3 link suspension [Archive] - Lateral-g Forums

Mean 69

10-21-2005, 08:29 AM

Hi guys,

***Rad: I don't think you need to worry about the debate between four link setups, and three link setups on this forum, it is pretty simple to show the benefits of a three link over a four link. Technically, what it sounds like you have is a torque arm, and though there are three physical links on the system, it behaves quite a bit differently than a "three link" (the main thing being that the center link on a torque arm is rigidly mounted to the axle assembly, whereas a three link is joined via a bushing or link, and is allowed to rotate in bump/droop).***

Attached is a Solid-model of the Lateral Dynamics Three Link setup, all of the work was engineered in Solidworks software, including strain/defelection analysis on critical points. We use Bill Mitchell's WinGeo to model the actual suspension kinematics for those of you familiar with the software packages available. This design is an "improved" version of what has been in our test mule for nearly a year now. Improved, meaning the brackets and other aspects are a bit better thought out than the prototype, but the suspension geometry is the same, and we are pretty proud of it.

The setup has yet to be installed on a customer car, though two cars are in the process of installation at this time (one first gen on the east coast, one second gen in our shop in California). Both cars are on rotisseries, and will serve as the basis for generating an extensive installation instruction and setup guide. The setup is commercially available right now, though due to the SEMA show, deliveries will be a couple weeks out. We had some issues finding reliable suppliers early on and that cost us a good amount of time, but we now have found reliable, capable folks for the elements we don't have the tooling to build, thanks to some key contacts from friends in the industry. All of the crossmembers, brackets, and most importantly, the rear end assembly (9" Ford based assembly) are fixture welded by us, I am very confident that you will be extremely pleased with the quality. You won't have to fuss with welding brackets to the axle tubes and needing to straighten things afterwards, we take care of that for you. Installation is not terribly complex, but does involve some careful cutting, and of course, welding of the crossmember brackets. It is no more complex than installing a set of mini-tubs, or through floor subframe connectors.

The kit is a very complete setup, less components that are very customer preference specific. Namely, the center section/differential/gear setup, axles, and brakes are not included. The reason is that there are so many options, it would be very difficult for us to stock all of this at this time, though we can recommend and supply these components as an option to the kit. Brakes are based upon the highly popular Corvette "C5" configuration, so any commercially available C5 kit will work, from the very good, budget friendly GM parts, to aftermarket endurance race setups, and anything in between. The base kit comes with a set of Bilstein mono-tube coil over shock absorbers, custom valved for our application so you don't need to fuss with setting. A matched set of Hypercoil or Eibach springs is also included. Penske Racing Shocks are available as an upgrade, and though relatively expensive, these shocks are generally regarded as the best practical racing shock, and are highly supported: you can't go to a track these days and NOT find someone that can rebuild/service Penske's. The model shown has heim/rod ends in all pivot locations, however, high durometer rubber bushings are included on the base kit to help keep road noise down. Rod ends in all locations are also available. Because we control all aspects of the design, custom width rear ends, full floating axle-hub setups, and other configuration are all available.

Our website is under construction, we will have a temporary one up in a few days with more details and pictures of the setup. We will be at SEMA with a booth (#52425) and a display setup, so if you attend the show, please stop by and say hello. I'll drop some pic's of the hardware here in the very near future.

Mark

TravisB

10-21-2005, 09:00 AM

Mark that is a nice set-up! Are you going to be doing anything with A-bodys...just wondering!

Looks great though :thumbsup:

Mean 69

10-21-2005, 09:48 AM

Are you going to be doing anything with A-bodys

Thanks Travis, and yes, we will be doing many more like products for various cars in the near future. Current plans are to do a front subframe for second gen F bodies (projected release February '06), a first gen subframe, and then we will be looking at different platforms, including Mustangs, other GM cars, and Mopar as well. If you have some ideas or needs, we'd love to hear about them.

Here are a couple of pic's of the first gen crossmembers. We should have some pic's of the rear end housing in a day or two, as well as the Watt's bracket. Moving steadily along. Matt won't let either Katz or myself weld any production stuff, it's an ongoing internal joke for us. Here's an example why.

Mark

radrambler

10-21-2005, 12:48 PM

I saw your car and I like the way you have your set up. It really doesnt look to complicated. Did you have to cut up any of your floor?

in my application of the "torque arm" suspension setup i did NOT want to cut the floor BUT WANTED GREAT HANDLING .thats why the arm was fabbed to fit .instead of using something that was designed for another car and modified. it attaches with bushed endes that are adjustable at the housing and at the trans cross member.ALMOST WENT WITH ACTUALL THREE LINK BUT SPACE WAS SO CLOSE TO MESSING WITH FUNCTION.SO MY CHASSIS GUY SAID THIS IS THE NEXT BEST THING
this is not aN ACTUALL "three link" even though it attaches the rear end at three points to the chassis.
MEAN69 IS CORRECT...THE "THREE LINK" LETS THE REAR PIVOT FROM THE REAREND TOP LINK ALSO MINE DOESNOT .....

WHAT EVER YOU USE, GET SOMEONE WITH GREAT KNOWLEDGE OF HOW SUSPENSIONS WORK AND HOW TO FABRICATE THAT WILL SAVE YOU TIME AND HEADACHE....
GOODLUCK

RADRAMBLER

radrambler

10-21-2005, 12:49 PM

Thanks Travis, and yes, we will be doing many more like products for various cars in the near future. Current plans are to do a front subframe for second gen F bodies (projected release February '06), a first gen subframe, and then we will be looking at different platforms, including Mustangs, other GM cars, and Mopar as well. If you have some ideas or needs, we'd love to hear about them.

Here are a couple of pic's of the first gen crossmembers. We should have some pic's of the rear end housing in a day or two, as well as the Watt's bracket. Moving steadily along. Matt won't let either Katz or myself weld any production stuff, it's an ongoing internal joke for us. Here's an example why.

Mark

LOOKS LIKE NICE PRODUCTS......WISH YOU GREAT SUCCESS

TravisB

10-21-2005, 01:15 PM

Thanks Travis, and yes, we will be doing many more like products for various cars in the near future. Current plans are to do a front subframe for second gen F bodies (projected release February '06), a first gen subframe, and then we will be looking at different platforms, including Mustangs, other GM cars, and Mopar as well. If you have some ideas or needs, we'd love to hear about them.

Here are a couple of pic's of the first gen crossmembers. We should have some pic's of the rear end housing in a day or two, as well as the Watt's bracket. Moving steadily along. Matt won't let either Katz or myself weld any production stuff, it's an ongoing internal joke for us. Here's an example why.

Mark

Cool....that is a nice looking piece mark welds look nice! I was just wondering seems like the camaros are always taken car of first then companys usually start on other stuff I was just interested in what else you had in mind.

Thanks for the info MARK good luck, products look nice!

race-rodz

10-21-2005, 05:43 PM

just outa curiousity.... what kinda products for early mustangs are ya thinkin about?

Mean 69

10-22-2005, 08:24 AM

Rodz, at this point we have a couple of ideas in concept only. It would be natural for us to do a three link derived off of the F body deal, and we will most likely do that, but the front stuff is a bit different due to the "fixed" front frame. The stock frame structure is decent enough to build off of, thankfully, but it might make better sense when we look deeper into it to remove the front and replace with a new setup. It will certainly be a front steer rack and pinion based unit, and rather than design a system "around" an off the shelf rack, our approach is to start with the suspension, and then develop a rack to compliment "it." If you have ideas, we'd love to hear about them.

The early Mustangs make terrific track cars due to their light weight. It makes everything a lot easier, you don't need as much power, brakes become more effective, etc. There are lot of them too, especially coupes. I can't think of a better supported car in terms of replacement parts (i.e. body panels, trim pieces, etc), so it kind of baffles me why there aren't more of them in the "PT" theme. We have a 65 Fastback, but that car will likely be prepared in vintage legal trim next year, so when it comes time for product development, we will likely do a mid 60's coupe.

Mark

race-rodz

10-22-2005, 11:28 AM

welllllllll.......... here is my $.02 on the mustang idea.... and i just happen have my 64 1/2 coupe sittin up on the chassis table right now. initially i thought about doin the SN65 treatment(full sn95 "pan"), ... but finally decided against it for a few reasons. so im bck to square one.

now this is really a backburner project, as my 34 truck is priority after paying jobs.... so i have been mostly thinkin about different ways of doin it.

i have a few priorities with the project that seem to be the biggest problem, #1, the car will be a daily driver, weekend autocross/track car. #2, the car will be really low... most mustangs are usually about 1-2" lower than stock, mine should sit about 3-4" lower than stock.

the first problem i have with the early mustang platform........ is the complete lack of anything structural....... frame connectors are at best just a bandaid for the piss poor structural design. the fixed front rails are really nothin more than 16-18ga sheetmetal, and really rely on the shock towers and the rest to hold it all together....as its a true unibody. an aftermarket weld in crossmember that gets rid of the shock towers has got to be one of the "sketchiest" things that can be done to the early mustangs, granted for 99% of the people that just "cruise" their cars.... its more than enough, not for me.

well for my project i already decided it will use a 3 link on a sn 8.8 (track width will be more as i want minor flares) i really like the design of the top mount that you have pictured... so something similar will be worked out for this car. the rear is the easy part.... now working forward. a complete chassis stiffening kit, similar to what mustangs plus sells, ties the rockers to the t-boxes f&r, then ties back to the frame connectors. it also increases the size and effectivness of the the front torque boxes....and drasticaly increases the strength of the rockers... which in any unibody car are extremly inportant.

now that we have the chassis rigid from the firewall back we start with the front frame "stub"... and this is the point where i am at on the mental drawing board. ideally you would make something that ties into the factory rails...unfortunatly, they are way too thin to tie anything into... and without the towers...they are nothin more than sheetmetal spot welded to the floor pan.... so in reality.... the stub would need to be constructed with the sfc's as part of it. the front of the stub would triangulate back to the top of the beefed up t-box.

for front suspension i was planning on a sn based "k-member" converted to sla setup, and use a hub carrier type upright, so 13"sn cobra brakes could be used.

the main downfall to this whole set-up is gonna be added weight, and obviously install. i cant see the weight difference being more than 100-150 lbs, after the stock "everything" is gone and new "everything" fabbed up outa lil heavier material, i think its a small price to pay for a stable and rigid platform without a full cage. the install is what the real killer is, as there is nothing "bolt-on" about it, major welding and fitting issues will prohibit the average guy from stepping up to the whole system. where this isnt a big deal for me in my one off situation, it would be for 99% of potential customers.

this really sounds overkill...and probably is. but IMHO early mustangs are crap, they were the geo metros of the 60's never ment to become true muscle cars, so by expecting them to handle and perform with todays "standards" the entire system needs a complete rework.

i have driven quite a few early mustangs, one of which was a gt350 coupe(1 of 6).... i got to flog it around the kart track(our local autocross venue), and while the car was better set-up for road racing than my car, i found it to have the same "issues" with chassis flex and poor steering, inconsistant "feeling" etc....as EVERY early mustang i have ever driven with "stock" chassis config. so yeah.... overkill for one guy...means its just about right for someone like me :D

anyway...these are just my ideas.... i cant wait to hear what you have in store....... as you said...there really is no "support" for the early mustang crowd. (im leaving out 1 place.... as i dont like them, after talkin on the phone with them, gxxxxs motorsports can kiss my a$$)

MadMax

10-22-2005, 02:11 PM

Mark,

How much is the 3-link going to cost? Is it a SEMA secret :unibrow: ?

