Welcome to TSG - This channel will be a chronicle of my efforts in my little garage. The current build is a 1966 Volvo Canadian (Amazon/122) and I'll cover each step as I attempt to transform this car from good to great.
your grill looks great - I couldn't find what thickness your stainless was - you have inspired me to try thanks
@3DScan2Print-ky1lc3 күн бұрын
i know its years ago and you likely forget but what issue did you find was taking the most time when trying to mock up the plastic jig? i thinking to make my own for welding, thanks in advance
@MikePeron-ci3dq6 күн бұрын
Vinegar 1 week in a kids blue pool no grinding... try it works great!
@ThrottleStopGarage4 күн бұрын
Thanks for the tip!
@matthewmoilanen7878 күн бұрын
I realize it's been a while since this vid but that filleting was is available through EZ composites from the UK. They also deal in Canada. I'm sure u also know they have many help vids but I watch them over sometimes.
@ThrottleStopGarage7 күн бұрын
Yes, that's where I got the wax in the end. Very helpful.
@joshuaolson52658 күн бұрын
This video talked about a program software that can help you and discussed the details the suspension variables kzread.info/dash/bejne/l5toxqtufsy3m7Q.htmlsi=sLp0ijBVfsHlF1s3
@The_Performance_Laboratory8 күн бұрын
Excellent video.
@ThrottleStopGarage7 күн бұрын
Thank you very much!
@BAMAJiPS9 күн бұрын
Its absolutely stupid they want $700-900 for these kits and you can print them on a $200 printer. Its ludicrous. Kit should be ~$150-200
@ThrottleStopGarage7 күн бұрын
Agreed, but they seem to sell quite a few kits. I just can't justify the cost when I have a few 3D printers.
@BAMAJiPS7 күн бұрын
@@ThrottleStopGarage i hate to be so caustic about it, but its literally some blow molded plastic that probably costs them $5 per kit. (Not sure of their particular process but still...) I realize molds and design time are in there but it seems way over the top to charge that much. It prevents home gamers from trying and encourages going to thingyverse and investing in a 3d printer or two. And I understand being on the no to little demand side of things and how exorbitant low volume parts are having a 1976 Ford Elite 400 - a set of A arms is $500... I dunno. I think the company(ies) that make these are taking the wrong approach here
@ThrottleStopGarage6 күн бұрын
@@BAMAJiPS 100% agree. That's why I've put the models on thingiverse. You can 3D print them for free. I would bet that if they lowered the price, the'd sell a bunch more - probably more than they think. I'd rather buy these things than build them if the price is reasonable.
@wilmerbarrios2139 күн бұрын
Hello... From Venezuela... A question... What is the name of the hydraulic or electric tool for ironing aluminum or iron sheets?
@ThrottleStopGarage7 күн бұрын
Do you mean a planishing hammer?
@wilmerbarrios2137 күн бұрын
@@ThrottleStopGarage YES... I HAVE SEEN IT IN SEVERAL VIDEOS... I DON'T KNOW WITHOUT TIRES OR ELECTRICS... I JUST WANT THE NAME OR CODE TO LOOK FOR THEM ON AMAZON...
@AlpacaRenee9 күн бұрын
How much were the new dies? Thanks for the good video. My philosophy on HF tools is: Unless I can eventually use it as a doorstop or hammer, I don’t buy it. In this case, you’re ok. These are heavy enough to be used as a doorstop😇
@ThrottleStopGarage7 күн бұрын
I recall them being a little over $100 USD for each set. Agreed on the tools...I try to avoid the cheap tool temptation.
@sbasam11 күн бұрын
Wow, I love your honesty and the way you explained your process. From my experience, I would say most will run in loops because of the lack of tyre data available, as most things are fundamentally linked to those characteristics. It is interesting to use existing vehicles to determine your foundation numbers; however, it would say you should make sure you have similar spec tyres to those vehicles and have similar weight and centre of gravity. So, the critical pieces of data characteristics you are missing are the following Slip angle Vertical load Horizontal load Alignment torque Rolling resistance Another factor would be the aero characteristics of the vehicle. I look forward to seeing more videos from you. When I was a student, my go-to was Race Vehicle Dynamics. I think everything I've stated is within that book. Essentially, they say that the suspension is designed for the tyres and keeping them in their ideal window
@ThrottleStopGarage10 күн бұрын
Thanks - I hold fast to the notion that honesty is the only policy. We learn by our mistakes. In the next episode, I will expand a bit and try to resolve the selected variables from first principles. I was missing a few details that I've now got filled in and will work that through. It would have been too much in the first video!
@GregoryBrettin11 күн бұрын
REALLY helpful. Thanks for the video. I've never used a gun before so I want to give this a try.
@ThrottleStopGarage10 күн бұрын
It works very well!
@khanglenguyen980613 күн бұрын
what a work of art
@ThrottleStopGarage12 күн бұрын
Thank you.
@paulwhiteman362513 күн бұрын
Thanks so much for sharing that hard earned information with us, sir. I'm just at the same stage with my build and wasn't confident with the direction I was going in. I'm utilising MX5 front and rear hubs on a scratch built Lotus 11 I,m currently building and was hoping use the same upper and lower control arms but with a different track width. I think I need to go downtrend route you've taken to haveany success...
@ThrottleStopGarage12 күн бұрын
I am glad this was helpful. I'm just working on a better method for determining roll and pitch centres. Next video will have these details.
@bobroberts237113 күн бұрын
The explanation of front view design is great, start with the track width you need, add a few locations at the wheel, start from the center of the car then connect the dots. I'll be waiting for the side view and am hoping for a top view vid as well. Concerning top view, most if not all street cars ( use a 77 to 90 full sized GM ) have the lower control arm rotated so the front pivots are closer together. I'm not sure why this is done but I think it interacts with what I'm typing below. The upper is rotated as well but I'd have to look at a suspension to see what way. As for side view, the control arms pivots are tilted relative to each other , I'm pretty sure this has to do with anti dive where braking forces try to add spring rate to the front suspension. Think of it this way. If the brake was locked and you applied a torque in the direction of forward motion , how much torque would it take to move the suspension into droop? High torque = minimal anti dive = nose droops a lot under braking. Low torque = high anti dive = minimal nose droop = possibly too high of an effective spring rate leading to turn in problems.
@ThrottleStopGarage12 күн бұрын
Yup - working on these two views now. I'm going to start with a review of the roll and pitch centre to clear up that point.
