Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Sam Strano Jul 17 2008, 11:12 PM

I'm now happy to announce we can take pre-orders on a Watts Link for all 82-02 F-bodies with stock diamter axle tubes. There is a version for bigger axle tubes (suck as 12-bolts, etc.) in the works.

They should be ready to ship in approximately 2-3 weeks. The unit is made by Fays2 who has been doing these for Mustangs for more than a few years. I not only trust the unit and have had all my questions answered, but will be putting one on my car as soon as possible. Jim and I have had a few discussions about the design and I'm happy to say he addressed my main concerns regarding approximate roll-center height. I wanted to make sure we could start @ stock height and adjust down as the owner sees fit. That has been done and implimented in this unit.

Details, specs and a photo on a 4th gen can be seen here:
http://www.stranoparts.com/partdetails.php?PartID=306&CategoryID=67&ModelID=7




Price is $650 Plus shipping. Shipping costs will normally not exceed $30 in most cases.

Fays2 own website has the pricing set lower, but after a discussion with Jim Fay, he informed me the prices are incorrect and will be changed.

Posted by: poSSum Jul 17 2008, 11:39 PM

Can you tell someone that is slowly grasping the concept of "what are you trying to fix?" when considering parts what a Watt's linkage fixes?

Posted by: Bald54 Jul 17 2008, 11:44 PM

I was just curious what Solo class those would be allowed in. Sorry, I'm too lazy to look it up in the rule book.

Posted by: slowTA Jul 18 2008, 12:00 AM

Will this require a spring and shock change too? Looking forward to reviews.

Posted by: Sam Strano Jul 18 2008, 12:20 AM

Let's see if I can answer all 3 in one post...

What are we "trying to fix"? The arc the PHB swing on as the suspension and body move up and down. Long PHB's have a lesser amount of arc than short ones, but it's still there. In fact on my car the PHB is set so that when viewed on 315's the LR body is actually not 100% centered. If I center the body the LR tire will rub the inner fender and the RR will rub the quarter panel due to the arc the PHB moves in as the car moves. And because of the way a PHB mounts, the roll center moves up and down depending on which way you are turning. The PHB acutally pushes up and pulls down on the body when you are going in different directions. A Watts link does not do this, there is no jacking up or down, and the axle moves truly veritically up and down but still has all the lateral control (and maybe even a bit more since the arms are shorter and stiffer than a roughly 4' long PHB that is more subject to flexing (which is why I don't use tubular aluminum PHB's).

Ever notice, if you have a data logger, or have seen logs that PHB don't pull the same G load though left and right hand corners? Even if you corner balance it perfectly, the dynamic change in the roll center height effects the balance of the car. To this point nobody has had a Watts for this car. I've been trying to do one, but I'm not a machinist and don't have the ability. This is something that has been long overdue for the truly serious, but for one reason or another nobody acutally got made. Been talked about for a long time for this car, and have been around for a LONG time for other cars. In fact the 1st generation Mazda RX7 had one stock (in 1978). Australian V8 Supercars use them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V8_Supercars). Trans-Am/GT1 cars use them (though I don't know they all do).

What classes are they legal for? ESP, SM... maybe in STX and STU too, but I'd have to read up on their rules. It is 100% ESP legal.

Shock and spring change needed? Nope. The upper most adjustment is at stock static roll center height (it moves up and down in action as stated before). You can drop it if you like (and some of you do). You can drop the roll center height in very small increments, .5" at a time if you see fit.

Posted by: marka Jul 18 2008, 12:33 AM

Howdy,

Sam, have you done a back to back test with this thing yet?

Mark

Posted by: Sam Strano Jul 18 2008, 12:38 AM

I have not, and don't claim to--yet. Nothing here I don't like but the little gain in unsprung weight, and that's so minor considering the mass we already carry.

I will, and I'm sure it'll be easier to drive (which I'm looking forward to). I might just have to un-retire the Camaro for 2009....

Posted by: marka Jul 18 2008, 12:46 AM

Howdy,

I'll be interested to hear results from the test... Hopefully you'll do a true back to back with the panhard vs. the watts link.

Its certainly true that it seems like anyone that's serious (that can) uses a watts link rather than a panhard. I've always wondered if that was a "real" difference or something more theoretical than anything else.

Mark

Posted by: sgarnett Jul 18 2008, 12:59 AM

It looks like adjusting the roll center height could be done in minutes with ramps. Just loosen the center bolt, slide it to where you wnat it, tighten bolt, done! Small changes in the roll center height can be used to fine-tune the handling, and don't necessarily require spring and shock changes.

My roll center is set somewhere in the ballpark of 3/4~1" lower than Sam's (using the PHR), and I'm still using 150 springs and Koni 3rd gen rear shocks on the second softest setting. I do run a stiffer rear bar though.

OTOH, if you want to drop it the full 3.5" allowed by the Watts setup (which I don't think Sam is suggesting), you will probably need to change the springs and shocks.

Coincidentally, I have a test-n-tune coming up in mid August. Hmmm....

Posted by: sgarnett Jul 18 2008, 01:25 AM

Sam, do you know if that will clear an AAM/SS diff cover?

Posted by: Sam Strano Jul 18 2008, 04:01 PM

Chris asked it if would require a spring and shock change. As long as you current roll center height is between stock and 3.5" lower your current setup will work. The more you play with the height, you might find you want to tweak springs, shocks, and/or bars to best match, but that's not any different than when we play with any number of other things.

And yep, the height adjustment is easy. As far as I can see the only hassle will be having to remove the link to do gear work/oil changes because the diff cover becomes a bit hidden.

The diff cover will not be an issue as far I can tell. I mentioned elsewhere (maybe not here), that the swaybar has to rotate up and behind the diff cover, and the Watts does not hinder that movement. In fact I've seen cars where the rear bar has dragged an AAM cover under compression.

Posted by: Sam Strano Jul 18 2008, 08:49 PM

That's 2 orders so far.

FWIW, I'm taking pre-orders. You order, but I don't charge the card until I get the word they are getting ready to ship. When I have a more exact ETA, I'll post the date. As of now it's scheduled to be within 3 weeks.

Posted by: 00 SS Jul 19 2008, 03:55 AM

Sam,

Does installation require any permanent changes to the car or does it just bolt up to existing brackets?

Thanks,

Posted by: sgarnett Jul 19 2008, 04:32 AM

"True Bolt in design. No welding, cutting, and uses factory mounting points"

Posted by: 00 SS Jul 19 2008, 06:01 PM

OK, so I missed that part.

Posted by: JimMueller Jul 20 2008, 01:09 AM

Hmm, so will this play nicely with those folks who have the UETA and say 300lb rear springs due to lowering the rear PHB 4"? Oh, does it come in black?

Posted by: sgarnett Jul 20 2008, 03:05 AM

Eliminating lateral movement of the axle should actually make setting up the UETA slightly easier.

It sounds like the Watts setup will allow you to get the roll center to within about 1/2" of your lowered PHB setup. That may make the car slightly looser. On the OTOH, since the roll center won't be moving around as much with the Watts setup, slightly looser may be OK.

I'm glad you asked about a black finish option. I'd prefer that too, but I can live with red

Posted by: 93FirehawkTA Jul 20 2008, 04:30 PM

I'm interested... but its gotta come in black

Posted by: Sam Strano Jul 21 2008, 03:32 PM

I'll have to check on black. I'm not sure if that can be done or not, but I could care less. I'm getting it for what it does, not what it looks like.

If the roll center heights are set the same the result should be similar, but with less change in RC height (basically none) with the Watts vs. it moving both up and down to some degree with the PHB.

Posted by: sgarnett Jul 21 2008, 06:28 PM

It's no big deal for me either way, but IF there's a choice, I'd take discrete chassis black I certainly wouldn't delay my order for it.

Posted by: 2manyfbods Jul 21 2008, 08:50 PM

are there anymore pics of it ?

Posted by: JimMueller Jul 21 2008, 09:16 PM

I wonder if the welded-in UE PHB lowering brackets and brace tube will interfere with this?

Posted by: Sam Strano Jul 21 2008, 09:27 PM

It mounts to the stock location PHB body and brace mounts.... I can't say if brackets will effect installation, I guess it depends on how the body side bracket is welded in.

Any more pics? Not on my website, but there are some I can e-mail only.

Again, I'm checking on black.

Posted by: Eugenio_SS Jul 21 2008, 09:54 PM

I'm interested in one... if they don't come in black, first thing I'll do is strip it down and spray paint it black... .
Sam, let me know before you send any C5 exhaust to my place so that we can ship the whole thing together for both cars.
Thanks.

Posted by: Sam Strano Jul 21 2008, 10:03 PM

They can't ship together anyway....

Besides, do you want to wait on a month, two, a year until Ron decides what he wants to do (if anything) with his exhaust? The last message I got amounted to "that's about $2000, I'll have to think about it.

Posted by: sgarnett Jul 22 2008, 12:12 AM

Judging from the photo, I think the body side may be OK with the UE PHB lowering setup. At most, you may have to grind just a little off the end of the Watts link brace (below/outboard of the lower bolt hole of the stock bracket). It looks like there's room to do that without affecting the strength at all. However, there's a gap between the plate bridging the sides of the UE bracket extension and the sheet metal bridging the sides of the stock bracket, so you might not need to grind at all. Either way, it looks like no big deal and it should be fully reversible/swappable [at that end].