Also, I know this is kind of branching off from the whole topic here, but how would this affect a car that is drag raced? Also how would it compare DSE's 4 link for auto-x and drag racing?

I know there is a very complicated answer there, and many don't want to compare products...

Thanks in advance.
Max

Jasper Jones

10-23-2005, 02:28 AM

Along with the above questions, how much of the floor would have to be modified in a Camaro to run your three link set-up? Can I still use my factory back seat? Thanks
-Jason

Mean 69

10-23-2005, 04:50 AM

Without question, the early Mustang leave a LOT to be desired in terms of chassis rigidity. For serious track duty, a full cage and "real" subframe connectors are in order. I know exactly what you are talking about in regards to the front frame rails, there are some super thin extensions that come off of the front frame horns, kind of silly how they did that, but the cars weren't designed to rip through turns with contemporary tires, as you stated. The good thing is that even though you will add weight to stiffen things up, at least the car is light to begin with.

Pricing on the setup is not set in stone at this point, we have a good idea where it will be, but haven't firmly set retail pricing as of today. I will say that it will be competitively priced relative to other "like" systems that are available, when you consider everything that is included (all brackets and hardware, fully welded rear end housing assembly, coil-over shocks and springs). This setup will not be for everyone, you will need to do some cutting of the car to install the forward crossmember, and to make room for the upper link. You can use "a" back seat, but not "the" stock back seat, at least not in the first gen Camaros. The seat will require split seat bottoms, like in a secong gen F body, or a late model F body, in order to clear the tunnel extension box (for the upper link).

Our opinion is that this setup offers the highest performance potential of any commercially available rigid axle suspension system on the market, period. We are very close to finishing the product brochure, so hopefully some of the questions will be answered in that text. Also, we hope to have at least a temporary website on line in the next day or two with more info, and more pic's. Sorry for the general comments at this time, very specific info is coming soon, in great detail.

Mark

David Pozzi

10-23-2005, 11:49 AM

Mark,
Great stuff, it looks like a really good system. I'll look you guys up at SEMA.
On the subject of back seats, if you install a roll bar with seatbelt anchor cross brace, you won't ever want to have a back seat passenger in the car, it just isn't safe having them sit back there with a bunch of tubes right in front of them.
My wife's 73 Camaro has an Autopower roll bar and back seat but I can't even get back there to clean the rear window let alone sit there.
David

Damn True

10-23-2005, 11:36 PM

I just tried to visualize getting to my back window to clean it with the cage I am planning and I threw out my back thinking about it.

Back seat? Guess I wont be having one.

Anyone know if you can buy carpet remnants from ACC large enough to cover the rear firewall?

Vince@Meanstreets

10-23-2005, 11:43 PM

I just tried to visualize getting to my back window to clean it with the cage I am planning and I threw out my back thinking about it. you know why? its 11:30 pm....get some sleep! LOL you could do an anti roll bar of some sorts...but it won't be sanction legal.
Mark, design looks good. BTW what ws wrong with your welding? LOL
second thought how would one get a "new" design sanction legal? just up late

Vince@Meanstreets

10-23-2005, 11:56 PM

I know this is off base but im not afraid of being black flagged...
for Race-rods concerns for lack of early stang support. Having the creator of lateral dynamics an early car owner can be a blessing for us. So being patient may reap great rewards.
Im local to Griggs and you must have caught them on a bad day? But they do tend to be who do you know types so f em too...for a front suspension try these guys, im sure you saw the link on pt but i'll post it here (http://www.rrs-online.com/html/products.htm) for those who don't frequent it anymore. I too wanted to improve the Ford Chevy II design by grafting a QA1 or Grantenelli style tube front end so I can use off the shelf tubular arms. It looks like it could be done so I may look into it.
As far as the rear its very close to a Camaro rear so a couple changes could yeild a 3 link for Mustangs.Time will tell. Vin

Damn True

10-24-2005, 12:28 AM

Yeah, it is late. The cage I am planning is going to be a lot like the one in Stevo's car, but the a-pillars will go through the dash, and the door bars will be a bit different.

Total Control Products is building a pretty wild track car http://www.totalcontrolproducts.com/vehicles/tcpracecar/main.html might be good place to look in terms of a project headed in that direction.

Maier apparently has some stuff for the early 'stangs as well.

http://www.maierracing.com/index.html

I dunno about their early stuff, but their late model stang stuff is pretty widely used by the guys racing in NASA.

Steve Chryssos

10-24-2005, 06:27 AM

Mark,
Great looking kit. Sometimes you can just casually glance at a design and know that quality and function are present. You system surely qualifies. If you don't mind, show us a 3D rear view.

F-Body back seats are completely useless anyway. I built a nice shelf that holds a beach towel and a small cooler as well as some stereo equipment. And yeah, I put my contortionist skills to work when climbing in the back of my car. If I'm not very careful, my voice raises by two octaves while stepping over the horizontal bar. But I only need to get back there two or three times per year, so no biggie.

Mean 69

10-24-2005, 09:23 AM

Thanks for the feedback, guys. I will have to agree with you all in terms of backseat issues, I pulled the backseat out of Lateral I, there really is no use for it anymore. But, there are folks that would like to have a rear seat for small kids, etc, and we didn't want to exclude them from being interested in our kit. Honestly, the design didn't make that requirement terribly difficult to solve. I will say though, our feeling is that the performance of the cars we are building REALLY speaks to safety, and that means a well executed cage for cars that will be driven (which are the ones we are really interested in). You really just never know what will happen, on the street, auto-cross track, or road course, this hobby is inherently dangerous.

Vince is right, we also have a 65 Mustang project car that has been on hold for quite a while that is likely going to end up as a mule for a Ford development kit, including chassis structure kits, etc. The TCP car is actually already built, and it ran quite a bit with the American Iron race series last year. I have a friend that drove the car in one of the races, and he really liked the car. Our intention, from the suspension side, is to take the performance potential one step (or two, maybe three) higher than their setup, same goes for brand "G." We actually consulted with the guy I mentioned when we were debating early on about which approach we should go with the rear setup (i.e. primarily a non-invasive approach that would leave resulting performance compromises), and the strong feedback we got was to put performance first. That's what we did.

Here's a shot of the rear/side view of the engineering model, as well as a look at the differential. We are really excited, at this time all of the assembly fixtures and techniques have been validated, so all of the prepatory work to gear up for production is basically behind us for this iteration. The approach we have taken for the design and build is a highly modular one, which means we will be able to configure the specifics for various platforms (Mopar, Ford, etc) very efficiently. One of the other things that I feel is important to point out is the technical basis for the design. Everything is done for a reason, load paths are triangulated to make the structures as rigid and light as possible. The software systems we use are so good these days, structural analysis is far, far easier to study as a result. For instance, something as simple as the radii on the bellcrank piece (the pivot you can see in the back shot) had a surprising effect on the strength of the piece: changing it from "x" inches, to "x +1" made a HUGE difference, it was a complete surprise. I don't mean to bore folks with this, but we have spent so much energy in the design of the setup, I just feel it is important to point out. Most of our competitors don't do this type of analysis.

Thanks!
Mark

Musclerodz

10-24-2005, 11:11 AM

Looks good Mark. When I first saw it the pic, I thought of Unique's setup, but yours actually makes sense to me and hell for stout. Should be an excellent alternative to what is out there for the more agressive people. So is Matt working solely for you, or just the reason he won't accept outside work? It is a shame all that welding he does will be on the bottom side of the car.

Mike

Steve Chryssos

10-24-2005, 12:46 PM

Damn that's sexy! When someone takes a peek under the back of my car, that's what I want 'em to see.

Damn True

10-24-2005, 01:11 PM

Ditto,
Just gotta find a way to fit it into the budget.

Mean 69

10-24-2005, 01:14 PM

Damn that's sexy! When someone takes a peek under the back of my car, that's what I want 'em to see.

If you install one of these, the only view your competitors will see is of the back of your car, quickly disappearing out of their view. ;)

Mark

ProStreet R/T

10-24-2005, 01:16 PM

Wow thats one of the nicest SRA setups i've ever seen. Couple questions on it tho.

Do you have to raise the floor boards at all for clearance? Not a huge deal, just curious.

How is the unsprung weight? Seems like a whole lot of tubing and such that will be added to the rear end.

Are you going to share price, or do we have to wait till after SEMA?

Curious are you using a suspension specific modeling program or is it solidworks/3d studio based?

Ohh and :hail: :hail: :hail:

Jasper Jones

10-24-2005, 01:26 PM

This is only available with a Ford 9" rear end, right? If so, this presents another problem, because I already bought Wilwood disc brakes for my GM 10-bolt... crap, I really want this.