@bobroberts237113 күн бұрын
When poking around with suspension camber gain / loss, I've used a peg board and furring strips to simulate different A arm locations and lengths.
@ThrottleStopGarage12 күн бұрын
I've done the same - the combo of the web based platform and the CAD software now replace much of this, but getting a "feel" is important for me.
@jogme13 күн бұрын
Swoops farmer claws fit great
@ThrottleStopGarage13 күн бұрын
I'm happy with the fit.
@keithbrown487813 күн бұрын
Brown aviation and Aircraft tools in riveting section at some very conservatively priced tools For hammer forming
@ThrottleStopGarage13 күн бұрын
I'll check them out - thanks.
@zebdeming15 күн бұрын
Great video! Most of my experience is as an auto tech performing alignments, and while trying to learn more than the basic stuff, it always seems as if most people don't understand. Your video is an excellent explanation of how things work! I've also found that FDF Raceshop's videos were absolutely amazing as far as simplifying the angles involved and how they effect each other kzread.info/dash/bejne/aqip0sWwcaazlrg.htmlsi=oyel6vc4kDc7bJT9
@MarshallJung15 күн бұрын
Cool video! I use the C4 front suspension for my race car, and I did a few things to help (not solve) the issue that you observe. My first solution was to get a longer lower control arm ball joint from Howe. Does put the control arm close to wheel hoop though, but 18" wheels clear fine. I also chucked the upper control arm cross bar spacers in the lathe and cut them down to the absolute minimum in the back and enough in the front that I could run more caster than stock for camber gain under steering input. Still doesn't give more than bout 2 degrees maximum static camber and I am going to go to a custom shorter upper control arm to get that sorted. Lowering the upper arm inboard pickup points would help as well, but not sure how much fabrication I'm willing to undertake. Nice video, thanks for making it!
@ThrottleStopGarage14 күн бұрын
Cool. I've got a set of those taller lower ball joints (1/2" if memory serves) that were part of my original optimization quest.
@wecapel16 күн бұрын
I could only make it through 1/3 of the video before having to stop watching. Having built many chassis with the C4 suspension, I think you should ride/drive a car with it installed correctly before you assume things are not good. Your 2 dimensional approach is probably not the best. Your assumption that you have a grasp on suspension design and it should be shared with the world may be a bit off as well. Hopefully too many people don't watch this video as a tutorial.
@ThrottleStopGarage14 күн бұрын
Why even comment? You didn't even watch the design part. I'm not making assumptions, this is what they do...it won't work for me. GM changed it for a reason.
@geekman99916 күн бұрын
Just discovered this channel and this is truly amazing and fascinating. I'm an engineer who first started before my degree, and had to ask what your background is because I am genuinely impressed at your ability to ally practical manipulations and theory.
@ThrottleStopGarage14 күн бұрын
I'm a scientist.
@monstertrucker3516 күн бұрын
I’ve been following you for a very…very long time, and I’ve got to say, this one so far is my favorite.
@ThrottleStopGarage14 күн бұрын
Thanks, much appreciated.
@salloroc2016 күн бұрын
Your camber is clearly going negative, not positive with bump. Are you confused?
@ThrottleStopGarage14 күн бұрын
The level wasn't sitting flush on the hub when I filmed this and I didn't catch the error. The computer model is correct. It does go negative, but goes positive first. Anyway, my mistake trying to get this filed when tired.
@salloroc2014 күн бұрын
@@ThrottleStopGarage I was seriously confused!
@ThrottleStopGarage14 күн бұрын
@salloroc20 sorry about that. There is no way to fix it once the video is released.
@hilbilchillbil17 күн бұрын
Great explanation looking forward to the next episode
@ThrottleStopGarage17 күн бұрын
Glad you enjoyed it
@Zealdave222317 күн бұрын
loved it. i am still a little confused but thats not unusual, the ah-ha moment will come after a few read troughs. This is well worth a subscription.
@ThrottleStopGarage17 күн бұрын
Thanks - more to come as we sort out some of the details I had to leave out of this first video.
@PetesWorkshop17 күн бұрын
I really need this. I am very reluctant to continue ‘trying’ to work with 40+ year old suspension parts and constraints, especially when it is well known that bump steer was an issue back then. I actually like the idea of starting from scratch on my mk7 Bolwell.
@ThrottleStopGarage17 күн бұрын
Glad it is helping.
@bwcordes17 күн бұрын
Hubris? I'm officially in on this, and a new subscriber. I love hubris!
@ThrottleStopGarage17 күн бұрын
Welcome - hubris is a specialty.
@blackbandit129017 күн бұрын
Great work, well done. Look forward to the next 'teaching' session.
@ThrottleStopGarage17 күн бұрын
More to come! I have to crack the nut of the side and top view geometries. That should be next.
@bergenrallyteam364817 күн бұрын
Nice work! Like another poster commented xf motorsports did a great job explaining stuff. But I would also suggest this video, it's geared to formula student design but great information. kzread.info/dash/bejne/m31_qtGcl8ifg8Y.htmlsi=OA30hKCmtrX_NkQV
@lobrow766117 күн бұрын
Awesome work! Man, how in the hell do you get all that done in such a small space? Bravo!!!
@ThrottleStopGarage17 күн бұрын
Thank you very much! I'm used to the tiny space. I hope to get a larger garage built in the future.
@surfsidetide982117 күн бұрын
Appreciate your effort
@ThrottleStopGarage17 күн бұрын
Thanks a lot
@SylvesterOziomek17 күн бұрын
You are welcome. Not many people would make an effort to make things right. Most seem offended when they face criticism, even if it's constructive. Little correction: last point, the position of the upper a-arm can't be anywhere on that line. Upper a-arm should be shorter than the lower one, if you make it longer you're going to have similar problem as before. Little tip: if possible extend the distance between the lower a-arms mounts to 615mm to match the steering rack length, and put the steering rack with tie rods on the same height, this way you'll have 0 bump steer.
@ThrottleStopGarage17 күн бұрын
Thanks again - you sent me back to look and I learned. That's always appreciated. I'm thinking that the lower arm can be asymmetrical from the top view so that I can do what you're suggesting. I haven't worked out the forces yet - but my sense is that it should be fine. Getting that steering rack away from the engine allowing everything to be lower (lower CG) is massive in getting this right.
@SylvesterOziomek17 күн бұрын
@@ThrottleStopGarage Designing/building a car is an art of compromise, I say you don't design the car you want but you design the car that components allow you to. That s.r. position would be ideal and it look like you have some space but even if you won't be able to put the steering rack there, you should be fine couple cm higher as long as steer. rack ball joints will be on lines connecting lower and upper a-arms mounts.