The axle bracket extension itself should not be a problem. However, the bracing tube might interfere with the Watts bracket that bolts to that side.

I wasn't entirely satisfied with job that the welder (not me) did, and decided that making it adjustable as Jon A did sounded like a good idea. I sawed the tube back off flush with the axle tube and bracket using a Sawzall bimetallic blade to slice through the weld, then cleaned it up with an angle grinder and Dremel. I paid more attention to getting the bracket smooth and flat than to getting the axle tube perfect (also didn't want to thin the axle tube any). So, there's probably still enough residual evidence on the axle tube that I'll be able to tell if it would have interfered, or may even need to dress it a bit with a file. I'll let you know.

I did add a brace tube on the outboard side (welded inboard of the bearing), but never got around to rebracing it enough on the inboard side to allow lowering the PHB [the rest of the way]. It isn't that big a deal to cut off the existing brace tube, and should you ever decide to reinstall the PHB for some reason, you could go ahead and make it adjustable, and weld the brace at a different angle that would allow the UE PHB and Watts setups to be fully interchangeable in the future.

Posted by: 93FirehawkTA Jul 22 2008, 03:09 AM

Another question... any issues with exhaust clearances when the intermediate pipe roughts over the axle?... or is some "massaging" required? Given the wide variety of exhaust systems, I'd assume the later is true?

Thx

Posted by: Sam Strano Jul 22 2008, 03:51 PM

None.. in fact there is actually a little more room than with the PHB Brace in place (you don't need it because the way the Watts is, the entire thing is bolted to both the left side "brace mount" and the right side PHB/Brace mount on the body.

Posted by: Sam Strano Jul 22 2008, 05:36 PM

Color update:

Fays2 has used Red since they started building these... When I asked about black he was a little suprised that the color might make or break a sale on such a big part (that's not available anywhere else).

That said, he told me he'd consider it. The issue is he has to run batches to the powdercoater and it's just more trouble to do it all the way around. More cost, more time, and more overhead when you now have to carry two of the same part, but for a color change.

In the end, orders speak. If I get a number of orders who prefer black I think we can make that happen. But you have to get your pre-orders in, and soon so I can arrange any possibility of a black option. Those pre-orders need to have a notation on them that you prefer black if that's the case.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipping update:

Shipping within the next 3 weeks was the word I got today. First come, first served. Early orders go out first
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Fitment update:

A unit was test fitted to a car with a Dana S60 rear, and also a 12-bolt rear. The bottom line is that you will order by axle tube size. We cannot be responsible for all the different axle tubes that might be around (there are at least a couple). The Watts Link is standard for the car, only the axle clamps vary--you'll just need to measure your tube diameter to make sure we send you the correct size.

Posted by: veinharvest Jul 22 2008, 06:19 PM

Hey Sam,
I want to play too!
Color doesn't matter to me, but If batch numbers are important to Fays2, I'd be okay with black if it means that the color becomes a possibility available to others.
Oh yea nice courses this past weekend. Pit-bike or golf cart? Its just too bad I suck.
call me if you need to.
Ted B

Posted by: JimMueller Jul 22 2008, 06:20 PM

I chose black for my parts because I don't like the bling factor of red. *shrug* It won't prevent me from buying it but I won't be in the first batch - because of other bills, not because of the color.

Posted by: Sam Strano Jul 22 2008, 06:31 PM

If you want to play, you need to go order it (easier for me to keep track). http://www.stranoparts.com/partdetails.php?PartID=306&CategoryID=67&ModelID=7 You can just leave me a note on the color (you do care, you don't care....).

Glad you liked the courses Ted, wish I could have run them. And neither a bike or cart, I walked most of the time setting that up, and my foot paid for it dearly until today.

Posted by: Sam Strano Jul 22 2008, 06:31 PM

I understand... I'm not big on red either.

Posted by: BigEnos Jul 22 2008, 06:53 PM

It's your friend.

Posted by: sgarnett Jul 22 2008, 07:10 PM

Sounds fair to me, since I think I'm either first or second in line

Posted by: Cr0usEEE Jul 22 2008, 08:22 PM

and I think I am 3rd or 4th....plus I don't care WHAT color it is as long as I can make it go fast.

Posted by: veinharvest Jul 22 2008, 08:32 PM

If you want to play, you need to go order it (easier for me to keep track). http://www.stranoparts.com/partdetails.php?PartID=306&CategoryID=67&ModelID=7 You can just leave me a note on the color (you do care, you don't care....).
/quote]

DONE!

Posted by: Major_Lee_Slow Jul 22 2008, 08:42 PM

Sam,

I can see how the center pivot is adjustable up and down, which allows for roll center height adjustment. Is there also an allowance for vertical adjustment of the axle side of the horizontal links? I believe that optimum benefit of the Watt's linkage occurs when both horizontal bars are parallel to each other and to the axle and the vertical bar is perpendicular to these links when the car is sitting at ride height. If not, I think the non-optimal geometry has the potential to introduces scrub in either one or both turning directions.

Second, Do the rear brake lines which run along the axle need to be rerouted to clear the Watt's linkage axle mounts?

Posted by: Rampant Jul 23 2008, 02:19 AM

I will be wanting a Moser 12 bolt version.

I need a motor installed be fore this though.

I am curious if this would make it launch a little truer at the drag strip?

Posted by: sgarnett Jul 23 2008, 02:30 AM

Is there any difference between 3-channel and 4-channel cars in the hard line routing on the axles tubes? I know there will be an extra rubber line from the chassis to the axle on the 4 channel cars, but is that only different at the center?

Posted by: Sam Strano Jul 23 2008, 03:41 PM

That adjustment depends solely on where you position the clamps and you can rotate them wherever you think you need them to be. Howvever if you check out some of the vids and things on Youtube, you can see them in action. Here's the thing, because there are two rods and they are equal length, they work opposite of each other. When one shortens, the other lengthens, in effect. This one video shows how it works in action (no drawing, real pictures): http://youtube.com/watch?v=-J4xkHuP7QY

Posted by: sgarnett Jul 23 2008, 04:46 PM

The links should be set up to be equal in length. They should also, ideally be set up such that at ride height, the links are parallel and horizontal. However, as the suspension moves up and down from there, the Watts link still works as long as plenty of travel has been designed in.

So in practice, the main thing is to get the links horizontal, parallel, and equal in length at some point in the suspension travel, with the axle level. Moving the pivot up or down from there should still be OK. Now, you should be reasonable about it - don't set up the links with the suspension at full droop, but ....

The so-called "propeller" (aka bellcrank) should probably be vertical somewhere in the ballpark of halfway through the suspension travel just so you maintain plenty of travel. [probably wrong, see below]

It is important that the arms be horizontal when they are parallel (with the axle level), or there will be some unintended lateral movement as the suspension moves vertically.

In practice just set it up with the suspension loaded, the chassis and axle level, the links level and equal in length, and then verify that there is plenty of travel (ie that the in full droop the bellcrank doesn't reach horizontal).

Posted by: Major_Lee_Slow Jul 23 2008, 05:10 PM

The you tube video isn't working.

All Watt's linkages do introduce scrub at their extreme travel point. However, depending on the length and ratio of the arms vs. the suspension travel of the axle, it may or may not be possible to get into that part of the curve with this system.

Just to make sure I completely understand the proper way to set up this system.
1. It appears that the axle mounts should be set so that they are parallel to ground to minimize the potential for binding during axle travel. (assuming the ground is flat and level) and that they should be mounted equal distance from the center line of the axle. This assumes that the watts linkage pivot is at the center line of the car and one wants the axle centered about the center line of the vehicle.
2. The two horizontal arms must be adjusted so that they are equal length. This is extremely important! If they are not equal length, then the benefit of the Watt's linkage may not be fully realized.
3. The vertical bar will not necessary be at 90 degrees to the horizontal bar at ride height (This will depend on the ride height of the vehicle and the roll center height setting)
4. Slide the center pivot up or down to to adjust the roll center and don't worry if the vertical bar is not at 90 degrees (as long as the horizontal bars are equal length and the axle mounts are properly located).

It would appear to me that a good starting point for the roll center would be at the middle of the axle because at this setting the linkages should be in there proper ride height alignment (parallel and 90) if everything is adjusted correctly (equal length parallel arms, the center pivot is centered on the vertical bar and the axle mounts are equal distant from the center pivot and the axle center). Since there really is not adjustment to the height of the axle mounts, it appears that the "ideal" alignment will only occur at this position. (Ideal meaning that both horizontal bars are perfectly parallel and the vertical bar is at exactly 90°)

My only concern,and this may be unfounded, is that the further the bars are away from "ideal" ride height alignment the system moves closer to the "scrubbing" part of the watt's linage curve.

Posted by: Sam Strano Jul 23 2008, 05:49 PM

The video just worked for me. Try again. http://youtube.com/watch?v=-J4xkHuP7QY

Posted by: sgarnett Jul 23 2008, 05:58 PM

No, the axle mounts should not be parallel to the ground. The links should be parallel to the ground when they are parallel with each other.