68protouring454

10-24-2005, 01:39 PM

man i got a weird feeling in my pants when i saw that rear end pic. what will happen when i get one in real life?? no one knows but i will try to catch it on tape.gotta have one, this thing is gonna rock

jake

Jasper Jones

10-24-2005, 02:01 PM

Well I have decided I really need this. I just put up my rear Wilwod disc brakes for sale, and the reupholstered rear seat. If anyone is interested they are in the for sale section on pro-toruing.com. I hope they sell! :willy:

Vince@Meanstreets

10-24-2005, 02:12 PM

Jas, hold off on selling the brakes, when you order you 9 just have them weld gm housing ends to it. Vin

Jasper Jones

10-24-2005, 02:22 PM

Ahh, thanks for the tip! I didn't even think of that!
-Jason

Jasper Jones

10-24-2005, 02:44 PM

Does the 3-link suspension call for anything special with the gas tank?

Mean 69

10-24-2005, 03:22 PM

Wow, thanks a million for the interest, and excellent questions, guys.

I will get weight figures for everything probably by the end of the day, Solidworks can tell you based upon the model, but it will be nice to get actual, physical weights. The good thing is that with the help of the modelling, we were able to reduce the wall thickness on the main axle tubes, and we use a Strange housing center. We had looked at a competitor housing center that was titled "light" weight, but the quality wasn't there on the piece. It was a bummer, it only weighted 21 pounds. Then we called Strange, their stuff was WAY nicer, likely sturdier due to the design, and best of all, only weighs 18 lbs.

For the modelling, we use Solidworks for the mechanical design and analysis, for the suspension geometry, we use WinGeo. Reference material comes from bascially all of the available literature from Milliken, Adams, Olley, Staniforth, etc.

No modifications to the floor pan are required with the exception of the clearance "tunnel" for the upper link. It was designed to work with all forms of commercially available subframe connectors, so if those are installed already, it should not be an issue. A word of caution, we do not have a tailpipe solution for the setup at this time, though we are working on one. It is pretty tight with the coil-overs and brackets for the Watt's linkage, we have something modelled up, but have not physically made one yet. This is something that we want to make available, most folks will want to run tailpipes (like me, I have dumps on my car, and though it sounds great and I love it, my neighbors don't seem to share the same passion for hot rods that I do!). There is no clearance issue with the gas tank, but here again, this might need to be changed for tailpipes, I can't give a solid answer on that at this time.

Brakes are set up for the C5 stuff, and due to the axles, it would probably be easier to make a new retainer/bracket than to run different housing ends, probably not a big deal, but we will need to look at it.

Thanks again for the feedback, guys, it is really helpful.

Mark

Vince@Meanstreets

10-24-2005, 06:19 PM

Ok if your setting up to run a C5 backing plate flange pattern than that makes life alot easier especially for those who will run the new stuff. Any limitations on rim back spacing? Vin

ProStreet R/T

10-24-2005, 06:33 PM

Design questions round 2... DING!.

Will there be any provision for altering ride height via shock mounts? Weather your running coilovers or bags this would be a huge benefit.

Where will you incorporate sway bar mounts? Obviously it will have to use something like a competition splined bar that is chassi mounted.

Now it's pretty clear this is going to be a pretty high end setup. What advantages does it have over an IRS setup?

Jasper Jones

10-24-2005, 06:40 PM

So I wont be able to run the brakes that I purchased for my 10 bolt on this rear? Welding on the axle flange woldn't work? Thanks

Vince@Meanstreets

10-24-2005, 10:43 PM

If you specify that you need GM bolt flange. Vin

Jasper Jones

10-24-2005, 10:47 PM

Ah, I kind of wish you wouldn't have told me that. I am losing reasons to tell myself why I shouldn't spend money on this! I can't use my back seat anyways, my brakes will work, and I have found a buyer for the suspension pieces I currently have... looks like I may be placing an order soon lol

race-rodz

10-25-2005, 12:34 AM

vince...i called griggs because they have a rep for products that WORK, i probably did catch em on a bad day, i had some questions, and whoever i talked to said they would find out and call me back, well after a week or so, i called them back to find out if they got any answers...and was talked to as i was an inconveinence to whatever they were doin..... still didnt get any answers.... so regardless of how good the products perform...i would not purchase anything from them.

sooooooooo now i will wait for the lateral dynamics crew to do their thing, as soon as they finish up all this camaro stuff..... i have a mustang patiently waiting.

if you guys need an R&D mule.... im more than happy to "donate" my time, shop space, and labor for workin out the details on the mustang set-up

iapitapun

10-25-2005, 09:50 AM

Thats an awful lot of welds. Are they mig or tig? Does this thing have a finish, or do I have to paint it?

Do you have a general range on price? More than 5000, less than 5000?

Seems like a pretty trick piece. What is your heritage, racing or the Big 3?

Mean 69

10-25-2005, 03:21 PM

Ride height will be adjustable via the coil-over springs, the shocks have 7" of total travel, so there will be a bunch of available ride height variations with one shock position. We have the design modelled up using various ride heights, including one existing customer who is going to have a LOW car.

Sway bar is a great question, and a good catch. We are looking into a couple different mounting configurations, one frame mounted, and the second option would be to have the bar on the axle. Either way, the end product will be adjustable, over a modest range, so it will be useful as a fine tuning tool.

The majority of the structure is mild steel, and as a result, MIG welding is the "baseline." Wherever there is a tube adapter, the welds are TIG. In addition, in the future, we will also offer as an option an ultra-light version, made predominantly out of Chro-Mo, so that one will be TIG's entirely. With the price of materials, though, you'd have to be pretty serious about wanting it, it won't be cheap (but it will be even lighter...). Price will be less than $5k, by quite a ways (less axles, differential and carrier, and brakes) for the "standard" kit.

Vin, the housings will be offered standard as a typical first gen width, meaning the wheel mounting width is right at 60". However, we can easily offer custom widths as a very modest upgrade, so if you want to go wider and not require wheel adapters for late model Corvette offset wheels, for instance, that's not a problem. Same goes for deeper dish, we can go narrower too. I will state though, when we offer stuff for the front, it will require a decent amount of positive offset, similar to late model Corvette wheels, this is the only way to get the performance we are satisfied with up front.

In terms of performance expectations, our position is that this system will outperform any commercially available rear suspension kit on the market, bar none, at any cost, period. All of the available setups, ours included, have compromises in the design, somewhere. The other products compromise the maximum performance potential in order to make other aspects of the design "easier," such as the ease of bolting on, etc. We started from the other direction, our primary consideration was performance, and the sacrifices we made to the design were those that minimally impacted that aspect, while allowing "just enough" trade off to make it a completely reasonable product for multi-purpose projects in terms of install complexity, and other factors stated previously.

If I missed anything, forgive me, I'm kind of busy! Please though, the feedback and questions are incredibly helpful, I can't tell you how much the input is appreciated.

ProStreet R/T

10-25-2005, 04:00 PM

Ride height will be adjustable via the coil-over springs, the shocks have 7" of total travel, so there will be a bunch of available ride height variations with one shock position. We have the design modelled up using various ride heights, including one existing customer who is going to have a LOW car.

Would you mind explaining this one a bit more... Reason I ask is that from my experience it's not a great idea to do drastic ride height adjustment with spring preload. It changes the spring rate quite a bit and can cause overly harsh suspension charasteristics. Would it be done with different length springs, spring rates, progressive winds?

Sway bar is a great question, and a good catch. We are looking into a couple different mounting configurations, one frame mounted, and the second option would be to have the bar on the axle. Either way, the end product will be adjustable, over a modest range, so it will be useful as a fine tuning tool.

I would personally work towards mounting it on the frame one way or another. One of the main benefits of this system is reducing unsprung weight, no need to plop another 30lbs of steel rod on it. Yes it will be a little more involved for the installer but really, anyone considering this should be able to handle a swaybar install.

Vin, the housings will be offered standard as a typical first gen width, meaning the wheel mounting width is right at 60". However, we can easily offer custom widths as a very modest upgrade, so if you want to go wider and not require wheel adapters for late model Corvette offset wheels, for instance, that's not a problem. Same goes for deeper dish, we can go narrower too. I will state though, when we offer stuff for the front, it will require a decent amount of positive offset, similar to late model Corvette wheels, this is the only way to get the performance we are satisfied with up front.

Sounds like your guys have a well thought out system here that should be easily adaptable for many different setups. You might look into a universal brake adaptor that would mount to the standard C5 flange. I'm thinking something that would be a basic rough design, that you would drill/tap for different configurations. Would be pretty simple to make something that could incorporate the standard radial mount caliper spreads (4-5.5") and in heights that would allow people to run from 12.5-15" rotors. I know personally if my only concern with changing brakes was to buy a $150 caliper adaptor it would make my decision on the whole setup a lot easier.
Nice to see someone finally thinking out the front suspension pieces so we can all run very wide wheels and not have an insaine scrub radius. :hail:

Without looking over the drawing and structural analysis I don't know for sure but there is one thing that jumps out at me. The front crossmember that locates the links. The low location looks great but the upper mount seems as though it could use some diagonal braces to combat rotational torque. My concern is that with a high torque motor launching hard on sticky tires it may twist the upper section of the cross member.

But all in all it looks great, can't wait to see one setup in person. Now just PM me the address where I can mail my consulting bill :P

Nutsy

10-25-2005, 09:12 PM

In terms of performance expectations, our position is that this system will outperform any commercially available rear suspension kit on the market, bar none, at any cost, period.

Awesome work! Very sexy setup. I am quite interested in how it will Outperform all the others? Track? 1/4 mile? Street?

Is it a true statement to say that this setup is geared more for corners/track use? Or is it a good compromise for all around street/track/strip use?

How would you rank this setup in terms of street/track/strip?

Trev

Vince@Meanstreets

10-25-2005, 09:39 PM

You might look into a universal brake adaptor that would mount to the standard C5 flange.
The nice thing about a C5 flange and axle off set is the variety of brake choices. Now instead of having to make a brake adapter you just run a C5 backing plate/park brake and caliper mount. That alone opens the door for Stock C5,C6 Zo6,Wilwood,Brembos,Precision,Mov-it and Baer+ kits. Vin

Mean 69

10-26-2005, 08:16 PM

Reason I ask is that from my experience it's not a great idea to do drastic ride height adjustment with spring preload.

