I'm not sure if you have or not, but I recommend re-checking all of your front end measurements, specifically camber gain/loss, and caster gain/loss, in a dynamic state, the way the car would be at attitude on the track. It changes the numbers quite a bit from just statically moving the right front suspension up with the car level
100% this right here is SPOT ON! I know for a fact that 6 degrees on the RF will move to at least 7 degrees when I set up and I may have to shim it back if it's much past 7 and likely the LF will loose some because the whole car is going to be leaned to the right.
This video unlocked a whole new level of understanding for me. I commented about having to move the upper mount on my sport mod before and really feel confident that I could even put one on from scratch now.
Interesting take on the roll center stuff. Yes, we've set cars based on measurement, abd what works, then measure roll center later. My thought is, using any of the programs out there, and knowing what you like with a roll center, you could have all the measurements done, and reduce the parts trial and error. Plus, it's my understanding that the front and rear roll centers need to match, or more accurately, play well with each other. I'm still in for the ride, and excited to see how you like it. Seems like a solid fast set-up.
What you are saying is probably pretty close to where I am too. I think I am at a point where once I know the range of what works on a chassis, I am not worried anymore about going back to map the RC but if for example i was starting from scratch on a chassis and suspension that has unknown geometry then I would be back to mapping it out. So kinda like you as far as avoiding a lot of trial and error. I am agreeing with you as well on the front to rear part. Realizing the front to rear RC can't be way off from each other too. You can't have a rear end that wants to jack the left rear 4 foot in the air but then expect a low roll center in the front with very little camber change to actually work with that. I won't.
There is A LOT more to it as you well know Mr James, but I was giving it my best shot to give some of these racers with less experience a way to be able to get some understanding of what really matters and how they can change the right things to help improve a car.
What would drilling out the bottom spindle do on the right front? By putting the ball joint farther in wouldn't that help to raise the right front? Just kind of wonder what that might do. Great information as always. Thank You.
Yes sir, It will raise the lower control arm in relation to the spindle so if you kept the exact same lower arm angle that would raise the frame on that side. That is not something I would want to do though and I am running the +0.500" to lower my base frame height while avoiding excessive lower arm angles.
How much of this info would apply for offroad vehicles? Im building a prerunner and the long travel kit i have uses the stock lower control arm mounts but the upper mounts are cut off and new ones welded (lower then the stock UCA mounts) to the top of the frame. This kit usually comes with a new upper control arm mount/shock tower assembly but i bought it used so i didnt get that piece and the mfgr wanted over $1,500 just for this tower assembly (left and right) which seems ridiculously expensive IMO so im trying to figure how to make my own mounts and exactly where to place the mounts. So does the info in this video still apply to offroad race vehicles? This is my first time doing this, so im figuring it out as i go and couldn't find any videos like this specifically geared towards offroad trucks. Btw learned a lot from your videos. Definitely one of the better ones I've seen. Subscribed 👍
well, its different but the logic is the same. i think i would set the pinion in ride height caster and camber and the locate the tower. thats a quick way to get it done
When you say Nova l take it you are using the 1968 to 74 style lowers. I never used them, thought of it but never did, my question is I have heard that the ball joint moves forward compared to the metric lower? Another thing is lengthening the lowers if moving the ball joint center outward from the center of the spring changes the point of leverage the lower control arm against the spring which makes the spring act as if it is softer..Every action there is a reaction. I believe going with the tubular lowers the leverage points are fixed over going with a stock lower of the same design.
The Nova lowers widen the front track width and moves the lower balljoint forward a decent amount... I want to say it widens the front approximately 3" and moves the lower bj approximately 1-3/8" or 1-3/4".
Rich is right. They move the ball joint both forward and out but I am thinking they just increase the track width 2" total across the front. Maybe it's more, I'll have to measure soon and will share when I do.
@DIRTRACELIFE yeah, I want to say it makes the front track width very comparable to a stock Camaro track width. I have all of the numbers in my note pad... it's been about 4yrs since I looked at my metric build sheet. When welding in the solid bushings, I pull the LF back 1/4" and push the RF fwd 1/4"... I changed my idler arm and pitman arm as well... I also ran the Metric hybrid 3 piece spindles.... improved geometry center link, heim ends with bumpsteer spacers. The Camaro clip cars around here do a +1" rf lower and then they run 2" offset rims... they're tough to beat. Lol
Jason, would you say that 3 blade Jones fan performs better than a standard steel 4 blade? I need all the help I can get down here in Texas keeping my temps under control. Thanks!
