Cortex Torque Arm Racechrono Track Review

[stkjock]

unless anyone wants this thread closed, simmer down, this is a tech section. can the back and forth mud slinging.

FWIW - when one stands alone in a discussion, sometimes one should reflect on there POV. - - - Additionally - grabbing posts of a subjective nature off other forums IMO doesn't provide much "proof" the member quotes has no background to the members here and there credentials are not known.

so continue to debate the technical sides of the TA - do it in a manner consistent with the technical side of this sub-forum

 

[Norm Peterson]

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.

You've "proven" no such thing.

What you have demonstrated is a willingness to let name-calling and prejudices blind you to the fact that I have not ever called the TA a bad thing. Not here or anywhere else. You haven't even grudgingly admitted it.

On the other hand, you've been calling the 3-link "wrong". Whether it's been your intention, it's been coming across as the 3-link being wrong in concept, not just less than optimum in its tuning. The narrow-mindedness in this thread is yours, not mine. Come to think (and I kind of wish I hadn't), narrow-mindedness is precisely at the root of disputes between and among the various religions of the world. Might be best to not emulate on microscopic scale the dark side of what's supposed to be the better part of humanity.

I'll get to the later posts on a completely technical level . . . a little later. It's possible that I was a contributor in at least one of them, as I recognize the thread title.


FWIW, your grand-dad's generation has been called the "Greatest Generation" at least in this country for a reason. My hat is off to him for his contributions. We might not be sitting across the internet from each other without them.


Norm

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

See post #64 in that thread for some tech that I posted there. I knew I'd been involved. Ray and I had an exchange of viewpoints that I think was mutually beneficial. It's a loss to P-T.com that he's back into a heavy race schedule again.


It took a little detective work to get to the mustangforums.com thread, and I'll stand on my comment there. It was with reference to a specific Fox/SN95 component identified by another post in that thread. Chip (F1Fan, post #4) apparently agrees with my general position on the 3-link as a concept, though.


Skimming through the teamshelby thread, I'm not seeing anything much that I don't agree with. It does seem that there is relatively a lot more concern with instant centers and forward bite over there. Maybe a little too much.

I think I know what the "momentary bind" mentioned toward the end of the thread is specifically referring to. I also now know how the pro-touring link showed up here.


And then I found this in a Cortex discussion or two over at AFM

2011 Mustang GT 5.0 N/A 522 rwhp, 378rwt, Boss Intake Manifold, Comp Stage Two Cams, Livernois Ported Heads, Wiseco, Forged Pistons, Manley Rods, Polished and Balanced Forged Crank, Boss Valve Springs, Boss Oil Cooler, Boss Oil Pan, Koni Adjustable Shocks, Boss 302 Springs, Strano Front Swaybar, Cortex Watts Link, Cortex Torque Arm, Cortex Adjustable Lower Control Arm, MM Caster Camber Plates, Michelin Pilot Super Sports,

Norm

 

[5.0_SD]

If someone does not have the "technical" knowledge to explain in a way that others "expect" than he should not be bashed for it. Barbaro offered information that he understands and conveys in a way that HE knows how to. Just because he can't offer explanations that others desire does not mean he is wrong.
Now, I fully understand why the "techie" guys here want that kind of information because it would help them gain insight as to why or why not a part is "good" or "bad", but again, if the person presenting their case does not have the background in said area, they can only offer what they know. He offered a before and after scenario which is all he knows. And before anyone gets hurt, I do also appreciate what the "techie" guys here offer; I have learned a great deal from them and appreciate their knowledge that they take the time to offer.
IMHO, which I know doesn't count for much since I too don't have the technical knowledge of the physics of a suspension system, I like that Barbaro has at least tried to explain in terms that he can use, the effects of said parts on his car.
If I am wrong in posting this than please forgive me as I do not intend to offend or anger anyone, and if it's deleted, so be it.

 

[Norm Peterson]

So frank, you want to call me another name. Or are you gonna put that rhetorical device to rest.

For Instance this is one message I received:

Props To you bro. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't have an engineering degree right? If I'm right, then you would not have the ability to "technically" explain the improvement you felt with the TA.

