Sway Bars w/ Whiteline RLCA Relo Brackets?

[modernbeat]

Apparently a link to this has appeared on the SEB forum and now they are complaining on Facebook. Yay.

 

[19COBRA93]

With the tight wheel/tire clearance that Terry has, I don't think a PHB will cut it without rubbing problems. Just a thought.

 

[modernbeat]

With the tight wheel/tire clearance that Terry has, I don't think a PHB will cut it without rubbing problems. Just a thought.

It won't. We tried. The Watts and the Whiteline rear bar were requirements to run the tires we did without cutting the fenders.

But, you could say SP allows cut fenders, so no excuse there for a fully prepared car.

The change in transitional response was the real draw though. We tested it back to back before the 2012 Nationals and the Watts was a winner.

And Whiskey, we've been in many Fays2 equipped cars, not just S197 Mustangs, with rattling rose joints. When required to move that much, at those speeds, that often, they just don't hold up. But, rattling cars isn't against the rules either, so a fully prepared car is allowed to rattle, or to have the spherical joints replaced every six months.

The only complaints against the PHB and spherical suspension arms is that if you want to use your car for something other than autocrossing, it's a PITA to deal with. The red car had a LOT of compromises for an autocrosser, as it is daily driven, used for time trials and for autocross. It was heavy, used poly and rubber when a spherical would have more performance, still had AC and emissions equipment, and big brakes. We weren't willing to cut it up or deal with no AC in Texas. That's why we bought the black GT. It was slated to be a dedicated ESP build.

 

[Whiskey11]

It won't. We tried. The Watts and the Whiteline rear bar were requirements to run the tires we did without cutting the fenders.

But, you could say SP allows cut fenders, so no excuse there for a fully prepared car.

The change in transitional response was the real draw though. We tested it back to back before the 2012 Nationals and the Watts was a winner.

And Whiskey, we've been in many Fays2 equipped cars, not just S197 Mustangs, with rattling rose joints. When required to move that much, at those speeds, that often, they just don't hold up. But, rattling cars isn't against the rules either, so a fully prepared car is allowed to rattle, or to have the spherical joints replaced every six months.

The only complaints against the PHB and spherical suspension arms is that if you want to use your car for something other than autocrossing, it's a PITA to deal with. The red car had a LOT of compromises for an autocrosser, as it is daily driven, used for time trials and for autocross. It was heavy, used poly and rubber when a spherical would have more performance, still had AC and emissions equipment, and big brakes. We weren't willing to cut it up or deal with no AC in Texas. That's why we bought the black GT. It was slated to be a dedicated ESP build.

Well, I don't know what to tell you. I ran some 61+ runs last year, the vast majority on the Nationals Concrete and some 8000 street driven miles and the rod ends are still very tight. Tighter than the rod ends used in UMI's adjustable endlinks (which use QA1 Chinese rod ends as apposed to the Aurora's on the Fays2). It's not like I don't drive my car hard either. While I'm no Sam Strano or Terry Fair or <insert your national champion> I am trying my hardest. So far, no issues to report.

And yes, you could cut fenders (you said you would! ) or deal with rattling suspension in an autocross only car. It's one of the many reasons I have been patiently waiting for the ESP Build thread on the 2013 but I fear it may never get one now and I may never get to see it in person (despite wanting to!).

I'm NOT your enemy, and I'm not Sam's enemy, or Dave's or anyones. Don't make me one! Your cars are too damn photogenic for me to ignore them!

 

[dontlifttoshift]

Terry said the same thing about NASA, as far as not competing. I hope to see the black car in esp this year. 4th in a pretty fresh car shows a lot of promise I think.

Most of the pony car guys from Chicago region wrote letters in favor of allowing the diff cover swap. Only one of us has a watts, and its a fays2, but the clarification makes no sense to any of us up here.

 

[BigEnos]

The car that broke its Fays2 at Dixie last year was a result of zero shakedown and improper installation. After that, it was correctly installed and ran all year with zero problems.

