Who was discussing fatigue in this thread? You obviously know very little about metallurgy or fatigue so your comments and "concerns" are meaningless imo. Tell us in technical terms why you're so concerned. Which parts do you think will fatigue and why?
The C4 parts will be around long after your stock parts have rusted away. Some have been around since 1984, already 32 years, with nary a sign of your prediction of impending fatigue failure. A lot of aluminum airplanes have been around for well over 70 years and are still flying.
Yes, poor suspension geometry design can scare the living shit out of anyone . Have you driven your Nomad hard yet? Have you ever driven a tri5 set up like your Nomad is? Comparing to your Olds is irrelevant.you can plop your azz in my car and take it for a spin or I'll gladly scare the living sh.. Out of you in it if you wish and end this BS
First of all, I never "called you out". I made a technical comparison of your solution to the C4 suspensions and to a stock suspension with dropped spindles. I explained what your solution did to the suspension geometry. Sorry if a technical debate bothers you so much.Nut my work is shown in the last post of the thread you called me out on. It matches every thing you googled and posted in prevoius threads in an attempt to say I'm full of it. And your Cowardly ass never even responded.
You started all of this by claiming that dropped spindles are junk and your 2" cut springs are better. Trying to get you to understand the fallacy of your argument is like beating a dead horse because you conveniently ignore certain aspects. I've explained in more than one thread why you're wrong but you can't seem to grasp it. The bottom line is you've moved the roll center downward, significantly away from the CG which is not good for handling. Oh yeah, you'll "fix" that with stiffer springs so it rides like a truck. LOL.
I didn't know you responded to my last post on the other thread...it must have dropped off my "new posts" list. I'll go check it out and explain why you're wrong again. But it's your car so do what you want with it.
I'm looking forward to Rick's analysis.
56 Nomad, Ramjet 502, Viper 6-speed T56, C4 Corvette front and rear suspension
Other vehicles:
56 Chevy 2-door BelAir sedan
56 Chevy 210 4-door sedan
57 Chevy 210 4-door sedan
1962 327/340HP Corvette
1961 Willys CJ3B Jeep
2001 Porsche Boxster S
2003 Chevy Silverado 2500 HD Duramax
2019 GMC Sierra Denali Duramax
And that's sure keeping on topic, eh Rocky? I don't know what "turd" you're talking about because I don't give a rip about stock or 605 or whatever steering boxes you use. The 605 was viable for years and it's still a cheap, viable solution today that many still use. Face it.
BTW, I started a new thread on suspension geometries where hopefully we can discuss the pros and cons of each from a technical perspective without you injecting a bunch of off-topic crap. So some on over and supply some REAL information about the various suspensions without getting emotional and getting your panties in a wad. I took some careful measurements off of a stock clip today so we can see what's going on. Rick and the rest of us who are interested can use those to evaluate what a 1/2" taller balljoint really accomplishes.
We'll see who the "coward" is now.
56 Nomad, Ramjet 502, Viper 6-speed T56, C4 Corvette front and rear suspension
Other vehicles:
56 Chevy 2-door BelAir sedan
56 Chevy 210 4-door sedan
57 Chevy 210 4-door sedan
1962 327/340HP Corvette
1961 Willys CJ3B Jeep
2001 Porsche Boxster S
2003 Chevy Silverado 2500 HD Duramax
2019 GMC Sierra Denali Duramax