@ig88bhg17 күн бұрын
Fantastic stuff...really impressive. I've got a similar project ('66 122 wagon) I'm just starting to sketch out for an engine swap. This suspension piece is one of the things holding me up.
@ThrottleStopGarage17 күн бұрын
Love the wagon. What engine are you swapping?
@ig88bhg13 күн бұрын
A mercedes M113 5L. It's a tight fit, but if I can just figure out what to do about those upper control arms...she should shoehorn in!
@kentmckean679517 күн бұрын
Wow, just wow!
@ThrottleStopGarage17 күн бұрын
Thanks!
@Zukunftretro17 күн бұрын
I love this project! And especially the approach you take to every part of it
@ThrottleStopGarage17 күн бұрын
Thanks so much!
@SB-vb8ch18 күн бұрын
I used some cheap 350z front wheel bearings on a custom front suspension I built a few years ago, they lasted around 300 miles before they developed significant play. I replaced them witn SKF units. I took the easier option of basically copying MX5 front geometry & fabricated the uprights + wishbones to suit.
@ThrottleStopGarage17 күн бұрын
I was surprised by the differences. The cheap hubs had thinner wheel mount faces and while they're dimensionally the same, they feel different. They're looser than the SKF's. Did you weld your upright or have them machined?
@ultra4suzukisamurai67918 күн бұрын
I’ve found that I had to read many many books to get the whole picture. No one book by its self made these topics make sense to me.
@ThrottleStopGarage17 күн бұрын
For sure - I have even walked away, thinking I have understood the chapter, then returned to some detail that just doesn't sound right. Like I don't like the M&M description of side view...it seems too simple. I understand the intersection of planes but the description of the motion can't be right. I've seen it - it's not a simple path - it's complicated. It probably also doesn't matter - but then again, maybe it does.
@michaellorenson299718 күн бұрын
I applaud you for tackling this complicated and slippery challenge, and I hope it works out very well for you. However, the C4 Corvette was known as an excellent handling car, so I'd be careful about thinking that you've discovered that its front suspension geometry is garbage. It was particularly good on the race track, where the 'problems' you describe should be at their worst. Having said that, Corvette Engineering did redesign the C4's front suspension slightly for the 1988-96 cars, which got even wider tires than the 1984-87 cars had. Lotus Engineering consulted on the project. They widened the front suspension (the distance between the wheel hub faces) a couple of inches - about an inch on each side - by lengthening the A-arms. That necessitated a series of other adjustments, as you can now well imagine. The wider the tire, the less tolerant it is of camber change during suspension movement, and I suspect that's why this was done. Longer arms generally result in reduced camber change during suspension motion. They also, as I recall, _did_ reduce the scrub radius in that redesign, and I have a vague recollection that this was specifically suggested by the Lotus engineers. Scrub radius is part of the 'black art' of tuning an overall front suspension design package, and tires had come an _awfully_ long way since the last time the Corvette guys had redesigned theirs, way back when they designed the 1963 C2 Corvette. So maybe their first C4 iteration wasn't absolutely perfect, but it was damned good. It definitely _wasn't_ all wrong, or junk, or stupid, or anything like that. Just saying...
@ThrottleStopGarage17 күн бұрын
Sorry, I was trying to say what you've said here. It's not garbage, it's fine for a C4 Corvette. The overall dynamics are meant to work in a system with the rear suspension. You're correct, they did change a few things in the later cars and the C5 and C6 are evolutions of this concept. I tried to stop short of saying it's bad - it's just suited to the car it was designed to work in and hacking away at it without doing the engineering is not a good idea. It also wasn't my idea - but the person that sold me the shortened cross member. I'm a little annoyed that they didn't take the time to work out the kinks so that it would work. I'm only a few thousand dollars in the hole because I didn't want to do this.
@thunderbirdizations18 күн бұрын
30:28💥
@ThrottleStopGarage17 күн бұрын
It was a bit of a revelation.
@thunderbirdizations18 күн бұрын
1:40 ❤ I find myself in too many diy projects because nobody’s invented it yet
@thunderbirdizations18 күн бұрын
6:22 LOL
@ThrottleStopGarage17 күн бұрын
Horses for courses.
@ThrottleStopGarage17 күн бұрын
Indeed - I find this teetering on the edge of the unknown stuff oddly relaxing. I think we're just wired to innovate.
@codysmithmotorsports73618 күн бұрын
Talking about camber gain around 9min. Actually looks like you went from a half degree postitive camber to negative 1.5 with bump (i assume your angle gauge 's bumb feature should be same as a level bubble). Regardless of that, its still not enough static camber at ride height or enough gain through the travel. Such a low roll center is counter to where I'm going through with testing on my car. However yours is WAY lighter than mine. If you have the room don't be afraid to add chassis side adjustment for the lower arm that's higher up. Which will directly raise the roll center. Up and down adjustment for the upper arm is a good idea too. I was once told anything that can be made adjustable is a good move. The camber gain target you showed seems too little if you plan spirited driving. Super basic but i set mine by sitting on the fender and using the angle cube to measure body roll (2.4), then set the cube on the tire to check for gain or loss. I went with a degree more negative gain than body roll as a place to start. Best year I've had yet in tire longevity/wear doing street, autocross, and track days. I don't know what that gain is vs compression travel but it is definitely more than .6/inch. However a street only setup probably wint need the additional camber gain. In aggressive driving it does need more because you also have to compensate for tire deflection. Overall, good video! I also spent months researching just to start understanding what's all going on when everything moves.
@ThrottleStopGarage18 күн бұрын
When I filmed the level, it wasn't flat to the hub and I didn't notice. The computer model is correct and it's not great. I am still working on the roll and camber curve. This will get more attention as I do the side view.
@codysmithmotorsports73618 күн бұрын
@@ThrottleStopGarage Oh, and if you haven't figured it out yet. The lower arm primarily locates the roll center height and the upper dictates camber gain. Yes, both affect on the other but to a much lesser effect.
@codysmithmotorsports73618 күн бұрын
@@ThrottleStopGaragesomeone else was commenting about the rack placement. Easiest/obvious placement is with the tie rod pivots lined up with the lower control arm pivots. Then place the outer tie rod lined up with the ball joint. If they follow the same arc then it can't bump steer beyond some pretty minor differences.
@ThrottleStopGarage17 күн бұрын
@@codysmithmotorsports736 I'll go over that detail in the next video...I think.
