Some installed shots on our 2015 PP GT in preparation for the road course.

[BMR Tech]

Just figured I would share. Just about done prepping one of our cars for the road course this weekend to get some data.

I am going to keep a log, and see where we end up in a year from now

On the lift getting ready. The wires hanging are for the under car cameras.


Our front 35mm Sway Bar, set on full stiff


Our rear 25mm Sway Bar, set on full stiff (we also have another rear bar in development..)
Also in this picture, some BMR springs we are testing, and our production Delrin Cradle Bushings (rears in pic)


Rear 18"x10.5" HRE Wheels and 295 Hoosier R7s fit nicely


Our TR005 Toe Rods, Prototype RLCA Bearing Upgrade and our TCA045 Vertical Links


Rear Delrin Cradle bushing


Viking AP Series Handling Shocks in place, with initial settings


You can see the Poly Diff Bushings, our rear camera mount, and some other items in this shot


Close-Up of our TR005's with BMR Unique Lock Out plates, and our RLCA Bearing Upgrade we have been testing for a while now


Delrin Cradle Bushings, front mounts


Soon to be installed, and tested on course


All this testing with so many cars, requires RUBBER! Thought I'd show you our current tires for testing. We have many more, though.

 

[travelers]

Looking good and I can see a lot of work already and more to come. Nice work Kelly

 

[Gray Ghost GT]

Keep up the good work BMR! Big fan of your suspension products; using many of them on my '09 GT for the road courses. Mike

 

[CobraRed]

This is what i like to see. IRS may push customer driven product development away from the drag strip and towards the circuit, this is a good sign for the thirsty road course crowd.

 

[ArizonaGT]

Wasting no time!

 

[BMR Tech]

Thanks guys, we try and do as much as we can.

We won't be able to take this car as far as many will do and document everything extremely thorough (Terry...lol) - but we will continue upgrading it and keeping logs, and of course use data we compile to continue development, and improving our products if we see the need to.

We would love to take all of our cars to the extreme, but being one of the largest aftermarket chassis and suspension manufactures out there, we simply don't have the time to do so. We cater to the majority of the market, which is your average enthusiast who may only see a road course or drag strip several times a year. This car will be dedicated to handling duty, primarily for ensuring the parts we make can withstand the abuse. Suspension component engineering, design, and manufacturing is easy for us to do - but real world durability is what we are striving to get better at overtime, without having to rely on various racers and consumers as we have done in the past.

Anyhow, I am pretty happy with the car at this point. I cannot wait to see how it does in a year or so from now.

We will be keeping the car relatively stock in terms of aerodynamics, interior, etc. We need to be able to relate to the average Joe.

Thanks again!

 

[Norm Peterson]

Kelly - any particular reason for setting both bars full stiff to start your track testing rather than full soft and work your way up as indicated?


Norm

 

[BMR Tech]

Kelly - any particular reason for setting both bars full stiff to start your track testing rather than full soft and work your way up as indicated?


Norm

Yup.

Because the springs that are on the car, are only a slight increase compared to stock, and the car has slicks on it.

We have been using testing various bar rates, spring rates, and tires for about 6 months now, and the stickier the tire, the more rate we want.

We are actually developing an even stiffer rear bar right now, due to this reason.

 

[BMR Tech]

Here is where we are set at right now for our first trip.



On the next outing, we will likely be going with a little more negative camber up front (likely use MM CC Plates).

It is going to be interesting to see how the car performs as is.

 

[jayel579]

Soon to be installed, and tested on course

Dude, what are you guys doing to that Monte Carlo? 1985 or 1986 I think from the stripes...

 

[BMR Tech]

That would be a super low mileage 1986 Monte Carlo SS...

We use it for product development, and to go grab lunch occasionally.

A lot of people do not know, but we offer suspension components for many different platforms. From Torque Arm / Watts / 9" Conversion systems on 1967 Camaros, to IRS parts for 2015 Mustangs, and a bunch in between. We even make suspension for Chevrolet SSR, Grand Prixs, Buicks and much more. lol!

 

[Gray Ghost GT]

On the next outing, we will likely be going with a little more negative camber up front (likely use MM CC Plates).

+1 I recommend checking your performance alignment specs before you take it on the road course.

You'll want your front camber up to -2.5 degrees and rear camber to -1.4 degrees. Caster looks good.

Definitely go with the MM CC plates.

 

[Norm Peterson]

Here is where we are set at right now for our first trip.



On the next outing, we will likely be going with a little more negative camber up front (likely use MM CC Plates).

It is going to be interesting to see how the car performs as is.

Did T.C. give you those camber numbers so he could laugh at you later?

Seriously, I can't see the reasoning why they'd be so vastly different from the various performance alignment specs for the 5th gen Camaro, where if you swapped their road course camber suggestions front to rear you'd end up about with what's posted above. In no case is rear camber any more negative than front camber.


Norm

 

[BMR Tech]

Norm, are you an expert with the S550 and how we set it up?

I didn't think so, and neither are we.

So to be a little more informative here, We planned to run 3 degrees neg up front. We were going to try and be in the -3F/-3R range for this trip.

The issue is that we were crashing to get everything done, and we had some last minute tire clearance issues up front. Tire is contacting the strut body. So our plan to slot the strut, OR use our prototype "crash" bolts was a no go.

Basically, we are stuck where we are up front for now.

On the rear, we just left it "just because".

We are not going to learn everything we can about what this car wants without trying every combo we can....and going from -1F/-2.8R.....to -3 or more F....should really give us some good data.

 

[BMR Tech]

And, these cars are definitely going to want more than -1.4 out back with the IRS and a slick.

 

[Gray Ghost GT]

And, these cars are definitely going to want more than -1.4 out back with the IRS and a slick.

There is nothing special about the new Mustang 5.0 with IRS compared to setting up a Corvette or current generation Camaro; alignment principles are basically the same to collect relevant data on the road courses. None of those scenarios involve having more negative camber in the rear than the front. If you're looking for max performance with race slicks and spherical bearings, you might want to consider: -3.2 Front, -2.3 Rear, with Caster at 7.5. Front Total Toe at 0 degrees with rear Total Toe at -1/8" (0.33 degrees).

 

[Norm Peterson]

I guess when you're stuck in a situation you'd prefer to not be in, you might as well try to make some lemonade out of it. Or something like that.

Kelly - I have barely more than 1mm clearance between my track wheels (see sig pic) and their tires to the strut bodies (and needing an 0.025" "spacer" on one side to get that much), so I do understand how an inability to achieve camber the way that was initially planned could happen. I've even heard of having to adjust in the positive direction at the knuckle for tire clearance and hoping to gain it all back and then some at the upper strut attachment, but I guess that would have taken time that wasn't available.

Was trying a little less tire instead ever considered, if only to get a feel for the balance with a more negative front camber setting?


Norm

 

[Sky Render]

That would be a super low mileage 1986 Monte Carlo SS...

We use it for product development, and to go grab lunch occasionally.

I need to go work at BMR.

 

[jayel579]

That would be a super low mileage 1986 Monte Carlo SS...

We use it for product development, and to go grab lunch occasionally.

I need to go work at BMR.

Yeah, they are a really nice car to drive. We have an 1986 aerocoupe sitting in our garage that hasn't seen the light of day in about 15 years. But given how many of aerocoupes that were made in 1986 (200) and how many are left on the road (<100 from what we have found) it'll probably stay that way.

 

[Norm Peterson]

Only 200 of them? Neighbor of mine had one of them some years ago, and I didn't get the idea they were quite that rare.

Either of you guys on montecarloss.com?


Norm