Whiteline Watts Link and Rear Sway Bar

[SoundGuyDave]

The diff cover is 100% sprung? You mean unsprung right, since it's attached to the live axle which is all unsprung as well?

D'oh! You're absolutely right, of course... Must. Proofread. Posts.

I will certainly defer to your experience and opinion on the Auto-X results with a Watts, never having done it myself. Just from watching video, I can tell that things happen a LOT quicker cone-hunting, but I would say that the net "violence and intensity" is approximately equal. We're still pulling 1.4G in the corners, and turn-in can be quite violent, particularly if you're popping inside to make a pass...

 

[Vorshlag-Fair]

Lots of good questions here, and Whiskey has answered many of them. Let me see if I can touch base on all of the open ones.

1. I would put zero faith in the internet rumors concerning swaybars and fuel tanks. If you look underneath an S197 Mustang the plastic fuel tank is mounted significantly forward of the rear axle, underneath the back seat. It is safely away from any rear swaybar I have seen on the market for these cars. There was a BIG rear crash in a 2011 GT at this last weekend's GTA event. The entire trunk section was smashed flat right up to the back window. Rear suspension was full of aftermarket bits. Nothing came close to the factory fuel tank. No Hollywood explosions.

2. The Whiteline and Fays2 are both legal under the Solid Axle provisions for SCCA Street Prepared autocrossing. This issue was blown out of proportion from one internet over-analyzer/trouble-maker/giant-no-show on another forum, heh. The mounting provisions for a Watts Link are FREE.

15.8.I : I. Solid axle suspension allowances:
1. Addition or replacement of suspension stabilizers (linkage connecting the axle housing or De Dion to the chassis, which controls lateral suspension location) is permitted.
2. Traction bars or torque arms may be added or replaced.
3. A panhard rod may be added or replaced.
4. The upper arm(s) may be removed, replaced, or modified, and the upper pickup points on the rear axle housing may be relocated.
5. The lower arms may not be altered, except as permitted under
15.8.C, or relocated.
Methods of attachment and attachment points are unrestricted, but may serve no other purpose (e.g. chassis stiffening). This does not authorize removal of a welded-on part of a subframe or bodywork to accommodate the installation.

The SP rules surrounding solid axles seem pretty clear to me - you see where it says don't remove a welded on part? Well the diff cover bolts on. We have discussed the replacement rear axle cover with an SEB member, and he agreed with our reading of the rule. We are formally asking for a clarification, to remove any and all doubt, as well as the potential for a "weenie protest". There is over a decade of precedent with other Watts Links using similar replacement diff-covers as the Watts football mount. Don't let the keyboard cowboys fool you - this type of Watts link mount is fully legal.


We put the Whiteline Watts link kit and many more of their S197 offerings to the hardest test yet this past weekend. With 315/30/18 Hoosier A6s mounted at all 4 corners we were hitting over 1.3g lateral in our 2011 Mustang GT, setting a track record for Unlimited RWD and placing 5th overall at the 5th round of the Global Time Attack event (in an autocross prepped, A/C equipped, fully emissions legal, daily driven car). That event was Friday and Saturday. We swapped the wing for a spoiler and ran it in an SCCA autocross on Sunday. And Monday it is back to daily driver status. Zero defects in any of the Whiteline parts.

We plan on using Whiteline parts for our 2013 GT build as well. One of the few things that will carry over onto this build.

Thanks,

 

[chutoyy]

I may have access to the Whiteline Watts Link for 05+ Mustangs for roughly $950 shipped...

an FYI; not meant to be a commercial post.

 

[Sam Strano]

Well, for what it's worth I'm also a Whiteline dealer. And both a Whiteline and a Fays2 weigh about the same in total. The Fays having less unsprung weight since the frame is mounted to the body. Also consider that the reason I stuck with a rear sway bar that is body mounted was to keep unsprung weight down as well. As for the legality thing, that's for a protest committee to decide. I can see it going either way, and who needs that hassle? I mean the Fays2 is well proven. I've used them, the current and reigning ESP National Champion has one (which I sold him). The Mustang that was 2nd in ESP (a lowly old 4.6 without headers and all that) has one (which was my own personal one from my 2007 car). And the one that finished 3rd... well that was my old car (and watts link).

As for the use of rod-ends being iffy, that's a stretch since rod-ended PHB's have been used for about 1 million years in ESP. Not only that the bushing restriction isn't applied to the lateral location device, that's free. But differential cover changes are not free, and you may have seen the words "may serve no other purpose" before in the rulebook. That happens when things like this happen. While lateral location is ok, beefy diff covers that aren't legal under update/backdate specifically are not not legal. Here you have a technically illegal part trying to be legal because it serves another purpose.

Now, maybe I'm nuts. I only served for 4 years on the Street Prepared Advisory Committee. I was responsible for getting SFC's made legal in SP. I also have served on 6 Protest Committee's at Nationals, and have over the years been forced to file 3 protests as well (and never lost one). I'm very familiar with the car, the products in question (again being a Whiteline dealer myself *and* an Official Site Vendor here).

Some folks like to beat a new path in the jungle when there is a nicely paved road right next door, just to be different.

