Torque Arm. Here is why.

[frank s]

" ... apeshit stridency is self-limiting in its effect."
— Mike L.

 

[barbaro]

The point is that you have to make some corrections to the geometry in order to deal with lowering the rear in the first place, and my question is about how much of an improvement you really see from lowering the rear compared with running spring rates, sway bar rates, etc. that are optimal without lowering it. It factors into the next question (see below).


No. It's to put the entire thing into context. In the absence of a budget, when the fastest lap times are what one is after, then it follows that one will spend money on the SLA suspension to replace the strut-based suspension because doing so gets you much better control over the camber curve and, simultaneously, allows you to set the roll center to something better suited to racing (that latter assumes that the design is done with racing in mind, but that's a pretty reasonable assumption).

To do anything less means that one is making budget-based compromises, which means that one is going to be concerned with the best bang for the buck.

So my question in the latter context is: how does lowering the CG by less than 10%, while simultaneously having no impact on the roll center and causing a reduction in downforce, which requires spending money to correct the geometry in the process, provide more bang for the buck than would spending that money on, say, better coilovers, or a Watts link, or any of a number of possible options?

It looks to me like lowering the rear suspension may well be the last thing on the list in terms of gains to be had versus the price. I want to learn why it's not.


Do understand: it is in my nature to question everything. I do that because it's the most effective way I know of to reveal and get past assumptions that have been made. Assumptions can be incorrect, and it is not until one knows why something is done a certain way that one can know whether or not one should do things in that same way in the circumstances one finds himself in.


That's good to know. I have the Boss 302 springs (standard up front, Laguna Seca in the rear) and the 26mm sway bar, and it really made the rear come alive as well as substantially improving the turn-in, enough so that I don't notice a response delay in the suspension anymore.


By the way, I don't know what you did to get Filip here, but good on you for doing so! I, for one, hope to learn a lot and I think this will be an even better place for it.

First, I did not contact Filip for him to come here. He did that of his own accord. Now that this is an open forum, I believe someone else may have informed him or he came upon it on his own. But that is exactly why an open forum is good and a closed forum is bad. The closed forum has led to some stale opinions on here. And I hope to see them challenged and corrected by better men than me.

KC, I have gone both directions. I have gone with 302 springs on Koni Yellows. Ok I guess. then I put the T/A Watts Link rear end on and that was a game changer at stock ride height. I immediately gained much more confidence in the handling of the vehicle.

Now, I have the Coilovers too and I run them on the street as High as they will go which is about an inch lower than stock. I am also running 275/40 284/40's because of horrible road conditions. I clear parking blocks. I will not brag about the handling, soon there may be a youtube video on it and people can judge for themselves.

if I remember correctly you have the stock 302 springs. If your goal is to get your car to handle great without sweating suspension geometry issues than you would love a Cortex or Griggs rear end, lest you think I am pushin Cortex. You can get great handling without stiffening up the car. I have been trying to tell people that but because I am not Vaughn Gitten jr., as you know, several have refused to accept the possibility.

So if I have an answer and I don't just an opinion based on my subjective experience without any objective data whatsoever, it would be NO you don't have to lower your car dramatically to get excellent handling. But the better answer is ask Filip.

" ... apeshit stridency is self-limiting in its effect."
— Mike L.

Stridency in opposition to Bullshit is no fault. And timidity in the face of bullshit is no virtue.

Barbaro

 

[kcbrown]

First, I did not contact Filip for him to come here. He did that of his own accord. Now that this is an open forum, I believe someone else may have informed him or he came upon it on his own. But that is exactly why an open forum is good and a closed forum is bad. The closed forum has led to some stale opinions on here. And I hope to see them challenged and corrected by better men than me.

Dunno if they're truly stale or not. I suspect what we're really looking at is multiple ways to achieve the same thing. But without understanding why a given approach works, it's not really possible to ascertain whether or not that approach will work for a given set of circumstances.

KC, I have gone both directions. I have gone with 302 springs on Koni Yellows. Ok I guess. then I put the T/A Watts Link rear end on and that was a game changer at stock ride height. I immediately gained much more confidence in the handling of the vehicle.

I'm on 302 springs on Koni Yellows with a 26mm rear bar. The rear bar is what I expect has really changed the handling behavior of the car. Why did I go with the Boss 302 suspension setup? Simple: because the Laguna Seca is widely regarded as handling extremely well by quite a few (not necessarily around here, though. Heh), and I expected that because a good handling balance was something Ford was after for it, they probably would have achieved something at least decent after all the testing and tweaking they did. Given my specific requirements for ride height and street use, it seemed like a reasonable starting point. So why the Laguna Seca rear but standard Boss 302 up front? I did that because I'm running a square setup, and figured the slightly increased rate up front would simultaneously do a slightly better job of keeping the suspension off the bump stops while yielding a Laguna Seca like balance with a square setup.