<edited for punctuation>

 

[Roadracer350]

You know as an outsider here i would like to put my 2 cents in for what its worth. I have been looking for 3 years at suspension pieces for this car. The reason I like the White Line stuff is simple. They are beefy units that are put together like I would do and they work. The Australian touring car guys wouldn't use them if they didn't. I have also read a lot of rule books in my racing carrier and the SCCA is by far the MOST confusing rule book EVER. Have I competed with them? No and I don't think I will due to not only is the rule book confusing but it reads as some of the rules contracts other rules. The CMRA has the MOST RESTRECTIVE rules in the nation as far as road racing motorcycles. If you can pass tech in the CMRA you can pass tech ANYWHERE including the AMA. My point being is the rule book for the CMRA is maybe 50 pages and VERY easy to comprehend. Im not sure where i will run this car as I have gotten on the SCCA forum and they were straight up jerks. Subscription canceled. Then I see Terry trying to ask questions about weird rules that does not make sense and people blasting him for it. I can see his frustration. I also know I don't have the whole story as their is some history here. My point being the rule book needs to be simpler to understand. Don't have an engineer write it have a racer do it. I have come to accept that what ever class i get stuck in so be it. Im not here to win trophies i just want to have fun but unfortunately i doubt it will be with SCCA.

 

[2008 V6]

It's because the majority of the rules make sense. It's the rest of the rules that don't make sense that all the problems come from.

The priority should be that all of the rules make sense, not just most of them.

I concur 100% but I don't think that will ever happen.

 

[JesseW.]

Care to explain?

its been a while since they've been on, but i remember putting a couple of extra washers behind the swaybar bolt head with the head pointed towards the outside of the car, this gave me enough clearence with the bolt sticking out of the nut. you can accomplish the same by cutting the bolt a bit shorter. The lowest position on the lca was the only problem, the middle and top was ok. if you don't put the swaybar bolt in the the outside with the lca in the the lowest position its almost impossible to adjust the swaybar later without taking the lca bolt loose.

Apparently a link to this has appeared on the SEB forum and now they are complaining on Facebook. Yay.

Links?

 

[Norm Peterson]

I've had MORE problems with Sam's/Hellwigg's rear bar making noise due to a really poorly designed metal bushing sleeve that is a giant roll pin rather than a bushing that can be torqued against. Mine has split open like a flower and wont allow me to get the axle side bolt tight enough to stop it from making clunking noises. I plan on fixing that next year with a simple bushing spacer redesign. I need to call Sam to see if I can get two new poly bushings for the axle end mounts before I can do that.

Are you saying that the metal inner sleeve has split open or that the bushing pieces have?

I have a little noise coming from mine, but it certainly isn't from inability to get the axle-side bolts tight (I shaved the faces of the bushings down so that there is a solid stack of metal between the bolt heads and the nuts, and there is no poly being subjected to axial compression).

However, there may be a little angular misalignment between the bolt axis and the axle-side bushing in my case, so you might want to check this specifically. I haven't figured out yet what I might try.


Norm

 

[Sky Render]

I installed my rear Whiteline sway bar in under 20 minutes and have had ZERO issues.

Just sayin'.

Sent from my toilet using Tapatalk

 

[fun4me]

its been a while since they've been on, but i remember putting a couple of extra washers behind the swaybar bolt head with the head pointed towards the outside of the car, this gave me enough clearence with the bolt sticking out of the nut. you can accomplish the same by cutting the bolt a bit shorter. The lowest position on the lca was the only problem, the middle and top was ok. if you don't put the swaybar bolt in the the outside with the lca in the the lowest position its almost impossible to adjust the swaybar later without taking the lca bolt loose.


Links?

Thanks for the reply.

 

[Vorshlag-Fair]

More good commentary from JesseW. Thanks for continuing to reply.

I mentioned this a couple of pages ago on post #50, so why not show up with a phb and protest everyone, or write a clarification letter and get them all declared illegal. (i almost did this but decided against it as i can run about whatever i want in SM driveline wise).

That's not a bad idea at all, and we toyed with this idea, honestly, but we felt it would be a chickensh!t protest. This is because we really feel that ALL of the commonly available commercial Watts Links should be ESP and STX legal. But protesting is a tool that could be used to point out a problem with the rules, and we have done that in the past.

I've only protested cars in SCCA: when both parties were doing it to point out a problem with a rule, and it was done at National level events. We staged the protest to point out a flaw in a rule, in effect. Honestly it is easier to convince 3 guys on a protest committee in ~5 minutes, especially when armed with good tech/logic, than it is to convince an AC + SEB via a crappy online form letter - who tend to debate things to death and drag things out for weeks/months/years, and can "choose their facts" based on the limited number of people on these small committees.