The video works fine for me, but it shows a setup with the pivot mounted on the axle instead of the chassis.With that setup, the roll center stays at a constant height relative to the ground instead of relative to the chassis CG.

Posted by: Major_Lee_Slow Jul 23 2008, 06:04 PM

What I mean is that the "arms" of the axle mounts should be parallel to the ground. So they should stick straight back from the axle just like they do in the picture..

When I try watching the video I get a "We're sorry, this video is no longer available" It may be the firewall here at work, I'll have to try it when I get home.

Posted by: sgarnett Jul 23 2008, 06:50 PM

Nope, look closer at the picture The arms should not be level. The aluminum links should be level, and to accomplish that the driver's side mount will be angled upward and the passenger side will be angled downward (or vice-versa, except that would probably interfere with the exhaust).

Posted by: Major_Lee_Slow Jul 23 2008, 10:41 PM

Ok, I see it now, they are angled up and down (Man my eyes are starting to get old). They must be angled up and down an equal amount so that the arms are angled equally from the center pivot along the center line of the car in order to maintain an equal distance from the pivot.

Ok, here's another question. So the arms are attached to the axle tubes, what keeps them from slipping along horizontal length of the tube? Just the normal force and friction of the axle clamps? Should that area of the axle be "prepped" before installation (i.e. all rust removed).

One would think that this might be better than the current design because the current design only loads the axle in one spot and this design loads the axle in two spots, thus better distributing the load. Right?

Posted by: Sam Strano Jul 23 2008, 10:54 PM

Friction/clamping is what holds the watts in place on the axle. However, as someone mentioned there is no reason that someone couldn't tack weld just to be safe if they wanted.

In looking at the design of some others for S197 Mustangs (also a PHB/PHB brace car and in fact of the same weight and a PHB only about 1" longer than a F-body) I think the Fays2 design is better. Check out what they are selling for $999 in comparison: http://steeda.com/products/steeda_watts_link_s197.php How about Saleen's Watts? http://www.haneymotorsport.com/HMSstang/HMSwattsmustanglrg.JPG Also for about $1k and uses the diff cover as the axle mount. I don't know about you, but I trust clamping on the axle tubes a lot more.

I suggest that a good search for Watts Link would start. But more specifically look for '05+ Mustang stuff, as they are very similar in rear suspension and weight. Hell even the rear springs are on the axle now (stock rate of about 130 btw). Sorry to say they have a leg up here on us due to numbers. There are a lot more Ford junkies than F-body ones, so despite the PHB arrangement being in place for 20 years from 1982-2002, it's just now that we are getting some of this stuff. I've been trying, but sometimes life intervenes.

Posted by: sgarnett Jul 23 2008, 11:51 PM

Well, it probably does make sense to do the initial setup with the pivot on the centerline of the axle at ride height. After all the lengths and angles are correct, and the axle is centered properly, then you can move the pivot (roll center) height to the desired position. As you said, the angles should be equal too.

Then lower the axle to full droop, and if the bellcrank is nearly horizontal, lengthen both links by the same amount and recheck.

While the axle centering can be fine-tuned by adjusting the links, that will lead to one being longer than the other. For that reason, I would preset the links to the same length, and position the arm/clamps to get the axle as close to center as possible before changing the links. If done right the first time, there should be no reason to ever move the clamps.

Of course, the setup tricks will also get some fine tuning after we start getting a few installed

Posted by: sgarnett Jul 24 2008, 12:06 PM

Oops, that's wrong.

The links will be at their "shortest" or most overlapping position when the pivot is at the axle centerline.

Posted by: sgarnett Jul 29 2008, 02:03 PM

At least on my 2001 4-channel car, I'm pretty sure the brake lines will need to be rerouted a little to make room for the bracket clamp. Hopefully they only need to be raised an 1/8" or so to make room for the clamp underneath. They may need to go a little higher temporarily to get the bracket inserted between the line and the axle.

Is it possible to get enough clearance by just loosening and/or modifying the brake line brackets, or will the hard lines have to be bent a little? If so, what's the best way to accomplish it?

Posted by: nape Jul 30 2008, 02:15 AM

I usually bend them by hand. As long as you aren't a caveman you can feel when the tubing has had enough and is about to kink.

Mild steel is pretty forgiving. I buy lines when I need to and I've made 3rd gen lines fit a 4th gen rearend even though the 4th gen is 3"+ wider.

Posted by: Sam Strano Jul 30 2008, 04:32 PM

The brake lines are easily pushed around. It won't be any trouble to get the clamps on the axle under the lines.

Posted by: trackbird Jul 30 2008, 05:07 PM

Yes, there are some posts missing. Yes, I moved them out of this thread. If anyone has any questions, please feel free to send ME a message.

Warning:

Brian, DO NOT keep messing around with upside down questions and such in a sponsor thread.

Thank you.

TB

Sorry about that Sam. Back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

Posted by: Sam Strano Jul 30 2008, 07:47 PM

Appreciate it.

Posted by: ESPCamaro Jul 31 2008, 08:27 PM

Posted by: sgarnett Jul 31 2008, 09:42 PM

Well, my mid-August test-n-tune has been cut from two days to one, and I'll miss the next event after that since my wife is having surgery. Maybe I should ship Fay a case of Full Throttle or Red Bull to help him pull the delivery date in a little

Posted by: Sam Strano Aug 1 2008, 05:22 PM

Just spoke to Fay2 regarding an update. Things are progressing and the estimated time to ship is now around 2 weeks. No actually date at this time. Parts are being cuts, jigs are made. When I get a more specific time and we get to around 1 week before I will begin to process the pre-orders. It takes time for the money to get transferred and Fays2 will want paid, so in order to get them out ASAP we will process orders when the build begins.

And here's the better news: Black is a go and will happen!

Posted by: sgarnett Aug 2 2008, 10:04 AM

Will black be available at the same time as red, or will it be a later batch (and if so, how much later)? With availability slipping by a week or so (not that it's much of a slip, I'm not complaining), it sounds like I'm probably going to miss my window of opportunity for testing. If so, I may be back to caring [a little] about the color.

"POR-15 Patch" (the thick goop in a squeeze tube, available in any color as long as it's black) works great for permanently touching up powder coat scrapes and has become my new favorite color

Posted by: Sam Strano Aug 2 2008, 08:11 PM

Making both colors in the initial batch, but the sooner I know if you care the better so we don't end up say selling all the black ones before you decide.

Posted by: JimMueller Aug 2 2008, 09:59 PM

Doing some more thinking on this... I was under the impression that you, Sam, didn't care for lowering the rear roll center because it required too stiff of rear springs. Can someone help me understand how lowering the rear roll center via the the watts link works better than lowering the rrc with the lower phb brackets method?

Posted by: sgarnett Aug 4 2008, 12:07 PM

Well if there's no difference in the schedule, it's an easy choice. I'll take black (sending note)

Posted by: John_D. Aug 4 2008, 02:05 PM

I think Sam likes the Watts link because it's more consistent (left vs. right).

It has the added advantage (for those who want to go this way) of being able to lower the roll center.

Posted by: Sam Strano Aug 4 2008, 07:45 PM

You can do as you wish. Frankly if you want to lower the roll center you can, and you can do so it more finite steps this way. Don't confused adjustment range with what I might recommend. It's an adjustment that is available, and might be useful to you.

The adjustment isn't as coarse (small changes in rc height are available in 1/2" drops).

Mostly I'm doing it for my own personal car to eliminate the arc of the PHB and the fact the roll center moves up and down depending on which way you are turning. I'm not doing it to drop my roll center way down...

Posted by: Sam Strano Aug 13 2008, 07:09 PM

Newest update....
All the tubing is cut and ready to be welded and all the other parts are ready to be put together. We're just waiting for all the parts to be assembled and powdercoated. The schedule is a little behind, but I'm told we're looking like (and hoping for) middle to late next week for shipment.

Posted by: Sam Strano Aug 21 2008, 04:50 PM

Trying to for a new update.... Now have instructions (and detailed ones too). Pushing as hard as I can on this--I'll keep you posted.

Posted by: Sam Strano Aug 21 2008, 07:41 PM

Good news:

"Sam,
I just met with the welder, sandblaster and powder coater.
Welding is promised for Tuesday morning.
We are FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!!! on schedule to ship next Friday."

That's a quote from Fays2.

Posted by: Rampant Aug 22 2008, 02:28 AM

Has there been any talk of one for a 12 bolt yet? I know it was mentioned but for a later date.

I will be seriously looking at one for mine.

I can get dimensions if they need them and photos. The car is just a roller right now waiting to put the 36mm front bar on you sent me. Well it is actually waiting for the motor.

Posted by: tpunk Aug 22 2008, 04:15 AM

I was under the impression that all that needed to be changed was the clamps for the axle housing. If this is so then I would think it would be easy for them to sell you the corresponding part if you measure it correctly.

I assume we can expect a review from you (Sam) pretty soon after you get this on your car right . Also, I noticed that you said black will be an option on this first batch but will it continue to be an option later on? Doesn't really matter too much, just curious.