I won't be lowering the front of the car any more than this because I have to clear my driveway, and it already barely does so even though I come in at an angle (coming in straight would destroy the splitter). The front simply cannot tolerate any more lowering and still meet my requirements.

Now, I have the Coilovers too and I run them on the street as High as they will go which is about an inch lower than stock. I am also running 275/40 284/40's because of horrible road conditions. I clear parking blocks. I will not brag about the handling, soon there may be a youtube video on it and people can judge for themselves.

I'd like to see that video!

if I remember correctly you have the stock 302 springs. If your goal is to get your car to handle great without sweating suspension geometry issues than you would love a Cortex or Griggs rear end, lest you think I am pushin Cortex. You can get great handling without stiffening up the car. I have been trying to tell people that but because I am not Vaughn Gitten jr., as you know, several have refused to accept the possibility.

I'm pretty darned happy with the way the car handles right now (it feels responsive and controllable -- what more could anyone want?), but that's always subject to change. What I change next will depend entirely on what I feel needs improvement at the point I become dissatisfied with what I have.

That could happen relatively soon, or it might never happen. But knowing how and why changes will help will hopefully make it obvious what that next change should be, should it become desirable to make a change in the first place.

For now, I remain focused on the driver mod. There is a long way to go in that department. See below.

So if I have an answer and I don't just an opinion based on my subjective experience without any objective data whatsoever, it would be NO you don't have to lower your car dramatically to get excellent handling. But the better answer is ask Filip.

Well, my next track event is at Sonoma Raceway in June. That may well prove to be an opportunity to talk to him just to get a feel for the possibilities, if he's there at the time (it's during the weekend, so he might not be there).

But it may be quite some time before I make any changes.


Let me put all this in perspective for you. The Boss 302 on street tires is capable of 1:40 lap times around Laguna Seca. We know this because both Jonathan Bomarito and Randy Pobst have managed to get that kind of time.

If the car is already that capable, then failure to achieve anything close to that lap time is unlikely to be on the car if the car is set up in a similar fashion to the car they drove (which is how mine is now) -- it's on the driver. This is why I try to modify the car only when I see some obvious characteristic out of it that I don't like, such as the ride over bumps (which prompted me to change the dampers -- the Konis are massively better in that department) and the time it took the car to take a set (which prompted me to change the springs and rear sway bar. I also wanted to explore a different handling balance that I knew was generally highly regarded, and it has not disappointed!).

As I get faster and better as a driver, faults in the car will presumably become more obvious. Right now, I can't really detect any that are truly bothersome. That is obviously subject to change without notice.

 

[Pentalab]

Does the Griggs /Cortex setup also use coil over's on the rear? IE: both coil + shock terminating on the oem rear shock mount. That alone is yet one more variable to the never ending mix.

This is obvious, but another way to lower the CG a bit, is to use smaller diam tires.
Another method to reduce CG (at the front) is lowering the eng via new eng mounts.... and /or a tubular K member.

The reverse of wheel hop is brake hop. If using LCA relocate brackets, depending on the application, and depending how much the rear is lowered, you might want to not get too aggressive.

Suspension geometry still spins my head. Too many variables to deal with. Tweak one thing, and you affect 3 other things. 1 step forward, 2 steps back in some cases. Tweak more than 1 item at one time, and you could easily be doing a 1 step forward, 1 step back, see no difference....and not know why.

 

[SoundGuyDave]

I am guilty of communicating the subjective improvements the Cortex Rear End provided. It is you who is quoting out of context what i said, because as you well know, I said a lot more than "supercharging the suspension" And I do stand by that incidentally, in that it has the comparable effect on the suspension as a supercharger has on acceleration.

Uh huh. Sure. I'm quoting you out of context. I don't recall a SINGLE post where you offered anything more substantive than your "supercharger for your suspension" comment. Lots and lots of "if you don't agree with me, you're standing in the way of progress, cats and dogs living together, and universal peace and harmony" though.

If Filip explained to you why that is to your satisfaction or not, I don't know or really care. I am sure Bruce Griggs could come on here and give you a similar dissertation.