We agree, in fact, one of the biggest things we looked at was the expected ride height variation with the system. This is the primary drive for the relatively long shock travel, actually it is pretty typical, but "well" thought out. If you go to one extreme or another, it "may" necessitate a different free height spring. For certain, and this is not exclusive to our setup, but the lower you make things, the stiffer the spring you'll need to keep the booty end of the car off of the bump stops. Less travel means higher wheel rate for a given chassis. Nice thing about springs, they are COMPLETELY linear in rate, no matte how much you preload them, f = kx, nature helps here. This applies to linearly wound springs, only. Of course, when they get into coil bind, the rate changes pretty dramatically.

One of the main benefits of this system is reducing unsprung weight, no need to plop another 30lbs of steel rod on it.

Completely agree, the "good" thing is that the rear roll resistance required is not that large, a really small tubular bar is basically all that will be needed, so it'll be light one way or the other, it is really more a fine tuning tool than anything. Frame mount (like the Watt's...) is preferred, but if it sits on the axle, it won't be terribly heavy and a subsequent addition to unsprung weight.

The low location looks great but the upper mount seems as though it could use some diagonal braces to combat rotational torque.

Excellent. One thing that is not so obvious from a force distribution standpoint is that the upper arm, in our setup, only sees about the same (in relative terms) as ONE of the lower links under throttle, everything is a lot less strained under brakes due to bias. Not trying to be nasty, but the upper links on a four link aren't only redundant from a roll-bind aspect, but also from a load consideration (provided there is a crossmember to handle loads). Anyway, for anyone using a high horsepower serious drivetrain, well, we strongly feel that safety is critical, and a full cage is a necessary thing. In this case, a good chassis shop will know to triangulate the load path from the upper link back into the cage. Beyond that, the stock setup is darned capable for a street tire'd car, even if they're sticky ones.

How would you rank this setup in terms of street/track/strip?

On the top, in all honesty. There is nothing that a really high performance, well thought out setup suffers from, and again, in our approach, we have traded the convenience of bolting on a set of brackets for a system that is extremely high performing, but still completely reasonable installation. You simply cannot match the performance potential of this design with a bolt on setup, period. Now, let's be a bit more specific, street/auto-cross/road course all need the same basic elements to be friendly. The drag strip differs the most, you want a ton of forward bite, but other aspects of overall performance aren't nearly as important. Driven a really fast drag car on the street? Enough said. Here's something to consider, a contemporary Trans Am car can bust out a high ten second ET, with a 310 ci motor, can reach 170-180 on the fast straights, but most importantly, can brake REALLY well, and can mange sustained 1.8!!!! G's in the turns. Can we do that? No, but, it does make you ask what's "really" important, overall balance, or one particular aspect? We like balance. Extreme balance.

Back to work, consultants can pm me for a t-shirt!!!
Mark

zbugger

10-26-2005, 08:55 PM

Looks like I'm gonna have to talk to you at the show. I just have to find you now. :willy:

Teetoe_Jones

10-26-2005, 11:56 PM

Looks like I'm gonna have to talk to you at the show. I just have to find you now. :willy:

Starting at the ATS booth, walk out, hang a right , go to the end of the isle, hang another right down the next isle, and look about 3 booths up on the left side, and you'll find Lateral Dynamics.
We will be torrmenting them with ATS paper air planes the entire show.

Mark-
Killer setup. I wish I hadn't already done the T56 transaxle in 50/50, or it would have gotten your 3 link.

Tyler

Damn True

10-27-2005, 01:14 AM

We will be torrmenting them with ATS paper air planes the entire show.

Might I suggest

http://www.northerntool.com/images/product/images/45088_lg.jpg

'80s babes not required, but would be a nice touch

Or perhaps one of these: The AirZooka (http://www.dansdata.com/airzooka.htm)

iapitapun

10-27-2005, 05:21 AM

Am I the only one that thinks this thing is a bit over designed? What is the wall thickness of that mess of tubes on the axle?

sinned

10-27-2005, 06:07 AM

Am I the only one that thinks this thing is a bit over designed? What is the wall thickness of that mess of tubes on the axle?
I am going to go out on a limb and ASSume you some sort of clue as to what you are looking at. You do do realize that this arrangement includes a frame mounted Watts link and the bracing nesessary for that and the bellcrank correct? Yes, running a Watts link and frame mounted vs. rear housing mounted is overkill but might as well go big. The frame mounted Watts link requires a great deal of trial and error to get it right, I can tell you Mark has been working on this for over a year (everyday) and is fanatical about things being done right.

Pretty bold post for one of your first, how about sharing some of your background for making such a statement since we haven't gotten to know you yet. (This is a pretty tight community and Mark is well known as a expert in his feild).

iapitapun

10-27-2005, 06:41 AM

First, what do all the tubes on the axle have to do with a frame mounted watts link? The only thing that connects to the axle are the links?

Second, are you telling me this design was accomplished through trial and error? Shouldn't it have been designed by engineering principles.

It just seems like there is a bunch of unsprung weight on that axle.

Hmmm...my background...Internet poster. What is the background of Mark. I would assume he is a suspension engineer or has a great deal of race experience. Maybe we should be concerned about his background.

The question was intentionally open ended. I want justification for all the tubing on the rear axle. I am not making it, I am buying it, so I want to have some level of confidence that I am buying something from a qualified company.

OK, so you don’t like my vague questions. So, I will ask engineering questions. Then I can do the math to see if this is something I need.

1. Was this designed for a range of ride heights? If so, what is the range and the Jounce and Rebound levels for each ride height.
2. It looks like the tubes for the watts link hang below the diff. How far below, and what is the ground clearance at curb and full jounce?
3. What is the rear roll steer % at each curb height?
4. What is the range of anti squat and anti lift %?
5. What CG height are you assuming?
6. I know you need to remove a portion of the tunnel, do you need to remove any of the floor or trunk to accommodate the rear mount for the three link. It seems like it would limit jounce travel.
7. How long are the links for the watts link? What about the length of the bell crank?
8. What are the tube diameters and wall thicknesses for this setup?
9. What is the weight of the whole system and how much of that is unsprung?

There a few questions to ponder. I assume at the very least Mark is an ME.

B Schein

10-27-2005, 06:53 AM

Mark and his partner Katz are both experts in this field. Trust me I know first had had from working directly with Katz he cuts weight wherever it is possible he is concerned with performance first and looks secondary when it comes to this type of stuff. I suggest you read this from the begging before making random assumptions form the viewing of only a few pictures.

What Are your engineering credentials?

And buy the way this was designed "by engineering principals." but this is not a exact science and still takes a long period of trial and error to find the just the right amount of compromise to build a well balanced and functional system.

iapitapun

10-27-2005, 07:00 AM

What Are your engineering credentials?

I have read this entire thread.

I edited my original post to include engineering questions. My engineering credentials MSME. Again, the beauty of this is I can ask questions. I am not selling my wares. If he can answer my last few questions I may have some confidence in the system.

So I ask again, what are marks engineering credentials, or for that matter "katz"?

68protouring454

10-27-2005, 07:36 AM

iapitapun

10-27-2005, 07:47 AM

ipityapun, its obvious you need to do some more research on 3 links and suspension, but i am sure mark can CLUE you in, look here for pics of marks 69 camaro with 3 link in it. http://www.lateral-g.net/members/magers
there are a few pics there to wet your pallet
jake

No its obvious you don't. Every question I asked is rooted in suspension design. This is a test.

What is the SVSA length?

What are you talking about? I want to know values. Not pretty pictures. I read the little article. He mentions a bunch of terms, but no values. All I want are values.

I am beginning to think mark and company are not rooted in engineering. I am all for the love fest, but all I want are the numbers. I am sure that high end WinGEO software can pump out the numbers.

If he plans on going to SEMA, this is the stuff he will be asked. The pretty picture only goes so far.

Guess what. After all the numbers, he will need to justify them. What is so difficult to understand. He should be proud to post the numbers, since this is the "best suspension, bar none".

B Schein

10-27-2005, 08:03 AM

I doubt Mark is going to just had out some of the numbers you are asking for. They have put a lot of time and money into this and just handing out some of their proprietary information over the Internet just isn’t going to happen. You are ASSuming wrongly buy saying "Mark and company are not rotted in engineering" in fact I would think of them as engineers first and car guys second.

As far a degrees that Both Katz and Mark hold I have no Idea they will have to fill you in on that.

Lets just wait to see what Mark has to say. I am sure he will join in with much insight to your questions.

Q-ship

10-27-2005, 08:04 AM

I am beginning to think mark and company are not rooted in engineering.
I think that since he has not had a chance to answer your questions here, it's a little presumptious of you to make a statement like that. Or perhaps "slanderous" is a little more accurate. Your original questions are fair, but the tone you are taking now is not.

Mark WILL be back to respond, and Lateral Dynamics IS a company rooted in sound engineering principle.

What's YOUR background? Full disclosure would be nice, if you're going to throw crap around.

MarkM66

10-27-2005, 08:10 AM

XcYZ

10-27-2005, 08:14 AM

Lets back this down a few notches. People are getting defensive and it's easy to see that this could turn ugly and become a flame fest which will benefit no one.

Iapitapun, I believe Mark will have responses to your questions, but I know he's busy getting ready for SEMA.

iapitapun

10-27-2005, 08:29 AM

iapitapun, (I guess the middle pita means pain in the azz? just a guess)

Geeshhh, give the guy a little time to respond!

Not sure why you're so concerned with numbers and this product, if your such an expert you should just ignore his product, as I'm sure you could build a better one on your own anyways.

Listen. I am waiting for Mark to respond. I realize all this other chatter is just that.

I expect Mark will answer at some point in the day.

Cool it on the slander. I think is not slanderous.

What escapes me is that everyone here should be happy for these questions. There are no proprietary numbers. These are numbers people need to know. If you say you have the best suspension in the world these questions will help support your cause.

Do you think people will spend thousands of dollars on a suspension that is welded together in someones garage, just because someone says it is good. Hell I am not going to cut up my classic car on promises of performance.

I am waiting for Mark's response, and I realize SEMA is looming. Everyone wants full disclosure on my background. I am the ice cream man, what does it matter. If I am a customer I want to know these numbers. They are not proprietary. If these numbers are not available to the public, not one of these will be sold.

So everyone should sit back and wait as I am doing.