Posted by: Sam Strano Aug 22 2008, 04:06 PM

The car the prototype was tested on has a 12-bolt in it....

I've driven Mustangs with Watts Links in them (including the S197 cars that come stock with a PHB setup like the Camaro). I already know the difference. It will not be until a few weeks after Nationals until I can get personal testing done since my Camaro is currently apart and Nationals is the priority. However, I already know what to expect from past experience, which basically amounts to a more stable tail particularly over bumps, most consistent handling left vs. right since the roll center isn't rising and falling in different directions.

Posted by: Eugenio_SS Aug 22 2008, 09:07 PM

will these work w/ a 9" ?

Posted by: Sam Strano Aug 22 2008, 09:18 PM

The only thing that matters is the size of the axle tubes.... GM, 12-bolt, 9"... As long as the rear end is setup for a stock or stock replacement PHB, all I need to know is the OD of the axle tubes.

Posted by: Sam Strano Aug 29 2008, 05:12 PM

And the latest update.........









Starting to ship out today. There is an aluminum spacer that wasn't completed on time. Fays2 is sending those out at their cost by 2-day air when they arrive (due next Tuesday). Because these are shipping ground freight the spacers and Watts Links should arrive at just about the same time.

Posted by: veinharvest Aug 31 2008, 11:45 PM

Heh heh heh!
Let me know when you want to play with this at CPR, as I'm sure I won't be able to resist getting this on as soon as possible. Besides you'll be too busy to put yours on! May need to ..."Ahem"... Borrow... an "Old" set of tires..."ahem" for you to get a true test session though. Good luck this year.

Posted by: sgarnett Sep 4 2008, 05:11 AM

Mine arrived today. The instruction book is very thorough, with lots of color photos.

The axle clamp/brackets seem to be sized for a 9" and/or 12 bolt, and there are split-tube steel shims included to presumably fit the smaller 10 bolt axle tubes. That's the one obvious detail missign from the instructions.

Also, the instructions specify reinstalling the passenger-side PHR and PHR brace bolts, installing the nuts loosely with Loctite, reinstalling the driver-side PHR brace bolts with Loctite, and then torquing them all. Personally, I'd just install the passenger side bolts but leave the nuts off or just temporarily thread them on dry and loose, then install and torque the driver-side bolts with Loctite, and then install and torque the passenger-side nuts with Loctite.

Posted by: Cr0usEEE Sep 4 2008, 01:30 PM

I got mine yesterday...and gone through the instruction manual before installing tonight. I have two questions.

1) What spacer is required for the "stock" rear sway bar? (1st page in manual)
2) It does not specifically say...but should the rear axle/car be on the ground during install?? I mean have the rear up on ramps instead or supporting the car on jack stands from the frame rails. My impression is that ramps is the ticket but it is not called out in the instructions.

Posted by: shortbus Sep 4 2008, 02:07 PM

It does not say drive on lift preferred?

Posted by: Cr0usEEE Sep 4 2008, 02:26 PM

It does say drive on lift preferred...but then also it doesnt say at what position the axle should be relative to the body. Should it be at nominal? Fully compressed? Fully droop? I know what it should be at but the instructions don't specifically say it. What is the impact if you install the axle at full droop?? The lateral bars will be parallel throughout the travel range so it really shouldn't matter.

Posted by: shortbus Sep 4 2008, 02:35 PM

You'll want those bars to be level when the car is sitting on the ground. So, using a drive on lift it will be easier to install this while thing.

I suppose you can install it all with the car all jacked up... but when you are done those bars should be level.

Posted by: Sam Strano Sep 4 2008, 03:29 PM

The spacer to move the swaybar down a bit is what is being made and was to be shipped out separately. I can check on the status of that, or if you are in a hurry (not sure when I can make the call), a call directly to Fays2 ought to get you the update. Just let him know you are one of my customers.....

Ideally installation is to be with the suspension loaded. However if you have to lift the car, that's fine, but everything needs to be checked and retightened with the car @ ride height.

Posted by: sgarnett Sep 6 2008, 08:06 PM

What's the recommended maintenance for the bellcrank (aka "propellor") bearing? It doesn't appear to be sealed. Shoot in some WD-40 every now and then, or some aerosol lithium grease, or ???

Posted by: v7guy Sep 7 2008, 06:47 AM

I was under the impression that Sam had always said it was a fruitless venture to change the rear roll center and had even commented on several occasions that the PHR lowering from UE was a waste of time given the insignificant amount that the rear shifted from side to side even in a stock configuration... especially in a soft suspension.

Has something changed?

Is this product a result of consumer demand?

Are there any real world experiences as far as performance improvements go?



I've read the books, I know the theory, but theory and real life doesn't always match up.

Posted by: sgarnett Sep 7 2008, 03:05 PM

I suspect Sam is busily preparing for Nats, or already on the road by now.

This is an attempt at an unbiased overview. I'm not trying to put words into Sam's (or Jason's) mouth, but if you want his full opinion on the matter (in his own words), it's already out there to search for.

Sam has said that it is a fruitless venture to lower the roll center, and as recently as a few weeks ago (a page or so back in this thread) his opinion hadn't changed. The Watts link does allow lowering the roll center easily, but that's not the reason Sam is promoting it. In fact, he asked Fay to ensure that there was enough range of adjustment to avoid lowering the roll center.

Sam's objection (ie the drawback of lowering the roll center) is primarily that lowering the roll center requires stiffening the rear springs and/or swaybar. This reduces "mechanical grip" (the static ability of the car to maintain the weight distribution between tires on pavement that isn't perfectly flat). The stiffer suspension (all else being equal) also causes the axle to skip around more when crossing bumps, potentially reducing even straight-line traction.

Jason contends that he can address the bump handling with different shock valving.

The advantage of lowering the roll center is that it keeps the handling balance more consistent through the turn, and reduces jacking (which is a bigger issues with swing arm suspensions, but still applies somewhat to live axles). Weight transfers much faster through the PHR (or Watts) than through the shocks and springs. Lowering the rear roll center lowers the PHR/Watts contribution to the total weight transfer, which reduces it's ability to dynamically change the handling.

The advantage of the Watts link setup is also that it helps keep the handling more consistent (though not in the same way), even at the original "approximate" roll center height, because it keeps the roll center from moving around as much relative the chassis center of gravity.

The Watts link does reduce lateral movement of the chassis. Besides any effect on handling, lateral movement increases tire rubbing issues.

Lowering the rear roll center, whether by lowering the PHR or lowering the Watts pivot, will increase lateral movement and rubbing, though the Watts link is starting with an advantage in that regard.

So, Sam's argument against lowering PHR (or Watts pivot) has never had anything to do with "the insignificant amount that the rear shifted from side to side" because lowering the PHR does not reduce lateral movement at all. He has argued that lowering the PHR (specifically on the fbody) will increase lateral movement even more than is inherent to lowering the roll center anyway due to increased flexing of the long brackets.

Outside the context of PHR lowering, Sam has also argued for the importance of using a very strong, rigid PHR with rod ends to minimize lateral movement. So, I don't think he has ever meant to downplay the significance of controlling lateral movement.

Sam has argued that the transitional handling balance changes due to the relatively high roll center in the stock-like configuration do not cause a significant driving problem. In other words, he is arguing that he can adequately address transitional stability with his setups.

As I said, this is just intended to be a summary (OK, a verbose "summary") of the different issues and points of view, not an argument for any particular point of view. I don't think anyone disagrees on the physics/geometry involved with the various topics. I think all the disagreement lies in how much importance to assign to each topic.

Now, the fact remains that if you lower the roll center significantly, you will need to buy a new set of (at least) a new rear bar and springs. Sam sells any springs you may want, and up to at least a 25mm solid rear bar (ST). While he certainly doesn't recommend them, he does sell most of the parts you need if you want to try it.

The Watts link will make it fairly painless to experiment a little. Springs and bars are relatively cheap, and if you change your mind before they get too rusty and scraped up, they are fairly easy to resell. If you lower the roll center enough to need custom shocks, that does complicate the situation a bit, though.

The Watts also allows movement of the roll center by as little as half an inch. That opens the possibility of small tweaks for tuning, even if you aren't going to completely overhaul your suspension package for a large change..

For example, lowering the roll center with no other changes will increase the understeer tendency of the car. Aging tires or a slick surface tend to increase the oversteer tendency of the car. So, lowering the Watts pivot by 1/2" or so as your tires get old or when heading to a notoriously slick site could be a very convenient option. Heck, it should only take a few minutes to move the pivot using ramps (with no further adjustment needed if it was set up properly to begin with), so even a quick adjustment for weather change is feasible.

Posted by: shortbus Sep 8 2008, 12:22 PM

Sean, that was a most excellent reply. Kudos to you.

Posted by: Sam Strano Sep 8 2008, 04:05 PM

Wow. Thanks to Sean for taking the time to go through things. And he's almost 100% right on.

Up to now dropping the RC via a PHB height was done with very coarse adjustments. You got to weld on brackets to the body and meant the first setting down was a significant change in RC height, and then from there the further changes were also a big coarse. This setup allows smaller (and easier) changes in height.