Here's an alternative we have done... at a Pro Solo last year one of my ESP competitors noticed another racer in our class with Rear LCA relocation brackets. We pointed it out the rule to him as a group, which he didn't understand it. We all agreed that if these brackets WERE legal we would ALL have them... Seriously, these ~$100 brackets would be on 100% of the cars on the ESP grid if allowed. It is worth a letter writing campaign. Anyway, he read the rule, agreed with our group's logic, took the parts off that night, and was 100% legal on the 2nd day of the event. Everyone was satisfied and nobody had to involve a protest committee or a DSQ, which is more of a "nuclear option".

There have been many times as a competitor that I wanted to drop paper on a known cheater, who - after talking to them multiple times about an issue and continued to run the parts in question - but doing this (like arguing publicly and sharing my opinions!) would hurt my reputation as a business owner within the Solo community, justified or not. So I've almost always opted not to, or asked others to do the dirty deed (this rarely works, BTW). My hands are more tied than most, in these situations. You can't be a key sponsor at an event and then go and protest competitors - it just would seem unseemly or childish or unprofessional.

And yes, I've written and said some less than professional things in this thread or in heated letters to the SEB, some of which I wish I could "filter". And even as lively as these posts have been, I have had at least 2 sets of eyes read (and edit) my posts, removing all sorts of foul language and childish name calling. What can I say? I am a passionate person and SCCA solo has been a big part of my life since... 1987? "Finding Solo" literally changed where I went to college, it changed who my friends were, it changed my professional goals, it led me to CREATE Vorshlag, and is still to this day a part of my livelihood and one of my favorite motorsports/hobbies. But it is far from perfect, and a very small number of people have a very large amount of control over the rules, processes and outcome of these events. And I don't always agree with their logic, or completely lack thereof.

I do not respect or like some of the people on the SEB or for Sammy here, and I have made clear why. I am not their only detractors. I have people that do not care for me, either, which is ... what it is.

To me, the Cortex is the best unit, has roll center adjustment, rod ends on the prop side and looks well made. the whiteline unit looks well made, but doesn't have roll center adjustment and really doesn't need poly bushings on each side.

I agree, the Cortex unit has some nice features. If you have a dedicated race car it should be on your short list of Watts Link candidates. I like most of the units out there, actually.

But I have to point out the inaccuracy that Sam "I'm a Whiteline Dealer (but isn't)" Strano has propagated here and elsewhere: the Whiteline Watts Link DOES have roll center adjustment. Look at the picture above. That "wildly illegal super cheater" diff cover (rolleyes) has two sets of mounting holes for the Watts Propeller. Moving that mount up/down moves the roll center. It isn't a TON of adjustment, but it is adjustable. Saying otherwise is propagating Sam's non-factual statements. You say something enough times, even untrue, and it becomes fact. This is a well known Strano Tactic (TM).

Stranobars are dark magic, as they are filled with Unicorn blood.

If I say that enough times people might believe that, too.

btw, i drive around with a rod end phb, its not bad at all if you lube them twice a year.

While that is good to know, and your tolerance of regreasing joints is admirable, I've had different results on dozens of cars with sphericals over the past couple of decades. YMMV and all that.

The Spohn PHB and UCA we used on our same 2011 GT had "delrin" spherical ends, which are supposedly quieter than all metal rod ends (which I've also driven on many times), and these things would make all sorts of noise after just a few days of street use, then you'd have to grease or adjust it. BANG! BANG! BANG! It was unbearable on the street.

I've got all of this Spohn/UPR stuff for sale - if anyone wants it cheap, send me a PM! Warning: it all makes noise.

I also check around ask numerous people and will write a letter if i'm wanting to put a part on my car and i'm not sure about its legality. that's one reason i'm not running LCA relocators right now (i've owned some for 6 months and ran them at a local event), no one has given me a clear yay or nay, but i don't sit around complaining about it.I get that you asked the ESP guys and none of them cared, but maybe you should have wrote a letter 1st for clarification.

Well I can tell you straight away that axle-side lower control arm relocation brackets are illegal because it moves suspension pick-up points, which is a big no-no in Stock, ST and SP. I do think there should be an allowance for these brackets for solid axle cars, as almost all rear suspensions on solid axle cars are affected with negative instant center geometry changes when lowered. These brackets are a great fix and you will see instant positive results on a lowered S197 when you install these. Sam Strano doesn't think so, since he doesn't sell them... err... since he races mostly in F Stock where none of this is allowed, and he even had a youtube video of a car NOT axle hopping to prove... something? But virtually every other person in the S197 aftermarket, every GRAND AM/WC S197 racer, suspension designer or anyone with some basic suspension geometry knowledge will say otherwise. When the rear LCA goes beyond horizontal at ride height (from lowering) bad things happen.