Here is a perfect example of the bullshit you spout, practically every time you open your (metaphorical) mouth. Your allusion here is that I am in some way denying Filip's credibility. I am not, nor have I ever done so. So, to support that allusion, you bring Bruce Griggs into the mix, who is also a pretty gifted Mustang suspension engineer and designer, apparently for the purpose of supporting your argument that I have denied Filip's credibility, which I didn't. Let me make this really clear, so that even somebody as apparently brain-dead as you can understand it: My problem with you is NOT that you are advocating some random part that I don't use, but that you expect all of us "unwashed masses" to simply accept whatever SUBJECTIVE impression that you might have, probably from your innate need to have the rest of the world regard your buying decision as brilliant and inspired. I won't accept shit from you without hard data to back it up. I also won't accept shit from anybody else under the same circumstances. You repeatedly failed to back up your assertions, and instead started making all sorts of accusatory and inflammatory comments and statements. THAT is what I have a problem with, not the Torque Arm specifically. Any assertion that ANYBODY makes has to pass the "bullshit test." If Filip or Bruce Griggs came on this forum and said that the ultimate road-race suspension design is an I-Beam front axle, made from cast pot-metal, it wouldn't pass the bullshit test. It very well might be true, but I would need to see empirical, objective data to support their position, not just accept it because of who they are.

You denied my subjective experience and you expected to me to back down and why would I back down from something i truly believed?

Nope. I never said your subjective experiences were wrong or false, I simply asked for the data to back it up. That's the point you just can't seem to get through your skull. You said "this is bitchin!!" I asked you to "define bitchin." You got your panties in a wad. End of story.

When I didn't back down there was much whaling and nashing of teeth and even now it threatens to devolve out of control because I challenged some bullshit orthodoxy. Whether it was coilovers allegedly punching through shocktowers or the plain superiority of a torque arm, whatever my meager credentials, I have advanced the knowledge that you have tried to prevent.

And you thought you had no messianic complex... If anything, I have done the exact opposite of what you accuse me: supression of knowledge. "Taking things on faith" does not promulgate knowledge. Asking "why" and saying "prove it," on the other hand, does. So much for your "bullshit orthodoxy." Oh, and just for the record, the phrase isn't "whaling and gnashing of teeth." "whaling" is the activity of hunting whales. You know, like in Moby Dick. The actual phrase is "weeping and gnashing of teeth." Luke 13:28; Matthew 13:42, 8:12, 22:13, 24:51 and 25:30. I guess Matthew liked that phrase. Finding those references took me all of about 30 seconds. I guess accuracy isn't worth your time, which is typical of your posts.

And had I not challenged it, you would not have the opportunity to communicate directly with one of, if not the, leading Race Team Engineers in the highest level of Mustang Racing.

Really? You now control access to Filip? I can't just pick up the phone? Perhaps I did, perhaps years ago, when the Spec Mustang series started up. Better chide him for allowing one of the heathen unwashed masses a personal interview without your coordination. [/sarcasm]

I was his advocate early and you all shot me down for it.

No, we didn't. We shot you down for acting like an idiot. We shot you down for being completely unable to support the assertions you were spouting. To reiterate: we didn't shoot you down because you used Cortex parts (or any other parts for that matter). I can't be more clear than that. This is another example of your messianic complex at work; YOU are the Mouthpiece of the Lord; and we are the Philistines refuting the Word of God? Get over yourself.

Now you speak in measured tones when he addresses you. I get immense satisfaction out of that. So I feel vindicated.

Of course I address him with respect; when he speaks, he not only knows the difference between subjective and objective, but can bring data, physics, and engineering to the table in the discussion. I'm glad that you feel vindicated, but I'm still not sure why. It's pretty obvious that you still don't "get it."

And please feel free to address with Filip how many coilovers of his have punched through shocktowers. Because there is much misinformation to correct.
Debate is good and this is the reason.

This isn't the first time that you have accused me of specifically saying that Cortex rear coilovers will or have punched through the rear shock towers on an S197. Could you please point me towards that specific statement, or at least a link to the thread, and page? I vaguely remember the thread, and there was some concern about force-loading in an unreinforced shock tower (with or without the cage tied in, if I remember correctly), but I don't remember the specifics.

 

[Mr. Q]

This isn't the first time that you have accused me of specifically saying that Cortex rear coilovers will or have punched through the rear shock towers on an S197. Could you please point me towards that specific statement, or at least a link to the thread, and page? I vaguely remember the thread, and there was some concern about force-loading in an unreinforced shock tower (with or without the cage tied in, if I remember correctly), but I don't remember the specifics.

i remember a post like that, and had me looking into the strength of the rear mounts because i wanted to go full coils. here's the post i remember:

http://www.s197forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1269462&postcount=11

there could be more, just not sure. here's the entire thread here:

http://www.s197forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=69139&highlight=rear+coilover+weak

 

[SoundGuyDave]

i remember a post like that, and had me looking into the strength of the rear mounts because i wanted to go full coils. here's the post i remember:

http://www.s197forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1269462&postcount=11

there could be more, just not sure. here's the entire thread here:

http://www.s197forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=69139&highlight=rear+coilover+weak

Thanks, Mr. Q! I remembered that thread, but couldn't find it, due to weak search-fu.

