07-16-2007, 06:08 AM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 883
|
|
 Quote:
Originally Posted by gtv27
Nice summary  - you did a much better job of explaining some points I tried to make. |
 It has taken me far too long to boil it all down to something I can firmly grasp, but I think I'm finally getting there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtv27
For what its worth, I'm going with larger torsion bars in my car (29), but will set the ride height so the LCAs are level (not obsessed about having a really low car anyway  ). I will stick with standard upright and have to live with a compromise camber setting (about 2 I think) so it works reasonably well on both road and track.
If that approach to camber is not successful, will look at modifided uprights (or maybe just a knuckle riser at the top  - you can take the boy out of the 105, but you can't take the 105 out of the boy ). |
This all sounds like goodness. I am probably going to take a similar route when I upgrade my t-bars. I'm going with a 27mm set though as I don't know of a 29mm set that's available in the US. Currently my car is pretty low and the LCAs are still only slightly 'inclined'. I really need to do some suspension modelling though, as I'm not sure exactly where the camber curve starts to look ugly.
The knuckle riser sounds interesting, can you use the 105 part for this or would you be egineering something from scratch? And are you planning to model the geometry to determine the exact effect different 'heights' would have on the camber curve?
I've been contemplating the 'inverted lower ball joint' concept. The seems like it would provide a bit of additional downward angle to the LCA, but does anyone know how useful this is? or how safe? 
__________________
James
1984 GTV6
|