Cortex Torque Arm Racechrono Track Review

[Norm Peterson]

Nevertheless I knew what i was getting into when I posted this stuff because I know All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Right now I am in the ridiculed violently opposed stage. I would back off if there was any doubt in my mind, but there simply isn't any.

Apologies to sheiza, but the most strident voice here is yours.

This thread is moving too fast to comment further just yet.



Norm

 

[barbaro]

I'm trying as hard as I can to remain patient here. But I think you're being way too sensitive, and seem to be technically in over your head. A very careful recollection of your driving observations, what was going on, what you were doing (in detail) without emotion and not biased in any nontechnical or distracting way, might still save this thread.


I am not being way to sensitive. There are people on here who are mischaracterizing my statements and essentially calling me a zealous idiot when they are in fact the ones who lack experience. I will admit the zealous part. But if I had put the parts on and they sucked I would be zealously stating that they suck. As for being over my head technically. The ability to drive my car faster is a technical issue to you. It is a visceral issue to me. I describe it viscerally. If the only opinions that count are the engineers opinions then start an engineers forum. Last I checked NASCAR or Formual One drivers are not required to have an engineering degree. Should their opinions on how their cars drive be discounted? If you are describing the experience of getting hit by a bullet, do you need to be a ballistics experts to offer the opinion that the bullet put a hole in you. Does the victim need to plot the trajectory of the bullet, measure its lands and grooves, measure the charge in the cartridge, calculate the speed of the bullet? Of course not. Knowledge of that technical data adds nothing to his description of the experience. If you want to know what a bullet can do to a person then there is no substitute for personal experience. Similarly with the torque arm / watts link package.

 

[Norm Peterson]

OT:

I'm always interested in screen-name choices.

Where did "Barbaro" come from?

The one I know was a horse that went down in the Preakness a few years back. Bred and owned not too far from me and was a big favorite locally.


Norm

 

[barbaro]

Barbaro was my Sicilian grandfathers name.

 

[sheizasosay]

Shit... If I'da known it was gonna be this kinda party, I'da just stuck my dick in the mash potatoes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Norm Peterson]

I'm trying as hard as I can to remain patient here. But I think you're being way too sensitive, and seem to be technically in over your head. A very careful recollection of your driving observations, what was going on, what you were doing (in detail) without emotion and not biased in any nontechnical or distracting way, might still save this thread.


I am not being way to sensitive. There are people on here who are mischaracterizing my statements and essentially calling me a zealous idiot when they are in fact the ones who lack experience. I will admit the zealous part. But if I had put the parts on and they sucked I would be zealously stating that they suck. As for being over my head technically. The ability to drive my car faster is a technical issue to you. It is a visceral issue to me. I describe it viscerally.

You're still missing the point. The reasons that a car can be driven faster are in large part technical. That you can personally drive it faster can certainly be your visceral experience, but that does not explain the 'why' of it all. That's what I want out of this, exactly "why". I know it won't be all pure-technical, but let me deal with separating the hard tech from the softer topics.

If the only opinions that count are the engineers opinions then start an engineers forum.

Off-topic, but there is one, it's international in its membership, and I belong to it.

Last I checked NASCAR or Formual One drivers are not required to have an engineering degree. Should their opinions on how their cars drive be discounted?

But they're a whole lot more precise in their feedback to the crew chiefs and next year's chassis designers than your feedback is here, at least to date. Maybe some do have engineering degrees, probably some don't, but you might want to research Mark Donohue.

If you are describing the experience of getting hit by a bullet, do you need to be a ballistics experts to offer the opinion that the bullet put a hole in you. Does the victim need to plot the trajectory of the bullet, measure its lands and grooves, measure the charge in the cartridge, calculate the speed of the bullet? Of course not. Knowledge of that technical data adds nothing to his description of the experience. If you want to know what a bullet can do to a person then there is no substitute for personal experience. Similarly with the torque arm / watts link package.

This is exactly the sort of distraction that this thread does not need. All it does is muddy the issue.