I'm not a fan of the road-kill scraping PHB height and the on the ground RC. Years ago I messed with PHB brackets that allowed adjustment (via a slider). But couldn't make it work, and scraped the idea because in the meantime I got the car more settled via shock adjustments, etc.

And just because it has adjustments for rc height doesn't mean you have to use it.

Posted by: shortbus Sep 8 2008, 05:08 PM

Soo..... anyone get theres? Anyone put it on?

Any problems?

Any feedback?

Posted by: Cr0usEEE Sep 8 2008, 05:10 PM

In the process now Brian...and I have been working on it with squarrnet.

Posted by: sgarnett Sep 10 2008, 04:24 PM

I just spoke with Jim Fay. He said the bearing actually is sealed, and since it doesn't move much in operation, there's also very little wear. No maintenance is required.

As a few people have already discovered, the axle clamp shims that were originally shipped in the kits are too thin for the 10 bolt tubes. A few people have already received and verified new shims, and they were shipped out for everyone else (or maybe everyone that didn't specify a 9" or 12 bolt fitment) on Monday (9/8/08).

Posted by: veinharvest Sep 20 2008, 05:23 AM

Mine's on! ---a six pack, one f-word, and one cracked knuckle = Easy. Just need big wrenches.
Now to play. Too bad My tires are sheeeeit.

Posted by: rmackintosh Sep 20 2008, 06:21 PM

THIS THREAD IS WORTHLESS WITHOUT PICS.....

Posted by: slowcamaro Sep 20 2008, 06:38 PM

Awaits pics of bloody hands, and empty beer cans....

Posted by: veinharvest Sep 21 2008, 02:56 AM

Drove about 50 miles today in about a five mile radius of my house. So far I'm really smiling. I think this is going to work well. I was on nittos (instead of hoosiers) Figured I'd better pull in before someone called the state police. First time I liked the long response time around here.
I absolutely Can't wait to get it back on a track. Nelson ledges had two day open track this weekend and BMWCCA has a week long school /octoberfest at Watkins Glen - THIS WEEK. Damn this lack of time off.

I was going to paste some nasty hand picture and say it didn't really hurt, but here's the site. Don't want to offend anyone......yet.

http://www.irishambulance.net/gallery/trauma/machineHand
Just need to put some ice on it.

Posted by: killer_bluebird Sep 21 2008, 06:37 AM

If you do come to Nelson Ledges let me know I like to come down and check it out.

Posted by: shortbus Sep 22 2008, 07:31 PM

I have done an autocross and 6+ hours at Putnam Park. On both Hoosiers and some pretty sticky streets.

I lowered the pinion 1/2 inch.. one hole with no other changes.

The car is manageable in the wet, and dry. The one hole made a positive difference I think.

The clamps did not move. Everything looks fine at safe. Cheers.

Posted by: ESPCamaro Sep 29 2008, 07:51 PM

Nice to see some new developments for these cars....
Helps to solidify my point that...............................

I really don't see the 4th gen F-body going out of favor in ESP for some time.......As it has been mentioned in other threads that the WRX or new Mustang would be the best cars.


A S/P tangent sorry.

Posted by: Applejack Oct 2 2008, 02:12 AM

I've been running my '99 in ESP for the last year. I didn't want to change to the Watts right before Nationals this year, but I'm planning on making the change over the winter.

Here's a G-G diagram of three drivers in my car from the East Course in Topeka. The upper LH section of the 'circle' is typical of what the DL1 has been telling me all year. That is that the car puts power down coming out of corners better out of left hand corners than while turning right.



To back-up the trend I'm showing here, I've seen some A-sedan data from a local 4-th gen and it shows the same thing. I've seen the same thing in ESP Mustangs with panhard bars as well.

My theory is that the Watts will fill in the blue area of the 'circle'. Expanding the performance envelope can only be an improvement and making it mirror the right side of the 'circle' is probably what people are responding to when they find it easier to drive. This trend is, I think, the evidence of the CG and RC height getting closer while rolling one direction and getting farther apart when rolling in the other direction. Since a Watts will eliminate that difference it all seems to make sense.

If anyone has 'after'data once they've installed their Watts it'd be great to have a look. I'll post mine when I get it, but it won't be until April or May.

Posted by: shortbus Oct 2 2008, 12:23 PM

That there is an awesome little graphic.

I think there will be/are improvements in the lower left too. Just judging by the absence of data in the that quadrant.

I do think the car acted well. My buddy drove the car in the wet for 30 mins at Putnam and I did roughly 2 hours in the wet.

We both agreed that the car was better. (I needed the second opinion because, as most of you know already, I am pretty insensitive. Plus, I lack the cool computerized toys to tell me such things like Jason does.)

Posted by: Applejack Oct 2 2008, 02:10 PM

The lack of lower left points may be due to the course layout. I haven't noticed that area being sub par through this season.

Posted by: Cr0usEEE Oct 2 2008, 02:30 PM

Jason,

You can try my car at the Detroit Oct 19 event...can you hook up your little toy to my car?

Posted by: Applejack Oct 2 2008, 03:04 PM

Good idea John, I was thinking about trying to get the DL1 in your car as well. Maybe the answer is only two weeks away. Hopefully this cold snap goes away.

Posted by: Sam Strano Oct 2 2008, 05:09 PM

Jason--

John Crouse is bringing his car to a DC event this weekend, and I'm going to run it a bit. Frankly, I can't wait. The reviews I've gotten from John and others who have gotten it on have been damned good. Ranging form more predictable, to a feel more like an IRS car. I'm looking forward to it, and come Monday I'll probably have a lot to say if you want to give me a ring.

And I see John volunteered his car to you on the 19th too, so seeing hopefully be believing. I only wish my car was currently in working order so I could back to back them this weekend. But Mr. Burdette will be there and I know his car is basically my car, and what it's like. So as long as he lets me in it, I'll get the back to back data I need.

Your data is pretty damned cool, and shows *EXACTLY* why I was/am so high on a Watts for the car and why I've wanted to do one for while. The way the PHB's mount on our cars and on the Mustangs means that when you turn right the RC goes up and the PHB actually pushes the body up, unloading the inside rear tire more than when you turn left and the RC drops and the body is pulled down. And FWIW, F-stock cars do this too, it's only worse on ESP cars given the more tire and grip, but I've see the same thing on friction circles both in my Camaro in FS and the Mustang now.

Posted by: patred Oct 2 2008, 05:31 PM

Maybe you can mount your MaxQ (or whatever data logger you have) in both cars.

And post the information in that thread on thirdgen.org so someone can tell you how the Watts Link isn't working.

Pat

Posted by: BigEnos Oct 2 2008, 07:37 PM

I'm sure the DL1 will find its way into my car this weekend. Can't wait to try out the Watts Link, too. Both John and I have fresh Hoosiers so this should be a very good test.

Posted by: StanIROCZ Oct 2 2008, 09:00 PM

Don't forget that the driver makes the left side of the car heavier also.. That's an LH turn advantage in-it-self.

I have the DIY Coleman / JonA Aluminum PHB. I'm not impressed with its stiffness (or lack there of) if I grab a hold of it in the center and pull down. I understand that that is different loading that what it sees in the car, but I think it is related in terms of resonance and buckling, which would be applicable in a RH turn. I eventually want to make a new PHB out of a 1.5 or 2” thin wall steel.

Posted by: Applejack Oct 3 2008, 01:25 PM

Sam, if you can mount your Max Q in John's car this weekend that would be awesome. I'm really gald there's some interest here to put some data behind all of the comments. If someone's got something to post, let's see it!

Now all we need to do is figure out how to get an adjustable/shorter UCA for '09 and the 4th gen's might get taken to a new level. I suppose that's another thread though.

<edit for typing>

Posted by: Applejack Oct 3 2008, 01:30 PM

True, but the blue are on the graph I posted is HUGE. Comparing this effect to some data that I have from Marcus Merideth's ESP Mustang (PHB and higher roll stiffness) was interesting. The effect was still there in his car, but there was a much smaller empty area on the G-G. I'm thinking this is due to the stiffer setup not having as much of a change in distance between the CG and RC.

Posted by: marka Oct 3 2008, 03:13 PM

Howdy,

What type of diff do each of you have? I'd have expected any live axle car to put down power better on an exit of a left hander vs. a right hander.

Interested to hear what Sam/Brian/others find with back to back comparisons!

Mark

Posted by: Applejack Oct 3 2008, 03:16 PM

I have a T2R.

Posted by: Cr0usEEE Oct 3 2008, 03:33 PM

I have the Auburn Pro Racer Diff after my T2R blew up at Nationals.

Posted by: shortbus Oct 3 2008, 03:41 PM

I have a noisy T2R. Yes. It makes noise sometimes... like automatic gun fire aimed at the drivers butt. It has not done it in a while though. /shrug

Posted by: Sam Strano Oct 3 2008, 04:15 PM

I don't know if I'll have time to use the MaxQData.... Being an Autocrossers Inc. event, the core group of us pretty much busy our butts from 7 AM on. I have to do the course, find time to walk it, get ready to drive, etc.