My position is that if you can't explain why something is better from a technical perspective and you insist that everything else is wrong or inferior, you have no business making statements that say exactly that. I have absolutely no problem with you or anybody else really liking the TA. But no matter how well you like it, you don't get to make my mind up for me on this topic (or any other). That's my prerogative.

Now if I was to somehow convince myself that the TA conversion really is that much better than a 3-link, I would be just as stubborn in presenting its goodness (and I absolutely would bring the tech). Wouldn't be the first time I've changed my position on something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tob
Sprint,

I know Tob from another forum. I think he'd agree with me that the level of tech in the reply to his question concerning TA bushings melting was pretty "light".

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.

And I'm not seeing anything that I particularly disagree with in any of them. Certainly not the case of butt-hurt shown here because I don't roll over and convert nicely. And you talk about being called another name . . . sheesh (go back and look at the first quoted paragraph again).

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.

With that attitude, I don't think so. Not even if you were including me in the "respectful naysayers" group. Don't want that anywhere near me at triple digits, nor even at 50 or slower in a parking lot supposedly separated by 20 seconds or so.


Norm

 

[barbaro]

Norm,

Remember this?

Originally Posted by barbaro
I am using plain language to describe the fact that nosedive is reduced on deceleration or braking.

you responded:

"That's going to keep getting you misunderstood, and at best you'll continue to be under-estimated.. When you start talking about chassis dynamics in detail, you really need to use the correct (standard) terminology. Common slang is rarely precise enough."

"correct (standard terminology). Common slang is rarely precise enough"?? And people complain about lawyers? I did not use slang Norm I used plain language Norm. I was not aware that my vocabulary was wanting. And I am still not aware. But since we are on the topic of testimony and how it should be delivered.

Now whether I used technical language or plain language, the evidence I have presented preponderates on my behalf. I have presented testimony from several sources besides myself who have backed up what I have said. I have presented videos of the ability of the torque arm suspension to articulate, I have presented a video of a torque arm equipped car racing pike's peak.

Further, in post 48 I provided a link which gives a detailed review of the torque arm suspension. On the other hand Norm, neither you, nor Philostang, nor Sky render, nor Whiskey 11 nor Frank or anybody else has presented a shred of evidence to contradict my assertion here. Neither has anyone of you here presented a cogent argument as to why the torque arm suspension is no better or worse than the traditional three link.

Sam Strano, he has gone on record. so you line up behind him. I will line up behind Bruce and John Griggs, Van@revan racing, Fillip Trojanek, Brian Shapiro at B&D racing. I believe my witnesses preponderate in number. Their qualifications are as good or better than Sam or you. In addition I of course rely on my best evidence which is my personal experience.

The thread was for those who might be considering replacing their upper control arm with an aftermarket upper control arm as opposed to a torque arm. I believe I have made the case that a torque arm is a better option.

Neither have the people who have lined up to personally attack me and question my intelligence such as Sky render, philostang, frank etc . . . All you guys did was try to bully me and when I did not cower, then the aforementioned peanut gallery who offered no evidence no the contrary, insulted me. That is not argument whether you are an engineer or a doctor or a lawyer. That is schoolyard bullying. And any fairminded observer with no stake in the game can see that.

unless anyone wants this thread closed, simmer down, this is a tech section. can the back and forth mud slinging.

FWIW - when one stands alone in a discussion, sometimes one should reflect on there POV. - - - Additionally - grabbing posts of a subjective nature off other forums IMO doesn't provide much "proof" the member quotes has no background to the members here and there credentials are not known.

so continue to debate the technical sides of the TA - do it in a manner consistent with the technical side of this sub-forum

What technical evidence would you like to see because as of yet nobody has defined it. Second, I do not stand alone in this discussion. More than a few have supported my argument. Third, I have reflected on my point of view. In fact I find myself reflecting ad infinitum. As to other's subjective opinions that have been introduced as evidence. Eyewitness testimony / percipient witnesses especially when there is a wealth of them as I have presented here can be convincing. I do not have any technical engineering articles but this is not a technical engineering forum. I simply related my experiences and was attacked for it.

 

[Norm Peterson]

"Plain language" is "common slang". Call it "nontechnical language" if you prefer, fine by me. With this particular item ("nose dive"), that your usage is technically incorrect makes it a little confusing - not to mention that it makes me have to stop every time to mentally re-translate.

