G-Force tri-link and pan-hard bar for drag?
 

I am going to see what I can get out of the GSL big bearing rear end. I am looking to use a G-force tri-link with a Panhard bar and getting rid of the watts link completely.

http://www.gforceengineering.net/products.htm


Would I remove the upper links completely when doing this? Is this a bad idea if i don't ever plan on using my steering wheel in the car except for staying strait.... ;)

The trilink was a handling mod. If you don't plan to make any turns, don't bother with it. But yes, if you were to add one, you would completely remove the upper links. :)




.

The only advantage you might pick up with a tri link on the strip would be possibly better control arm angles to help launch the car. For a drag car I would just move the stock upper ones around and keep two to handle the load better than one (tri link). You can also change how the rear end rotates and control pinion angle when the car squats with longer upper arms.

So the tri-link is of no use to me. And I was already planning on making my own adjustable links.

But what about going with a panhard bar and dropping the watts link?

A panhard could be lighter and would not need to be as strong as the ones used for roadracing. I believe they are common in drag racing and are usually called Track Bars.

I ran my stock port roadrace RX7 at the strip a couple of years ago with a tri-link. Lots of wheel spin in 1st - but it hooked decent in 2nd. turned a 15.9 @ 85mph

I would assume that your wheel spin could have been due to really stiff suspension? Or do you think it had to do with the tri-link?

What kind of tires where you on?

All of the above.....Kumho V710 tires, 4.88 ratio, 250lb rear springs. Also because the car is lowered the lower control arm geometry is not right. They need to be lowered on the rear axle which was not allowed in the road racing class I was in.

In my clubracing circle we have found the tri link to be affective in low HP applications. But even with other modifications on high HP cars to correct for lower control arm geometry tri-link equiped cars don't hook as well off of turns or in a straight line. The issue is that the front mount on the tri-link is too low. If you raise it (go through the floor of the car) the suspension hooks better.

The other issue we ran into is that eventually the tri-link mount will rip the floor out of a car that has HP if the mount isn't reinforced by cage elements.

Thanks for all the tips. I'll stay away from the tri-link.

Converting from the watts link to the panhard is a go though. You have any ideas on specific angle or placement of the pan-hard?

Horizontal to the ground and ride height.

The tri-link was a solution for the suspension built solely to meet the SCCA IT rules. If not restricted by those rules then there are other solutions. Look at building longer upper arms to go with a pan hard and you will be better off.

-billy

In my cars the panhard bar has always been located in line with the stock location of the lower shock bolts. This puts the bar about an inch above the bottom of the rear end center section. I try to keep the bar level unless I am tuning for a track condition like banked turns or a really important high speed turn.

I am not sure what you want for drag racing. I would guess that height would not be as critical. You just want a way to keep the axle centered in the car.

Anyone ever hear of squat and antisquat? Clearly not.

Yeah, I was thinking that ride height and rear spring choice would be a lot higher on my list of things needed than something like a trilink or panhard bar. But I don't drag race. :)