Modern Spindles

[rockytopper R.I.P 5-13-2017]

I give guys you are both right it's does not and will not give you"CORVETTE" suspension geometry. Ok you both “WIN”.


Now let’s be very clear I do fully understand the difference between suspension "geometry" & "alignment". Let us get past that.


The little racer’s trick using these adjustable arms and taller ball joints do in fact dramatically improve the suspension geometry period. You cannot just take a fixed upper trifive arm that has built in -5deg caster and stick a taller ball joint on it and not totally screw up the suspension geometry. I already made that statement above. The reason why is because the upper control arm length has to change in order to do that (Rick you already stated that yourself)and keep the suspension geometry were it should be. The adjustable arm does just that. If you apply shims to get the camber then you are changing the hinge points of the suspension probably not making an improvement for the better. I’ll say this one more time there are no fixed arms for a trifive that even come close to correcting the front original geometry to a modern performance suspension than these. The ones that do and here’s a good list from 2010 of options all carry a very high price tag and require you to buy a complete system to accomplish the same end result in terms of handling. Some on this list are a joke I’ll not mention those.

http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/chassis-suspension/sucs-1041-tri-five-chevys-2010-chevy-classics-suspension-buyers-guide/


So if you wish to spend that kinda $$$ you might as well call chevynut himself and order his trifive C4 corvette rolling chassis. I’ll repeat this again as I have said on both forums. If you want c4 suspension he does have the best bang for the buck IMHO that I have seen my hats off to him.


As for this simple bolt on I don’t have the suspension data or numbers to show how dramatically this improvement is on paper but I do have 4 years of seat time and track numbers to back it up.

How about you guys get in the seat with me and take a spin around the good guys AX course and see for yourself. Granted this is an A-body not a trifive. But I can only assume that one will get similar results in a trifive.
Time will tell us that answer sense I’m going this route and it will see some track time.

[URL=http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk243/rockytoppers1/IMG_2336.mp4][IMG]http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk243/rockytoppers1/th_IMG_2336.mp4[/IMG][/URL]

The cutlass in the video has stock frame no added bracing, sc&c stage 2 kit (adjustable arms and tall ball joints), spc 550 inch /lb 2 inch drop springs, stock original f-85 front sway bar and belstien shocks, cpp 500 box, & cpp 11 inch 4 wheel disc. Nothing high end. The time posted here was faster than several C5 vets in the competition slower than others. I have been beaten by two wagons one a nomad and one a Pontiac safari both sporting art Morrison corvette chassis. It never got under my skin to be beat by camaros, corvettes etc but getting beat by a wagon got to me a little. That was until latter learning that both were packing 600 to 700+ hp and fitted with 6 speed manual trans and 13 inch wilwood brakes. After reading that in PHR I was darn proud I even stayed in the game with them on the go cart size track. I believe my automatic trans is handy capping me on these short venues.

Please carry on sorry to have high jacked this thread. The original posters intent is more or less achieved by this kit that’s all I was really trying to say. The taller ball joint is basically the same as adding a taller more modern spindle which was what I believe he was discussing.
Rocky

[Maddog]

Real world, seat of the pants experience-now that's an interesting concept. Imagine building a product that you have never actually tested, except in theory I would be a little careful with those tall ball joints though. I remember when some were breaking, they (Pozzi et all) were quick to blame the aftermarket stock A body spindles, in fact it was the ball joints.

[rockytopper R.I.P 5-13-2017]

Real world, seat of the pants experience-now that's an interesting concept. Imagine building a product that you have never actually tested, except in theory I would be a little careful with those tall ball joints though. I remember when some were breaking, they (Pozzi et all) were quick to blame the aftermarket stock A body spindles, in fact it was the ball joints.

Please pray for me Maddog LOL. I'm running CCP spindles Chinese made. I was told by my Mark himself that could be a mistake and that I should use the factory spindles because they would be much stronger material than todays. But it was to late for me sense I had already put on drop spindles with the disc brake kit (big mistake in handling) and no longer had my stock units when I purchased the stage II kit. Its to bad no one is making taller spindles for trifives.
Rocky

[Rick_L]

Putting the C3 Corvette spindles on a trifive is not that big a deal if you think you need tall spindles.

[rockytopper R.I.P 5-13-2017]

Putting the C3 Corvette spindles on a trifive is not that big a deal if you think you need tall spindles.

Would that force me into using a certain brake setup in front as opposed to using trifive spindles. As you know and we have discussed previously I'm wanting to run large 255 wide tires in the front. So I have been looking into using the zero off set brakes or now I'm seeing wildwood is offering one with a minimal .230 off set. I'm still wanting to stay with a 8 inch wide wheel with standard 4.5 off set if I can. This allows the use of a spare tire when all four are the same size. Now I know I may have fender issues and if I can't trim them to make it work then I will be forced into buying much more expensive wheels with custom offsets. The wheel tire calculator that I believe you and chevynut developed indicates I can run a 255 in front using a 5.25 back space. Might hit the frame no big deal on that. I would be very interested in learning more about that swap if I don't have to put large off set brakes on it because then the custom off set wheels want get me there and I will be forced to narrow tires and wheels in front.
Thanks
Rocky

[chevynut]

Rocky, glad we're kinda on the same page now as far as the corvette geometry. This isn't about "winning" it's about getting the correct information out there.