For Barbaro: Not only did I not participate in that thread, but nobody, anywhere in it, said they had ever seen an S197 rear shock punch through the tower structure.

Can anybody else find anything? The only other thread that I found dealt with the potential weakening of the damper body by cutting the threads into the outside of the shell. My contribution to that was a failure on an AST strut, right at the bottom of the threads... after a 90+MPH run into Aarmco at Mid-Ohio.

 

[Norm Peterson]

Did Filip address this issue to your satisfaction?

I won't have an answer for you until after I've digested it all. And sanity-checked that.


Norm

 

[ford20]

Barbaro,

Yes, you did a good thing bringing Filip into this forum.

That was me I have neither the knowledge nor the experience to know anything about suspension components outside of what it is and a basic understanding of it does so I figured I would bring someone who knows everything about the S197 chassis in and help with the discussion. That is all I can ever really add to these conversations.

 

[SoundGuyDave]

That was me I have neither the knowledge nor the experience to know anything about suspension components outside of what it is and a basic understanding of it does so I figured I would bring someone who knows everything about the S197 chassis in and help with the discussion. That is all I can ever really add to these conversations.

Then I stand corrected. Thank YOU, Ford20, for getting Filip involved in our little "bullshit orthodoxy!"

 

[barbaro]

SoundguyDave, I think we have both said our piece. I stand by everything I said. As I am sure you do. When I first advocated the torque arm I acted like a Newb. And things devolved from there. I stand by the accuracy if what I said but I completely understand that I lack credibility. You dont know me from Adam. I get it.
I was handled roughly and I have had my fists up ever since. I believe some of the things I have said had to be said but I apologize for the way I said it and I dont want this pissing match to go any further. If I unfairly implicated you in the coilover thread I apologize.

The important thing is that thanks to Ford20 Filip got involved. Although, I will take credit for bringing the issue up one too many times. Now hopefully, there is an infinitely better resource to draw from and I look forward to reading what everybody has to say without puttng my two cents in.

So SoundguyDave, I I'm just a guy who likes to customize cars, I didn't have any agenda. My ego is no longer involved. I apologize that it got iff the leash and I hope this forum is ultimately reinvigorated.

 

[ford20]

I'll second that!

I think it's interesting that the problems with the 3-link's SVIC come into play when the car is lowered to race height. But that raises the question: why lower the rear in that manner? We're talking about racing, in which appearance is irrelevant. So what if the rear makes the car look like a 4x4? If the geometry is good back there, who cares?

If you lower the rear by, say, 1.5 to 2 inches, what are you really gaining, assuming that your geometry and spring rates were optimal prior to the drop? Sure, you lower the CG slightly, but (from what I've seen) you also move the rear suspension's roll center by about the same amount, so the roll arm's length remains the same.

I was just thinking about this and it popped into my head that the Torque Arm is one of the pieces that Cortex recommends you buy before the coil overs if you are piecing together their suspension. I would for some reason assume that they put the torque arm as the component to purchase before the coilovers as it would be more beneficial to buy those than the coil overs. As for the reason why, I'm not sure.

 

[barbaro]

Dunno if they're truly stale or not. I suspect what we're really looking at is multiple ways to achieve the same thing. But without understanding why a given approach works, it's not really possible to ascertain whether or not that approach will work for a given set of circumstances.


I'm on 302 springs on Koni Yellows with a 26mm rear bar. The rear bar is what I expect has really changed the handling behavior of the car. Why did I go with the Boss 302 suspension setup? Simple: because the Laguna Seca is widely regarded as handling extremely well by quite a few (not necessarily around here, though. Heh), and I expected that because a good handling balance was something Ford was after for it, they probably would have achieved something at least decent after all the testing and tweaking they did. Given my specific requirements for ride height and street use, it seemed like a reasonable starting point. So why the Laguna Seca rear but standard Boss 302 up front? I did that because I'm running a square setup, and figured the slightly increased rate up front would simultaneously do a slightly better job of keeping the suspension off the bump stops while yielding a Laguna Seca like balance with a square setup.