But I'd argue that the engineering analysis of that situation should be of interest to the marksman, who is really assasination's counterpart to the race car's driver/crew chief/designer as the individual who is actively trying to accomplish something. The victim correlates to lap times and finishing position as desired end results, and neither cares about the details that got the job done.

Let's not do any more of these silly analogies, OK?


Norm

 

[DTL]

Exactly where are you trying to put the IC, and why in the world would you put it anywhere behind the rear axle line?

I do know that the "no-hop" bars that have been sold (mainly to the GM drag racers) work with the UCAs - but they raise the axle side pivots. If that was in fact the wrong way to tweak the UCA inclination, those things would have Darwin'ed themselves out of the market decades ago even among those who don't even know how to spell "geometry". In side view, there is zero difference in the geometric constructions between the S197's 3-link and the Fox/SN95/GM triangulated 4-links.

Norm

Norm,

Coming from a lot of experience with drag racing GM A-bodies, I was surprised to discover the geometry differences as well. While upper control arm "anti-hop" brackets do raise the axle side of the arms, there are a lot of differences in the chassis-side mounting points in the GM. Mainly, they are higher up and farther forward than the Fords. In the Fords, I've seen IC and AS set with ride height in the rear (as far as can be without screwing up the corner weights).

With the 3rd link moved up, as I mentioned earlier, the IC remains well in front of the axle. (About 54" if I recall) When the chassis-side of the upper arm is lowered, the IC goes down and back. Raising that point (especially in a lowered car) corrects that. I've seen products that raise that point as well as other products that lower it. I think every application is different as is every desired result and this is another example of knowing what you're trying to accomplish, not just slapping parts on a car.

 

[barbaro]

Shit... If I'da known it was gonna be this kinda party, I'da just stuck my dick in the mash potatoes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's some funny shit right there. Perspective. We all love cars and want what is best. we have differences of opinion as to what that is, but even if we disagree we have a lot more in common then we sometimes are willing to admit. All I ask is that people accept what I have to say at face value. It is ok to be a skeptic. I certainly was. We all want objective criteria, but to require me to produce reams of data or be dismissed as a misinformed idiot who is "over my head technically" is a bit much. What amuses me is that people on these forums have uniformly accepted a Watts Link as being a vast improvement on the three link design and quite honestly when I put mine in I felt improvement in certain things but it was not a vst improvement. The torque arm on the other hand dramatically transformed the driving characteristics of the car in the way that I and others have described. Yet if I were to come on this very forum and tout the Watts link alone, I doubt there would be this kind of opposition. I have used superlatives because superlatives are deserved in this instance. Not because it is my habit.

You're still missing the point. The reasons that a car can be driven faster are in large part technical. That you can personally drive it faster can certainly be your visceral experience, but that does not explain the 'why' of it all. That's what I want out of this, exactly "why". I know it won't be all pure-technical, but let me deal with separating the hard tech from the softer topics.



Off-topic, but there is one, it's international in its membership, and I belong to it.



But they're a whole lot more precise in their feedback to the crew chiefs and next year's chassis designers than your feedback is here, at least to date. Maybe some do have engineering degrees, probably some don't, but you might want to research Mark Donohue.



This is exactly the sort of distraction that this thread does not need. All it does is muddy the issue.

But I'd argue that the engineering analysis of that situation should be of interest to the marksman, who is really assasination's counterpart to the race car's driver/crew chief/designer as the individual who is actively trying to accomplish something. The victim correlates to lap times and finishing position as desired end results, and neither cares about the details that got the job done.

Let's not do any more of these silly analogies, OK?


Norm

Norm talk to Bruce Griggs or Filip Trojanek of Cortex. They are engineers. I know that Filip has a degree in engineering. They can give you the answers you seek maybe. As to the anologies, they are spot on. And Norm you are the one who is being silly with all this hypertechnical analysis. I don't give a fuck about the why of it. I only care if it works and it does. It could be voodoo for all I care as long as it works. And did you not learn that some rather elegant design when subjected to real world conditions did not perform as the engineers and designers anticipated. If you listen to an engineer he will tell you that a Bumble bee is incapable of flight.

