Cortex Racing Kit?

[blue streak]

Anybody have it or seen it? http://www.lastcallracing.com/cxr-cfs-40-1000-t.html

 

[908ssp]

No never saw it before. But I like the looks of that Watts link a lot.

 

[blue streak]

From what I hear it's super nice and a competitive alternative to Griggs and is readily availible unlike the Griggs.

 

[shikwann]

Hey one of the owners is a member on here. I've met Phillip at his shop before over at infineon raceway. They're legit, at te time they're building a track/g-machine for popular hotrodding

 

[Ch4r1ie]

GR40Freak can clue you up on Cortex

 

[98 Saleen Cobra]

Cortex racing has some badass stuff that's for sure.. I wouldn't mind running it at all if they were to make stuff for us SN95 guys..

 

[foolio2k4]

would love to see the watts link in action.

 

[Ch4r1ie]

would love to see the watts link in action.

For more CorteX video's, check out...

http://www.youtube.com/user/CorteXracing1

http://www.youtube.com/user/GR40Freak

 

[JAJ]

A couple of things to keep in mind about the design of this kit:

First, there don't appear to be flags on the struts to connect the front sway bar. Perhaps they're made for one side only and the flags are underneath, but it does look weird in the picture.

Second, the coil-over setup in the rear is going to move the vehicle's weight from the frame to the sheet metal wheelwell, which is not nearly as strong. This is usually only done on cars with a roll cage that reinforces the wheelwell so the shock and spring assembly doesn't punch a hole in it.

 

[5.0_SD]

A couple of things to keep in mind about the design of this kit:

First, there don't appear to be flags on the struts to connect the front sway bar. Perhaps they're made for one side only and the flags are underneath, but it does look weird in the picture.

Second, the coil-over setup in the rear is going to move the vehicle's weight from the frame to the sheet metal wheelwell, which is not nearly as strong. This is usually only done on cars with a roll cage that reinforces the wheelwell so the shock and spring assembly doesn't punch a hole in it.

Sorry to revive an older thread...I am very interested in the Cortex setup...can anyone comment on the validity of JAJ's comment above?

 

[Philostang]

I haven't seen any rear coil-over set ups "punch a hole" in the steel in that area, however...

1. Most well-done cage set ups do reinforce this shock mount area, and I strongly suspect it is to strengthen this area to receive the additional loads they'll see with a coil-over.

2. I have directly witnessed buckling in the rear quarters of an S197 for no apparent reason...beyond the fact it had rear coil-overs and was tracked hard (thus the reason for my suspicion in #1).

I wouldn't be surprised if this is a non-issue for cars that are only street driven. But then again, if that's your use, why bother with this level of mod? =)

Best,
-j

 

[irishpwr46]

I haven't seen any rear coil-over set ups "punch a hole" in the steel in that area, however...

1. Most well-done cage set ups do reinforce this shock mount area, and I strongly suspect it is to strengthen this area to receive the additional loads they'll see with a coil-over.

2. I have directly witnessed buckling in the rear quarters of an S197 for no apparent reason...beyond the fact it had rear coil-overs and was tracked hard (thus the reason for my suspicion in #1).

I wouldn't be surprised if this is a non-issue for cars that are only street driven. But then again, if that's your use, why bother with this level of mod? =)

Best,
-j

when you say "buckling", what exactly do you mean? i ask because i have a "ridge" in my passenger side rear quarter that looks like it was pushed out from the inside. i dont have coilovers either. i am trying to figure out if this would be from hard cornering or a bad pothole or whatever else

 

[Chim-Chim]

I seem to remember that shock loads are *way* higher than spring loads--I wouldn't be too concerned with the rear strut area. That said, if you really need a true rear coilover, you need a well built rollbar or cage that ties into the rear shock mounts.

 

[NEMustang]

Filip Trojanek is an engineer that has designed and built arguably the best spindles for our S197s. Check out his Radial Mount Drop Spindles on his web site. These spindles were presented to the brain trust at Corner-Carvers.com and got rave reviews from the population. If your product can pass muster at CC.com, you've got great stuff.