I won't be lowering the front of the car any more than this because I have to clear my driveway, and it already barely does so even though I come in at an angle (coming in straight would destroy the splitter). The front simply cannot tolerate any more lowering and still meet my requirements.


I'd like to see that video!


I'm pretty darned happy with the way the car handles right now (it feels responsive and controllable -- what more could anyone want?), but that's always subject to change. What I change next will depend entirely on what I feel needs improvement at the point I become dissatisfied with what I have.

That could happen relatively soon, or it might never happen. But knowing how and why changes will help will hopefully make it obvious what that next change should be, should it become desirable to make a change in the first place.

For now, I remain focused on the driver mod. There is a long way to go in that department. See below.


Well, my next track event is at Sonoma Raceway in June. That may well prove to be an opportunity to talk to him just to get a feel for the possibilities, if he's there at the time (it's during the weekend, so he might not be there).

But it may be quite some time before I make any changes.


Let me put all this in perspective for you. The Boss 302 on street tires is capable of 1:40 lap times around Laguna Seca. We know this because both Jonathan Bomarito and Randy Pobst have managed to get that kind of time.

If the car is already that capable, then failure to achieve anything close to that lap time is unlikely to be on the car if the car is set up in a similar fashion to the car they drove (which is how mine is now) -- it's on the driver. This is why I try to modify the car only when I see some obvious characteristic out of it that I don't like, such as the ride over bumps (which prompted me to change the dampers -- the Konis are massively better in that department) and the time it took the car to take a set (which prompted me to change the springs and rear sway bar. I also wanted to explore a different handling balance that I knew was generally highly regarded, and it has not disappointed!).

As I get faster and better as a driver, faults in the car will presumably become more obvious. Right now, I can't really detect any that are truly bothersome. That is obviously subject to change without notice.

I completely hear what you're saying and to some degree I felt the same way. I have wasted a lot of money on a lot of things. And it's not so much that I'm pushing cortex it's just that I don't go on here and disrespect other people's products, but believe me I could.

The cortex rear end assembly is the best suspension mod I ever made on any car. I know that doesn't count for much. And I wish, I could have communicated that a little better from the outset. I didn't mean to come off as an authority. I was just overly enthusiastic about what I legitimately thought was a really great thing. Fortunately, for me, it is a really great thing, but nobody's going to believe me. I get it.

As for how its going to affect your lap times, I just can't see how you would be slower, but again I will only speak for myself. I am sure Filip could ballpark you a legitimate estimate on potential lap time improvement. But again, I am far from an authority. I do not pretend to be. I am just a guy who is a bit obsessive about customization and ride feel.

 

[kcbrown]

I was just thinking about this and it popped into my head that the Torque Arm is one of the pieces that Cortex recommends you buy before the coil overs if you are piecing together their suspension. I would for some reason assume that they put the torque arm as the component to purchase before the coilovers as it would be more beneficial to buy those than the coil overs. As for the reason why, I'm not sure.

Before I respond, thanks for pointing Filip here! I'm hoping he'll become an active participant in the technical discussions here, because I think we can all learn a lot from that.


That's quite interesting that they recommend the torque arm over and above the coil overs, if one has to choose. I would have expected quite the opposite, and this has me wondering what their reasoning is for that. I was under the impression that proper damping of the suspension was one of the main weaknesses of the stock GTs (the Boss 302 is perhaps a different story), so I would have expected Cortex to want to address that first.

Hopefully Filip will chime in here on that, to address any misunderstandings that may be involved here.

 

[SoundGuyDave]

Barbaro,

I takes a lot to swallow your pride, and I for one would like to say that I welcome the "new you" with this attitude. This isn't about "being right" or "proving your point," it's about valid, valuable contributions to this little corner of the internet.

You can be vocal as you want in offering your opinion, but underlying it all has to be either hard facts (data= lap times, g-force data, etc.) or a straight declaration that what you provide is subjective (it felt more planted, I was more confident, it was easier for me to drive, etc). That's all it really takes to get along around here.

Even taking your above statement, and stripping out the "mea culpa" parts, we're left with a nice, subjective review of the rear suspension mods on your car. We all know each other's histories fairly well, so when you make comments like "...is the best suspension mod I ever made on any car," we do actually have a frame of reference. That, in and of itself, carries weight.