I don't see how you're going to be able to run a 255 front tire on a stock frame, but maybe it's possible. IMO there's no way you're going to do it with zero offset wheels and a stock wheel mounting width. The stock mounting width is about 59.25" and a 255 tire will make the tires 69.25" wide, which is almost certain to rub the fender on turning not to mention imo it will look funny. I recommend a 67.5" or narrower width on a lowered car. I'm not sure if rolling the lip or trimming the fender will prevent fender interference or not, but it's not the route I'd take. And the tires will most likely rub the frame too, which you can prevent with steering stops.

I'm not sure I see the desire to run the same tire on all 4 corners. A 255 tire won't fit in the stock spare tire well, I don't believe, and you can get a larger rear tire to fit.

I'm running 245 tires on the front of my Nomad with the late C4 front end. They clear the fender and frame just fine, but I believe the C4 rack results in slightly less steering angle than the stock box, and the 8+ degree SAI causes the wheel to pivot differently than stock. I probably have 3/4" clearance to the frame in the back of the front tire at full lock. I might be able to run a 255 tire on it, but I'm not sure.

[chevynut]

By the way, I have had maddog the troll on ignore for some time, but since you quoted his comment I'll say this. I have built 50 C4 conversion projects now, with not one complaint from any of my customers. The C4 Corvette suspension is a PROVEN design and I use the stock Corvette geometry, even to the extent of using the C4 cradle in front. The handful of customers that have cars running with my frames have provided nothing but excellent feedback. One guy is a race car driver in NJ and said he's amazed at how well the 57 he built using my front clip and rear kit handles and drives. His dad drives it daily. Other customers have tried every bolt-on upgrade and say nothing compared to the modern feel and handling of the C4 suspension. Super Chevy did an article on Newman's C4 conversion and it out-performed the 2010 Camaro they compared it to at the time. My conversion provides essentially the same upgrade that Newman's chassis does, since we both use the C4 suspension.

I have not driven my Nomad yet, but it was the first C4 conversion I ever did. I have been working on building the entire car from the ground up, and I will drive it in the fairly near future. I got into building these frame only due to demand from other guys, not because I wanted to build and sell them. Maybe if Maddog ever gets a tri5 he would have some credibility here, but to me he's nothing but a trouble-maker who thinks he knows more than he does.

[rockytopper R.I.P 5-13-2017]

Well chevynut sense you want to get it right you and Rick need to fix the calculator lol. It says 68 inches is the magic number for a lowered trifive.

I have installed a 17x8 on my 55 4dr and a 255 tire 26 inches tall tire stock height and drove it around my pasture doing donuts with no rubbing issues inside or out. Now even though you and Rick may not buy into my geometry change using the adjustable arms and ball joints this setup on my 65 cutlass compared to the stock geometry does create a totally different SAI. The wheel being aligned at -.5 degrees camber and the - 5 degree caster now travels in a much tighter arc and is up and back compared to stock geometry. The big tire rubs the rear area of the inner fender at full lock because of this change. Before this change from the stock suspension with drop spindles you could not even put the same wheel and tire on the car and set it on the ground the fender would be sitting on top of it. According to the calculator it says you will end up right at 68 with a 5.25 back space with stock width and 255 tire.

You are right a wheel want fit the well anyway but I still plan to bring a spare when I come up to see you and spank you in a little rocky mountain road racing lol. I was in your neighbor hood last year but you weren't ready yet. Then you guys got washed away less than a month latter.

[chevynut]

What calculator are you talking about Rocky? I did the original Excel version myself (not sure why Rick ever got any credit for it ) I have repeatedly said 67.5" is the correct number and that's what was in my spreadsheet. Others have copied the formulas into their own calculators and if they put some other limits on it, it's not my doing. I have empirically verified the 67.5" recommendation several times with car owners on the other site. Part of this depends on the year of the car, and the amount it's lowered. However, even a stock height car can have problems if the suspension is compressed enough while turning.

You CANNOT change the SAI by changing the upper a-arm length. It's a function of the placement of the balljoints relative to the spindle. Tell me how a different length a-arm can change SAI, and still keep the wheel aligned:


I don't doubt that you can put a 255 tire on the front of a stock height car, especially a '55 with the tall fender opening. If you want to use that tire on the front of your dropped Nomad, be my guest. I'm just trying to help you. You might get away with a 68" width, depending on how much you lower the car and how tight your steering angle is. I know some guys have said their tires rub around that point with a stock suspension and steering.

Stop by next time you're in the neighborhood. Have you ever driven a Tri5 with a C4 suspension? Have you ever driven a C4 Corvette?

[rockytopper R.I.P 5-13-2017]

Here is link. http://tri-5.chevyrides.com/front_tire.php

I thought this was gospel lol.

The geometry change is in the taller ball joint or joints in the case of the cutlass. Same as putting on a taller spindle. That is what changes the travel of suspension geometry. You have moved the pivot points of the spindle. Now with that said the trifive may be a entire bag of worms. I have just got my fingers crossed that it is going to do the same thing or close but I don't have the data points to put it in cad and built a kinematic model to see. Much easier to just put it on and see what happens easier than spending hours at the scope trying to figure it out. Besides I don't have much invested this is a cheap suspension. So if it does fail you might see me with my trailer picking up my new chassis with c4 goodies lol.