@daddyholliday18 күн бұрын
keep goin !!!!!!
@ThrottleStopGarage18 күн бұрын
Thanks
@kennethdong849018 күн бұрын
Hi Craig: You can check out my approach anytime. Get a bunch of random suspension parts from China, throw them in by eyeball and hope for the best. Not a lot of calculation since we are measuring to thin air anyhow. The electric car driveline has arrived.
@ThrottleStopGarage18 күн бұрын
I'll have to drop over and see the electric parts!
@frostyab757918 күн бұрын
should have used program called SusProg3d
@bewernia18 күн бұрын
I love your channel. I've wanted to build a car forever and this way I can build it vicariously through you. (I have the "Engineering To Win" book too.) One other thing: Considering the care and detail you go through I don't understand why you only have 46k subscribers. Rebuilding cars is fine, but honestly wouldn't hot rodders rather build their cars from just a donor body on up?
@ThrottleStopGarage18 күн бұрын
Thanks, much appreciated. I don't think I'll ever hit 100k subs. As long as we're all having fun, it's fine.
@randycollett174618 күн бұрын
Thank you for explaining where some of the points in space come from and what is acceptable from a design point of view. From the way your thinking is progressing I am assuming you are going to machine your own uprights. From my experience (formula car racing) and research the suspension design starts with the upright, especially from the home workshop environment, as it is expensive to manufacture. It is usually more efficient to start with a production upright that has a minimum of compromises. Have you got one in mind? I am currently have the some of the same issues on my current project, a 77 Monza, which have crappy front suspension geometry, crappy uprights that don’t allow big brakes, good hubs, etc.
@ThrottleStopGarage18 күн бұрын
That's basically what I'm doing by defining the scrub and SAI first. These are upright variables. I'll probably get the uprights machined. Next up, side view...then I can sort that out.
@randycollett174617 күн бұрын
I was having difficulty understanding why you picked the ball joint locations, but after some thought i believe the lower inner was dictated by where the rack would be and the uppers chosen for the camber curve desired. As an aside your basic geometry is almost the same as Carrol Smith shows in Engineer to Win.
@ThrottleStopGarage17 күн бұрын
@@randycollett1746 That's pretty much the case. I tried to locate the lower so that I would have clearance to the brake rotor (this was a challenge) and had it at around the same height as the LCA mount on the frame. These took a few tries to get right. I've read all Carrol Smith's books - while I didn't follow his method in this video - it's more or less Ch 17 in RCVD, I'm not surprised that they're similar. Things for sure gelled for me and a lot of this stuff started to make sense very recently.
@k.bellingham833519 күн бұрын
Thank you Craig for doing what few have the patience for. Basics, camber gain; when you "bumped" the wheel up first 1" and then 3", you lost negative camber gain, you didn't gain camber. Maybe you just misspoke there but it's an important point when we're talking negative vs positive, losing vs gaining, concave vs convex bla bla. The upper control arm is obviously shorter than the lower, as both move through their respective arc ranges, the shorter arm has no choice but to result in offering "negative camber gain". The problem is the upper and lower arms are not parallel, causing some "loss" at different points through the range of travel, but ultimately will give negative camber gain. The geometry has no choice but to produce this result, the upper arm is shorter. In the Racing Aspirations software it is clearly set up differently to what you have on the bench in your garage, in the software version the arms are very nearly parallel, the Corvette is very clearly not parallel. Sorry if this sounds like I'm angry, really I'm not, I'm only wanting to clarify why you lost camber gain, the upper arm begins, lets call it drooped, the lower arm has some degrees of "rise" from the "at rest" starting positions of your experiment to see what the suspension was physically giving you. This is where the dark arts show up, bump steer, weight jacking, roll center, roll axis on and on, this is why this is all so difficult to master. Before you move on to the side view, you have more work to do from the front view. Ford went to an extreme to "correct" for roll center migration, they designed the infamous Twin Torsion bar suspension. This provided for a really smooth soft supple ride, but did nothing for handling or tire wear. It was a cheap solution or alternative to Chevy's double A arm suspension, which is as you are finding out, very complicated to mitigate all the negative compromises required for mass produced suspension. Remember the Corvair, lawsuits were abundant because the geometry/design was flawed from the beginning. As important as reading and studying the available printed material is, like another "commenter" said, an RC, radio controlled toy car can teach you as much as all those books combined. I highly recommend getting a RC car to test your theories/setup/geometry. Don't get me started on roll center, every race car mechanic has their own opinion of what is the optimal height and they have tested their theories on the track, go to a local circle track and talk to those guys, invaluable. Pavement or asphalt racers would be optimal as you want your car to run on the street. Oh, and potholes, don't forget our Alberta roads mostly suck.
@ThrottleStopGarage19 күн бұрын
Thanks - I did fumble with the words a bit there and the level was hung on the edge of the lug nut and showing the opposite of what is happening at ride height - that segment is a bit of a mess. Viewers caught it - I'm too tired. The computer model is correct and the path is funky for the C4 - good enough and I can sleep well enough.
@donthompson218819 күн бұрын
Have been following along since you started this project. FYI, those moog ball joints may be a bit stiff. After going through the task of redesigning my 66 mustang suspension, I discovered the ball joints were binding causing all of my driving tests and the conclusions I came to, were invalid. Glad to see you choosing a low friction joint. Nothing like having to start all over, again.
@ThrottleStopGarage18 күн бұрын
I was surprised how stiff they were! I'm only using them for mock up and for making the arms.
@arrindaley371419 күн бұрын
It seems like it's going in a better direction, the corvette suspension looked wierd to me as it had the upper control arm sloping outwards rather than inwards as is custom, therefore the corvette instant centre would've been outside the wheel. I wonder what the result of mounting the inside of the corvette upper control arm lower would've been, this would to my mind put the instant centre in a more conventional spot (therefore a better roll centre) and also give better negative camber gain. When you rolled the vehicle in the model it was still losing contact patch, perhaps it could use some more negative camber gain? Where is the steering rack in this? If you don't consider the location of the rack you'll likely get bumpsteer or rollsteer issues (you measured the width so I assume it was in the modeling). Rather than inputing standard figures for camber gain why not calculate what camber you need? Camber gain required is equal to the degrees of roll, you've got the track width and a reasonable idea of suspension travel which should be enough to calculate it with some trigonometry. An older euro vehicle will tend to be less track width so may not be the same as more modern. Also camber curves depend on which suspension it is, macpherson struts go entirely the wrong way and are forced to start with too much negative camber so they have some left in bump.