XcYZ

10-27-2005, 08:35 AM

I respect that, but where my concerns lie is with the escalating nature of this thread. Lets see what Mark has to say before more people start getting too worked up.

iapitapun

10-27-2005, 08:45 AM

I respect that, but where my concerns lie is with the escalating nature of this thread. Lets see what Mark has to say before more people start getting too worked up.

Yes, it has started to escalate. All I am interested in are the numbers. Apparently, Mark is well respected here. I am sure he is a great guy. So, I will wait to see what he has to say.

Mean 69

10-27-2005, 09:46 AM

I had really hoped that the thread would not get hostile, but I suppose that the wonders of the internet have a hard time preventing that. I can see the reasoning behind the questions, I would want to know also. And in defense, there are not a whole lot of hard numbers. Many of the questions I will not answer due to proprietary reasons, but I will answer some of the specifics.

My credentials are BS Applied Physics, Optics, with a smattering of graduate studies in Optical Engineering, as well as graduate level Business. Katz is a BSME. We also consult with professional engineering firms for supplemental analysis that we do not have the capability to do, these firms (one main firm) have a tremendous amount of depth. My last position in the corporate world was Director of Core Module Engineering for a medical laser company, where I had a team of highly skilled engineers from multiple disciplines that designed an incredibly complex opto-mechanical/electro-optical laser based delivery system for use in vision correction surgery. In relative terms, the engineering complexity of designing a performance suspension system is childs play compared to the projects I have successfully led in the past (this is no way intended to belittle what we are doing, nor is it to too my own horn). I left that post to start this business. And in response to the software "pumping out numbers," it is true that it is a really usefull tool(s), it is clear that a engineering team can not be competitive without the use of today's programs. I hired two guys that use Solidworks, and all of the other stuff, because I don't, I hate computers, and I do all of my own calcualtions using the same HP calculator I used in undergrad school, using the classical equations from Olley, Milliken, and all of the rest of the literature (which is extensive, and good). This creates an excellent check and balance system for design details which I am proud of, anyone can buy WinGeo and whip up a design, but far fewer can tell what the numbers mean. We can.

The system is designed to accomodate a variety of ride heights. Katz aggressive design nature pulled us to have a very low ride height, my more conservative approach drug us the other direction, I deal with speed bumps ona daily basis. The most challenging geometry issues are with the car at a very low ride height. In this form, and again, it is sensitive to ride height, approximate numbers are as follows: SVSA > 70", A/S > 70%. Roll steer is dependent upon two factors in our design. One, the roll center height is defined by the Watt's bellcrank location. Two, because we incorporated skew into the lower control arm (plan view), the convergence point defines an additional lateral restraint point. The line running through the RRCH, and the forward restraint point, in Side View, defines the roll axis. There's a great picture of this in Milliken's book, page 653. For very low ride heights, the angle of the LCA's in side view become more parallel, so the roll axis becomes very neutral. In no case, in the extremes of high A/S, and the lowest RRCH from the Watt's, is the roll understeer percentage more than a few percent. Not being evasive here, it is just that the darned numbers are HIGHLY sensitive to the ride height and Watt's location, etc. CG used for all examples is ~20" (with a 47/53-ish rear weight bias), which is conservative, but the reason is that what is really important is the CG of the SPRUNG mass, the CG of the combined sprung and unsprung mass will be a few inches lower (a reasonable estimate for this approach is to find the height of the cam centerline). Using the "other" approach will result in a lower CG, and all of the A/S numbers look even better, which is basically what we have seen competitors do, so a marketing comparison will show them as being "better," or at least higher. That's okay.

Here's a note on this stuff. With a coupled trailing arm suspension, there is a constant battle between three things (independent of packaging). SVSA, A/S, and Roll Steer. For a given setup, you get to pick two. If you want very high A/S and neutral roll steer, the ONLY way to accomodate this is to have a very short SVSA, and experience has shown, this creates a nightmare in heavy braking (violent brake hop). Might be okay at the auto-cross where the speeds aren't that high, but heading into turn #1 at Willow Springs and not having brake control is not a happy moment. Okay, so how about high anti-squat, but with a longer SVSA? In order to do this, you need to raise the Instant Center, which means the LCA's need to incline steeply upwards, so what gives? Roll steer, and in the wrong way. In this general condition, you will get a big time roll oversteer condition. Again, this is well known too, to quote a friend's experience in his AI race car, "corner entry was pretty good, but midway through the turn, I had to correct my steering big time in order not to run "over" the apex, it was kind of strange feeling. Corner exit was a blast, I felt like a hero being able to get into the throttle a lot sooner, but I later realized that this was partially because I was going through the middle of the turn a lot slower." Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Clause, and yes, roll steer is a real issue.

This is the root of our design. The balance of Roll Steer, Anti-Squat, and a suitably long SVSA (Adam's says 40", Milliken 60", experience says at least 60") is what we worked so hard to achieve. Trying to make it fit was a challenge, we did our best, and we are very happy with the results. For the tech hungry folks, sorry for all of the vague marketing talk earlier on this thread, there is a real balance for describing a product in terms that everyone can relate to. For those of you who know me, Katz, etc, I would think you would attest that we are far better on the specific tech than the fluffy stuff.

Some other quick answers: The Watt's location on the axle is beefy for a reason, there is a very well known company that suffers from failure of the Panhard bracket on their product in a race environment, and if nothing changes in the design, there will be another company that suffers from this with a newly released product (it won't be us). The Watt's brackets are placed below the axle for a couple reasons: our philosophy is to have low RRCH, placing the pickup points lower on the axle puts the bellcrank more in line with the pickups, and therefore reduces the bending moment on the links themselves (more of a compression/tensile load in this fashion). The passenger side is the lower one, there is more support structure there, so we put it there to help improve left/right weight bias (it's a terribly small amount, but....). There is nothing terribly magic about the link length/bellcrank offset for the Watt's, specific dimensions are proprietary, and as an MSME, I am sure you know how these things work, they aren't exclusive to cars by a long shot.

Forward crossmember, 14.5 lbs. Rear, 14.5 lbs. Watt's bracket, 16 lbs (if this sounds heavy, it is because of need, deflection under lateral loads on the bellcrank pivot is the biggest driver for the design, it is bulletproof). 1/2 the weight of the coil-overs, control arms, and Watt's linkage arms is of the order of ~12 lbs(?), for a total weight of about 60 pounds, give or take. All sprung. With a leaf car, half the weight of the leafs, shocks is considered sprung, so about 45 lbs or so. So, we increased the sprung mass by a few pounds (while, at the same time, adding a significant amount of additional structure, helping to improve the torsional rigidity of the flexible car somewhat). Now consider the fact that the unsprung mass of ours includes 1/2 the weight of the coil-overs/trailing arms, and the differential. As stated above, this weight (less the rear axle assembly, we'll get to that in a minute), is about 12 pounds, unsprung. Leaf? 45 pounds or so, unsprung, so we have eliminated about 30 lbs of unprung mass relative to what is coming off of the car.

I have to start a new thread with the remainder, it limitedme to 10k characters. That's okay, I can use this for a FAQ section on the website!
M

Mean 69

10-27-2005, 09:47 AM

Here's the rest:

The housing. I will state that the tube structures are less than .100" wall thickness, with the actual axle tubes being of a different dimension. Sorry specific details are proprietary, I hope you can understand. All of the tubes for the Watt's location do two things: one, they are responsible for carrying ALL lateral loads and transfering it into the frame via the Watt's link. We do not tolerate deflection, or fatigue issues. Two, this structure, as well as the additional back-bracing creates a very strong (in bending) axle assembly, while allowing light weight materials (load paths considered). So what? Well, one very important thing: axle assembly deflection. Today's tires stick pretty darned good, and in addition, horsepower doesn't seem to be the limiting factor in most cars these days, north of 500 HP is considered normal. These two factors result in one really nasty outcome for a car: toe-out during forward acceleration. Our opinion is that this MUST be avoided at all reasonable cost, especially in corner exit, a toe out condition in this case will make the car tend towards oversteer, so the driver will have to back off of the throttle to let things settle, we don't like that. Okay, that's all fine. What does it weigh? All in, the axle assembly (without axles, center section, or brakes)weighs a touch less than 60 pounds (we can custom make lighter ones for race applications). Add in an aluminum gear carrier from Strange, which is about 14 pounds, and the rear is right around 70 or so pounds. How much does a 12 bolt rear weigh without brakes, axles and center section? Honestly, we don't know, but we are completely confident that there is no possible comparison in overall strength, torsional and bending rigidity.

I am sure there is something I left out. Please be patient with follow-on questions, we are working very hard to get ready for the show, and I cannot spend a lot of time behind the keyboard. I hope that this at least gave you something to chew on (other than pretty pictures), and if you have other specific questions, please bring them on. I'll do my very best to answer them without giving up specifics of the design that others can grab without having to do the dilligence that we went through. Frankly, I live for the tech, and I have complete confidence in being able to describe our design, and why it takes the form that it does, in any level of technical detail. And if I don't know, I'll tell you. If you have a better idea, we would LOVE to hear about it, we thrive on learning and applying new ideas. And please guys, I ask all of you guys to relax, this forum is the best one going right now, I hope we can keep it that way.

Cheers,
Mark

Edit: Added another pretty picture, well, I think it's pretty.

Damn True

10-27-2005, 10:17 AM

Mark,

Wow! :eek:

Good tech stuff rawks!

iapitapun

10-27-2005, 10:34 AM

My credentials are BS Applied Physics, Optics, with a smattering of graduate studies in Optical Engineering, as well as graduate level Business. Katz is a BSME. We also consult with professional engineering firms for supplemental analysis that we do not have the capability to do, these firms (one main firm) have a tremendous amount of depth. My last position in the corporate world was Director of Core Module Engineering for a medical laser company, where I had a team of highly skilled engineers from multiple disciplines that designed an incredibly complex opto-mechanical/electro-optical laser based delivery system for use in vision correction surgery. In relative terms, the engineering complexity of designing a performance suspension system is childs play compared to the projects I have successfully led in the past (this is no way intended to belittle what we are doing, nor is it to too my own horn).

So, you are not a suspension engineer. For that matter you are not an engineer. Director of a medical laser company does not correlate to suspension engineer in any way. Just an observation.