I have had many conversations with Filip and purchased some of my Griggs components through him for my '65. He has help guide me through some decisions on my '65 and S197. I believe that he engineered Griggs racing spindles. He has created his own company called Cortex Precision Racing (http://www.cortexracing.com/). I believe Colin Sebern (GR40Freak) is working with him in some capacity.

His Extreme Grip suspension system closely models Griggs components with several improvements. Great quality if you want top-of-line suspension components. BTW, his '65 Mustang faired quite well at the 2011 Optima – Ultimate Street Car Invitational and he won an award for his stang at SEMA from Gran Turismo

Great guy, great products...Check him out.

 

[5.0_SD]

Agreed NEMustang, Cortex looks to have very good engineering behind their products, hence my interest. I would imagine that if I didn't want the full roll cage that a rear shock tower brace may be sufficient?
(btw, to answer Philostang's question about intent, I will road race it but also want to be able to drive it around town when I want to..but primarily road race for sure).

 

[Philostang]

I couldn't honestly say if a straight rear shock tower brace would be sufficient, but I hope it will help quite a bit since this is my plan as well.

My inquiry into intent was more to gauge the level of stress the car might see. I don't doubt that the Cortex kit will satisfy on the street (esp. if the owner is really geared towards track duty...I think my car's streetable, but I'm pretty much unphased by rod end noise, gear whine, etc.).

The buckling I saw appeared like little parallel waves (maybe three or four). The crests of these weren't exactly "ridges" but I guess that's a matter of how one prefers to describe them. Maybe Irish and I we're seeing the same thing...

FWIW, if I didn't have my current set up, I'd be looking really hard at the Cortex offerings.

Best,
-j

 

[JAJ]

I seem to remember that shock loads are *way* higher than spring loads--I wouldn't be too concerned with the rear strut area...

Actually, it's the other way around - spring loads dwarf the shock loads. The spring holds up the weight of the car; all the damper does is slow down how fast it's moving relative to the axle. The static spring load, even without any spring compression, is roughly double the highest dynamic load from a racing damper. Add extra load from spring compression over bumps to the dynamic damper load on the upper shock mount and the total load will easily be four or five times normal.

 

[5.0_SD]

JAJ, any suggestions for counteracting the loads that a coilover would put on the mount since, if I'm understanding you correctly, will be handling both spring and shock load?

 

[Chim-Chim]

Actually, it's the other way around - spring loads dwarf the shock loads. The spring holds up the weight of the car; all the damper does is slow down how fast it's moving relative to the axle. The static spring load, even without any spring compression, is roughly double the highest dynamic load from a racing damper. Add extra load from spring compression over bumps to the dynamic damper load on the upper shock mount and the total load will easily be four or five times normal.

I agree that going to a coilover adds extra load due to the spring rate, but I think damper loads are still way higher. Say you have a 300 lb spring that is compressed about 3" (about what it would be for a stock weight s197). You realistically only have another inch or so of compression before the bumpstops take over. That is a total of ~1200 lbs of force from the spring.

However, think about the hit the shock mount takes during a high speed, sharp impact, especially if the spring is extended (as is often the case during suspension travel). The velocity of the damper shaft is high during the initial hit before the spring forces ramp up, and depending on compression settings, that damper is approaching the stiffness of a solid bar, i.e. incredibly high forces compared to even the max spring forces.

Any thoughts? Not trying to be argumentative, I just remember discussing this with one of the Maximum Motorsports techs when converting their camber plates to coilover use from the stock style spring, and voicing my concern. It was couterintuitive at first.

 

[5.0_SD]

It may not matter which load is higher (it would if we were talking about a seperate spring and shock, but since the two are combined on the Cortex coilover, we have the combined load of spring and shock, and I agree with JAJ that this puts a lot more stress on the mounting point where the coilover mounts to. The real issue is, as JAJ pointed out, can the existing mounting point handle these combined loads and not punch through the body?! I would be really angry if I was pounding a road race course and all of a sudden a coilover goes flying through the body due to a weak mounting point. In thinking about it a little further, a rear shock mount brace would distribute some of these forces, however, if the mounting point itself is weak, it would probably only delay what might be inevitable....thoughts?