From here, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why you think the TA is superior. You've made it to yourself. Can you at least break it down to whether it's the forward acceleration or the lateral behavior that "makes it" for you?

Nothing in any of those links clearly details why a TA could be unquestionably superior, and there isn't anything in them that I don't understand; at this point it's mainly aftermarket TAs vs the stock 3-link, which isn't exactly apples to apples. Yes I know about the UCA clunk (and commented on it, as I recall). I know the S197's OE 3-link has its shortcomings. There just might be more than one way to fix them.

And since you've continued to put the 3-link down, and you want some opposing proof . . . I think Terry Fair's experiences in ESP solo (4th in an overweight partly developed car last year) and out on the big track (lap records) are sufficient evidence that the 3-link isn't anywhere near approaching it's "sell by" date. Sam Strano did pretty well in Solo, which regardless of your opinion of that activity is far more about cornering and transitional handling than the big track. When you find a big track where you can make 20 or more cornering transitions occur in under a minute, let me know.

Not that you needed to know, but even though Sam and I agree on many things, we don't see every single thing in quite the same way (no, I will not go into detail). We have slightly different approaches, and we both know it and make a few allowances for it. You do know that Sam has a pretty good resume with TA-equipped cars, right?

Chassis dynamics is far from a simple topic, and it is to be expected that people with very strong credentials - much stronger than mine - will hold varying opinions. I don't know the names, not good with names anyway, but stick axle cars in relatively recent Trans-Am have run 3-links.

For better evidence, here's something to think about. With a 3-link, you have better separation when it comes to anti-squat vs axle roll steer. Meaning that you can tune the A-S without upsetting the axle roll steer at all (you tweak UCA's length and inclination) or only slightly (tweak LCA length). Rear RCH is essentially a wash, since that's primarily (not entirely) dictated by the PHB, Watts link, Mumford link, Woblink, Scott-Russell link, or whatever other purely lateral locating device is present. I guess I have to state that separating the tuning of those two effects is a good thing, else I'll be misunderstood. And that since the nitty-gritty details tend to matter, it's pointless to bring the discussion down to the level of comparing numbers for vague "what-if" scenarios.


Norm

 

[Whiskey11]

"Plain language" is "common slang". Call it "nontechnical language" if you prefer, fine by me. With this particular item ("nose dive"), that your usage is technically incorrect makes it a little confusing - not to mention that it makes me have to stop every time to mentally re-translate.

From here, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why you think the TA is superior. You've made it to yourself. Can you at least break it down to whether it's the forward acceleration or the lateral behavior that "makes it" for you?

Nothing in any of those links clearly details why a TA could be unquestionably superior, and there isn't anything in them that I don't understand; at this point it's mainly aftermarket TAs vs the stock 3-link, which isn't exactly apples to apples. Yes I know about the UCA clunk (and commented on it, as I recall). I know the S197's OE 3-link has its shortcomings. There just might be more than one way to fix them.

And since you've continued to put the 3-link down, and you want some opposing proof . . . I think Terry Fair's experiences in ESP solo (4th in an overweight partly developed car last year) and out on the big track (lap records) are sufficient evidence that the 3-link isn't anywhere near approaching it's "sell by" date. Sam Strano did pretty well in Solo, which regardless of your opinion of that activity is far more about cornering and transitional handling than the big track. When you find a big track where you can make 20 or more cornering transitions occur in under a minute, let me know.

Not that you needed to know, but even though Sam and I agree on many things, we don't see every single thing in quite the same way (no, I will not go into detail). We have slightly different approaches, and we both know it and make a few allowances for it. You do know that Sam has a pretty good resume with TA-equipped cars, right?

Chassis dynamics is far from a simple topic, and it is to be expected that people with very strong credentials - much stronger than mine - will hold varying opinions. I don't know the names, not good with names anyway, but stick axle cars in relatively recent Trans-Am have run 3-links.

For better evidence, here's something to think about. With a 3-link, you have better separation when it comes to anti-squat vs axle roll steer. Meaning that you can tune the A-S without upsetting the axle roll steer at all (you tweak UCA's length and inclination) or only slightly (tweak LCA length). Rear RCH is essentially a wash, since that's primarily (not entirely) dictated by the PHB, Watts link, Mumford link, Woblink, Scott-Russell link, or whatever other purely lateral locating device is present. I guess I have to state that separating the tuning of those two effects is a good thing, else I'll be misunderstood. And that since the nitty-gritty details tend to matter, it's pointless to bring the discussion to that level in this thread.