The Watt's brackets are placed below the axle for a couple reasons: our philosophy is to have low RRCH, placing the pickup points lower on the axle puts the bellcrank more in line with the pickups, and therefore reduces the bending moment on the links themselves (more of a compression/tensile load in this fashion).

There is a bending moment on the links? How does that happen with a rod end?

Again, most of my questions have not been answered. Maybe they were lost in translation or you just don't have the numbers. You may want to have them handy at some point in the future. It may help market it better. Right now I keep seeing excerpts from Milliken and Adams. I have those books. I do not need to read them here.

The things I would still like to see are:

1. Was this designed for a range of ride heights? If so, what is the range and the Jounce and Rebound levels for each ride height.
2. It looks like the tubes for the watts link hang below the diff. How far below, and what is the ground clearance at curb and full jounce?
3. What is the rear roll steer % at each curb height?
4. What is the range of anti squat and anti lift %?
5. I know you need to remove a portion of the tunnel, do you need to remove any of the floor or trunk to accommodate the rear mount for the three link. It seems like it would limit jounce travel.
7. How long are the links for the watts link? What about the length of the bell crank? I guess I can always scale them from a drawing or measure them at SEMA.

These sound like items that should have been design criteria.

I wish you luck. It might be wise to have this information available at SEMA.

Teetoe_Jones

10-27-2005, 10:41 AM

iapitapun

10-27-2005, 11:39 AM

iapitapun-
Welcome to Lateral-G. We are a close nit family here, and like to know each others names. What is yours, and where are you from?
If I didn't know better I'd say you either came from CC.com and want to remain an 'unknown', or you are a competitior trying to get info.
Just an FYI, Mark doesn't need to be an Engineer to have an idea for a 3 link. He employs Katz, a suspension engineer, formerly of Art Morrision, and he knows what is up. I do the exact same thing in my business. I have the ideas, and my engineer makes the parts.
Just wanted to say hello, and get to know a little more about you, your company, and your background. Again, welcome to our little corner of the web.
Tyler

I got here by following a thread from Pro-Touring. What does CC have to do with anything. At least CC allows people to post real questions. I have read this thread over an over and keep seeing chatter of SVSA length, roll steer, etc. All I asked is tell me what the result was.

Maybe it would be better if I said it RAWKS :willy: :cool: :rolleyes: :_paranoid :P

How does any of the help a competitor, how is it proprietary?

Yeah I get that it is a close nit group and you all want mark to make tons of money. When I see statements about bending moments in links I get a little nervous.

Earlier in this thread the statement was made that this is the best suspension on the planet, bar none at any cost. Prove it. That is all I ask.

Telling me the SVSA length or the adjustability range should not be proprietary. The Antisquat and lift ranges are not either. These are marketing blurbs. Technical marketing blurbs.

The funny thing is thes questions are here to help everyone. This suspension will require heavy modification to my car, and set me back a few bucks. I want to know some technical stuff. Why can't anyone see that.

Hey if the questions I am asking are all proprietary I apologize. I am sure I can call any manufacturer out there and have them give me anti-squat numbers. As a new company mark and company are going to have to prove themselves.

Bottom line, my 6 questions have values associated with them. None of which will compromise any part of his design. If he has them, I would love to see them. If not, good luck marketing this product.

I am tired of typing. I will look for my answers later in the day.

Damn True

10-27-2005, 11:53 AM

iapitapun

10-27-2005, 12:06 PM

Ya know, sometimes on message boards it seems like somone is being hostile and/or accusatory when in reality they are simply being direct. That said, I dunno if it's your intent to come across as hostile, but man it sure seems that way.

Not Hostile. I am or maybe was a possible customer. I am asking simple questions of the experts.

Apparently everyone is getting upset because I want to rate this on its technical merits.

Maybe I will stop with the questions. If this thread progresses further, maybe someone will want to know the same.

This is a new company, I want proof they know what they are talking about. That is it. Am I the only one with these questions? I have only seen one or two other posts with technical questions.

I will not buy a product based on people thinking it looks cool. Sorry. Maybe I have asked inappropriate questions.

Maybe alot of my questions will be answered at SEMA or after. I will wait for that.

68protouring454

10-27-2005, 12:24 PM

ProStreet R/T

10-27-2005, 12:42 PM

Ya know, sometimes on message boards it seems like somone is being hostile and/or accusatory when in reality they are simply being direct. That said, I dunno if it's your intent to come across as hostile, but man it sure seems that way.

I agree, the way it was worded sure does make some hostile accusations. The bit about not being a suspension engineer was a bit harsh IMO. I'm not a "suspension engineer" but this stuff is excessively simple compared to some of the stuff we deal with on a daily basis.

Last I checked DSE, Hotchkis, Alston, and a host of others don't publish the figures you asked for. Could be for a number of reasons, one being the range of adjustment is so vast that it's completely application dependant. Not saying they shouldn't post the figures but when trying to appeal to the general public you try not to give them so much info they become intimidated by the product.

Not defending them but honestly when your first post on the subject is calling out someones experience and education you come across as quite the asshole. It's not like he's a CPA with a pocket protector and an etch-a-sketch, having a bs in applied physics does lend it's self to the general cause fairly well here. :yes:

Ultimately if you think you can do better give it a shot, sure works for Stielow . Oh and if you re-read the thread quite a few of your questions have been covered if you put a little thought into it. :thumbsup:

ProStreet R/T

10-27-2005, 12:48 PM

man oh man, if you are such a suspension hero, and know what the numbers mean and how they relate, wtf would you buy someone elses kit??? this makes no sense and more than likely i hope someone finds you out, so people can stop buying products from you, cause obviously you are butt hurt over the fact this 3 link is gonna work, let alone out perform any other kit there.
i am still lost to the fact you know all this suspenison talk, but yet you want someone elses kit, man i wish you could be my hero

I'm not sure if his posts are truly of the accusatory nature as they seem or just bad writing. If he really has a competent understanding of suspension design and theory it would be foolish to buy any "kit" as they will all have short falls for a given application. IMO he's either a bitter competator or some noob who got google happy and is trying to sound smrt... I mean smart. :willy:

Next he's going to post a callout thread to Moton on the dampning range of their shocks for every combination of a million different shim stacks and nitrogen charges :willy:

Damn True

10-27-2005, 12:49 PM

Mark dosen't need me or anyone else to come to his aid, but just the same I am somewhat compelled, by virtue of a similar experience in my former career.

Iapitapun, here's a little role playing game for you.

Imagine you are sitting at work, doing something bitchin with your MSME, but you have a deadline for the project, and that deadline is this Friday the 28th.

Now while all this is going on some big fella who you've never seen nor heard of; with spiked hair, ear-rings, tatoos and a goatee (ok...thats me) comes into your office.

Now, right off the bat I start raising a ruckus screaming and yelling and asking if you got your degree from some diploma mill in the Philipines, shouting out loud about your questionable background, that of your co-workers and casting aspersions on the lineage of your dog.

Then, I go on-and-on about how it seems you have no freakin idea what you are doing since you have yet to publish the data on the project you are STILL WORKING ON.

Then, after all that, I ask, nay, I DEMAND that you to give me all of your measurements, the results of your R&D and essentially everything that you have done to differentiate your product from that of your competition.

Now you don't know if I'm some dude with a fat wad of cash burning a hole in my pocket, some wack-job off the street, or a competitor with a patent axe to grind. But what you do know is that I have insulted your credibility and questioned your integrity in front of others. If you didn't tell me to pound sand in my arse I'd be surprised.
I'm guessing Mark gave you a lot more of an answer than you would give me.

But here's the thing. I actually wouldn't do any of the above. If I was interested in what you were working on, the first thing I'd do is tell you what I want from my project and let you tell me (not sell me) if your product is even remotely close to what I'm looking for. Then I'd ask you to explain why, filling in any follow up questions on the features and benefits along the way. That's what I did when I first heard about Mark's system and ya know what? It worked. Try it.

iapitapun

10-27-2005, 01:02 PM

Then, I go on-and-on about how it seems you have no freakin idea what you are doing since you have yet to publish the data on the project you are STILL WORKING ON.

You know what. Forget it. I thought this was a completed design available for consumption. I guess I was wrong.

I am not asking for drawings. All I wanted was few few resultant values from their design. I am not going to back calculate anything.

So because I ask questions, I am some evil person trying to steal ideas. No.

I realize mark is not here and I am sure he will respond accordingly. Here is a scenario.

Six months down the road Mark and company are selling this. I stumble onto their web page and it talks about the AS geometry and how it is adjustable. I think cool, what kind of adjustability range is there?

What will the answer be. That is proprietary information, or it is between XX% and YY%.

What would you want the answer to be.

Listen, I am sorry. Hey just because I know some terms and math doesn't mean I want to build my own one off. Relax everyone. No one is trying to steal anything.

Damn True

10-27-2005, 01:05 PM

I'm just suggesting you dial back the tone just a bit.

....and btw, I would never actually say something bad about a man's dog. That's just not cool.

race-rodz

10-27-2005, 01:14 PM

i'm not gettin into this one..... but i will add, a bare 1st gen 12 bolt housing weighs in at 64# (i just sold/shipped one last week)

i think the q&a's were answered for the most part, and goin off of numbers for suspension programs is fine..... but what will "sell" is when the set up is installed and tested under real world conditions, hard numbers of before/after. so would be customers can have an idea about how the system will improve the performance of their car.

EDITED: some of my reply was answered while i was typing

XcYZ

10-27-2005, 01:19 PM

Iapitapun, you're not out of line for asking questions, but what seems to have set off some people is your approach. It's not the questions, it's how they were presented.

RussMS

10-27-2005, 02:27 PM

It's not like he's a CPA with a pocket protector and an etch-a-sketch :eek:

And what would be wrong if he did? I happen to resemble that remark :D

No comment on the tech question, that part just gave me a good laugh.

Steve1968LS2

10-27-2005, 05:05 PM

Ya know, sometimes on message boards it seems like somone is being hostile and/or accusatory when in reality they are simply being direct. That said, I dunno if it's your intent to come across as hostile, but man it sure seems that way.

Wow.. Mark told me about this thread.. this is even more vitriolic than the Air Ride thread on PT.com except the roles are switched around.. lol..