 

[Norm Peterson]

Norm,

Coming from a lot of experience with drag racing GM A-bodies, I was surprised to discover the geometry differences as well. While upper control arm "anti-hop" brackets do raise the axle side of the arms, there are a lot of differences in the chassis-side mounting points in the GM. Mainly, they are higher up and farther forward than the Fords. In the Fords, I've seen IC and AS set with ride height in the rear (as far as can be without screwing up the corner weights).

With the 3rd link moved up, as I mentioned earlier, the IC remains well in front of the axle. (About 54" if I recall) When the chassis-side of the upper arm is lowered, the IC goes down and back. Raising that point (especially in a lowered car) corrects that. I've seen products that raise that point as well as other products that lower it. I think every application is different as is every desired result and this is another example of knowing what you're trying to accomplish, not just slapping parts on a car.

You must be relocating the axle side of the LCAs.

Stock, the S197 LCA inclination is uphill going from chassis to axle, which puts the SVIC behind the axle if the UCA isn't significantly downhill from axle to chassis.

Once you reset the LCA inclination to be uphill from axle to chassis as you do with relo brackets, you can get away with a UCA that's level or even slightly uphill from axle to chassis (as long as the LCAs are more uphill).


I have some fairly decent pivot coordinates for my 2008 Mustang (which is still on OE springs) and a set for the 1979 Malibu that I used to have. The UCAs in the Chevy were level at essentially stock ride height, the UCA in the S197 rons downhill to the chassis by about an inch and a quarter in an 8.5" UCA horizontal projection. The is quite a bit of slope, but it's necessary for it to be this steep to put the SVIC a sane distance ahead of the axle line. I get about 84" ahead at stock height, with 54" ahead coming at just over 1" lowering with no pivot point relocation.

I don't offhand have any Fox-body coordinates, but there might be some in Mathis' Mustang Performance book.


Norm

 

[frank s]

I think barbaro leaves out some meaningful parts of his testimony; I've taken the liberty of inserting them bold-faced in his last paragraph:

[...] I don't give a fuck about the why of it. I only care if it works (to make me feel as if it drives better) and it does (change my driving experience in what I feel is a positive way). It could be voodoo for all I care as long as it works (to make me feel as if it drives better). [...]

That is pretty revealing, and shows some migration toward the crux: barbaro believes testimony - while it is actually evidence - is the kind or quality of evidence that is useful in this venue. barbaro's entire "argument" is introspection-based, and while it may be interesting and dramatic, it isn't the kind of science that promotes the understanding sought here.

If someday barbaro comes back with some scientific observations of objective, repeatable instances of performance increments or decrements, with just one variable changed between trials, it might contribute the type of data others here seem to require, and it would definitely change my whole attitude toward him and his observations.

Actually, I'm with him to a certain degree: knowing why something works better is interesting, but not as important to me as is the demonstrable fact of improvement; however, I'm convinced that what he feels is due in large part to the principle of Cognitive Dissonance, which has as a component Confirmation Bias: a tendency to ignore or try to refute evidence that would contradict some stance already invested in. It's natural, and rampant on Mustang forums. "This must be the very best choice I could have made; otherwise I would seem to be a bit of a dolt!"

Just sayin', LOL, etc., etc.

 

[Norm Peterson]

Norm talk to Bruce Griggs or Filip Trojanek of Cortex. They are engineers. I know that Filip has a degree in engineering. They can give you the answers you seek maybe.

I have seen a little about Filip, and his early car is apparently pretty good. If I ever entertain thoughts of a TA I would certainly consider getting in touch - if I wasn't going to try designing and building my own (which wouldn't be entirely out of the question).

As to the anologies, they are spot on.

You really believe that?

And Norm you are the one who is being silly with all this hypertechnical analysis.

There is nothing 'hypertechnical' about establishing general concepts and making non-numeric correlations. I could run a few numbers, but I haven't because doing so is not necessary here. I'm afraid that doing so would be pointless anyway.