FWIW, anything bolted to the axle is nothing but unsprung weight and a solid 27mm rear bar ain't light folks.

 

[Whiskey11]

As for the use of rod-ends being iffy, that's a stretch since rod-ended PHB's have been used for about 1 million years in ESP. Not only that the bushing restriction isn't applied to the lateral location device, that's free. But differential cover changes are not free, and you may have seen the words "may serve no other purpose" before in the rulebook. That happens when things like this happen. While lateral location is ok, beefy diff covers that aren't legal under update/backdate specifically are not not legal. Here you have a technically illegal part trying to be legal because it serves another purpose.

Not to piss in the wind here but the rules don't say lateral locating devices are "free" or "unrestricted" it says:

1. Addition or replacement of suspension stabilizers (linkage connecting the axle housing or De Dion to the chassis, which controls lateral suspension location) is permitted.

Methods of attachment and attachment points are unrestricted, but may serve no other purpose (e.g. chassis stiffening). This does not authorize removal of a welded-on part of a subframe or bodywork to accommodate the installation.

Maybe this is why I'm not a National level driver, but it doesn't say "free" to me it says replacement is permitted and then doesn't specify anything else for restrictions or allowances. I realize that I am guilty of my own accusations here, but it makes no mention of bushing material or anything remotely close to saying that the rules are open provided it only does lateral location. My assumption is that this would also fall under the bushing rules which specifically prohibit any solid metal "bushings" because it doesn't say that the device used for axle location is unrestricted or free. Swaybars are the only thing that actually have a line clarifying acceptable bushing materials beyond 15.8.C:

15.7 ANTI-ROLL (SWAY) BARS Vehicles may only exceed the allowances of 13.7 as specified herein. Substitution, addition, or removal of any anti-roll bar(s) is permitted. Bushing material, method of attachment, and locating points are unrestricted

I think the fact that people have been using PHBs with rod-ends for the past million years in ESP doesn't necessarily make it acceptable within the rules. If anything it's a "gentleman's contract" between competitors to not protest it. Since ST and SP share suspension rules (I believe exactly but for sure the swaybars, live axle and bushing rules) I suspect that if hell were to freeze over and a Mustang using a Fays2 Watts link with rod ends were to trophy, I wouldn't be surprised if the use of rod ends was protested regardless of the fact that SP and ST share suspension rules and competitors have been using rod ends for a million years in SP. Maybe it's just me, I'm really trying to understand the almost "legaleze" speak that these rules are written in.

FWIW, and Terry can correct me if I'm wrong, but Vorshlag has tried to be a supporting vendor here but was told that this site was not accepting new vendors.


To Terry, I think the last part of the rules was taken out of context by you:

Methods of attachment and attachment points are unrestricted, but may serve no other purpose (e.g. chassis stiffening). This does not authorize removal of a welded-on part of a subframe or bodywork to accommodate the installation.

The bolded "welded-on" part in your posts makes sense if you ignore the part after it that says subframe (of which last I checked a live axle is not part of) or bodywork (which I KNOW a live axle isn't part of). Again, there is no clarification or rule stating that replacing the diff cover is legal which would make any diff mounted watts illegal. It's a weenie protest indeed, but it would appear to me that it isn't legal under the rules as they are currently defined. I would be very happy for you guys if the SEB and SPAC agreed that it was legal as I would love to see you guys win in ESP and I value your tech posts.

I pay a lot of attention to SP's suspension rule changes and clarifications because, as I said, they are either identical to the ST rules or damn similar and any advantage you guys in ESP are using to win, I would like to put to full effect in STX to place anything above dead fucking last.

 

[modernbeat]

Whiskey, the way the rules are written in general is that an allowance is given, then it's restricted in specific ways. Anything that is allowed is allowed fully. That is what "free" means. And anything that is allowed with only specific restrictions (This does not authorize removal of a welded-on part of a subfram...) is still allowed in all other cases.

The way the lateral link rule in SP reads is that a competitor can add or replace any lateral linkage device and do anything it takes to add it. This is the allowance. This allows ANYTHING that can be considered a lateral link and ANYTHING that it takes to install it.

Then the restriction comes in. And the restriction is on serving dual purposes and not removing welded on parts. This is where the example of tying a string to the diff cover and calling it a lateral link falls. In that case the flexible lateral link doesn't really require a stiff mount on the axle, so the replacement cover isn't really required. Removal of bolted on components to facilitate the install certainly seems to be covered.

If you have been around for two decades of this stuff you would have seen the swaybar allowance evolve the same way. What has been legal hasn't changed at all, but the language changed to end speculation and give clarification.

FWIW, I think the Fays2 link could be protested on the basis that the massive cross-frame girder stiffens the chassis, something specifically forbidden.

Either way, we'll be asking for a clarification on it.

 

[Whiskey11]

Whiskey, the way the rules are written in general is that an allowance is given, then it's restricted in specific ways. Anything that is allowed is allowed fully. That is what "free" means. And anything that is allowed with only specific restrictions (This does not authorize removal of a welded-on part of a subfram...) is still allowed in all other cases.