Norm

Norm I agree with you on this. I'm all ears (eyes?) trying to find something that isn't a subjective opinion. From what I can gather "it feels better" is about the only thing I can find from the OP. There is a lot to be said for driver confidence and the ability to drive the car more comfortably at the limit with various setups but why does it feel better? Is it because the car transitioned to throttle on understeer? Is it because of something else? You say bind free, but the 3 link from Ford is relatively bind free as it is. There is some bushing bind (more than with sphericals) but it is nothing like the OEM setup on the Fox/SN95 cars in terms of unintentional spring rate.

I would love to hear what this car had on it prior to the Torque Arm in terms of the 3 link setup. Both in terms of parts and how they were assembled and if they were "relocated" in any way compared to stock. I read that there was a Watts prior to which was labeled a "4 out of 10" compared to the "11 out of 10" of the Torque arm in terms of transformation of the car's handling. That says a lot since the Watts link is a friggen huge change from the PHB configuration.

 

[frank s]

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.

After further review I'll add "DANGEROUS" to the diagnosis.

Be a real shame if the folks at Willow Springs made a similar judgement.

BTW, I've done hundreds of laps at Willow, many of them in genuine wheel-to-wheel, get-there-in-front racing, including one partial lap at speed in the dirt outside Eight/Nine. Not something I want to experience again, so I'll make it a point to stay 200 miles or more away from you.

 

[barbaro]

"Plain language" is "common slang". Call it "nontechnical language" if you prefer, fine by me. With this particular item ("nose dive"), that your usage is technically incorrect makes it a little confusing - not to mention that it makes me have to stop every time to mentally re-translate.

From here, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why you think the TA is superior. You've made it to yourself. Can you at least break it down to whether it's the forward acceleration or the lateral behavior that "makes it" for you?

Nothing in any of those links clearly details why a TA could be unquestionably superior, and there isn't anything in them that I don't understand; at this point it's mainly aftermarket TAs vs the stock 3-link, which isn't exactly apples to apples. Yes I know about the UCA clunk (and commented on it, as I recall). I know the S197's OE 3-link has its shortcomings. There just might be more than one way to fix them.

And since you've continued to put the 3-link down, and you want some opposing proof . . . I think Terry Fair's experiences in ESP solo (4th in an overweight partly developed car last year) and out on the big track (lap records) are sufficient evidence that the 3-link isn't anywhere near approaching it's "sell by" date. Sam Strano did pretty well in Solo, which regardless of your opinion of that activity is far more about cornering and transitional handling than the big track. When you find a big track where you can make 20 or more cornering transitions occur in under a minute, let me know.

Not that you needed to know, but even though Sam and I agree on many things, we don't see every single thing in quite the same way (no, I will not go into detail). We have slightly different approaches, and we both know it and make a few allowances for it. You do know that Sam has a pretty good resume with TA-equipped cars, right?

Chassis dynamics is far from a simple topic, and it is to be expected that people with very strong credentials - much stronger than mine - will hold varying opinions. I don't know the names, not good with names anyway, but stick axle cars in relatively recent Trans-Am have run 3-links.

For better evidence, here's something to think about. With a 3-link, you have better separation when it comes to anti-squat vs axle roll steer. Meaning that you can tune the A-S without upsetting the axle roll steer at all (you tweak UCA's length and inclination) or only slightly (tweak LCA length). Rear RCH is essentially a wash, since that's primarily (not entirely) dictated by the PHB, Watts link, Mumford link, Woblink, Scott-Russell link, or whatever other purely lateral locating device is present. I guess I have to state that separating the tuning of those two effects is a good thing, else I'll be misunderstood. And that since the nitty-gritty details tend to matter, it's pointless to bring the discussion down to the level of comparing numbers for vague "what-if" scenarios.


Norm

Thank you Norm, for your civilized response and even though I disagree with your assessment of my argument, you have presented your point of view respectfully, as has Whiskey 11. We have gotten under each othe's skin a little bit and for my contribution, I apologize. My beef is actually more with others whose only contribution to the discussion was to make unfair insinuations about me personally. I would like to return this to a more beneficial discussion.