I have to tell you not to expect the data. If you want you'll get it on the 19th as you can put your DL1 in John's car (since he's planning on coming up). I am, and have been more interested in how the car drives than what some little lines say. That annoys some, but I think I've proven overall what I do on setup works pretty well--and on a lot of different cars, not just F-bodies.

We all have our ways. I'm simply looking at a back to back to back test between John's car which is identical to mine but for the Watts, Brian's car (also 98% like mine and will be there), and to compare how fast vs. the Shelby since it's another known. I don't know if there will be a time difference... I'm looking for how the car reacts and feels. Even if it's not faster, easier to drive fast is still something I'm interested in.

Posted by: Applejack Oct 3 2008, 04:39 PM

Fair enough.

Posted by: Sam Strano Oct 3 2008, 04:40 PM

Don't forget that while his car is much stiffer, the RC is also a lot lower too because the PHB is mounted so low and the car is also lighter.... it also has the 5 link (ok, really a 4-link and PHB) where he can adjust his instant center where we really can't.

So while it's a Solid axle RWD car, it's a bit different. Though every time I've driven mine back to back they are pretty much the same speed. Proof you have two ways to skin a cat--ours is just more cost effective.

Posted by: BigEnos Oct 3 2008, 04:57 PM

FYI, I think Kevin will ban your @$$ for using analogies about cat dismemberment.

Posted by: Sam Strano Oct 3 2008, 06:54 PM

I like cats... Let me rephrase: You can do things differenly and end up with a competitive result. Mine just costs less (and you know, wins).

Posted by: Sam Strano Oct 3 2008, 07:59 PM

F-bodies have quite good cross weights with driver most of the time anyway. I see this as a non-issue.

I agree on the PHB. It's why I WILL NOT use aluminum on the PHB. It's much too far of a run, and the aluminum is just not as strong as steel is. Even then a steel PHB has some of that flex too, which is just another thing that makes the Watts Link so cool. The arms, while aluminum are much, much shorter and therefore harder to bend.

Posted by: StanIROCZ Oct 5 2008, 03:38 AM

Cross weight is different than L or R side weight. No matter what you do with your spring seats you can't change the front/rear or right/left weights. You are only making the cross weights as close as possible.

Mark brings up a good point about the driveshaft torque as well.

Posted by: marka Oct 6 2008, 02:38 AM

Howdy,

What's the scoop on weight of this setup vs. a panhard? Anyone got numbers yet?

Somewhat related... What do you folks think about legality in SP of removing the panhard bracket from the axle? 15.H.1 might justify it, but might not, too.

Maybe I should care more, about watts vs. panhard, but what I really like about this setup is that its an easy bolt in way to get good rear roll center adjustment...

Of course, I can modify my panhard mount for "free"... :-/

Mark

Posted by: marka Oct 6 2008, 02:40 AM

Howdy,

More SP legality questions...

What rule allows you to remove the bolt in panhard mount brace that goes from the factory frame rail on the left to the panhard mount bracket on the right?

Mark

Posted by: sgarnett Oct 6 2008, 05:05 AM

added weight
Watts frame: 11 3/4 lb
link assemblies, total for pair: 3 5/8 lb
axle clamp assemblies, including rod end and mounting bolts, total for pair: 10 3/4
bellcrank assembly, including rod end and mounting bolts: 2 1/2 lb

removed weight
"upper PHR" brace: 4 1/4 lb
LG/G2 aluminum PHR w/ aluminum rod ends, including bushings and driver side bolt: 2 3/4 lb

I used a medical balance beam scale with 1/4 lb graduations. My PHR probably is/was lighter than typical. The aluminum rod end bodies are definitely lighter, and I suspect the swedged tube uses thinner walls than the typical smaller diameter, straight tubes.

I did not weigh the mounting bolts that are reused.

BTW, both the stock driver side PHR brace bolts and the replacements supplied by Fays2 are too large to fit. Or at least, they were too large for my car - YMMV. I used M10x25 grade 12.9 "zinc plated" socket-head cap screws (machine screws) from McMaster. They show up as plated as you drill down through the part selection, but when you get to the final part and pull up the spec, they actually have a zinc-flake coating of some sort, which should reduce embrittlement concerns. I ordered both 25m and 35mm. While they were the same brand, the 25s were made in italy and the 35s were made in Tiawan. The threaded plate that the bolts go into probably won't withstand sufficient torque (the factory spec is only 35 lb-ft) to properly load grade 12.9 bolts, so the split washer is important for maintaining some tension. I used the black oxide finish, "high collar" (made for use with small head machine screws) M10 split washers from McMaster, directly under the bolt head . I also used some extra-thick, hardened 3/8" Lawson washers I had on hand, under the split washers, so the slotted holes in the Watts frame won't break the spilt washers.

A 3/8" drive, long 8mm hex drive bit (also from McMaster) will come in handy if you use a torque wrench

There's a seam in the chassis just inboard of those driver-side bolts. If you look closely or use your fingertips, there's a short tab that protrudes a little above the seam. I ground down that tab a little to avoid interference, but left the rest of the seam alone.

The swaybar shims provided by Fay are only 3/4" wide. That's about right for the stock rubber bushings, but for typical poly bushings, it's a little skimpy IMHO. I made my own from the 1.5" wide stock carried by Metal Supermarkets. They cut the pieces to length, so all I had to do was drill them.

Posted by: Sam Strano Oct 6 2008, 05:00 PM

15.8.H.1

Or is there something overly vague about "Addition or replacement of suspension stabilizers (linkage
connecting the axle housing or De Dion to the chassis, which
controls lateral suspension location) is permitted."?

Posted by: Sam Strano Oct 6 2008, 05:08 PM

Drove the car, as did Brian, Pat and maybe a few others back to back with 2 other "strano" standard cars. Ran pretty much the same times, but John's car needs a little more dialing in. Brian's and Karl Bender's cars are working great, and I matched my time in those cars with John's. Considering this is but the second time out for the car, and was on tires not quite as new (but not bad) as Brian's and Karl's I'm encouraged.

The setup needs a little dialing in. I had John move the RC up to the top hole as the car was just a little too tight, and that helped the car out. But considering we started with EXACTLY the setup we have on Karl Bender's car with a PHB more speed is there to be found. Both Brian and I had had driving position issues in John's car (he has a street Recaro) and we both found the position to be awkward. That does effect the speed, as I later drove another car I setup, again almost identical to the others but with a stock seat and couldn't run the time I could in the other cars, and it turned as well. I just couldn't drive it as well.

All in all the back of car is definitely different, and it's not far off. The change of one hole up in RC height helped it a lot in and of itself. The balance got better and the the rear was better stuck. We need to play with tire pressures and shock settings a bit more, but it'll be pretty easy to dial in based on what I felt and the speed the car exhibited vs. a known, fast setup.

Posted by: Sam Strano Oct 6 2008, 05:29 PM

FWIW, it might be time to move this to the Suspension section....

Posted by: shortbus Oct 6 2008, 05:34 PM

Hunt, poke. Double post.

Posted by: marka Oct 6 2008, 06:03 PM

Howdy,

For sure that allows you to remove the panhard bar and replace it with a watts link. But I don't know that its a slam dunk that the upper panhard brace on the car is part of the panhard, vs. part of the car's chassis.

It'd make me nervous enough to want a clarification anyway.

The answer to that would probably also dictate if it was legal to cut the old panhard mount off the axle.

Mark

Posted by: shortbus Oct 6 2008, 06:20 PM

OML.

The rule includes the bracing. It is obvious that that bar serves no other purpose then to support the panhard bar.

Posted by: BigEnos Oct 6 2008, 06:24 PM

Yeah unfortunately I didn't get a chance to run the car with the RC raised so I don't think I have a good feel for the advantage of the watts vs. phr. With the lowered RC the car just pushed and was generally unresponsive. It was a no-brainer to slalom but it would give it all back in sweepers. Oddly, the rear would stick well but then let go violently if you really tried to make it move around. I was able to run within about .5 of my fast time in my car in two runs in John's. I don't know what Sam ran ultimately in John's car.

Bravo on the course design, Sam. It had a little bit of everything and was a lot of fun.

Posted by: sgarnett Oct 6 2008, 06:46 PM

So far, events have conspired against any competition Watts testing for me.

However, based on my testing with the PHR lowered a little (not roadkill-scraping), you might want to try a Hotchkiss rear bar (or the ST bar, but I think it's going to be a lot heavier) before giving up on the lowered roll center That should allow you to run the roll center about 1" lower, plus/minus 1/2", with no other changes.

Posted by: Sam Strano Oct 6 2008, 07:14 PM

First of, if anyone wants to try a 25mm hollow bar, we have those from both Hotchkis and Addco....

But I don't think anyone wants to spend money before they need to, and the car is damned close as is w/a 22mm bar. Witness the fact both Brian and I ran similar times in John's car to Brian's and in my case including another car too. That can't happen if we're way off, and I did drive John's after raising the RC height and it was better.

And fwiw my rational for the Watts isn't to get a lower RC. I'm very happy with the balance where it is. It's to get rid of the jacking and lateral movement of the PHB. I don't want to change the suspension setup all around, and don't feel we'll need to unless someone does opt to slam the RC down.