Talking about spindles ever think about using Astro, Safari, Buick Roadmaster spindles. They are taller than the Camaro, Big Monte spindles and have a 12" rotor and 5x5 bolt pattern.
I am with Baims on some of these being REALLY heavy but I was think that issue didn't happen until you got into truck spindles. Now as far as rotors, I do know some of those 12inch rotors on the full size cars were massive. It think we would just have to be picky about which exact ones.
@@DIRTRACELIFE yep, the 1975 impala rotors and spindles were heavy but the ASTRO and Roadmaster rotor and spindles are not much heavier than the Camaro rotor spindles.
Yes, I didn't get into anything about the dynamics of how Caster effects camber but regardless the chassis or which side of the car, postive caster will cause the camber number to go in the positive direction when the wheel turns out and go in the negative direction when turned in. I have always thought using big caster numbers (10 or more degrees) were only good for cars and tracks where you need to "back the car in" to make it work and don't need to worry about keeping the car rolling through the turn. I am down to 3&5 degrees on this setup to try and minimize all those caster issues while still having enough to get the stability it gives.
It's just a beefier design where it takes the place of an "A" assembly over the top of the upper mount. I don't think it's better or worse than a traditional upper mount, just different.
They are bare steel buddro! Not worrying about paint until I get everything mocked up and done. I'll get some paint slapped on them but it's going to be a while :)
I'm not sure if you have or not, but I recommend re-checking all of your front end measurements, specifically camber gain/loss, and caster gain/loss, in a dynamic state, the way the car would be at attitude on the track. It changes the numbers quite a bit from just statically moving the right front suspension up with the car level
100% this right here is SPOT ON! I know for a fact that 6 degrees on the RF will move to at least 7 degrees when I set up and I may have to shim it back if it's much past 7 and likely the LF will loose some because the whole car is going to be leaned to the right.
This video unlocked a whole new level of understanding for me. I commented about having to move the upper mount on my sport mod before and really feel confident that I could even put one on from scratch now.
Glad to here that and sure appreciate you watching.
Its killer ur willing to educate others, blessings
i try sir, thank you
Interesting take on the roll center stuff. Yes, we've set cars based on measurement, abd what works, then measure roll center later. My thought is, using any of the programs out there, and knowing what you like with a roll center, you could have all the measurements done, and reduce the parts trial and error. Plus, it's my understanding that the front and rear roll centers need to match, or more accurately, play well with each other. I'm still in for the ride, and excited to see how you like it. Seems like a solid fast set-up.
What you are saying is probably pretty close to where I am too. I think I am at a point where once I know the range of what works on a chassis, I am not worried anymore about going back to map the RC but if for example i was starting from scratch on a chassis and suspension that has unknown geometry then I would be back to mapping it out. So kinda like you as far as avoiding a lot of trial and error. I am agreeing with you as well on the front to rear part. Realizing the front to rear RC can't be way off from each other too. You can't have a rear end that wants to jack the left rear 4 foot in the air but then expect a low roll center in the front with very little camber change to actually work with that. I won't.
I enjoy your videos. Keep up the good work.
Thank you Mike
Good lesson Jason, thank you
Yes sir thank you
Interesting perspective on the front wnd
There is A LOT more to it as you well know Mr James, but I was giving it my best shot to give some of these racers with less experience a way to be able to get some understanding of what really matters and how they can change the right things to help improve a car.
What would drilling out the bottom spindle do on the right front? By putting the ball joint farther in wouldn't that help to raise the right front? Just kind of wonder what that might do. Great information as always. Thank You.
Yes sir, It will raise the lower control arm in relation to the spindle so if you kept the exact same lower arm angle that would raise the frame on that side. That is not something I would want to do though and I am running the +0.500" to lower my base frame height while avoiding excessive lower arm angles.
How much of this info would apply for offroad vehicles? Im building a prerunner and the long travel kit i have uses the stock lower control arm mounts but the upper mounts are cut off and new ones welded (lower then the stock UCA mounts) to the top of the frame.
This kit usually comes with a new upper control arm mount/shock tower assembly but i bought it used so i didnt get that piece and the mfgr wanted over $1,500 just for this tower assembly (left and right) which seems ridiculously expensive IMO so im trying to figure how to make my own mounts and exactly where to place the mounts.