@ThrottleStopGarage19 күн бұрын
Yes - the IC's are outside the wheel. Things are not quite as I've shown them as the level was not flat on the hub and eagle-eyed viewers picked up what I was too tired to notice. The computer model is correct, it's a little not what you'd expect - point made. When I optimized it before, the 3D software had me moving a lot of things to get the attributes I wanted and it looked quite different. That's why I bought the stock crossmember - to find out what GM thought it should be. Steering rack is in place in the 2D model and designed around zero bump steer - probably the most important parameter. I'm just learning - the trick for me was not knowing what "reasonable" is with the parameter. So what's a reasonable lateral G? What sort of roll is not crazy? How little is too little? I'm all ears for feedback on these parameters. They are what is needed to do the entire thing properly. I am going to do this for the 3D model - but the 3D model needs inputs and I just needed to start. Does this make sense?
@arrindaley371418 күн бұрын
@@ThrottleStopGarage a lot of even amateur racers have lateral G's on thier videos, most seem to see less than 1.5G from memory. When I calculated roll for my suspension I used available travel in bump and droop from ride height, ie if you've 4" inches in bump and 4" inches in droop that's 8" across the track width of the car trigonometry means you can work out an angle of roll that would be the upper limit.
@kathysarmcandy199219 күн бұрын
When I was in service, doing hundreds of maintenance and crash alignments over my 35 years, I kept an RC car with adjustable A-Arms, to demonstrate what you're showing. It had tiny bubble levels glued all over it. Great visual tool.
@ThrottleStopGarage19 күн бұрын
Cool - I've got a little model I made to prove the Ackerman relationship to steering rack position. I just couldn't visualize the complex relationship.
@kathysarmcandy199219 күн бұрын
@@ThrottleStopGarage Are your "adjustment range" calculations accounting for vehicle loaded weight, driver and full gas? I'd be bummed if I ran out of caster or camber(ride height dependant). And trying to nail the spring rates will be added rocket science. Generally speaking, alignment spec loads are with 3/4 fuel and a 70kg driver, which I guess is out of date now. eyeroll.
@ThrottleStopGarage19 күн бұрын
@@kathysarmcandy1992 That's the idea...I've got several spreadsheets running with spring/roll and other calculations. I'm not sure how ultimately useful these are as they're copied formulae from others (or were donated by friends who have developed them). My guess is that they're close enough for a first approximation. It will need to be tuned when rolling.
@kathysarmcandy199219 күн бұрын
@@ThrottleStopGarage Adjustable upper ball joints, I see similar to your screw-ins. Don't forget to make friends with an alignment shop. On and off hours after work and buy the shop pizza is totally worth it.
Пікірлер
your grill looks great - I couldn't find what thickness your stainless was - you have inspired me to try thanks
i know its years ago and you likely forget but what issue did you find was taking the most time when trying to mock up the plastic jig? i thinking to make my own for welding, thanks in advance
Vinegar 1 week in a kids blue pool no grinding... try it works great!
Thanks for the tip!
I realize it's been a while since this vid but that filleting was is available through EZ composites from the UK. They also deal in Canada. I'm sure u also know they have many help vids but I watch them over sometimes.
Yes, that's where I got the wax in the end. Very helpful.
This video talked about a program software that can help you and discussed the details the suspension variables kzread.info/dash/bejne/l5toxqtufsy3m7Q.htmlsi=sLp0ijBVfsHlF1s3
Excellent video.
Thank you very much!
Its absolutely stupid they want $700-900 for these kits and you can print them on a $200 printer. Its ludicrous. Kit should be ~$150-200
Agreed, but they seem to sell quite a few kits. I just can't justify the cost when I have a few 3D printers.
@@ThrottleStopGarage i hate to be so caustic about it, but its literally some blow molded plastic that probably costs them $5 per kit. (Not sure of their particular process but still...) I realize molds and design time are in there but it seems way over the top to charge that much. It prevents home gamers from trying and encourages going to thingyverse and investing in a 3d printer or two. And I understand being on the no to little demand side of things and how exorbitant low volume parts are having a 1976 Ford Elite 400 - a set of A arms is $500... I dunno. I think the company(ies) that make these are taking the wrong approach here
@@BAMAJiPS 100% agree. That's why I've put the models on thingiverse. You can 3D print them for free. I would bet that if they lowered the price, the'd sell a bunch more - probably more than they think. I'd rather buy these things than build them if the price is reasonable.
Hello... From Venezuela... A question... What is the name of the hydraulic or electric tool for ironing aluminum or iron sheets?
Do you mean a planishing hammer?
@@ThrottleStopGarage YES... I HAVE SEEN IT IN SEVERAL VIDEOS... I DON'T KNOW WITHOUT TIRES OR ELECTRICS... I JUST WANT THE NAME OR CODE TO LOOK FOR THEM ON AMAZON...
How much were the new dies? Thanks for the good video. My philosophy on HF tools is: Unless I can eventually use it as a doorstop or hammer, I don’t buy it. In this case, you’re ok. These are heavy enough to be used as a doorstop😇
I recall them being a little over $100 USD for each set. Agreed on the tools...I try to avoid the cheap tool temptation.
Wow, I love your honesty and the way you explained your process. From my experience, I would say most will run in loops because of the lack of tyre data available, as most things are fundamentally linked to those characteristics. It is interesting to use existing vehicles to determine your foundation numbers; however, it would say you should make sure you have similar spec tyres to those vehicles and have similar weight and centre of gravity. So, the critical pieces of data characteristics you are missing are the following Slip angle Vertical load Horizontal load Alignment torque Rolling resistance Another factor would be the aero characteristics of the vehicle. I look forward to seeing more videos from you. When I was a student, my go-to was Race Vehicle Dynamics. I think everything I've stated is within that book. Essentially, they say that the suspension is designed for the tyres and keeping them in their ideal window
Thanks - I hold fast to the notion that honesty is the only policy. We learn by our mistakes. In the next episode, I will expand a bit and try to resolve the selected variables from first principles. I was missing a few details that I've now got filled in and will work that through. It would have been too much in the first video!
REALLY helpful. Thanks for the video. I've never used a gun before so I want to give this a try.
It works very well!
what a work of art
Thank you.
Thanks so much for sharing that hard earned information with us, sir. I'm just at the same stage with my build and wasn't confident with the direction I was going in. I'm utilising MX5 front and rear hubs on a scratch built Lotus 11 I,m currently building and was hoping use the same upper and lower control arms but with a different track width. I think I need to go downtrend route you've taken to haveany success...