Posted by: shortbus Oct 6 2008, 07:32 PM

I tried a 22mm solid bar.

(we had a test and tune)

I moved the pinon down 3 holes to get back to my liking. So, it was lowered 1.5 inches.

With the car like this I was lifting inside front wheels on corner exit.

Posted by: JimMueller Oct 6 2008, 08:49 PM

Err, that's desirable?

Posted by: marka Oct 6 2008, 08:51 PM

Howdy,

So does that mean that I can completely cut off all the panhard brackets on the car, and completely fabricate my own from scratch?

If I thought it was obvious, I wouldn't be asking. This is the same class where some people consider welding to not be an allowed method of update / backdate and also where the amount of metal in a bushing must remain the same as stock.

Mark

Posted by: sgarnett Oct 6 2008, 09:02 PM

Oops, I thought the 25mm solid bar you carried was the ST, not the Addco.

At any rate, my reason for suggesting the Hotchkiss bar was not that it is needed to fix the Watts at all - it certainly isn't "broken". As you said, the pivot can be tweaked to restore the balance with everything else unchanged. In fact, tweaking the roll center height with the Watts is even quicker than swapping bars.

In contrast to my earlier tome, this is not an attempt at unbiased overview. It is my biased opinion based on previous testing. As I said though, I have not yet tested it in anger on the Watts. In my opinion, lowering the roll center a little (not slamming it all the way down) and rebalancing it with the larger swaybar makes the car easier to drive compared to the higher roll center with a smaller bar (springs and shocks the same, and resulting balance roughly the same in either case). At least, that was the case with the PHR. I aSSume it will work that way with the Watts as well. Time will tell.

I agree that you have never promoted the Watts setup as a way to change the roll center. I, on the other hand, purchased it partly because it allows changing the roll center quickly, and in relatively small increments. Nobody needs to do that; it's just an option available to anyone who wishes to capitalize on it.

Posted by: sgarnett Oct 6 2008, 09:07 PM

That seems a little low for that bar. Do you mean three holes down from the top, or three holes down from the center of your former PHR (ie from a string connecting the bolt holes)?

Posted by: Sam Strano Oct 6 2008, 09:23 PM

Depends who you ask... I don't think so, but shortbus tends to march to his own beat.

Posted by: Sam Strano Oct 6 2008, 09:26 PM

I don't know and don't care. It's not relevant to this conversation as you aren't cutting *ANY* of the brackets off the car, and the Watts link directly bolts the the mounting location the upper PHB brace does so it is replacing, not removing.

Posted by: Sam Strano Oct 6 2008, 09:44 PM

I've got both hollow and solid 25mm's if that's what folks want or need.

I understand where you are coming from, and it's a sales point for those that want to lower the RC height easily. John changed his yesterday in 10 minutes or so. While that's not really any easier than moving a PHB up and down you don't have the welding required to install PHB mounts and you get more fine tunable adjustment (smaller movements).

Again, for me it was more about getting rid of the jacking effect and the arc of the PHB. The balance of the cars is exactly what I want now. Given my Camaro has been laid up for a while, it was a sweet reminder of just how happy I am with my setup stuff. I got in Karl's car and it felt EXACTLY like my car when it's not broken, and I ran a time that PAXed favorably against what I ran in the Shelby (yep, drove that too). Admittedly I was a little rusty as the ESP F-bodies and the Mustang do drive differently.

Posted by: ESPCamaro Oct 6 2008, 10:37 PM

Some cars it is almost if not unavoidable.....In a BMW you will simply be throwing away grip trying to tune out an inside front lift......But in these cars there isn't enough weight transfer normally to lift an inside front completely up. Let alone all the time. Your giving away some grip there friend. If not by eliminating any load carrying ability of the inside tire, then by having the outside tire carry ALL the load....








Sam what's wrong with your car?

Posted by: Cr0usEEE Oct 6 2008, 11:34 PM

Apparently Sam's car doesnt like poles...and im not referring to the people from a country between Germany and Russia

Posted by: BigEnos Oct 7 2008, 02:38 AM

More precisely, somewhere along the line it got setup to run oval track, would turn left great, wouldn't go right very well. I don't think he's figured out the problem, yet.

An interesting note from this weekend, a local guy with a nice DSP E30 was doing fun runs with us and managed to spank Sam and I by three tenths raw time. Not bad for a grocery getter.

Posted by: BigEnos Oct 7 2008, 02:42 AM

I've definitely not given up on trying a roll center change. With the extra throttle sensitivity of my car and more engine braking vs. an LS1 car I think it might be an interesting experiment.

Posted by: sgarnett Oct 7 2008, 04:14 AM

Just for the record, can you sell the Hotchkiss rear bar separately now, or is there another hollow 25? I don't see the Hotchkiss or Addco bars listed; only the Strano bars.

I already reinstalled my old Hotchkiss bar, since the Hellwig adjustable bar doesn't clear the Watts bellcrank.

Posted by: pknowles Oct 7 2008, 10:07 AM

Sam sells Addco's hollow 25mm bar. I bought one from him and made it adjustable with sliding end links.

Posted by: shortbus Oct 7 2008, 12:49 PM

No, I do not think it is desirable. At least not at the height I was lifting mine. It would reliably do it in only the fastest wide open flat out sweepers... which was 6000 rpms and second gear in my car.

It illustrates a point though. As you lower the pinion more weight transfers to the rear and specifically the outside rear while cornering.

Sam said he won't want to change his suspension around and I assume that means sway bars. He does know what he wants out of his car.

So, the lesson is that this Watts Link this may not be what everyone wants. Or needs. I think the valid point of reducing jacking effect is a meaningful advancement. However, 650+ dollars to just reduce something live axle cars have been dealing with for decades is a ton of money in comparison to the benefit. With the recent probable rule changes upper control arms could be a bigger advancement. I am sure there is someone that posts on this forum that will sell you a nice set.... If only I could remember that guys name..... I am sure he has a web site.... nope. I got nothin.



As for lifting the inside front tires. I think other changes will need to be made to compensate for this. (Yes, I used "compensate" on purpose.) This goes back to my previous point of this may not be want you want to do. I suspect for most having a 1/2" adjustment in roll center with NO other changes can get the car more neutral or more where the driver wants the feel of the car. (Again this is expensive for just that little thing.)

I do have a plan on the compensating control for the tire lifting. I'll report the results. In the meantime they are evil secret plans, eyes only and stuff like that. I might just be going the wrong way anyway.

(oooh, you know what. I think I just contributed something useful.)

Posted by: sgarnett Oct 7 2008, 01:57 PM

No, you've got it backwards. Lowering the Watts pivot reduces lateral weight transfer to the outside rear while cornering. That's why a bigger rear bar is required, and why I think your rear bar is still too small for your current setting (or, your pivot height is still too low for your current bar). If you are lifting your inside front, you are getting 100% lateral weight transfer at that end.

Also, assuming you didn't change the ride (CG) height or anti-squat geometry, if you are transferring more weight to the rear, it is and can only be because you are accelerating harder. With the roll center lowered, combined with a bar that is probably still too small, you were probably able to use more throttle without losing the tail, though I suspect it was pushing a little.

From a lateral weight transfer perspective, if the inside front is lightly loaded, then so is the outside rear and vice-versa.

Posted by: shortbus Oct 7 2008, 02:00 PM

Ah, yes. Thank you for correcting me, Sean.

Posted by: shortbus Oct 7 2008, 02:02 PM

It certainly did not feel like it was pushing. At the Test and Tune on Saturday I kept lowering the pinion until the push went away.

And yes. I did have boat loads more throttle at corner exit.

Posted by: sgarnett Oct 7 2008, 02:26 PM

In other words, you kept increasing the push until the push went away.... There's a piece missing from this puzzle.

Posted by: sgarnett Oct 7 2008, 02:30 PM

Got pics? Did you weld on a slot, or make a slider that clamps around the tube? Is the Addco bar CM (with associated welding issues)?

Posted by: pknowles Oct 7 2008, 02:31 PM

The piece might be slamming into the bump stops.

Posted by: pknowles Oct 7 2008, 02:35 PM

Cut the eyes off the ends of the bar and welded on a square tube with a slot machined in it. I had to make some brackets that bolt onto the body to use rod ended links. I'll try to remember to take some pics when I get home, it's sitting in my "car room" because I didn't like the lowered roll center.

Posted by: sgarnett Oct 7 2008, 02:56 PM

Ah! Now that makes sense!!! With all else unchanged, lowering the rear roll center reduces rear lateral weight transfer (which will also help hook up the rear under power) but it will increase the roll. That's why a bigger rear bar is needed (and possibly spring and shock changes if the roll center is dropped a lot).

Remember, roll and weight transfer are not the same thing. You can have a lot of roll with little weight transfer and vice-versa.

Once the car lifts the inside front enough to park the outside rear on the stop, it will stop pushing, but not in a good way Until you hit that outside rear stop, there's lot's of roll (and camber loss at the front) but little weight transfer. When you hit the stop and the rate spikes, weight transfers suddenly to the outside rear even though there will be little additional roll.

That's not in any way an indictment of the Watts link.