I don't give a fuck about the why of it. I only care if it works and it does. It could be voodoo for all I care as long as it works.

Maybe this is the crux of the matter. If it didn't work, you as an individual trying to develop it would be completely lost. If it sort of worked, you wouldn't have a clue what to try to make it really work other than making random changes and hoping for the best. People like me don't throw money at parts without a pretty solid understanding of how they work and good confidence that they'll work well in the intended use. Marketing claims and individual testimonials alone are not sufficient, sorry.

Trust me, I know that there's a limit to how far you get with simplified theory. Ultimately you do need to drive the damn thing and see where/if it works up to expectations and where it doesn't. But even at that point you still benefit by having a technical basis behind choosing what and how much to tweak.


Norm

 

[barbaro]

I think barbaro leaves out some meaningful parts of his testimony; I've taken the liberty of inserting them bold-faced in his last paragraph:



That is pretty revealing, and shows some migration toward the crux: barbaro believes testimony - while it is actually evidence - is the kind or quality of evidence that is useful in this venue. barbaro's entire "argument" is introspection-based, and while it may be interesting and dramatic, it isn't the kind of science that promotes the understanding sought here.

If someday barbaro comes back with some scientific observations of objective, repeatable instances of performance increments or decrements, with just one variable changed between trials, it might contribute the type of data others here seem to require, and it would definitely change my whole attitude toward him and his observations.

Actually, I'm with him to a certain degree: knowing why something works better is interesting, but not as important to me as is the demonstrable fact of improvement; however, I'm convinced that what he feels is due in large part to the principle of Cognitive Dissonance, which has as a component Confirmation Bias: a tendency to ignore or try to refute evidence that would contradict some stance already invested in. It's natural, and rampant on Mustang forums. "This must be the very best choice I could have made; otherwise I would seem to be a bit of a dolt!"

Just sayin', LOL, etc., etc.

And what do you know exactly Frank? You a psychologist? Do You have a Griggs or a Cortex or a even a Lakewood rear grip package. I suspect you don't. So how can you evaluate what I am saying if you don't have any personal knowledge of the products through personal experience? You claim I don't know what i am talking about which is supposition on your part. You don't know what you are talking about and that is fact. Unless you can show me your experience, your opinion is worthless. That is the real problem with the internet. People like you, who come out of left field and talk shit with no base of knowledge whatsoever. Cognitive dissonance is not part of my emotional makeup. Because I have put on parts that sucked and admitted it immediately. I can give you links to read my posts about one piece drive shafts or aftermarket UCA's. I am not into lying to myself or others so save your armchair psychoanalysis for a patient you have actually examined. Just because you can spell cognitive dissonance does not mean you can diagnose it. Cognitive dissonance and Confirmation bias is only applicable if you can show that what I say is untrue. But you cant show that it is untrue. All you can do is snipe and talk shit. What you have stumbled on is a gang of four individuals who have decided to pick on one person and it takes no guts or ability at all to get a punch in as part of that gang. It is a cowardly attempt to become relevant as a follower. It takes more guts to be me and stand up to you people who are dead wrong without a shadow of a doubt, then it is to follow the crowd. Where i come from teh first thing teh races here do is put a torque arm on their car. Where I live you guys are the minority and you would be laughed at harder than you are laughing at me now. Are these guys idiots too frank. Why don't you go on their forum and snipe at them. http://www.teamshelby.com/forums/index.php/topic/78907-torque-arm-vs-uca/

here is a quote from another user from a Shelby forum. More confirmation bias perhaps?

I've had both and the torque arm made a huge difference. You will experience a bit of NVH increase, but I was surprised at how minimal the increase was given what I had heard. I'd say it's probably the best mod I've done. With the TA the rear just dug and bit under hard acceleration, rather than raising the rear and immediately blowing off the tires. In cornering the car is far more centered, and both understeer and overseer were notably reduced. The car became far less tail happy. My first time out to the drag strip in over 20 years on drag radials I ran a high 1.6 short time and went 11.53 at 123 with an upper pulley only. On the road course the difference is pretty much night and day. Given Van a call at Revan for more detail

here is anopther quote. And I challenge you to find one person that has a torque arm that was not happy with it.

