Comparing tri5 to C4 front suspensions

[chevynut]

Here is some C4 data may be worth a read apparently it has some pos camber gain issues itself in stock form.
http://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/...cad-files.html

There's really nothing new in that link, it's a speculation and guessing. The only thing worthwhile was the CAD layout of the front suspension what shows the correct orientation of the upper a-arm. Some guys said it sloped down, which is wrong. And they don't even say which C4 suspension they're talking about, even though they're significantly different from early to late. That thread is about worthless.

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

AM (Art Morrison) doesn't make a C4 chassis.

Sorry I am wrong your right nut case they have a superior suspension to C4 so my bad I gave your turd more credit than is due and I apologize for that. Just trying to help your illusion Lol.

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

Nut case sense you wish to open up this old thread today and Glorify your self once again and continuely try to discredit me by telling the world that I'm off topic and get my panties in a wad and then start a new one. You should of least post factual info and assumptions in the new one before spreading the same false information that you started in this one if your real goal is to inform and learn from. Hell you can't even post your on C4 design of your nomad to compare.
Your cowardly ass can continue to wezel. Every thing you said todate is useless or false. My cards are played. I'm calling show your hand or shut the Phuck up. Your assumptons that a stock trifive lower arms are level from a cartoon service manual is horse poop.That alone discredits ever statement to follow and win your argument against me to further try to dis credit me with your line by line rebutals. So no I must apolize once again but this coward aint about to play in the new same old game and horse poop being spread. You sperts deside for yourself. I already showed you the light and your to dim to see it.

[Classicgary]

well that was special...........

[chevynut]

Well Rocky went on a rant on a couple of threads for some reason that I don't understand. I posted the C4 specs here and he wouldn't take the time to analyze them or much of anything else. He claimed we "armchair engineers" don't know anything about suspension design but I think we proved him wrong. But since Savitche or whatever his name is is who he worships, he can't accept that we might know a little too.

I lost track of this thread somehow and never saw some of the replies so I came back to read them when I was looking for my original measurements.

I did prove that the lower a-arms are just about level, as I said they should be, despite his insistence otherwise. Rocky posted these pictures that misrepresented the truth and apparently still won't acknowledge his error. He did acknowledge that he was wrong about the extended upper balljoint length he was using and it's 0.9" instead of the .5" he was claiming.

I started a new thread where I did a fairly complete analysis of the stock suspension with a few mods, one of which is Rocky's setup, and both the early and late C4 suspensions. I took it there because of the useless rants an garbage on this thread. The end result was that his setup does improve the stock suspension significantly, but with some big tradeoffs. Also, one of my main points was that dropped spindles were better with his tall balljoint than his dropped spring setup. In the end, it depends on what you call "better" . The analysis I did is here:

http://www.trifivechevys.com/showthr...metry-analysis

Rocky did apologize for his rant on another thread, but I think he owes me an apology on this one too. When debating, there's no need for personal attacks and I wanted to show the facts from an engineering perspective, not opinions. Some people take debates too personally.

BTW, good to see you here Gary.

[Rick_L]

I'm like you, I too had missed some of the replies in this thread. I wonder what's up with that? It is something that I would have read if it had been on the "new posts" screen when new.

But that's water under the bridge. The more recent thread presents things more clearly and with more facts as opposed to speculation.

[chevynut]

I have no hard feelings toward Rocky and I think he's a good guy. He seems to have gotten frustrated with 3 of us on the other side of the debate. That's why I felt the need to do the complete analysis, and I learned some things doing it. Like I said on the other thread, Rocky's solution is probably a good, cheap way to get a better performing stock suspension if you mostly race the car. I think there are some significant issues with it but the taller balljoint does work and I always agreed it would help. I still think the dropped spindles that Rocky called "junk" are a better overall solution than his, with the taller balljoint and perhaps with a 1" dropped spring to gain some more camber and drop the car a little more.

For some reason, Rocky has avoided responding to the other thread.

[Classicgary]

thanks, ive "been away", building a '28 ford hotrod. I'm back now.
I've got a '57 chevy 2 door sedan to build. !!!

Oh, and in all of the above, there are no specs on using C3 spindles and brakes. A mention, yes, but no numbers.
Anybody have any? I'm going to use the C3 stuff on the '57. It's tried and true for me......
So don't try to talk me out of it, LOL !!

[Rick_L]

Check the other more recent suspension analysis thread. I have C3 spindles and brakes on my car and added that to the analysis thread.

Here's a summary of the specs:
Spindle is 1" taller that stock 55-57, length = 10.75".
SAI is 7 degrees as opposed to 3.5 degrees stock.
Upper control arm length is approximately 3/4" shorter than stock 55-57.

My recollection is that you posted on chevytalk about the C3 spindle when I first considered it, years ago.

The roll center and camber gain with a 2" spring drop and C3 spindles is much better than stock - similar to the 0.9" extended ball joint. Scrub radius is improved.

[chevynut]

Rick, I knew you were using the C3 spindle but I didn't know you were using the upper a-arm too. How do you adapt that to the tri5 frame? Also, I assume the increased SAI takes care of the shorter upper a-arm?

I still think a 2" dropped spring is a mistake and increases tire scrub.....how is it different with the C3 spindle? I calculated that the lower balljoint moves laterally .417" in the next 2" of compression travel. The camber gain offsets some of that, but it's still a lot of scrub.