I am glad this was helpful. I'm just working on a better method for determining roll and pitch centres. Next video will have these details.
The explanation of front view design is great, start with the track width you need, add a few locations at the wheel, start from the center of the car then connect the dots. I'll be waiting for the side view and am hoping for a top view vid as well. Concerning top view, most if not all street cars ( use a 77 to 90 full sized GM ) have the lower control arm rotated so the front pivots are closer together. I'm not sure why this is done but I think it interacts with what I'm typing below. The upper is rotated as well but I'd have to look at a suspension to see what way. As for side view, the control arms pivots are tilted relative to each other , I'm pretty sure this has to do with anti dive where braking forces try to add spring rate to the front suspension. Think of it this way. If the brake was locked and you applied a torque in the direction of forward motion , how much torque would it take to move the suspension into droop? High torque = minimal anti dive = nose droops a lot under braking. Low torque = high anti dive = minimal nose droop = possibly too high of an effective spring rate leading to turn in problems.
Yup - working on these two views now. I'm going to start with a review of the roll and pitch centre to clear up that point.
When poking around with suspension camber gain / loss, I've used a peg board and furring strips to simulate different A arm locations and lengths.
I've done the same - the combo of the web based platform and the CAD software now replace much of this, but getting a "feel" is important for me.
Swoops farmer claws fit great
I'm happy with the fit.
Brown aviation and Aircraft tools in riveting section at some very conservatively priced tools For hammer forming
I'll check them out - thanks.
Great video! Most of my experience is as an auto tech performing alignments, and while trying to learn more than the basic stuff, it always seems as if most people don't understand. Your video is an excellent explanation of how things work! I've also found that FDF Raceshop's videos were absolutely amazing as far as simplifying the angles involved and how they effect each other kzread.info/dash/bejne/aqip0sWwcaazlrg.htmlsi=oyel6vc4kDc7bJT9
Cool video! I use the C4 front suspension for my race car, and I did a few things to help (not solve) the issue that you observe. My first solution was to get a longer lower control arm ball joint from Howe. Does put the control arm close to wheel hoop though, but 18" wheels clear fine. I also chucked the upper control arm cross bar spacers in the lathe and cut them down to the absolute minimum in the back and enough in the front that I could run more caster than stock for camber gain under steering input. Still doesn't give more than bout 2 degrees maximum static camber and I am going to go to a custom shorter upper control arm to get that sorted. Lowering the upper arm inboard pickup points would help as well, but not sure how much fabrication I'm willing to undertake. Nice video, thanks for making it!
Cool. I've got a set of those taller lower ball joints (1/2" if memory serves) that were part of my original optimization quest.
I could only make it through 1/3 of the video before having to stop watching. Having built many chassis with the C4 suspension, I think you should ride/drive a car with it installed correctly before you assume things are not good. Your 2 dimensional approach is probably not the best. Your assumption that you have a grasp on suspension design and it should be shared with the world may be a bit off as well. Hopefully too many people don't watch this video as a tutorial.
Why even comment? You didn't even watch the design part. I'm not making assumptions, this is what they do...it won't work for me. GM changed it for a reason.
Just discovered this channel and this is truly amazing and fascinating. I'm an engineer who first started before my degree, and had to ask what your background is because I am genuinely impressed at your ability to ally practical manipulations and theory.
I'm a scientist.
I’ve been following you for a very…very long time, and I’ve got to say, this one so far is my favorite.
Thanks, much appreciated.
Your camber is clearly going negative, not positive with bump. Are you confused?
The level wasn't sitting flush on the hub when I filmed this and I didn't catch the error. The computer model is correct. It does go negative, but goes positive first. Anyway, my mistake trying to get this filed when tired.
@@ThrottleStopGarage I was seriously confused!
@salloroc20 sorry about that. There is no way to fix it once the video is released.
Great explanation looking forward to the next episode
Glad you enjoyed it
loved it. i am still a little confused but thats not unusual, the ah-ha moment will come after a few read troughs. This is well worth a subscription.
Thanks - more to come as we sort out some of the details I had to leave out of this first video.
I really need this. I am very reluctant to continue ‘trying’ to work with 40+ year old suspension parts and constraints, especially when it is well known that bump steer was an issue back then. I actually like the idea of starting from scratch on my mk7 Bolwell.
Glad it is helping.
Hubris? I'm officially in on this, and a new subscriber. I love hubris!
Welcome - hubris is a specialty.
Great work, well done. Look forward to the next 'teaching' session.
More to come! I have to crack the nut of the side and top view geometries. That should be next.
Nice work! Like another poster commented xf motorsports did a great job explaining stuff. But I would also suggest this video, it's geared to formula student design but great information. kzread.info/dash/bejne/m31_qtGcl8ifg8Y.htmlsi=OA30hKCmtrX_NkQV
Awesome work! Man, how in the hell do you get all that done in such a small space? Bravo!!!
Thank you very much! I'm used to the tiny space. I hope to get a larger garage built in the future.
Appreciate your effort
Thanks a lot
You are welcome. Not many people would make an effort to make things right. Most seem offended when they face criticism, even if it's constructive. Little correction: last point, the position of the upper a-arm can't be anywhere on that line. Upper a-arm should be shorter than the lower one, if you make it longer you're going to have similar problem as before. Little tip: if possible extend the distance between the lower a-arms mounts to 615mm to match the steering rack length, and put the steering rack with tie rods on the same height, this way you'll have 0 bump steer.
Thanks again - you sent me back to look and I learned. That's always appreciated. I'm thinking that the lower arm can be asymmetrical from the top view so that I can do what you're suggesting. I haven't worked out the forces yet - but my sense is that it should be fine. Getting that steering rack away from the engine allowing everything to be lower (lower CG) is massive in getting this right.
@@ThrottleStopGarage Designing/building a car is an art of compromise, I say you don't design the car you want but you design the car that components allow you to. That s.r. position would be ideal and it look like you have some space but even if you won't be able to put the steering rack there, you should be fine couple cm higher as long as steer. rack ball joints will be on lines connecting lower and upper a-arms mounts.
Fantastic stuff...really impressive. I've got a similar project ('66 122 wagon) I'm just starting to sketch out for an engine swap. This suspension piece is one of the things holding me up.
Love the wagon. What engine are you swapping?
A mercedes M113 5L. It's a tight fit, but if I can just figure out what to do about those upper control arms...she should shoehorn in!
Wow, just wow!
Thanks!