The way the lateral link rule in SP reads is that a competitor can add or replace any lateral linkage device and do anything it takes to add it. This is the allowance. This allows ANYTHING that can be considered a lateral link and ANYTHING that it takes to install it.

Then the restriction comes in. And the restriction is on serving dual purposes and not removing welded on parts. This is where the example of tying a string to the diff cover and calling it a lateral link falls. In that case the flexible lateral link doesn't really require a stiff mount on the axle, so the replacement cover isn't really required. Removal of bolted on components to facilitate the install certainly seems to be covered.

If you have been around for two decades of this stuff you would have seen the swaybar allowance evolve the same way. What has been legal hasn't changed at all, but the language changed to end speculation and give clarification.

FWIW, I think the Fays2 link could be protested on the basis that the massive cross-frame girder stiffens the chassis, something specifically forbidden.

Either way, we'll be asking for a clarification on it.

Right, legaleze nonsense that a lawyer must have wrote. I guess I'm hung up on the 15.1.B "Any modification not specifically authorized by the Stock Category or Street Prepared rules is prohibited." and since it doesn't specifically authorize the use of metallic bushings, diff cover mounted watts links or whatever, it doesn't make sense. I assumed (apparently erroneously) that all allowances that don't specify a restriction or allowance on bushing material fell under the bushing allowances (15.8.C) and since the live axle allowances don't specifically allow the use of rod ends they wouldn't be legal.

Again, it's awfully hypocritical of me since I am running a Fays2 unit with rod ends to call that out, but like I said, that is what separates me from you national level guys... I haven't acquired that lawyer legaleze vision to read through the extremely poorly worded and open ended rules to find the allowances like this... I'm just glad that "Monkey See, Monkey Do" appears to be an acceptable excuse!

The Fays2 unit replaces the factory PHB mount stiffener on an S197. I'm not sure the Fays2 offers any improvement in stiffness even over the OEM stamped steel piece just from thinking about the forces that brace is under during driving. It's certainly beefier than the stock unit, but whether it offers any improvement would be interesting to see a test done on.

 

[foolio2k4]

hoping a vendor has a good deal on the kit...

 

[ArizonaGT]

hoping a vendor has a good deal on the kit...

I think Vorshlag's pricing is very reasonable.

 

[modernbeat]

Yes, I agree that the SCCA wording leaves a lot to be desired. And you have to read it with the mindset of exploiting it if you want to prepare a nationals-level car.

Some of the newer classes, like ST* have much better wording to their rules, as they've learned from years of SP competitors. And even then it took eight years to get the ST classes stable so the rules actually say what the rulesmakers meant.

 

[Thekid760]

I might regret this, but is there any difference (other than unsprung weight) in an axle vs chassis mounted watts pivot? as in durability, handling charaxteristics, ect...

 

[Sky Render]

I might regret this, but is there any difference (other than unsprung weight) in an axle vs chassis mounted watts pivot? as in durability, handling charaxteristics, ect...

Clamp-on Watts links (such as the Fays2 unit) may slip on the axle tubes if not installed correctly. They are also more difficult to install, because you have to worry about placement of the clamps in addition to the length and articulation of the arms to prevent binding.

 

[DILYSI Dave]

I might regret this, but is there any difference (other than unsprung weight) in an axle vs chassis mounted watts pivot? as in durability, handling charaxteristics, ect...

The biggest difference is that an axle mounted pivot maintains the roll center at a fixed height, but is more limited in how low it can go; while a chassis mounted pivot can go lower but the pivot height changes with body movement.

 

[Whiskey11]

To expand on Dave's post, chassis mounted watts links offer a fixed moment arm between RC and CG producing predictable and consistent body roll. Whether or not that is an advantage depends entirely upon how the car is setup. In SCCA autocross having consistent and less variable body roll minimizes the roll understeer caused from dropping the car and not being able to fix roll steer using LCA brackets. It also aids in rotation under braking as the RC raises relative to the contact patch and it aids in enhancing rear grip under acceleration as the RC drops under rear weight transfer.

The major advantage of diff wats IMO is the longer arms allowing for a larger football and less chance of aide to side movement in extreme compression and extension of the rear suspension. Its a lot easier to package under a car and it is more aesthetically pleasing. In terms of performance you don't have the potential instability in braking associated with an RC that moves with the chassis and you don't have the chance of power on understeer from the dropping RC on acceleration.

I hope Norm will weigh in and correct as necessary.

 

[DRock]

I think Vorshlag's pricing is very reasonable.

hot damn it does look good.

 

[jayman33]

Came in for a customer of mine today. LOL, at least the packaging was great!! Pretty light all together. Will let you guys know how it is on the street as the customer doesn't road race.

 

[chutoyy]

 

[jayman33]

Hells ya!!

 

[sheizasosay]

Aren't end links to sway bar supposed to be perpendicular or do I have that wrong? Hole 2 looks good

 

[modernbeat]

Aren't end links to sway bar supposed to be perpendicular or do I have that wrong? Hole 2 looks good

In an idea world, yes. And it can be done by making the bar pivot bushings adjustable. But that's a lot more complication and a lot more work in adjustment to gain a very small amount of "perfection" in an already imperfect suspension.