Now to your point. I acknowledge that one can make a three link suspension work pretty darn well at the track. I have used aftermarket UCA and despite the NVH issues my car handled fantastic wth an aftermarket upper control arm. But driving it on the street was Chinese water torture. The ride was harsh and noisy and no fun. Subjectively, because I have no data to back this up, the torque arm contributes to the handling aspect of the car in the following ways: before the car drove in two part, fore and aft. I would turn the front wheel and wait to see what the back end of the car would do. Now when I turn the front wheels the back end of the car follows the front wheels. I do not notice understeer or oversteer, the handling remains neutral and what is communicated through the steering wheel and through the seat of my pants is in harmony.

Additionally the car corners, brakes and accelerates flatter. I do not know the precise technical term for that condition but I think most people know what I mean. The car feels as if it is a one piece rather than a two piece instrument. Now I know these descriptions are subject to varying interpretations and lack precision, but it is the best I can give you. Traction over bumps and irregularities is greatly improved. That is why i say it feels like an independent suspension. This has contributed to my confidence in driving. I now take corners faster than I used to and the car grips better than it used to. I have no skidpad numbers to validate this. Additionally, I have noticed both on the track and on the street that the car performs much better when cresting hills and in off camber turns such as turn 5 at willow. the wheels tend to stay in contact with the pavement more so than before. When I say before, I mean before I added the the torque arm and the heim jointed lower control arms. As for NVH, I have not noticed any increase in NVH from the torque arm. However it is a tight fit between my exhaust pipes and occasionally I hear what I think is slight contact between the two. The lower control arms do chatter on bumpy roads.

I am sensitive to NVH issues and the chattering is not so bad as to impinge on my driving comfort. The overall effect is that it changes the characteristics of the car quite dramatically. The car drives more comfortably with less up and down motion. Subjectively, I feel that I can achieve the same or better level of grip with softer spring rates. I cannot articulate it any better than that. i would be willing to subject my car to before and after testing and i believe it is high time that should be done by somebody. But i am not going to pay for it. There is something about advocating a torque arm that more than anything else brings out the boo birds. Many claims are made about the watts link and it is virtually accepted as gospel that it improves handling despite the similar lack of objective data to support that conclusion. I believe based just on conjecture that the benefit of the Watts link is enhanced by the use of a torque arm with it.

I can't prove that, but if muscle mustang or mustang 5.0 wants to test this out I offer up the car as a test vehicle. So I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. I am aware of the issue of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance and I am also aware of the deceptive nature of anecdotal evidence. I have considered those issues but the improvement in the subjective feel in the car is too great for me to bite off on that. People can choose to believe me or not but I do not think it is fair for people to insinuate that I do not know what I am talking about. I have actually been one of the pioneers in the naturally aspirated development of the 2011+ 5.0 engine and I have a great passion for these cars. I have misspent money on these vehicles and I am generally highly critical of many aftermarket products that are offered. So when I find something that works this well, I feel it is my obligation to publicize it so that people at least have another point of view to consider. I look to the internet to inform me, yet many times it has misinformed me. I would not do the same to others as has been done to me. I apologize specifically to you and Whiskey 11 for any raw comments I have made. I have read and considered both your opinions on multiple issues here and in other places and they are for the most part well informed. My ire was misplaced. As for the others, to them I do not apologize.

 

[fun4me]

Could the new lca's have added something to the "better" feel of the car?

 

[Sky Render]

This thread is epic.

As to the handling porsche killing stuff. have you checked out my car? I believe it is the finest privately owned dual use/ street and track mustang in America, And I do kill exotics with it.

Yeah, go slap some Ohlins coilovers on there and the entire Griggs setup, then maybe I'd believe that.

And as for making fun of people's grasp of the English language, have you ever heard of paragraphs?

 

[Whiskey11]

Sorry about that. When I saw that paragraph it hit a VERY RAW nerve. Especially about the military.. As far as the TA is concerned they must work half way decent for the CRAPCARS to get their big heavy asses around those tracks.

Color me ignorant but CRAPCARs? The Camaro? The 4th Gen F bodies are reasonably well setup to corner carve with a good front suspension and a good rear suspension. My assumption though is that the factory parts are probably not up to the task (they rarely are the best) and IIRC the Camaros with the TA have some issues of their own. Brake hop IIRC and not much help with antisquat for the drag guys.