So does the info in this video still apply to offroad race vehicles? This is my first time doing this, so im figuring it out as i go and couldn't find any videos like this specifically geared towards offroad trucks.
Btw learned a lot from your videos. Definitely one of the better ones I've seen. Subscribed 👍
well, its different but the logic is the same. i think i would set the pinion in ride height caster and camber and the locate the tower. thats a quick way to get it done
When you say Nova l take it you are using the 1968 to 74 style lowers. I never used them, thought of it but never did, my question is I have heard that the ball joint moves forward compared to the metric lower? Another thing is lengthening the lowers if moving the ball joint center outward from the center of the spring changes the point of leverage the lower control arm against the spring which makes the spring act as if it is softer..Every action there is a reaction. I believe going with the tubular lowers the leverage points are fixed over going with a stock lower of the same design.
The Nova lowers widen the front track width and moves the lower balljoint forward a decent amount... I want to say it widens the front approximately 3" and moves the lower bj approximately 1-3/8" or 1-3/4".
Rich is right. They move the ball joint both forward and out but I am thinking they just increase the track width 2" total across the front. Maybe it's more, I'll have to measure soon and will share when I do.
@DIRTRACELIFE yeah, I want to say it makes the front track width very comparable to a stock Camaro track width. I have all of the numbers in my note pad... it's been about 4yrs since I looked at my metric build sheet.
When welding in the solid bushings, I pull the LF back 1/4" and push the RF fwd 1/4"... I changed my idler arm and pitman arm as well... I also ran the Metric hybrid 3 piece spindles.... improved geometry center link, heim ends with bumpsteer spacers.
The Camaro clip cars around here do a +1" rf lower and then they run 2" offset rims... they're tough to beat. Lol
Jason, would you say that 3 blade Jones fan performs better than a standard steel 4 blade? I need all the help I can get down here in Texas keeping my temps under control. Thanks!
this 3 blade is pulling more than my GM 4 blade but I would suspect this Jones in a 4 blade would pull even more.
Talking about spindles ever think about using Astro, Safari, Buick Roadmaster spindles. They are taller than the Camaro, Big Monte spindles and have a 12" rotor and 5x5 bolt pattern.
I am with Baims on some of these being REALLY heavy but I was think that issue didn't happen until you got into truck spindles. Now as far as rotors, I do know some of those 12inch rotors on the full size cars were massive. It think we would just have to be picky about which exact ones.
@@DIRTRACELIFE yep, the 1975 impala rotors and spindles were heavy but the ASTRO and Roadmaster rotor and spindles are not much heavier than the Camaro rotor spindles.
I don't know if your car will do it but ours loses camber when it is turned to the right vs what it has at straight.
Yes, I didn't get into anything about the dynamics of how Caster effects camber but regardless the chassis or which side of the car, postive caster will cause the camber number to go in the positive direction when the wheel turns out and go in the negative direction when turned in.
I have always thought using big caster numbers (10 or more degrees) were only good for cars and tracks where you need to "back the car in" to make it work and don't need to worry about keeping the car rolling through the turn. I am down to 3&5 degrees on this setup to try and minimize all those caster issues while still having enough to get the stability it gives.
@@DIRTRACELIFE
Understandable but I was pointing more toward the fact that you want have -11 degrees of camber when you turn the wheel
Well, Lets measure it and see. Give me a day or two to see where its at.
How do you change the upper control arm after you put the bar in?
you use an upper arm brand that comes apart like these Joes do. There are also ones that come apart at the bolt in ball joint.
What is the purpose of the tall upper control arm mount ?
It's just a beefier design where it takes the place of an "A" assembly over the top of the upper mount. I don't think it's better or worse than a traditional upper mount, just different.
Pro dive would make the car turn in way to easy ? And we found out that it's not good on a slick track !
Definitely a choice that has to be matched with spring and shock as well. we will see
We put antidive in our cars... compensate with tie-down shocks and spring rates/pre-loads.
Arent this lower controll arms new? Why is so much paint scraped off?
They are bare steel buddro!
Not worrying about paint until I get everything mocked up and done. I'll get some paint slapped on them but it's going to be a while :)
You wanna run that heavy Camaro brake calipers
I absolutely do because I cut them down. I have a set I shaved down that weight no more than metrics.
So big body cars have same spindles as a camaro
just the 73-77 mid size Junior
Ok thanks and great video