<LI class=avatar>

<LI class=group_title>Team Shelby Club Member<LI class=group_icon>

<LI class="post_count desc lighter">883 posts <LI class="post_count desc lighter">Joined 19-March 12

• Gender:Male
• Regionacific Coast
• Interests:Open track and WOT
• Vehicle:GT500

Posted 12 January 2013 - 09:08 PM
marsh2o, on 07 January 2013 - 05:02 PM, said:
I've had a Griggs Torque Arm for almost 2 years now. Other than a slight increase in gear noise, transmitted through the arm, my experience has been extremely positive. I had severe axle hop, prior to having the torque arm installed. SInce the installation, the axle hop has completely disappeared, Most effective suspension change I've made to the car.

 

[Norm Peterson]

you people who are dead wrong without a shadow of a doubt

OK hotshot. Prove it.

To anybody's satisfaction but your own.

It's late enough out here in EDT-land, so I'm going to bed. I'll get to the teamshelby link tomorrow.


Norm

 

[barbaro]

Here is more of the why of it. Taken from another source. Confirmation Bias, Cognitive dissonance? You be the judge. Maybe he just doesn' t understand and is technically challenged like me

"Since you said you really wondered what the torque arm had to do with it I'll address it first.
It does much more than only stop (or reduce) axle rotation. It converts the energy from the axle rotation into upward thrust. As the axle tries to rotate it shoves the front of the torque arm up against the chassis. This is also what a ladder bar does, traction bars too. The point where the front of the ladder bar or torque arm is mounted determines its "instant center".
A shorter torque arm has it's front pivot point further back on the car. This moves it's instant center (the place it pushes up) back as well. The further back on the car the upward force (instant center) is placed the less squat you have. In fact if it is very far back at all the rear of the car will not squat at all but will lift. Moving the instant center forward allows more squat in the rear, but moving it forward also improves weight transfer from the front to the rear becuse it is pushing up more on the front. Moving the instant center up or down also has an effect on weight transfer. Up allows more weight transfer, because it places the instant center in better "leverage point" in relation to the cars center of gravity. It's easier to tip a glass of water over by pushing at the side of the glass near the top than it is pushing at the glass near the bottom.
So using a shorter torque arm to move the instant center back over the rear tires more, and mounting the front of the arm higher to raise the instant center to improve weight transfer usually works best. A more solid mounting, more solid bushings, and a stiffer torque arm transfers more of the axles rotating energy into lifting force applied to the body without absorbing or losing it because of flex." Educate yourselves and read more at http://www.thirdgen.org/techboard/suspension-chassis/59877-torque-arm-relocation-bracket.html

OK hotshot. Prove it.

To anybody's satisfaction but your own.

It's late enough out here in EDT-land, so I'm going to bed. I'll get to the teamshelby link tomorrow.


Norm

Its been proven Norm, only you are too myopic to see past your slide rule and east coast bias. The weight of opinion on this issue is with me not with you Norm or your acolytes.

Look at this Norm. Cortex and Griggs rear grip packages are very similar. But a rear suspension without bind must be a bad thing Right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OiHOiRVvh4

Lookie here, a Suspension Professional who agrees with me and not with the assorted technical geniuses who have challenged me. What a fucking revelation that is.

Rainy Day suspension basics...what IS the deal with torque arms?

Not that I'm anybody special, but I've been asked several times why I'm such a big fan of the torque arm rear suspension. Everyone has their favorite design, and usually for good reasons; so I'm fully prepared to take some incoming fire on this one.