You even asked the right questions, as well. "...I just can't see how you would be slower..." is fair enough. However, realize that just because you can't see it doesn't mean others can't. A perfect example of how this could be is in raw chassis balance. A car that feels absolutely planted-- like it's on rails-- is easy to drive, and feels very quick. A loose car is a handful to drive, but is generally ultimately faster around the track. There's a perfect example of subjective versus objective. Now, just to complicate matters, there is driver skill and comfort to factor in. It's entirely possible that a given driver may simply be more comfortable with the exemplar "planted" car, and thus is willing to push closer to the limits than in the factually faster, but looser car. So, yes, you could have objective data that proves that the planted car is quicker. Simple, eh? Where the real proof lies is not in a single, contrarian data point, but in sets of data, from a variety of sources. When a viewpoint is put forth that is different or contrary to the norm, all concerned should expect skepticism. This is proper and healthy. When the "contrarian" viewpoint is backed up with data, explanation of the physics involved, and a clear description of why it may be considered a viable alternative to the norm, then it no longer IS "contrarian," but an alternative for all of us to consider. This effectively weeds out the wheat from the chaff.

I like my car, I feel it handles well, and it is demonstrably fast in-class, with multiple drivers behind the wheel saying the same thing. That doesn't mean that I'm absolutely wedded to the setup, suspension geometry, or parts list. It DOES, however, mean that I have a yardstick to measure any potential change against. If someone presents a bit of kit for consideration, I first ask "what problem does this solve?" If it "solves" a problem that doesn't exist, then it's of no utility to me. It may be of great utility to someone else, though. Where I have a real philosophical issue is with any given part being presented as a "must have" piece. If this part can withstand scrutiny (as in why it works, what benefits it offers, etc) then fine, it goes on the list for consideration, and may move to the head of the list. If it can't withstand that scrutiny, then it simply isn't a "must have" piece, it's merely an alternative to the "tried and true."

Under all your previous bluster, I think there's a pretty smart guy lurking, and I'm glad to see that guy poking his head out, and hopefully contributing in the future. Please, though, realize that if somebody disagrees with you, it's not a personal attack; just back up what you said with data, or point out that your comment was subjective, and thus unassailable as experienced from your viewpoint. Others may have a different experience under the same conditions, and that's fine too. Start trying to figure out why there was a difference of experience, and we all may learn a thing or three!

 

[kcbrown]

I completely hear what you're saying and to some degree I felt the same way. I have wasted a lot of money on a lot of things. And it's not so much that I'm pushing cortex it's just that I don't go on here and disrespect other people's products, but believe me I could.

The cortex rear end assembly is the best suspension mod I ever made on any car. I know that doesn't count for much. And I wish, I could have communicated that a little better from the outset. I didn't mean to come off as an authority. I was just overly enthusiastic about what I legitimately thought was a really great thing. Fortunately, for me, it is a really great thing, but nobody's going to believe me. I get it.

As for how its going to affect your lap times, I just can't see how you would be slower, but again I will only speak for myself. I am sure Filip could ballpark you a legitimate estimate on potential lap time improvement. But again, I am far from an authority. I do not pretend to be. I am just a guy who is a bit obsessive about customization and ride feel.

No worries! I can't fault someone for being passionate about the changes they've made to their car that have improved things in their eyes! You may have taken it a bit far, but I still can't fault you for that. I think the main problem was the confrontational style that you were bringing once people expressed skepticism. Honestly, that may be in part a result of what you do. If I'm not mistaken, you're a lawyer, which means you operate in an adversarial setting most of the time. It can be hard to shake that when you come to a place like this where there are lots of different opinions about things, especially when we're talking about something that you're passionate about!

So again, no worries. We'll just move forward with civilized discussion and debate.


I actually wouldn't expect that the TA would make my lap times worse. It might actually result in improvement of them. What I don't know is what I might be giving up as a result.

For instance, let's say you're going around a corner and you ever so slowly add throttle while you're going around it. That will have two effects:

1. It will increase the grip demands on the rear due to the additional power you're feeding in.
2. It will increase your speed around the corner and, thus, increase the grip demands in the front.

The question is: which will lose traction first, the front or the rear?

With my setup, the rear will lose traction first, and the car will oversteer. Now, that may mean that I can't feed in power as early as I would otherwise be able to, but importantly, it also means I can use the throttle to point the car where I want it. With the setup I have right now, I can make the rear come out when I'm at the limits either by adding more throttle or by sufficiently reducing the throttle. There is a region where neither happens, and the car might push slightly, but it's not terribly large (that region feels larger with larger radius corners than with smaller radius ones, which is probably what you want). This makes it easy to point the car where you want it with the throttle, and it is crazy fun. This is one of the things I learned at the Evolution driving school, and is something I'm just now starting to put into practice on the track.

