Jump to content


Member Since 20 Jan 2007
Offline Last Active Today, 05:26 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: SR20 NA header help

15 October 2017 - 08:12 PM

I have an S14 SR.  I went through the same thing...  I never found one either.  

In Topic: Narrowed rear control arms

12 October 2017 - 05:08 PM

Dude, I like the stabilizing arms being attached to the mustache bar. Much more stable. Having a shallow triangle by attaching the trailing arms to the inside pickup point on the cross member does give wide open space for a massive rear tire, but why not have a large notch setback in the arm attached to the outside pickup for a broader triangle and greater strength?



We modeled it that way at first.  To make it work without limiting clearance it ends up being a "Z" arm and looks dumb and weak.  Here is a picture.   






My mind is blown with those 3d modeling skills... dang


Sam gets it done!  I help where I can.  Assemblies go over my head. 




Cool work!! 


I told you the inner mount was good ;)





If you use the outer mounting point this would be a copy (in function) of a common and proven design and woud have less toe change under deflection.
Not saying your's wont work good. Love your skills.

Looking at it more if the hub carrier is rigid to the forward arm it's going have a camber arch like a swing axle and will bind with the two track bars.

One track bar would work but the camber change would be a problem

If the two rear track bars are to control the camber the forward mount will need to be outward

Sorry for being a nerd




It's not rigid it's a spherical bearing.  









What is going to stop the wheel from moving front to back?


I would think using your first a-arm design, but with the diff mounted adjustment rods would be good, but as stated above, I dont think camber will be able to adjust/compensate/move, with up and down travel, as shown.


Unless the outer rod mounts were also both able to pivot as one, as the suspension travels.


The whole hub needs to be able to pivot, not be welded as one with the main a arm.



It works we can post camber and toe progressions.  The main arm is on a spherical bearing which allows it to twist and move anywhere it wants.  The 2 "race rods" (making a total of 3 points, which define a plane) then capture it and allow us to adjust the toe and camber curve.  


Hopefully this helps you see how it works.  


SolidWorks would be the first to let us know it won't work.  Trust us there! 

In Topic: Narrowed rear control arms

12 October 2017 - 11:35 AM

Been a while since we updated.  As per normal we've changed the design a few times, Sam is a picky bastard....  My response is usually "But I just want to drive my car!!!"   Well here is what we have now...  The version above didn't allow us to change the suspension characteristics like we wanted.We decided to use the inner pivot which makes it more of an "A" arm.  Plus we ditched the odd loaded heim joint for a weld in spherical bearing.  Next we are going to run it through FEA and weld up a prototype.  Who knows when we will have a set in my car or be able to sell any.  

















In Topic: Is Go Kart steering possible

11 October 2017 - 11:13 AM

 I read your original post and couldn't agree more.  I don't think I would want anything close to go kart steering on an actual car.  I would imagine it would be nearly impossible to control.


I have also heard that once you drive a real race kart, everything feels like slow motion once you get back in a car.



Simple solution.  Take the wife's car for a spin, after driving my wife's Leaf my 510 feels like a go-cart for sure! 

In Topic: Is Go Kart steering possible

10 October 2017 - 09:03 PM

Part of your problem is that you won't ever achieve better steering feel without giving something up in return. For instance, you can achieve optimal feel and directness of input by replacing your tie rod ends with spherical bearing rod ends (solid end links is what some people call them I think), but in return you feel EVERY bump, nook, cranny, and rock in the road. 


Rack and pinion set ups are similar.  While you're going to get a better steering feel, the amount of fab work and headache that goes along with it is sizable. Even with the crossmember kit mentioned earlier you'll run into problems, as it will limit you to front sump engine configurations.



Tie rods are swapped to heim joints by companies like T3 and others not for less deflection but so you can "adjust" out the bump steer.  People like shinny bits so I'm sure most cars don't even have them adjusted correctly.



In my experience with stock suspension bandaid to the max (steering box brace, heim, joints, etc) it doesn't even compare to having one of our rack conversion crossmembers in a 510.  I don't even say that in hopes to sell one, I say it because I daily drive and race my car and have driven ton's of 510's.  For 5 years I worked with a good buddy building nothing but 510's and I can say I've driven my share of 510's setup in different ways.  Steering boxes just equal so much less feedback.  


Why does everyone hate front sump?  In all my years I've only ever had one issue and it won't have mattered if it was front or rear sump.  Rear sump pans are a false sense of security!!  


I will agree it is a pain to install our crossmember if you don't like a little bit of fab work and some tinkering around.  Also the exhaust sucks to deal with on an L series.  But I avoid L's at all costs.