Hyper4mance2k

iTrader: (40)

I want to my car to pull more than a lateral g on street tires. Is there anyone who has done this and what set-up did you use to get there. This will be for my dreamcar FB setup so there is no limit to rules or driveability issues. Weekend only car... I currently have eibach springs and tokico hp shocks. I'm running enkei 92 series with Kumho 711 205-50/15 in he front and 225 in the rear. I've been thinking 3 link with panhard as being my next setup, but I want better. And I want different. Everyone runs the 3-link and panhard combo. i want to be better than everyone else

Travis R

Then build a custom double a-arm set up.
Or, for only $400 you could upgrade to a set of Kumho MX, and your grip would increase.

Dan Stevenson

Since it is a weekend only car, I would for a set of Kumho Victoracers. I keep them on my RX7 year round. You might be able to get 8K miles on a set.

Hyper4mance2k

iTrader: (40)

Well the plan is to eventually go to Victoracaers, but in the meantime is there anyone outthere that actually has achieved 1 lateral g? If so, what was your setup? If anyone has used anything other than a panhard bar what was the setup and PICS?!?!

RotaryAXer

iTrader: (4)

Yes. 1.2 sustained on R comps. I haven't really measured anything on street tires. I bet it is really close to 1 g on good street tires.

GForceEngineering rear setup = tri-link and panhard for a reason. It works.

speedturn

iTrader: (1)

The G-Force Engineering suspension parts worked very well for me, both on Kuhmo DOT race tires and on Goodyear slicks.

skrewloose78

i had thought about the g-force racing set-up before but i want to get more opinions on it and mabye look at the set-up first hand before i shell that kind of money. is there anyway i can check out your set-up sometime? do you run on the scca course? do you have this set-up on a 1st gen?

T_Racer

iTrader: (1)

i had thought about the g-force racing set-up before but i want to get more opinions on it and mabye look at the set-up first hand before i shell that kind of money. is there anyway i can check out your set-up sometime? do you run on the scca course? do you have this set-up on a 1st gen?

There is a reason that this setup costs this much. Good stuff, but mainly built by a guy that knows his stuff. I know this sounds like another G-Force/Susko ad, but Jim Susko, G-Force owner, knows these suspensions. His setup book is almost like a bible of how to make a first gen handle. Also, you get lifetime phone help. This is worth more than what it may seem, as you can call him, explain your case, and he can usually diagnose your problem and get you going accurately. This guy is an ex-GM suspension engineer, IIRC, so has been doing this a while.

Also, as mentioned above, there is a reason that everyone uses the 3-link/panhard combo, because it works!!! The alternatives include a watts link, NOT the stock Watts link, a real one with proper lateral links, or a mumsford link. Both are more complex heavier, and although arguably better in some instances, but the panhard has good packaging, light weight, and when setup, very minute later deflection as it moves through its range of motion.

Cheers,
Travis

Icemastr

iTrader: (2)

275/35/18 Falken RT512s all around should do the trick.

DriveFast7

iTrader: (1)

U can develop a lotus link for the 1st gen which'll handle better.

I talked to a guy back in 95 who autocrossed his 1st gen and got 1.2G on the autox course, and 1.1G on the Big Track @ Willow Springs that day per his little computer.

skrewloose78

not to hijack the thread. im not trying to be cheap about this but im looking at an investment of about $1000 in the suspension on my -se. and i would like to know as much about it as possible.

Hyper4mance2k

iTrader: (40)

I was thinking about a lotus link, but I have been unable to see any pics of what it looks like except for the Yaw pics which aren't very revealing. I've found all sorts of info on a mumford link And I'm seriously considering it. Mazda used a wats link with heim joints and I was considering this also. I know that the watts works it's just hard for me to want to go back to an infirior technology when there are better options out there. I would need one hell of an arguement to make me go Panhard over Mumford. I think I'm going to go heim jointed watts and a 3rd link for now and save up and design a beautiful Mumford. What do you all think...

skrewloose78

theres nothing wromg with a properly designed watts linkage. meaning the watts linkage would be centered on the housing. theres actually been a storng increase of watts linkage in the custom truck market for use with airbag set-ups. the mani problem with the factory set-up is that it binds, heim joints would eliminate a great deal of that.

speedturn

iTrader: (1)

The next race you can see the G-Force suspension on my old 1st gen tub chassis IMSA car will be at Daytona, November 9 thru 12 for the Daytona Continental Historic Races sanctioned by HSR.

I have tried high dollar Watt's links with all heim joint end links, and all metal center pivot, and it still was not as good as a simple Panhard bar.