What will happen if I put a torque arm on the car? If I can apply throttle earlier without losing grip in the rear, doesn't that mean that the car will push in the corner if I apply more power through the corner? That would mean that I would lose the ability to point the car with the throttle. It might be faster like that, but most importantly to me, it wouldn't be as fun. And it certainly wouldn't be as educational -- I wouldn't need the kind of throttle discipline that I need to have when driving around corners right now.

It's only recently that I've learned to do this, so I'm not very good at it yet, but I've gotten to the point where I can feel the rear start to "wiggle" ever so slightly when I've got enough power fed in. I can tell when I'm at the limits of adhesion back there, something I wasn't in tune with before. If I could simply mash the pedal to the floor at corner exit, as opposed to having to judiciously apply power as I unwind, I might be faster, but would I be better? I suspect not.

The point here is that the fastest car isn't necessarily the best car to learn in, and it's not even necessarily the most fun. It depends on whether it's pure speed that you enjoy, or the act of driving itself, of commanding the car in various ways and seeing it respond to you in the way you want it to.

As the professional driver lap times in the stock Boss 302 on street tires show, there is far more speed potential in my car than I've managed to unlock thus far. So in the end, I think it really comes down to one question:

Do you want the car to be fast, or do you want to be fast?

I've chosen the latter. If I really wanted to be fast without putting a lot of effort into myself, I could just get a Nissan GT-R and let the computers do all the work for me.

That's not to say that one can't learn just as well on a car that's faster. But it does mean that, just as with anything else, the changes you make need to be made with your goals clearly in mind. Here, my goal is to learn how to drive faster as a result of driving better, to maximize (to the degree possible) what I can get out of whatever car I'm driving, and most importantly to have as much fun as possible while doing so.

When all is said and done, I want there to be one reason, and one reason only, that I'm not getting the same kinds of lap times out of my car that a pro driver can get out of it: because I'm intentionally holding something back so as to ensure that I and the car go home in one piece. I want to learn the same skills that those drivers have. It'll be a long, but (if I do it right) very enjoyable, process. Most importantly, for me it's the journey itself that counts. It doesn't really matter if I fail to achieve the level of skill those drivers have, as long as I've had great amounts of fun in the process of trying.

 

[barbaro]

KC, you Know how if you wake up one day and everybody's crazy and you're the only sane one, guess what? anyways I really regret all of it and let it stand as an example of how not to make a point.

My understanding both from talking to Filip and also from reading about others running his suspension, is that with a torque arm, Watts Link in the back you do not want a stiff sway bar, because it takes away both the the added articulation that the WL T/A rear end gives you and grip. Again he is in a much better position to address that point than me.
My personal experience is that when you put the stiff sway bar on it really helps turn in and make the car really good slaloming or in quick transitions. It also makes it hard to put the power down on corner exit which is why my car drifted so good when I had that big H&R 26 millimeter sway bar on it . Oh and the 26 inch sway bar in the rear is also pretty brutal and ride quality at least my H&R's were.

So his set up is big front bar, small rear bar, control rear end with spring rate and dampers. He sells an 18 millimeter bar for the rear end which seems like a strand of spaghetti compared to stock.

I think the philosophy is to Keep your nose down in corner entry and load up your outside rear tire on corner exit. Now I'm not sure I have that right but it's more or less what I have been reading. I do know if you put a Cortex rear end on,
Filip will advise you to go to a smaller sway bar. I think that you maintain equivalent grip levels both front and rear by balancing the front and rear spring rates and dampening. I know that Philip is very specific about the spring rates that work well together. And he's very good at advising on that of course. I am not. I only know what works for me. My 400 200 setup with the torque arm works very well for me on the street. It is obviously not sufficient for heavy track use.

I currently have a 24 millimeter sway bar in the back and I'm going to be going down to a 20 millimeter sway bar that I have hanging around. I just have to get around to putting it on. It's a little bigger than what he recommends, but I also run softer springs than most people who run an 18 inch bar. My rear springs are only 200 pounds and my front Springs are 400. My car is a street car that can handle a limited amount of track Duty not vice versa.

But I do know that nothing is set in stone and everybody has different driving styles. So what works for Filip may not work for you. But I don't think a torque arm makes you slower. It's possible I guess. because as SoundguyDave said, it is true that what feels fast isn't necessarily fast.

The only thing that I can really vouch for in the end about the torque arm is that I personally feel connected to the vehicle in a way that I didn't feel connected before. I feel like the front and the back of the vehicle communicate and are on the same plane. And I can also vouch for the car being more horizontal, less nose dive, Less squat. How that plays out dynamically at the track with real good drivers I don't know. to them it might not make a difference but to me it does.