I love this project! And especially the approach you take to every part of it
Thanks so much!
I used some cheap 350z front wheel bearings on a custom front suspension I built a few years ago, they lasted around 300 miles before they developed significant play. I replaced them witn SKF units. I took the easier option of basically copying MX5 front geometry & fabricated the uprights + wishbones to suit.
I was surprised by the differences. The cheap hubs had thinner wheel mount faces and while they're dimensionally the same, they feel different. They're looser than the SKF's. Did you weld your upright or have them machined?
I’ve found that I had to read many many books to get the whole picture. No one book by its self made these topics make sense to me.
For sure - I have even walked away, thinking I have understood the chapter, then returned to some detail that just doesn't sound right. Like I don't like the M&M description of side view...it seems too simple. I understand the intersection of planes but the description of the motion can't be right. I've seen it - it's not a simple path - it's complicated. It probably also doesn't matter - but then again, maybe it does.
I applaud you for tackling this complicated and slippery challenge, and I hope it works out very well for you. However, the C4 Corvette was known as an excellent handling car, so I'd be careful about thinking that you've discovered that its front suspension geometry is garbage. It was particularly good on the race track, where the 'problems' you describe should be at their worst. Having said that, Corvette Engineering did redesign the C4's front suspension slightly for the 1988-96 cars, which got even wider tires than the 1984-87 cars had. Lotus Engineering consulted on the project. They widened the front suspension (the distance between the wheel hub faces) a couple of inches - about an inch on each side - by lengthening the A-arms. That necessitated a series of other adjustments, as you can now well imagine. The wider the tire, the less tolerant it is of camber change during suspension movement, and I suspect that's why this was done. Longer arms generally result in reduced camber change during suspension motion. They also, as I recall, _did_ reduce the scrub radius in that redesign, and I have a vague recollection that this was specifically suggested by the Lotus engineers. Scrub radius is part of the 'black art' of tuning an overall front suspension design package, and tires had come an _awfully_ long way since the last time the Corvette guys had redesigned theirs, way back when they designed the 1963 C2 Corvette. So maybe their first C4 iteration wasn't absolutely perfect, but it was damned good. It definitely _wasn't_ all wrong, or junk, or stupid, or anything like that. Just saying...
Sorry, I was trying to say what you've said here. It's not garbage, it's fine for a C4 Corvette. The overall dynamics are meant to work in a system with the rear suspension. You're correct, they did change a few things in the later cars and the C5 and C6 are evolutions of this concept. I tried to stop short of saying it's bad - it's just suited to the car it was designed to work in and hacking away at it without doing the engineering is not a good idea. It also wasn't my idea - but the person that sold me the shortened cross member. I'm a little annoyed that they didn't take the time to work out the kinks so that it would work. I'm only a few thousand dollars in the hole because I didn't want to do this.
30:28💥
It was a bit of a revelation.
1:40 ❤ I find myself in too many diy projects because nobody’s invented it yet
6:22 LOL
Horses for courses.
Indeed - I find this teetering on the edge of the unknown stuff oddly relaxing. I think we're just wired to innovate.
Talking about camber gain around 9min. Actually looks like you went from a half degree postitive camber to negative 1.5 with bump (i assume your angle gauge 's bumb feature should be same as a level bubble). Regardless of that, its still not enough static camber at ride height or enough gain through the travel. Such a low roll center is counter to where I'm going through with testing on my car. However yours is WAY lighter than mine. If you have the room don't be afraid to add chassis side adjustment for the lower arm that's higher up. Which will directly raise the roll center. Up and down adjustment for the upper arm is a good idea too. I was once told anything that can be made adjustable is a good move. The camber gain target you showed seems too little if you plan spirited driving. Super basic but i set mine by sitting on the fender and using the angle cube to measure body roll (2.4), then set the cube on the tire to check for gain or loss. I went with a degree more negative gain than body roll as a place to start. Best year I've had yet in tire longevity/wear doing street, autocross, and track days. I don't know what that gain is vs compression travel but it is definitely more than .6/inch. However a street only setup probably wint need the additional camber gain. In aggressive driving it does need more because you also have to compensate for tire deflection. Overall, good video! I also spent months researching just to start understanding what's all going on when everything moves.
When I filmed the level, it wasn't flat to the hub and I didn't notice. The computer model is correct and it's not great. I am still working on the roll and camber curve. This will get more attention as I do the side view.
@@ThrottleStopGarage Oh, and if you haven't figured it out yet. The lower arm primarily locates the roll center height and the upper dictates camber gain. Yes, both affect on the other but to a much lesser effect.
@@ThrottleStopGaragesomeone else was commenting about the rack placement. Easiest/obvious placement is with the tie rod pivots lined up with the lower control arm pivots. Then place the outer tie rod lined up with the ball joint. If they follow the same arc then it can't bump steer beyond some pretty minor differences.
@@codysmithmotorsports736 I'll go over that detail in the next video...I think.
keep goin !!!!!!
Thanks
Hi Craig: You can check out my approach anytime. Get a bunch of random suspension parts from China, throw them in by eyeball and hope for the best. Not a lot of calculation since we are measuring to thin air anyhow. The electric car driveline has arrived.
I'll have to drop over and see the electric parts!
should have used program called SusProg3d
I love your channel. I've wanted to build a car forever and this way I can build it vicariously through you. (I have the "Engineering To Win" book too.) One other thing: Considering the care and detail you go through I don't understand why you only have 46k subscribers. Rebuilding cars is fine, but honestly wouldn't hot rodders rather build their cars from just a donor body on up?
Thanks, much appreciated. I don't think I'll ever hit 100k subs. As long as we're all having fun, it's fine.
Thank you for explaining where some of the points in space come from and what is acceptable from a design point of view. From the way your thinking is progressing I am assuming you are going to machine your own uprights. From my experience (formula car racing) and research the suspension design starts with the upright, especially from the home workshop environment, as it is expensive to manufacture. It is usually more efficient to start with a production upright that has a minimum of compromises. Have you got one in mind? I am currently have the some of the same issues on my current project, a 77 Monza, which have crappy front suspension geometry, crappy uprights that don’t allow big brakes, good hubs, etc.
That's basically what I'm doing by defining the scrub and SAI first. These are upright variables. I'll probably get the uprights machined. Next up, side view...then I can sort that out.
I was having difficulty understanding why you picked the ball joint locations, but after some thought i believe the lower inner was dictated by where the rack would be and the uppers chosen for the camber curve desired. As an aside your basic geometry is almost the same as Carrol Smith shows in Engineer to Win.