Lots of good info though.. Oh, and Katz works for Mark.. that is good enough for me to be a believer in what they turn out. I am sure that once the system is on the streets it will be "put though the paces" to give performance data.. after all engineering specs are fun but it all comes down to what the car can do.

sinned

10-27-2005, 05:49 PM

Wow, I go to work and look what happens.

I just want to add that you had asked a few very specific questions-
1. Was this designed for a range of ride heights? If so, what is the range and the Jounce and Rebound levels for each ride height.
2. It looks like the tubes for the watts link hang below the diff. How far below, and what is the ground clearance at curb and full jounce?
3. What is the rear roll steer % at each curb height?
4. What is the range of anti squat and anti lift %?
5. What CG height are you assuming?
6. I know you need to remove a portion of the tunnel, do you need to remove any of the floor or trunk to accommodate the rear mount for the three link. It seems like it would limit jounce travel.
7. How long are the links for the watts link? What about the length of the bell crank?
8. What are the tube diameters and wall thicknesses for this setup?
9. What is the weight of the whole system and how much of that is unstrung?
and they were answered if you had read the entire text.
1. Yes, it is adjustable.
2. Just below the axle centerline and ground clearance would depend on your ride height.
3. Neutral at the lower end of the scale.
4. 70% AS and what the heck is anti lift?
5. CoG is about 20".
6. Not sure, I guess he missed that one.
7. How is this relevant to determining if the system will work or not?
8. .100" tube thickness
9. Eliminated 30 lbs of unsprung

zbugger

10-27-2005, 06:05 PM

I know this won't help any, but if this is the same thing that is on Lateral 1, I know it works. I've seen the car run the track and it looked better than quite a few factory cars running out there.

Mark, if you ever figure out the tail pipes thing, I just may get this. In fact, if I can figure out how to put the money together, I WILL get this. Just make sure it fits my 2nd gen Camaro. Heh... I've waited two years to drive it again, what's another two? :rolleyes:

Vince@Meanstreets

10-27-2005, 10:28 PM

70% AS and what the heck is anti lift?
are you serious?!?! You should know this one!! Anti-lift can cause reduction of rebound travel in the rear suspension under braking. Like anti-dive in the front suspension. This is a common trait in 3 link suspensions possibly due to length of upper link. Im no suspension gure so cap that flame thrower iapitapun! heeheeee :_paranoid
He might type off as an axe hole but he's asking the right questions and Mark has no problem with it so why should we? This is the part of being a new business and going to an open market.I think Mark asked us to keep it civil so lets all take in a deep breath and inhale....hold it....hold it.....

Mean 69

10-28-2005, 03:42 AM

I'll do my best to make everyone happy, but it is the middle of the night, and I am tired.

A bending moment is present anytime a link is subject to a force that is not purely compressive/tensile (let's forget about torsion for the moment). As the Watt's link is a dynamic setup, the geometry, and therefore force direction will change as the system is placed in bump/rebound. The force will in many cases be applied to the link in a manner that is not directly in line with the centerline of the tube = tries to bend the tube. In the case of the Watt's linkages, this is not a big deal at all because the links are so short. For long trailing arms, it is more of an issue, and the exact same principle applies. It has nothing to do with the fact that it is linked by rod ends. As far as the geometry (i.e. link lengths, bellcrank dimensions), I stated previously that there really isn't any magic to the system, if you model the thing up in Solidworks and move it through travel, you will see what I mean. You have my permission to bring a tape measure and get the dimensions, but this is the sort of design specific info that I will not disclose, I am sorry if you can't understand why.

Again, not trying to sound evasive, but here is the answer to the roll steer, A/S, etc, versus ride height question. There are two adjustment holes for the lower control arms. There are three for the upper arm. There are four position to locate the Watt's linkage. Based upon the questions, it is clear that you understand that roll steer, A/S, SVSA are all completely interlinked, so for every iteration of ride height, there are 24 possible combinations. The ride height "range" was derived by looking at several typical cars. It basically encompasses a "low" height that is basically the same as Charlie Lilliard (Stielow built) "Mule," which we found is about an inch or so lower than my car. On the other end, Stuart Adam's beautiful car sits a bit higher. I do not have the specific numbers in front of me, but the basic range is of the order of 2 or so inches in variation, but you can go lower or higher, we just don't see a real need or reason. If you can give me a reference point of where you'd like to base the numbers, we can model the results and give "numbers." If I sound like a jerk here, I am not trying to be, but given the fact that there is infinite adjustment between the amount of ride height, well, the spreadsheet of values would get pretty long.

The lowest point on the suspension system is where the coil-overs mount to the axle. This point lies above the rim height of a 17" wheel, so if you curb the car, the wheel takes the hit (first). The lower Watt's mount on the axle is only a few inches below the axle centerline.

The design is complete, and it IS ready for public consumption. I am sorry if the answers I have given are not satisfactory, I probably left something out. I would ask that you at least give us the benefit of the doubt, or rather, ask the same questions of everyone who sells this stuff and is even willing to publicly disclose this type of information, and see what you get.

Thanks,
Mark

iapitapun

10-28-2005, 05:33 AM

A bending moment is present anytime a link is subject to a force that is not purely compressive/tensile (let's forget about torsion for the moment).

You cannot react a moment through a rod end. So, there is no bending moment. Example. Fix your link to a wall and hang off the end. That is a bending moment. When you hang on the link it bends. Now take the attachment at the wall and replace it with a spherical bearing. Then hang on it. First you won't be able too because it will slam down parallel to the wall. No bending. About the only think the link can do is buckle under axial loading. That's it.

As for the other stuff, thanks for the answers. I will just leave it at that. I never wanted a spreadsheet. Just ranges. So if you took the lowest AS, ride height, etc and then the highest. That is all I wanted to know.

I would concentrate on SEMA. It is quickly approaching. I will monitor this thread. Posting will become more infrequent. I get the feeling I am not welcome here.

One point of advice. Watch all your friends on this board. If people start flocking here to check out this new suspension. They may scare them off. Your friends will buy it because they know you and have tracked your efforts. Customers A-X, do not know you and will ask similar questions, probably more probing. I myself had more questions, but they can wait.

I am not 100% satisfied with the tech brought forth, but I will refrain from final judgement until SEMA is over. Your efforts should be placed on that rather than this for now.

sinned

10-28-2005, 06:08 AM

Vince, I was being a jerk. Of course I know what the unknown keyboard bandit is talking about but anti-lift is not tecnical measurement that can be made but rather a conclusion that is drawn based on how short the SVSA is. I just figured since "he", who he is, is being an azz (IMO) and I jumped at the chance to be a smart azz.

BTW, iapaitapun, I have spent the last 2 decades dealing with vendors and design engineers in the automotive world on a daily basis. Mark has brought forth 100X the tech any other vendor would. 99% of the time the response would have been "if you want all those answers buy it and measure it all yourself".

68protouring454

10-28-2005, 06:31 AM

someone should find who and where this dude is from, how do you track an ip address ??
hero for sure
jake

iapitapun

10-28-2005, 07:20 AM

I really don't get it. At the core of my posts is tech? What is wrong with that? You know someone mentioned CC earlier. At least there you can get tech. I realize you all love Mark and you want him to succeed. Not everyone knows him.

So I guess the focus of this board is to track IP addresses because I ask some technical questions. I hope you don't treat all new members like this. Quite simpley I asked soild tech questions that had answers. Sorry for the questions. I will ask no more. So, you all won.

Good luck.

camcojb

10-28-2005, 07:35 AM

I really don't get it. At the core of my posts is tech? What is wrong with that? You know someone mentioned CC earlier. At least there you can get tech. I realize you all love Mark and you want him to succeed. Not everyone knows him.

Good luck.

You've mentioned corner carvers twice as a good place to get questions and tech answered. I would say that site is the worst place for a new guy to come into for answers. They treat people with a level of disrespect that is famous on the internet. If a person asks a question that they deem stupid they are all over him. Do an internet search on that site, you'll get tons of posts about how they treat people over there who need info.

Do they know what they're doing? Absolutely, but it is definitely not for the faint of heart! :eek:

Jody

68protouring454

10-28-2005, 10:09 AM

why not introduce yourself, you are right we are a tight nit group here, and would you open up to a stranger?? probaly not, as jody said cc is a hardcore site, that does not lend well to newbies, you seem to know rear susp,, but.... jake

Mean 69

10-28-2005, 11:31 AM

Except that the link is not free on both ends. Perhaps there is a more collegiately acceptable term that I am mixing up here. Take the same example, but now place the other end on a different immovable wall. You can use rod ends, solid ends, it doesn't matter because at that instant, it is a static system. Place one end of the link higher than the other. Do not allow either end to move vertically up or down, and push the walls together. The force direction will be at an angle relative to the centerline of the tube, and therefore not purely tensile/compressive. Perhaps the "buckling" term is more acceptable?

I really don't mind the tech questions at all, but to state that "all" you wanted was tech info is not true, and to further state that you got "no" tech as a result of your questions is ludicrous. You first sought to discredit myself and my team because don't have "degrees in suspension engineering." Well, last I looked, this was not a discipline that was offered. I doubt very much that you learned everything you needed to apply to real world problems, that is, if you have indeed engineered solutions to problems, I'll assume you have. Let me give an example, the sharpest optical engineer that I ever had work for me never studied optics in school. He received his PhD in Physical Chemistry, and taught himself optics. Smart people can learn beyond what the diploma on their wall suggests they may know. A statement like "you aren't even a suspension engineer, nor an engineer for that matter," would only come from an engineer that feels he/she knows more than anyone that doesn't have a degree. You should be proud that you finished a graduate education, good for you, honestly. A degree doesn't make you able to solve all problems, and not having one (which I do, by the way, in one of the hardest technical disciplines) further doesn't mean that you can't.

I can assure you that not everyone on internet forums "loves" me. Lateral Dynamics was not formed to "make us rich and sell lots of stuff." There are far easier ways to make a lot of money than this business, I can assure you. If I wanted lots of money, I would have stayed in corporate America and sucked up, but that is not something that I am capable of. All we want is to help cool people with cool projects, and have fun with it all, this is pure honesty.

That you won't even tell people your name, what kind of car you have, or anything leads me to believe that you are not an interested customer, and that's fine. Regardless, here are the "numbers."

