fot
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Fot] Neg. camber on 1964 tr4

To: Bill Babcock <ponobill@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Fot] Neg. camber on 1964 tr4
From: Larry Young <cartravel@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 19:40:37 -0500
Cc: fot@autox.team.net
Delivered-to: mharc@autox.team.net
Delivered-to: fot@autox.team.net
References: <4A37CD413E64BE45A53C530F73023B8B2F7FBCDD@CSMC-EXMB02.calstar.corp><20130309191902.12BD640528@autox.team.net> <513CA9F5.8090209@pobox.com> <60FA7EC52AB144DB92066A6EDF0718CD@ComputerPC> <0B3196E9-37D4-4F37-B4F7-49F5C04031C6@bnj.com>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130215 Thunderbird/17.0.3
I think that is the same software I used.  I did not find an appreciable 
difference between the two methods (shortening the A arms or moving the 
pivots inwards).  You don't really need suspension software to look at 
this simple stuff.  I found a spreadsheet agreed with it and was not as 
cumbersome.

On 3/10/2013 7:06 PM, Bill Babcock wrote:I
> According to the analysis I did with my suspension software (SuspPro) the 
> most useful way to change camber on a TR3 is to move the upper arms inward 
> and kee.p them the same length. I use the TR6 bits to get caster and cut the 
> upper arms to add heim joints to make an adjustable arm, but the length is 
> close to stock, just has the pivot moved inwards.
>
> If you shorten the upper A arms you wind up with a lot of camber at full 
> bump. It's also pretty hard to get the bump steer out with shorter arms, the 
> outer pivot point moves well inside the lower pivot.
_______________________________________________
fot@autox.team.net

http://www.fot-racing.com

Archive: http://www.team.net/archive


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>