (10/27/2011 5:32 pm)
Thread StarterOffline
The trailing arm looks different the only thing Guldtrand Style I see is the LCAs I still don't like the single arm LCAs, where they are not attached. Seams to me it would flex.
Thread StarterOffline
It's a 5 link like Gudstrand You have the two parallel lower camber rods. They control the toe and camber. Then it has two forward control arms holding the wheel fore and aft. Then the half shaft just like Guldstrand or a Corvette C4. A 5 link!
Thread StarterOffline
what if??? I still don't like the independent LCA arms. I think they would add to the hub twisting problem, but what if a person built a removable crosslink to go between the two rods?? something that could be removed to make alignment adjustments and the reinstalled to tie things back together. Not only would it strengthen the LCA set up but also give you a place to mount the shock. What do you think??
Thread StarterOffline
Can't it must float, the forward links cause slight movement rotationaly and fore and aft. What you do get is a setup with about no bind.
As I posted on the thread the shock mounts to the bearing carrier. However your thinking is going in the same direction as mine. Could the shock somehow mount to the front camber rod? Maybe by beefing it up and using a different ajustment style?
Thread StarterOffline
wouldn't that create a problem??? "Can't it must float, the forward links cause slight movement rotationaly and fore and aft."
You said you wanted to run this system with an upper watts, than wouldn't that create the same issue?? would not to the upper watts limit the for and aft movement and in turn not work with this set up??
Thread StarterOffline
No, if I used only the lower forward link with a watts for the upper link. Everything would still move freely. However the lower link would move in an arc based on the length of the link. The watts you have been looking at for the Jag is all square and centered making the upper move straight up and down, still no bind! But now the carrier will rotate during suspension travel. The lower link will arc, the watts will move straight up down. When this happens it will move the camber rods fore and aft. Will this create enough movement to cause toe issues, I don't know.
If I can make the watts move like the lower link, seems issue solved. Bang! If I move the hole off center in the middle section of the watts. I can create a change in radius dependent on the location of the hole.
Take a watts with the two common rods say 12" long, if I pivot from the center I get no fore and aft movement. If the carrier were mounted at the same point as the 12" rod. I would get the arc of a 12" rod, right? It would be the same as and is a 12" upper link. But now let's move the hole half way between center and the rod end. I now have a watts that will move in an arc equal to a 24" length arc app. I can match the lower links movement by moving the hole in the center of the watts. I may be full of crap also!
A 22" long lower link raised 1" at the front with total wheel travel of 4" OK. Moves the wheel back .025 at horizontal, 1" travel loaded and back to zero at 2" compressed. The unloaded side moves forward only .200 forward at 2" travel. So the total fore and aft is only .225.
I approve of this cartoon! The upward pointing forward links reduce squat during acceleration, trying to drive the rear of the car up. I think I once heard the term jacking. My Yamaha 1100 shaft drive did this, only to harsh! It would drive the tire into the pavement for about a foot then release.
You question the strength of Guldstrands design. All I can say is that it was built for racing. No rigid points, it's 100% all heims. Twin Turbo at Vette Mod says they work well.
Thread StarterOffline
here is another thought what if you left the pivot centered and then changed the length of the watts arms??? It seams to me that that would have a similar effect to adjusting the pivot, but would also allow you to have a little fine tuning in the links so that if you had it close but not perfect you could lengthen and shorten the arms to dial it in. thoughts???
Thread StarterOffline
I think what your not seeing is that the two lower camber rods are parallel. They do not control the hub from moving forward or back. They only control toe and camber.
Thread StarterOffline
First of all I am not trying to attack the Guldtrand set up, I just love discussing this stuff!!
I gave the impression that I was concerned about strength, but having used heim joints and thread tubing my self that was not my actual concern, and I did noy convay that real well. really what I should have said was that I was concerned about rigidity. Before you explained that the bottom of the LCA was designed to move a little bit front to back, that was exactly what I was concerned about happening with LCA separate links. With two separate rods if one was at a slightly different angle than the other in relation to suspension travel that would tilt the hub and I did not know that that needed to happen.
Thread StarterOffline
No miss understanding, I get where your coming from. Conversation is more visual (fact) and we have no visual here!
Dutchman IRS with a 9" Ford ImageShack is not working again, so I provided a link. Dutchman makes a nice unit at app. $6,000.00. Uses inboard brakes like Jag, two parallel camber rods like Guldstrand a 9" third member and forward links like the C4. They give you the option of inboard or outboard brakes also.
Here is a 1970 Mustang custom chassis and suspension.
Last edited by Daze (10/27/2011 5:47 pm)
Thread Starter
1 of 1