I teach suspension design and tuning, so I try to look at a lot of different factors, and for me the torque arm comes out at or near the top in most respects. I found this video a while back, so watch it and we'll discuss the system some.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OiHOiRVvh4



Now, I realize that PT cars do not need anywhere near that much articulation, but one lesson I've learned the HARD way is that a high horsepower, high traction car can do some REALLY funny things when you pick up the throttle early in a corner. With a typical 3 or 4 link suspension, the instant center is a moving target and can easily cross over the 100% line, depending on static anti-squat and amount of travel. Also, on many early chassis, a 3 link is a somewhat difficult install as there was never much structure above the driveshaft tunnel. With high-anti squat percentage and short IC lengths, heavy braking can cause rear wheel hop

The torque arm has the advantage of a fixed IC location, and a fairly long swing arm length. A torque arm doesn't allow anywhere near the amount of axle wrap we get with a short/long 3 or 4 link. There is very little pinion angle change or driveshaft slip. Also, it is typically a very easy install, requires minimal floor and frame mods, and can even make use of existing front leaf spring mounts for the lower links. The tradeoff can be some increase in unsprung weight, although I've had one manufacturer tell me that their Camaro torque arm system reduces unsprung weight compared to the stock leaf springs. The one I built for the "Vintage Viper" is 1 1/4" 4130 tubing, and weighs a LOT less than one of the leaf packs.

The torque arm does require some sort of pivot or floating link at the front end, as the lower links define the travel arc of the axle housing; and rigid mounting the front will cause binding. There are a lot of different ways to achieve this, and most kit manufacturers use some sort of sliding insert in the end of the arm. This has the added benefit if locating the arm side to side. I've sort of fallen in love with the "dog bone" forged double spherical bearing BMWs use for a rear toe control link...probably because I get them free, but they work great.

Ok, there's my opinion. And that's all it is.​

You can find more edification at: http://www.pro-touring.com/showthre...sion-basics-what-IS-the-deal-with-torque-arms

So Bruce Griggs is an idiot too . . because his opinion is consonant with all those above. But I will let him state his case:

The car will still wheel hop some with the OEM third link during a launch, so we can provide an adjustable low compliance unit. However for the ultimate in traction, and driver confidence for control at the limit, removal of the 3rd link and installation of the TorqueArm is the best option. The TorqueArm is the only other part that requires welding, (very little), and a simple modification to the exhaust, which improves the cars sound and performance..
Track testing results exceeded even our expectation. Track testing was performed on 275/35 18 Hoosier RS6 tires. Launch was improved and wheel hop was eliminated. Consistency was easy to attain. Handling far exceeded the performance level attainable with the three link and strut system, especially over track irregularities and when cresting hills at speed while turning. The system has spent some serious time on track at the hands of a variety of highly skilled drivers as well as many miles of street driving. It truly is a joy to drive fast, and feels as solid and accurate as any car from anywhere, yet it has a surprisingly light feel, most drivers saying it feels like it weighs about 2000 lbs.
With testing completed and parts on the shelf ready for shipment, we can now announce the GR40 SN197 system it ready to improve your car. Further, complete turn key track toys can be ordered though selected dealers.
These new GR40 equipped SN197 cars are a major improvement in Mustang quality and performance. We believe that over time they will prove to be an incredible performance value. Performance numbers from independent testers will be published as soon as such is available.
Buildup of Rear Suspension In Order of Priority:
Stage 1:

1. Geometry Brackets and Rear Lower Control Arms

1. Rear Coil Over Shocks w/ bracket support kit (Adjustable damping and ride height).

Stage 2

1. Panhard bar, aluminum adjustable

1. Rear Anti-roll bar

Stage 3 Optional, but the very best.

1. Watts Link (delete Panhard)

1. TorqueArm (welding required).

1. Rear Adustable Ball–mount Anti-roll Bar optional.

For your edification. John Griggs at Virginia City Hill Climb This car has a torque arm. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AzpDOFOvdek#!