The Ford Mustang Boss 302-S above came with these relocation brackets for a reason. I've driven this car and it works.

Our S197 above also has WL rear relocation brackets since after the 2012 SCCA Solo Nationals, and it also has more corner exit traction than before. We are doing better in all competition results since installing these parts. We might perform a more involved test in the future, but it is a foregone conclusion - these brackets FIX PROBLEMS.


As for "asking first before using any part", well if we did that we'd never get a clear answer on everything and we could spend months or years waiting to hear back on each answer from the SCCA. The SEB isn't fast on anything, and ask the same thing twice and you will likely get two different answers. Asking for a clarification in this case burned us HARD, and I won't ever do THAT again.

See, I have been involved in and around ESP class solid axle RWD cars since I first started Solo racing in Mustangs and Camaros in 1988 and have seen the rules evolve and mature over the past 24 or so years. I knew that Watts Links were legal and mounting the propeller to the diff is the most common solution done by both OEMs and the aftermarket. The legality of this part was never in question by me or most other ESP competitors. The wording was very clear - mounting was unrestricted. Only a simpleton or someone with an ulterior motive would think that WASN'T legal. But when Sammy started buzzing about the legality of the WL unit that he didn't sell (don't forget - he sells one of the only legal options now) we rolled our eyes and asked for a clarification, as a formality. And they flubbed the rule and essentially re-wrote the definition of "unrestricted" to actually mean EXTREMELY restricted.

That is the problem. This was a stupid non-issue, that turned into a series of weeks of tortured arguments in two committees, using broken logic along the way, and then became a botched "re-clarification" that made 70% of the common aftermarket options illegal, overnight. OOPS!

SP just had openings for their board, did you put your name in so you could have some say? it might have been smart if you want to get some positive rule changes.....

Ha! That will be the day.

The problem is these committee positions are not publicly voted positions. These SEB guys all vote each other into office - it is a private club, where certain people "need not apply". If you ask too many questions, you won't be on the boards. And I have been told after applying several times that, and I quote: "You will never be on ANY committee!", by sitting SEB members. Apparently my opinions are too vocal, and use that thing called "logic", and directly applicable experience, and actual suspension development knowledge, which is never wanted. Therefore I will never be included on any SCCA rules committees. MARK MY WORDS.

At this very moment this actual thread is linked to on the SEB's private discussion forum. They are likely working themselves up into a frenzy... as we are slowly pulling the curtain back on the wizard(s) behind the curtain. SEB members like DILSBYXYZ Dave here and his absurd "suggestions" to "easily fix" the diff cover re-write issue show how little these guys actually know about the systems and parts they rule on. It is, frankly, a bit embarrassing.

Cheers,

 

[fun4me]

 

[Ivan 5.0]

Strano's latest post in this thread was made a week ago...

 

[Whiskey11]

Are you saying that the metal inner sleeve has split open or that the bushing pieces have?

I have a little noise coming from mine, but it certainly isn't from inability to get the axle-side bolts tight (I shaved the faces of the bushings down so that there is a solid stack of metal between the bolt heads and the nuts, and there is no poly being subjected to axial compression).

However, there may be a little angular misalignment between the bolt axis and the axle-side bushing in my case, so you might want to check this specifically. I haven't figured out yet what I might try.


Norm

As I said in the PM (I hope that was clear =\) The metal sleeve on the inside is actually what has opened up because it is a glorified roll pin rather than a solid metal bushing (like used in the endlinks that attach to the chassis). The movement was from the bolts loosening up because trying to torque them down further continued to result in the metal sleeve opening up further. Eventually, right before I took it all off for winter, it was at a point where the only way to get them to STOP making noise was to compress the poly bushing and the metal sleeve to the point where the bushing looked like a marshmallow squished between two crackers. Neither is ideal. My solution should hopefully help with that.

I'm curious though, no axial compression of the bushing is a good thing? I understand distorting the hole in the poly bushing but what if it was just a TINY bit? Say an 1/8th of an inch at most?

 

[Norm Peterson]

Terry - just how deep into the CP trophies do you think you could get your 2013 and still keep it street-legal and mostly ESP-ish? Seems the red car was less than half a second away from that exactly the way it sat.