The biggest problem with the Watt's Linkage is getting the roll center down low enough. On a Watt's lingage, the rear roll center IS the center pivot point. Unless you can get the center pivot point down to 6" above ground level, then your complex Watt's link will not be as good as a simple 6" high Panhard bar.

Been there, done that.

DriveFast7

iTrader: (1)

Have you read up on these different suspension designs? To get the foundation and principles? How to Make Your Car Handle by Fred Phun is great, as is CHASSIS ENGINEERING. Pleanty if pics, descirptions, and ideas behind the Lotus.

Also check out http://corner-carvers.com/ forum, they basically say the Mumford is an expensive, heavy, complicated, additional points of failure way to laterally locate the rear.

Panhard is simple and the ability to adjust Roll Center Height is great. Lighter too. FYI the difference in axel movement in Panhard vs. Watts is minimal. My Ground Control panhard (not best design either!) has only 1/8" lateral movement through 6" of suspension movement (3" compression, 3" extension). Car handeled tons better with the panhard vs stocker watts link. Tons. No snap oversteer.

Hyper4mance2k

iTrader: (40)

just the cool thing about the mumford is that if it's properly engieneered the roll center can be theoreticly below the ground. How awesome is that...

RotaryAXer

iTrader: (4)

Say it together now.

RotaryAXer

iTrader: (4)

So if that is good, explain why.

Where does the roll center of the front need to be to compliment it? On a car that is lowered the front roll center is already close to the ground if not below it. On a strut suspension this means that you get a lot of lateral movement of the roll center and this is NOT good. Imagine the roll center moving around very rapidly outside the track width as a car is entering and exiting a turn.

It is very typical that the front roll center is lower than the rear so that the roll axis has a slight downward inclination (B to F). If you put the rear below ground the front would theoretically need to be even lower and the lateral movement gets even worse.

Why is it good for the rear roll center to be below ground?

Hyper4mance2k

iTrader: (40)

I was just saying that if need be it can be done. You can put the roll center anywhere you want it with a mumford. And I mean anywhere.

RotaryAXer

iTrader: (4)

That is true.

I think that with a Panhard you can also engineer it to put the roll center just about anywhere reasonable also. The roll center will always be at the center of the panhard.

The real nice thing about a panhard is that you can adjust very easily. Especially with the G-Force slotted style. You can make changes to the roll center height in millimeter increments if you are careful enough. This can be done between autocross runs on a two driver car. With a noticeable difference and improved feel. That is how easy and practical it is.

Hyper4mance2k

iTrader: (40)

I'm prolly going to design my own setup close to this one for Mudstains.

http://www.fays2.net/

DamonB

Since you're going to design your own rear suspension and ignore all the work the others have done, explain what the roll center is and why you would like to be able to adjust it. Then explain why you want it below ground level rather than above ground level.

OtakuRX

iTrader: (1)

Thats a neat device, hmm, maybe I will draw one up for the FB and see if I can put one together also.

Hyper4mance2k

iTrader: (40)

I would, but I charge people for my knowlege. If you really need to know Sport compact car just finished a great suspension series, and there are some great books that can start you off in your quest for knowlege, or you could search, but I'm not going to spoon feed you....

T_Racer

iTrader: (1)

If the rear roll center is below the front roll center, you are designing in understeer. You need them close, but this is explained in How to make your race car handle, Fred Puhn. I keep it in the center console, and read it anytime, in line at the bank, stuck in wreck traffic. Not while driving though.
The setup that you have looks good, but heavy and complex. The main thing that is wrong with the stock setup is binding, on top of other things with the watts not having equal length lateral links. By going with the panhard and torque arm, you get a lot of advantages. You lose the upper links altogether. This lets the axle articulate a lot more ridding the snap oversteer thing. Second, the panhard is EASILY adjusted if you wanted to change the roll center to suit track conditions, as is it easy to properly locate it, read parralell to the ground with a full load in the car. It is just a compact, effificent, and relatively light package.
We run a 81 full cage, g-force panhard, torque arm, and stock lower links. No rear bar either. All of the panhard, torque arm, is heim jointed. Pinion angle, or thurst angle, is adjustable through the torque arm. Axle is solid back there while driving, no surprises, drive it through 60 mph oversteers with no nasty surprises. There are more people that know a lot more than I do, just my .02.
Also, while keeping in mind that he is trying to convince you to the advantages of his stuff, I would recommend that you give Jim Susko at G-Force and talk to him. He will ask you about your setup, your goals, your future plans, and answer any questions that you might have. He really is a wealth of information and could answer some of your questions or some things that you believe and tell you if they are correct, and if so or if not, why or why not?

Cheers,
Travis