And this from the Suspension thread at the Modded Mustang Forum:

Torque Arm: A torque-arm (TA) is a piece that takes away the second job of the 4 link. It bolts to the housing of your differential preventing axle wind up entirely. It also runs parallel to your driveshaft and is welded to your subframe connectors via cross-member. If you install it and the panhard bar or Watts link, you can remove your upper control arms completely. This will save you a decent chunk of weight and give you a stiffer yet a more freely moving suspension along with improved roll axis. This leads to better wheel rates and solid transfer of energy to the wheels and chassis. Torque arms not only increase the ability to turn and accelerate, it also moves the connection point of the rear wheels to the body, making your car actually stop faster too. Instead of causing the car to dive as much, it keeps the car more level allowing your rear tires to do more of the work than stock. http://www.moddedmustangs.com/forums/99-04/239965-un-official-suspension-guide.html

More Mustang Manufacturers going with the Torque Arm Suspension. They must be stupid too.

http://www.stangtv.com/features/sem...lves-their-s197-mustang-suspension-offerings/

This was your post on Mustangsforums, Norm. I read it a long time ago. At first I thought you may be right, But then I actually did what you only theorized about and found that you were wrong. Dead wrong. Now you are on here leading some sort of charge against me in order to support an ill considered opinion that you made long ago based on what exactly? Because it was not experience. That is what I have. See Norm, I may not be an engineer, but I thoroughly do my homework. Strano has said similar things on the same forum. You were and are both wrong. Flat out wrong. Doesn't mean you or Strano are wrong about everything. You guys could be and probably are right about everything else you all so eagerly opine about. But on this one. I got you. Hey even a broken clock is right twice a day. So don't feel bad.

"RE: torque arm for the rear? It's not applicable to the S197 platform. It is an upgrade to the Fox/SN95, which uses a completely different OE [COLOR=blue !important][FONT=inherit !important][COLOR=blue !important][FONT=inherit !important]rear [/FONT][COLOR=blue !important][FONT=inherit !important]suspension[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR] arrangement.

The advertising copy quoted above is not technically correct, even though the number of longitudinal components is three and that it also has to use a PHB (or Watts link). A torque arm is not the third link in a 3-link because it works somewhat differently.

Edit: You're most likely looking for anti-squat brackets (aka "LCA relocating brackets"), LCAs with harder [COLOR=blue !important][FONT=inherit !important][COLOR=blue !important][FONT=inherit !important]bushings[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR] or rod ends, and maybe a different UCA and bracketry.


Norm

http://m.mustangforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=5022328

 

[Whiskey11]

Seriously...


All any of us are asking for is something more data driven rather than something subjectively driven or at least something that can be explained with data.

At this point I'm tempted to create a thread specifically for Torque Arms and then request the mods ban you from it so we can have an adult conversation with people who are willing to be more clear on what exactly changed over the UCA setup. Right now, we got something about the second coming of Christ and the rest is a bunch of third grade whiny bull shit "proving" your point (admittedly it's all subjective or a sales pitch).

I've "known" Norm for the better part of three years now and I doubt he is leading a charge on ANYTHING against you. He is looking for something more than just subjectivity, like the rest of us.

 

[barbaro]

And this from RPM Mustang who raced a Griggs GR40 S197 against European exotics and did quite well. this is how they described the Torque Arm on the S197 chassis:

The Torque Arm - The crown jewel in the Griggs Racing GR40 SS suspension package, the Griggs Racing torque arm is what makes this kit so much better than just another S197 coil-over package. The backend now feels completely solid and stable. More importantly, it feels controllable - Predictability and and control, even in track drifts and poor traction conditions allows you to get things straightened out when the backend slides out.

Isn't that pretty much what I described Philostang? Maybe they described it better? well then Touche for you. I mean I don't know how much satisfaction you can take in being wrong but I suppose you will find a way. Whether it is a glamour piece or not. It is the truth. which for some reason unknown to me, you don't want people to know. http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1050663_rpm-mustang-gets-griggs-racing-gr40-ss-suspension-package

 

[fun4me]

Time-out

Norm and Whisky11 are very helpful guys who have answered many a stupid question from me via PM. They're not even disagreeing w/ you. I guess they just expect a better explanation than "Its good". If this was posted in the general section, I'm sure these guys wouldnt have even bothered to comment. Since you posted this in the Corner Carvers sub-forum they expect a little more from you. This sub-forum doesnt just give you a thumbsup on anything you do to your car like most other general forums like AFM. They will pick it apart, because deep down they might be serious in investing their time and money into it at some point.