Norm

 

[Norm Peterson]

As I said in the PM (I hope that was clear =\) The metal sleeve on the inside is actually what has opened up because it is a glorified roll pin rather than a solid metal bushing (like used in the endlinks that attach to the chassis). The movement was from the bolts loosening up because trying to torque them down further continued to result in the metal sleeve opening up further. Eventually, right before I took it all off for winter, it was at a point where the only way to get them to STOP making noise was to compress the poly bushing and the metal sleeve to the point where the bushing looked like a marshmallow squished between two crackers. Neither is ideal. My solution should hopefully help with that.

When the bushing is under axial compression, however much clamping force is lost to bushing compression is doing absolutely zero as far as retaining the sleeve axis concentric with the bolt axis. And this will be the clamping force that comes from the first xx ft-lbs you apply to the fastener. Overall, the joint will still be "tight", but not all of the tightness will be through the right pieces.

When the suspension moves, the LCA rotates a tiny bit, but once it starts moving the axial LCA force will add a sliding component to the motion. Eventually, you'll bottom the sleeve to bolt clearance out, audibly.

When the poly faces are constrained such that you don't even get all of the little compliance that a poly bushing has, you've just added some roll stiffness that you weren't planning on. Remember that the chassis is still rolling more than the axle, however slightly. At 2° of relative roll between the bar end and the axle bracket, there will be a finite amount more axial compression at the diagonally opposite "corners" of the poly as viewed from the rear of the car. In structural analysis terms, the boundary conditions have changed even from the case where the poly faces are not constrained.

Not to mention that you then have compression between two surfaces where stiction is typically present, and subjected to relative motion. Think squeaking.

Be a little careful with whatever you fabricate or modify. I don't know how any "percentage of metal" interpretation/"clarification" would ultimately turn out.

I'm curious though, no axial compression of the bushing is a good thing? I understand distorting the hole in the poly bushing but what if it was just a TINY bit? Say an 1/8th of an inch at most?

When the material is as stiff as poly and it's supposed to "squish" a little, 1/8" is huge. Off the top of my head, polyurethane is something like 20 times as stiff as OE rubber, so compressions on the order of 0.02" are not negligible. And when you trap the material axially, the radially compressed material can't escape that way out the near side.



Norm

 

[Whiskey11]

When the bushing is under axial compression, however much clamping force is lost to bushing compression is doing absolutely zero as far as retaining the sleeve axis concentric with the bolt axis. And this will be the clamping force that comes from the first xx ft-lbs you apply to the fastener. Overall, the joint will still be "tight", but not all of the tightness will be through the right pieces.

When the suspension moves, the LCA rotates a tiny bit, but once it starts moving the axial LCA force will add a sliding component to the motion. Eventually, you'll bottom the sleeve to bolt clearance out, audibly.

When the poly faces are constrained such that you don't even get all of the little compliance that a poly bushing has, you've just added some roll stiffness that you weren't planning on. Remember that the chassis is still rolling more than the axle, however slightly. At 2° of relative roll between the bar end and the axle bracket, there will be a finite amount more axial compression at the diagonally opposite "corners" of the poly as viewed from the rear of the car. In structural analysis terms, the boundary conditions have changed even from the case where the poly faces are not constrained.

Not to mention that you then have compression between two surfaces where stiction is typically present, and subjected to relative motion. Think squeaking.

Be a little careful with whatever you fabricate or modify. I don't know how any "percentage of metal" interpretation/"clarification" would ultimately turn out.


Norm

Thanks for the response and I see now why compression would be a bad idea. I will draw up my plans tonight and PM you to prevent further derailment of this already derailed thread and get some much more informed help than my intuition from someone with far more engineering background than I have! Technically though the sway bar mounts are technically end links right and are therefore unrestricted? The current mounts would be in violation of any metal content rules anyway compared to the stock mounts.

 

[modernbeat]

Terry - just how deep into the CP trophies do you think you could get your 2013 and still keep it street-legal and mostly ESP-ish? Seems the red car was less than half a second away from that exactly the way it sat.

Actually, that was the plan. To build up the black car and compete in both ESP and CP with it. We felt a car that could win ESP would do fairly well in CP against the majority of the cars built for Prepared. It would take some driving talent. But we thought if the car showed promise, we would be able to recruit a winning driver.

But the Street Prepared built was the priority. Competing in Prepared would be an add-on so we could get more use out of the car.