Maybe we can start to over simplify the pros/cons of both setups and work more technical from there?

TA Pros:
Fixed IC
Nearly bind free when built correctly
Fixed pinion angle
One less shitty to replace bushing in the suspension
"Easier to drive"

TA Cons
Potential for brake hop on hard braking
Reducing antisquat as axle and body get closer, invreasing anti lift as they separate (brake hop potential)
Added unsprung weight
Reduced ground clearance
Potential need for exhaust modifications

3 Link Pros
Simple antisquat tuning independent of roll steer
Less unsprung weight
Better packaging
Increasing antisquat as body gets closer to axle, decreasing anti lift as they separate (Norm is this true for the S197 at all?)

3 Link Cons
Walking IC (potential for instability over bumps?)
Added bushings in shitty to replace locations
PITA to swap out
Huge increase in NVH?

What else can you guys think of for each setup?

 

[Roadracer350]

No I ment NASCAR. I just call it CRAPCAR! LOL! The Camaro ZL1 goes around corners pretty good!

 

[55R2014]

Let's just say it's highly unusual for a new participant to heartily endorse discussion of a technical topic presented in a religious context.

Norm

Norm,
Last December (long before i knew about this forum) I had the opportunity to drive a CorteX equipped street car. It was a wonderful experience that I want to duplicate on my car. That opportunity lead me to the decision of ordering my new Mustang that I took possession of last night. I am planning on doing a CorteX suspension upgraded after I put some miles on it. Yes, i'm new to the forum but I can identify somewhat with what Barbaro is talking about because I have driven a similarly equipped car.

 

[Roadracer350]

Norm,
Last December (long before i knew about this forum) I had the opportunity to drive a CorteX equipped street car. It was a wonderful experience that I want to duplicate on my car. That opportunity lead me to the decision of ordering my new Mustang that I took possession of last night. I am planning on doing a CorteX suspension upgraded after I put some miles on it. Yes, i'm new to the forum but I can identify somewhat with what Barbaro is talking about because I have driven a similarly equipped car.

I would like to drive a car with a watts and a TA. My problem is I don't want to spend the money for the TA and the time modding my Whiteline watts cover to accept it then hate it. I would say something shitty about you being from the land of fruits, nuts and the socialist ass wipe fienstine but your new here so I am going to cut you slack. Welcome!

 

[Whiskey11]

No I ment NASCAR. I just call it CRAPCAR! LOL! The Camaro ZL1 goes around corners pretty good!

NASCAR doesn't use Torque Arms, they use Truck arms with a PHB. Not as similar as you would think.

Truck arm suspensions use two very long arms that are fixed at the axle end and able to pivot at the chassis end but are otherwise fixed in length. Norm can correct me if I'm wrong but the convergence of the lines drawn through the arms defines the instant center. Because the two arms are rigidly fixed to the axle there is no need for any additional suspension linkages to control pinion angle changes.

I would say it isn't a very effective suspension as large articulation angles produce copious amounts of bind. The deflection of the arms acts like a swaybar in roll as well. It's one of those rules that has been in NASCAR for a very long time. I do have to admit though, it is a very interesting suspension setup, just not very effective for what we are looking to do with our suspension.

 

[barbaro]

I advocated a torque arm and became the subject of unprecedented personal attacks, simply for speaking the truth.
People have pm'd me and emailed me expressing support but they are too afraid in most cases to stand up for me.

 

[DTL]

Truck arms are actually pretty badass when they're set up right. With some good bearings in the front and plenty of misalignment clearance, they won't bind as the car rolls. I have an old NASCAR Busch North road course car (that I haven't run in years) that's a laugh-riot to drive. Truck arms are kinda' like ladder bars that turn! You can get pretty stupid with angle of attack and throttle and it (usually) won't bite you!

Edit: Somebody should truck arm a s197!

 

[barbaro]

I'm waiting for him to start calling me a cracker like he did to everyone over there.

Sky render, I am not going to call you any names. In fact I will give you more respect than you have given me. But you don't deserve it.

 

[Roadracer350]

I didn't know they used truck arms! I wa told they use TAs! Shows you how much I follow them!!