@@randycollett1746 That's pretty much the case. I tried to locate the lower so that I would have clearance to the brake rotor (this was a challenge) and had it at around the same height as the LCA mount on the frame. These took a few tries to get right. I've read all Carrol Smith's books - while I didn't follow his method in this video - it's more or less Ch 17 in RCVD, I'm not surprised that they're similar. Things for sure gelled for me and a lot of this stuff started to make sense very recently.
Thank you Craig for doing what few have the patience for. Basics, camber gain; when you "bumped" the wheel up first 1" and then 3", you lost negative camber gain, you didn't gain camber. Maybe you just misspoke there but it's an important point when we're talking negative vs positive, losing vs gaining, concave vs convex bla bla. The upper control arm is obviously shorter than the lower, as both move through their respective arc ranges, the shorter arm has no choice but to result in offering "negative camber gain". The problem is the upper and lower arms are not parallel, causing some "loss" at different points through the range of travel, but ultimately will give negative camber gain. The geometry has no choice but to produce this result, the upper arm is shorter. In the Racing Aspirations software it is clearly set up differently to what you have on the bench in your garage, in the software version the arms are very nearly parallel, the Corvette is very clearly not parallel. Sorry if this sounds like I'm angry, really I'm not, I'm only wanting to clarify why you lost camber gain, the upper arm begins, lets call it drooped, the lower arm has some degrees of "rise" from the "at rest" starting positions of your experiment to see what the suspension was physically giving you. This is where the dark arts show up, bump steer, weight jacking, roll center, roll axis on and on, this is why this is all so difficult to master. Before you move on to the side view, you have more work to do from the front view. Ford went to an extreme to "correct" for roll center migration, they designed the infamous Twin Torsion bar suspension. This provided for a really smooth soft supple ride, but did nothing for handling or tire wear. It was a cheap solution or alternative to Chevy's double A arm suspension, which is as you are finding out, very complicated to mitigate all the negative compromises required for mass produced suspension. Remember the Corvair, lawsuits were abundant because the geometry/design was flawed from the beginning. As important as reading and studying the available printed material is, like another "commenter" said, an RC, radio controlled toy car can teach you as much as all those books combined. I highly recommend getting a RC car to test your theories/setup/geometry. Don't get me started on roll center, every race car mechanic has their own opinion of what is the optimal height and they have tested their theories on the track, go to a local circle track and talk to those guys, invaluable. Pavement or asphalt racers would be optimal as you want your car to run on the street. Oh, and potholes, don't forget our Alberta roads mostly suck.
Thanks - I did fumble with the words a bit there and the level was hung on the edge of the lug nut and showing the opposite of what is happening at ride height - that segment is a bit of a mess. Viewers caught it - I'm too tired. The computer model is correct and the path is funky for the C4 - good enough and I can sleep well enough.
Have been following along since you started this project. FYI, those moog ball joints may be a bit stiff. After going through the task of redesigning my 66 mustang suspension, I discovered the ball joints were binding causing all of my driving tests and the conclusions I came to, were invalid. Glad to see you choosing a low friction joint. Nothing like having to start all over, again.
I was surprised how stiff they were! I'm only using them for mock up and for making the arms.
It seems like it's going in a better direction, the corvette suspension looked wierd to me as it had the upper control arm sloping outwards rather than inwards as is custom, therefore the corvette instant centre would've been outside the wheel. I wonder what the result of mounting the inside of the corvette upper control arm lower would've been, this would to my mind put the instant centre in a more conventional spot (therefore a better roll centre) and also give better negative camber gain. When you rolled the vehicle in the model it was still losing contact patch, perhaps it could use some more negative camber gain? Where is the steering rack in this? If you don't consider the location of the rack you'll likely get bumpsteer or rollsteer issues (you measured the width so I assume it was in the modeling). Rather than inputing standard figures for camber gain why not calculate what camber you need? Camber gain required is equal to the degrees of roll, you've got the track width and a reasonable idea of suspension travel which should be enough to calculate it with some trigonometry. An older euro vehicle will tend to be less track width so may not be the same as more modern. Also camber curves depend on which suspension it is, macpherson struts go entirely the wrong way and are forced to start with too much negative camber so they have some left in bump.
Yes - the IC's are outside the wheel. Things are not quite as I've shown them as the level was not flat on the hub and eagle-eyed viewers picked up what I was too tired to notice. The computer model is correct, it's a little not what you'd expect - point made. When I optimized it before, the 3D software had me moving a lot of things to get the attributes I wanted and it looked quite different. That's why I bought the stock crossmember - to find out what GM thought it should be. Steering rack is in place in the 2D model and designed around zero bump steer - probably the most important parameter. I'm just learning - the trick for me was not knowing what "reasonable" is with the parameter. So what's a reasonable lateral G? What sort of roll is not crazy? How little is too little? I'm all ears for feedback on these parameters. They are what is needed to do the entire thing properly. I am going to do this for the 3D model - but the 3D model needs inputs and I just needed to start. Does this make sense?
@@ThrottleStopGarage a lot of even amateur racers have lateral G's on thier videos, most seem to see less than 1.5G from memory. When I calculated roll for my suspension I used available travel in bump and droop from ride height, ie if you've 4" inches in bump and 4" inches in droop that's 8" across the track width of the car trigonometry means you can work out an angle of roll that would be the upper limit.
When I was in service, doing hundreds of maintenance and crash alignments over my 35 years, I kept an RC car with adjustable A-Arms, to demonstrate what you're showing. It had tiny bubble levels glued all over it. Great visual tool.
Cool - I've got a little model I made to prove the Ackerman relationship to steering rack position. I just couldn't visualize the complex relationship.
@@ThrottleStopGarage Are your "adjustment range" calculations accounting for vehicle loaded weight, driver and full gas? I'd be bummed if I ran out of caster or camber(ride height dependant). And trying to nail the spring rates will be added rocket science. Generally speaking, alignment spec loads are with 3/4 fuel and a 70kg driver, which I guess is out of date now. eyeroll.
@@kathysarmcandy1992 That's the idea...I've got several spreadsheets running with spring/roll and other calculations. I'm not sure how ultimately useful these are as they're copied formulae from others (or were donated by friends who have developed them). My guess is that they're close enough for a first approximation. It will need to be tuned when rolling.
@@ThrottleStopGarage Adjustable upper ball joints, I see similar to your screw-ins. Don't forget to make friends with an alignment shop. On and off hours after work and buy the shop pizza is totally worth it.