 

[kcbrown]

KC, you Know how if you wake up one day and everybody's crazy and you're the only sane one, guess what? anyways I really regret all of it and let it stand as an example of how not to make a point.

Right. But now that we've seen that, we can all make points well! Win-win in the end.

My understanding both from talking to Filip and also from reading about others running his suspension, is that with a torque arm, Watts Link in the back you do not want a stiff sway bar, because it takes away both the the added articulation that the WL T/A rear end gives you and grip. Again he is in a much better position to address that point than me.

Interesting. I have to wonder what that does to the balance. With the adjustable Watts Link, however, you can control the rear roll center of the vehicle, and maybe that's enough to get the car back into balance, at least with respect to neutral throttle.

My personal experience is that when you put the stiff sway bar on it really helps turn in and make the car really good slaloming or in quick transitions.

Yeah, that's exactly the experience I've had as well (see, subjective impression is valuable!).

Even just going from the 24mm rear bar that came stock with the car to the 26mm Laguna Seca rear bar has made a major difference in terms of the turn-in responsiveness of the car. It went from the turn-in delay (which is really the amount of time it took the car to take a set -- the actual direction change delay of the car seemed to be much shorter than the time it took the car to take a set, which was odd) of maybe a couple of hundred milliseconds to something low enough that I can't detect it.

It also makes it hard to put the power down on corner exit which is why my car drifted so good when I had that big H&R 26 millimeter sway bar on it .

Oh. You no longer have that in the rear anymore? Given what you say below, I guess that makes sense.

Yes, I agree, the car is easy to drift now. But that makes it a lot of fun, even if it isn't as fast.

So his set up is big front bar, small rear bar, control rear end with spring rate and dampers. He sells an 18 millimeter bar for the rear end which seems like a strand of spaghetti compared to stock..

I think the philosophy is to Keep your nose down in corner entry and load up your outside rear tire on corner exit. Now I'm not sure I have that right but it's more or less what I have been reading.

It sounds like he might be a fan of trail braking into the corners (that will definitely keep the front loaded on corner entry!).

I do know if you put a Cortex rear end on,
Filip will advise you to go to a smaller sway bar.

That's quite interesting. Did you ever have your 26mm bar on the car with the other pieces (torque arm and watts link)? If so, what were your impressions of it before you went back to a smaller bar?

I currently have a 24 millimeter sway bar in the back and I'm going to be going down to a 20 millimeter sway bar that I have hanging around. I just have to get around to putting it on. It's a little bigger than what he recommends, but I also run softer springs than most people who run an 18 inch bar. My rear springs are only 200 pounds and my front Springs are 400. My car is a street car that can handle a limited amount of track Duty not vice versa.

OK, thanks. I'm at 191 lb/in in the rear right now, which is so close to 200 as to make no major difference. But my front is at 148 lb/in, which is a lot less.

But I do know that nothing is set in stone and everybody has different driving styles. So what works for Filip may not work for you.

Right. The nice thing, though, is that Filip is an engineer. He solves problems. If you want the car to have certain handling characteristics, he'll be able to come up with something that gives you that, as long as what you're after is within the reasonable realm of possibility.


So you're running 400 lb/in up front with JRI dampers, right? Previously, you were running 148 lb/in up front with the Koni Yellow dampers -- exactly what I'm running now. What's your impression of how the front end works over bumps and the like, especially in comparison with your previous setup? And are you able to adjust the height of the front to match what you previously had with the Boss springs and Koni dampers? I simply cannot lower the car up front any more than I have, because I wouldn't be able to get my car onto my driveway otherwise. But if the CorteX JRI coilovers can be adjusted that high, then they would be a possible upgrade path if I end up deciding I need more rate up front for whatever reason.

 

[Sky Render]

I'm curious as to why you want roll understeer. I used relocation brackets to set up my car for slight roll oversteer, because it increases turn-in, prevents the rear from "crab walking," and makes the car "feel" smaller.

 

[barbaro]

KC. The big LS sway bar works great with LS springs of course. And here is where I reach my level of incompetence. Coilovers completely change the spring rate balance in the vehicle. And the philosophy of matching swaybars to spring rate and their consequent impact on handling dynamics is not something I'm competent to comment on.

My own personal experiences with the 26 H&R swaybar on Steeda Boss Sport Spring mated with the Cortex rear end was not good. On corner exit I could not get any dig out of the outside rear tire because of insufficient weight transfer. way too much oversteer when ever I would try to put the power down. But with the Torsen there was a fun factor. Also the back end Was very stiff and non compliant and the ride quality was horrible.