The most challenging situation is the lowest ride height example, using something similar to the Mule, with a slight rake, this is what we offer. At a 6" rear subframe height, in the "nominal" position for the control arms, the SVSA is 68.5". Anti-squat is 59.8%. Roll steer with the lowest possibly RRCH is 1.03% roll Understeer. In the nominal control arm setting, roll steer range can go as high as just over 6% roll understeer (by raising the RRCH). At this ride height, SVSA can go as high as just over 100", to as short as just over 60". Resultant A/S numbers are 26.5%, and 64.1%, respectively (I over-stated A/S numbers previously by approximately 10%, forgive me).

Again, A/S numbers were derived using a conservative CG of ~19". For more direct comparison withother suppliers, using a 17" CG, the resulting A/S numbers are 65.9%, 29.6%, and 71.6%.

We really would love to meet you, so if you attend the SEMA show, please be sure to stop by and introduce yourself. We will be at booth #52425.

Kind Regards,
Mark

Musclerodz

10-28-2005, 11:47 AM

If you eliminate the crap in this thread there is excellent info for those of us who do not completely understand suspension theory.

You are welcome here and most of us are alway eager to learn something new. I think the issue is you walked in here like you would at CC.com and put eveyone on the defensive. It would be nice to know who you are and what you are working on so we could get to know you better. Sorry if you think what has been given is beneath your knowledge base, but for the rest of us, we are always happy to get it because it doesn't happen very often anymore. All numbers do is confuse most of us and are purely hypothetical until you put it on a track and prove it. I don't know Mark or Katz personally, but I do know they won't be happy until this setup is the best on the market.

Mike

TBART70

10-28-2005, 05:15 PM

Fantastic post, trying to learn as much as possible from all of the knowledgable people out there. Already have a rear suspension designed by Katz, tri-4bar, hoping in the future to chat with him about it, and ask someone on all of the boards to try to tell me what the geometry of my front Martz chassis has. possibly a way to make it better if not that good to begin with.

68protouring454

11-05-2005, 11:48 PM

so did you stop by at sema with measuring tape??
how was mark??? was he not able to answer any questions and prove design???
mark and lateral d crew had an incredibal turn out at the show and it will not be long before you see some serious products out of these guys, by the way who are all awesome in person. i had the priviledge to meet them all and hang out, and they are all stand up guys, who know there ****

camcojb

11-06-2005, 08:38 AM

Matt@Lateral Dynamics

11-06-2005, 09:01 AM

It was also nice to finally meet you Jake!

Jody, did you slap Jake around alittle? If not, you should have! He likes it anyway.... :P

68protouring454

11-06-2005, 09:09 AM

thanks you too,it was nice talking at the pt dinner,wish i had made the lat g dinner but holy **** i was tired, trip was great, met alot of new people who were all real nice.
oh ya don't listen to that matt dude, he is just jealous, and speaking of liking to get slapped check this out!!!!!!!
jake

camcojb

11-06-2005, 09:09 AM

Jody, did you slap Jake around alittle? If not, you should have! He likes it anyway.... :P

Nope, he looks pretty stout and scrappy to me! :eek: Thinking he'd LIKE a good fight and I'm more the "lover" type. :D

Jody

Matt@Lateral Dynamics

11-06-2005, 09:19 AM

SWEET!! I've allways wanted my ass to be an internet star...you made my dreams come true Jake! :thumbsup:

Jody, you know the saying, "big bark, no bite"? Jake's just a big ol' cuddly teddybear of a guy. :) Except he does like to jump rental cars off of airport speedbumps......

68protouring454

11-06-2005, 09:23 AM

i'll show you teddy bear, your ass!!! and that speed ramp at 25 mph was nothing,lmao

Mean 69

11-07-2005, 12:25 PM

Well, the show is over, and it turned out to be a far bigger success than I had ever dreamt. Now the only problems we have are trying out what to do first on a very long list of really cool prospects. We'll be doing some strategic planning over the next couple of days, off of our feet, allowing our voices to come back to normal. It was terrific to meet everyone that stopped by, and we certainly appreciate the feedback and suggestions that we have gotten from everyone. To be honest, I thought I would be really tired and want to just relax for a few days after all of this, but I am more fired up than ever. We had some really amazing folks come through, including the founder of the best tech magazine on the market, "Race Car Engineering" from the other side of the pond, and countless individuals that have a bunch of cool personal projects. It was great.

Thanks again for everyone that stopped by, and if there are questions still remaining, get in touch with us and we'll do our best to answer them.

Cheers!
Mark

Steve1968LS2

11-07-2005, 04:15 PM

I saw your product Mark and so far I'm a believer.. I am thinking my Dana 60 is gonna be short lived in Penny.. lol

Nice to meet you and the rest of the LD team.. :thumbsup:

Mean 69

11-07-2005, 05:26 PM

Sounds like fun, Steve, I think it will be a huge improvement in your enjoyment of the car. It was nice to meet all of you guys too, if only for a few minutes. Thanks for the vote of confidence.

M

USAZR1

11-08-2005, 04:45 PM

I'm a believer too,Mark. I wish you guys all the best. :thumbsup:

Man,if everyone at Corner Carvers is like that fella,it's a sure bet you won't be seeing me over there any time soon. I'd get banned in my 2nd post. :mad:

Q-ship

11-08-2005, 07:35 PM

Man,if everyone at Corner Carvers is like that fella,....
Just for the record, there's no one at CC with that user name. I'm guessing troll of enormous proportions.

Vince@Meanstreets

11-08-2005, 07:54 PM

Actually and I think you will agree with me Q' that CC isn't as bad as they were before. I had a problem with Jon A, he called me a F'n idiot for wanting to converge the lowers on my 3 link for my Camaro. I think Norm came to my defense. Can't remember it was so long ago.
As far as Lateral Dynamics, I see them going far and with the crew on board now,it can only get better! LOL I hope to be of some assistance in the near future.
I suspect Inpita is a competitor, maybe a voice from AME??
Vin

Mean 69

11-08-2005, 07:56 PM

It didn't appear that the mystery man came by the booth, but I was not there at all times, the other guys didn't seem to think he did though. Honestly, he had some good questions, and I remain completely confident that if he were truly interested in the design, and asked the same questions in person, he'd be totally satisfied with the answers. And if not, well, we'd have (even more) work to do. Without a doubt, there were some really knowledgable folks that came by that had similar types of questions, we took it all in, and are going to make some changes as a result. Good ideas come from everyone, I have learned this so many times, and we certainly don't know it "all." What we "do" know, however, we are very confident in.

Next steps are creation of more platforms, and increasing our basis with more data. Specific, relevant, and documented. There is so much more to real product development than slapping together a design, and sending it to market, at least if it is done correctly.

So, what percentage of folks with interest in our product "need" tailpipes? We are already working on solutions, and will have one very soon, but this is an area that we might have been a little bold on in the early assumptions (i.e. thinking folks woudn't care if they wanted the best handling solution). Not a big deal in that we will solve the issue, but it is a curious question.

Mark

zbugger

11-08-2005, 10:52 PM

So, what percentage of folks with interest in our product "need" tailpipes? We are already working on solutions, and will have one very soon, but this is an area that we might have been a little bold on in the early assumptions (i.e. thinking folks woudn't care if they wanted the best handling solution). Not a big deal in that we will solve the issue, but it is a curious question.

Well, I'd be interested in tailpipes. I have to keep my car smog legal for stupid reasons, and that's something that would make it easier. That and it would make the car a bit quieter.

Q-ship

11-09-2005, 08:14 AM

Tailpipes would definitely be nice, but not if they require the suspension to be compromised.

Mkelcy

11-09-2005, 08:47 AM

Need tailpipes.

B Schein

11-09-2005, 08:48 AM

Here is the way I look at it if you want run this setup then you are pretty serious about performance. No one said that it would be easy to have both the performance 100% of the stock sheet metal in the car. So just cut out the trunk floor run the tail pipes up over everything and out the back. Then build the trunk back around the exhaust. Has any one ever seen the Trunk in JPs II Much all of the humps are not in there for looks the exhaust runs under them.

Payton King

11-09-2005, 02:12 PM

easy solution would be use the Spintech mufflers that the inlet and exhaust are on the same side of the muffler. Place the mufflers in the location everyone uses and run the exhaust in front of the rear wheels

ironworks

11-15-2005, 12:53 PM

I have always been under the assumption that the lower locating links had to be leave at ride height in order to keep the suspension for binding upon cornering. And with a variety of ride heights that you said this system was capable of with different coilover selections, is there an optimum shock length for this system or does ride height not affect the angle of the lower length. Or is each system built per the ride height of the customers specs.

I have no engineering degree or even a juinor college degree but just asking?
Do you see my friendly tone of voice in my Font. I'M JUST SAYING

Rodger

Mean 69

11-15-2005, 04:36 PM

Actually, the lower link inclination, unless really severe(?) won't have a whole lot of influence on bind in roll, at least not with a three link. The lower inclination is important for a couple of really important factors, but as with everything, there isn't only "one" right answer. One very important aspect for the LCA inclination, however, is how the suspension will behave in bump. If the LCA's are angled downward from the rear of the car towards the front (as viewed from the side), then the car will probably be pretty harsh over bumps, in this situation, the differential will need to move forward as it rises. The only analogy I have for this one is a shopping cart: every once in a while, you can get the front wheels turned the opposite direction but still able to move forward. Hitting a small bump jolts the cart big time, the same thing would happen in the above LCA example.

Regarding the question of ride height, the toughest configuration to deal with is low ride heights, it makes the suspension geometry the most difficult to package and still get good behavior. Raising the car will cause the LCA's to be more inclined, and at a point, you'd want to change them to the upper locating hole (we have all of the goods for adjustment, etc, in the install instructions) to bring the angle back down a bit. It is not overly sensitive on our setup relative to other kits, in that we use really long control arms, so angular changes happen a lot slower (by design). Regardless, we included the other hole to accomodate a variety of ride height choices.

Spring/shock travel is not an issue either, in any ride height, there is plenty of travel in either direction, unless you want to go off-roading, which we wouldn't recommend.

Not sure I answered everything, if I overlooked something, let me know and I'll do my best.

Mark