Now back to your regularly scheduled biblical and criminal law analogies.

 

[barbaro]

Time-out

Norm and Whisky11 are very helpful guys who have answered many a stupid question from me via PM. They're not even disagreeing w/ you. I guess they just expect a better explanation than "Its good". If this was posted in the general section, I'm sure these guys wouldnt have even bothered to comment. Since you posted this in the Corner Carvers sub-forum they expect a little more from you. This sub-forum doesnt just give you a thumbsup on anything you do to your car like most other general forums like AFM. They will pick it apart, because deep down they might be serious in investing their time and money into it at some point.

Now back to your regularly scheduled biblical and criminal law analogies.

I gave them a better explanation. And this is not my first post on this subject. You are spreading misinformation when you say that my explanation was simply that "it's good". How about all the other explanations I have posted. Again, you blatantly misstate my argument and my opinion. and if your justification is that Norm and Whiskey have answered questions for you than you are not thinking for yourself and you are approaching the issue with a pre-stated bias. The weight of Opinion is on my side. I fully expected this. And Norm is very active on AFM, I believe as well. Goebbels could have learned from your ilk. So there is a WWII reference. You want to take a potshot at that too.

 

[DTL]

You must be relocating the axle side of the LCAs.

Stock, the S197 LCA inclination is uphill going from chassis to axle, which puts the SVIC behind the axle if the UCA isn't significantly downhill from axle to chassis.

Once you reset the LCA inclination to be uphill from axle to chassis as you do with relo brackets, you can get away with a UCA that's level or even slightly uphill from axle to chassis (as long as the LCAs are more uphill).


I have some fairly decent pivot coordinates for my 2008 Mustang (which is still on OE springs) and a set for the 1979 Malibu that I used to have. The UCAs in the Chevy were level at essentially stock ride height, the UCA in the S197 rons downhill to the chassis by about an inch and a quarter in an 8.5" UCA horizontal projection. The is quite a bit of slope, but it's necessary for it to be this steep to put the SVIC a sane distance ahead of the axle line. I get about 84" ahead at stock height, with 54" ahead coming at just over 1" lowering with no pivot point relocation.

I don't offhand have any Fox-body coordinates, but there might be some in Mathis' Mustang Performance book.


Norm

Yes, you are correct on the LCA relocation. I'm sorry I failed to mention that earlier, as that's fairly important to the equation. My bad!

In stock form, my UCA was fairly level. As the car came down (quite a bit) and the lower arms dropped, the chassis side of the UCA would have needed to come up, or the lower arms would have needed to get leveled back out. NASA TT doesn't have the issue of rules restricting relocation brackets and such like SCCA does, which is probably where the translation gets lost a little. I can do (nearly) whatever I want to achieve the desired result.

 

[Whiskey11]

So for the princes of the Slide Rule, I have just given you links to individuals who regularly race and track these cars who just might have the quantifiable data you thirst for. Now that I have shown you the sun you can go on and insist it is night time. But hopefully the other people who look at this thread, my thread incidentally, will have other sources of information rather than the ill informed bullies who have tried to pass off ridicule as skepticism, inexperience as knowledge, personal attacks as cogent criticism, who deny volumes of rational subjective experience because they were not shown the Chinese Arithmetic. My arithmetic is that the corner that I took at 70 while struggling to maintain bowel control I can now take comfortably at 80. I think I can guarantee that experience to anybody similarly inclined. As to the naysayers who were respectful I wish you well. As to the ones who were not, since I can only refer to you scatologically, I will refrain and only wish to race you at Willow Springs and put you into the ditch at turn 8-9 like this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuVgkSIuouY But since most of you race in parking lots where you could have the gross misfortune of running into a rubber cone at 50 mph, that is only a pipe dream . . . But when you are willing to turn the wheel at 120 I may have the respect for you that you have denied me. My invitation is open. I will be more than happy to settle the matter on the track.

Please do not devolve this thread further by insinuating that autocrossers are somehow less than the HPDE/Track day crowd...