It's also not an indictment of lowering the roll center, though the required swaybar/spring changes are at the heart of Sam's objection to it, and of course some may not like it. I also haven't tried it nearly as low as some, might not like it, and may never try it. Some is good doesn't always mean that more is better.

Brian, I'd suggest either buying the hollow Addco 25mm bar (that would be my choice), OR raise the pivot until the push comes back, and then keep raising it until the push goes away again

Posted by: sgarnett Oct 7 2008, 03:08 PM

Wanna sell it?

Posted by: shortbus Oct 7 2008, 03:13 PM

Ha, no... no bump stop slamming.

I went from an extended 19mm rear swaybar (think 17 or 18mm at most) to a 22mm solid bar.

--> I miss spoke before. (Sorry, hangover issue)

I lowered the pinion on until the looseness went away and the car got [to what I call] neutral.

Posted by: pknowles Oct 7 2008, 03:13 PM

Not until I do the same thing to one of Sam's 22 bars.

Posted by: BigEnos Oct 7 2008, 03:46 PM

My car doesn't have a watts or any other mechanism for changing RC on it, at least not right now it doesn't.

Once I took one run in John's car I went out on the 2nd one and literally tried to make the thing transition as fast as possible and mostly the rear just stuck which was nice. I bet the rear letting go had more to do with some bumps in a very fast slalom/lane change than with any inherent issue with the RC change. The mid-corner push had everything to do with the RC height change, though. I'd be more incline to compensate for the RC change with spring vs. bar because I'm already torching my T2R coming out of slow right-handers.

But, I'm still not sure I'm gonna mess with it yet anyway on my car.

Posted by: Sam Strano Oct 7 2008, 04:35 PM

The Hotchkis has always been available separately for the rear--it's the front one that's not. And I don't have either on my website, I just can't possibly keep up with every single thing out there, and try and concentrate on parts that work best for the masses.

I have both bars, and I *BEG* you guys to ask me about things you don't see on the website. I might not be able to help, but chances are I can.

Posted by: Sam Strano Oct 7 2008, 04:36 PM

I have it narrowed down to two things... The trouble is finding the time to work on it and then running it to shake it down, not tracking down the problem...

Posted by: sgarnett Oct 9 2008, 02:48 PM

Here's a question specifically for those who have tested and at adjusted the Watts on race tires with no other changes:

To get the car back to "balanced", where did the pivot end up relative the center of the PHR that was removed?

The RC height moves around in roll with the PHR, as well as the distance from the roll center to the CG. That also changes a little in trail braking, by about half as much as the tail rises, but of course it changes a lot more as the turn-in is initiated. So, the balance isn't static, and to some extent we choose the swaybar (and etc) so that the car is manageable at worst case.

The RC height shouldn't move much in roll with the Watts. The roll center height will actually change a little more in trail braking, but the distance from the roll center to the CG will NOT. It also shouldn't change as the turn-in is initiated.

In other words, I wouldn't expect the Watts and PHR to behave exactly the same with equal static rear roll center height. That's kind of the point So, I wouldn't be surprised if the Watts pivot needs to be a little higher to achieve approximately the same average balance or feel. That seems to be consistent with the descriptions of dialing in John's car above, but I don't know where it started or how much it had to move.

Again, I'm specifically interested in how the RC height had to change (if any), relative to where it was before, without any other changes (ignoring things like wheel bearings, of course).

I'm only going to get one testing opportunity this year on a semi-decent surface, and there won't be any opportunity for tuning until next year. I missed several testing opportunities because of my wife's major surgery, our last great-surface event was canceled due to a garbage truck rodeo (seriously) failing to clean up the site on time, and what's left will be on a small, slick site that's too misleading for testing.

Posted by: shortbus Oct 9 2008, 03:01 PM

After I added the WL I drove around with WL Pivot in the top hole. It did not feel all that different.

I drove at Putnam Park with the WLP in the top hole with my normal race set up (i.e.: tires, etc)

I then moved the WLP down one hole (one half inch right?) The car felt pretty much the same, but I think it was better. Probably because it pushed a bit more and there was less drama at the limit.

The next day I drove it around Putnam for 2 hours in the rain on street tires. The car was fine. Better then I remember it was with the PHR.

(Keep in mind that I am a dull person and such... my senses are dull. I'll notice the big changes like the difference between a dirt road and a paved road.)

My buddy drove my car (a very excellent and sensitive driver) said the car was better and way more manageable then it use to be. He drove the car in the wet.

Posted by: Cr0usEEE Oct 9 2008, 03:02 PM

Sean,

I started the car one pivot point down from top which worked GREAT at OVR's last Cooper Stadium event as the lot is not as grippy as the Fedex Field lot. I believe that I tend to turn the car more with trail braking than Brian or Sam...to which I did not notice the slight push that they did. Yeah I still divebomb slow as shit corners....

I moved it to the top most point which made a big improvement at Fedex's high grip lot in steady state turns and made slaloms a little bit worse.

I will try a few things at my next event up with Jason Kolk and those Detroit region people and see how it goes.

BTW...if I get this feel thing down cars with watts links will DESTROY at autox. The fact that I could change that RC just that little bit made the car love slaloms more than anything. I see this as a huge benefit when it comes to Nationals next year if we have a "sweeper" course and a "slalom" course. 5 min adjustment with no shock or spring changes and you can throw the car around slalom cones.

Now I just gotta add more rear spacer and roll my fenders more. The car is able to "squat" out of corners putting massive power down which is causing a little to much fender to tire contact that I would like.

Another note: I like the "feel" of the auburn racer diff in my car better than the T2R. It feels like I can just use the throttle to change the attitude of the car that much more.

Posted by: shortbus Oct 9 2008, 03:04 PM

I was able to bring a racket and crescent wrench and make changes to the WLP while in grid. It was easy enough to do it by myself in 3 minutes. No jack required.

Besides, your only going to move it down anyway. =)

Posted by: Cr0usEEE Oct 9 2008, 03:07 PM

I believe it was an 1-1/8" rachet and a 1-1/4" wrench to get it all changed...and it looks like Brian (Shortbus) and I have the same feedback as well.

Posted by: sgarnett Oct 9 2008, 05:30 PM

I'm definitely going to start with it lower than most. My car was already dialed in with the Hotchkiss bar. I had swapped in a Hellwig bar before Putnam (at the stiffest setting) with no other changes, and swapped the Hotchkiss bar back in for the Watts because it fits My spring rates, shocks, front bar, and ride height are all the basic Strano setup, but I had the PHR lowered a little. So, by knowing where the Strano cars ended up, I can make a reasonable guess about where to start mine (which will be lower, but roadkill has nothing to fear).

I didn't realize the pivot could be reached without ramps. That's cool! I'm going to have to try it ahead of time, though. My, um, ground clearance is a bit more snug than yours

Posted by: shortbus Oct 9 2008, 05:41 PM

I was initially worried that I'd have to drag around a jack. I was happy I did not have to.

Don't worry though if your arms are long the ground clearance does not matter.

Posted by: sgarnett Oct 19 2008, 01:41 AM

Well, the stars are not lining up for me to test tomorrow. My one and only test this year will be on a small, slick lot in cool weather. Good thing I can drop the pivot a notch to plant the rear if needed

Posted by: shortbus Oct 20 2008, 11:19 AM

How did it go?

I did a test yesterday too.... I don't think the pivot needs to move all that much. It is not a drastic change when moving the WLP down (or up). It is more of a gentle change. More akin to a small adjustment with an adjustable rear bar.

Did you move your WLP down all that much?

Posted by: sgarnett Oct 20 2008, 02:23 PM

The small, slick, cool test will be next week at Applebee's. I was hoping to test yesterday at UPS in Louisville, but it didn't work out.

For Applebee's, I may drop it to the bottom hole Actually, my best guess for the Hotchkiss bar is the 3rd hole from the top (down 1" from top hole). I registered for CP because they usually run mid-afternoon. The 4-banger guys seem to be afraid that the old-school V8s will puke oil everywhere

Posted by: shortbus Oct 20 2008, 03:16 PM

ugh.

I am thinking you'll see that as too low. I have a solid 22mm rear bar and I am using the 3rd hole form the top. (All else the same)

Posted by: sgarnett Oct 20 2008, 04:57 PM

Yeah, my first choice for Applebee's Park would be the Miata on street tires. Testing there is of limited value, except that a dry day there is a reasonable proxy for rain anywhere else.

Posted by: sgarnett Oct 28 2008, 02:48 AM

The third hole down was at least in the ballpark with the 25.4mm (1") hollow rear bar. On a day that leaves the tires clean and nicely polished, with very little pressure gain over six runs, there's no point in trying to fine-tune it. The car was very well-mannered, predictable, and working well, so I left it alone.

In fact, the car was really behaving like there was a lot more grip than there actually was. I was able to spend a fairly high percentage of time at or near full throttle without it getting squirrely, and it still turned well. It's not dialed in yet, but as-is was pretty good (good enough for a rusty driver to win CP)

Posted by: sgarnett Jan 24 2009, 01:22 AM

http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/index.php?showtopic=12704&view=findpost&p=136618

Stranoparts carries the Hellwig bar, BTW

Posted by: trackbird Jan 27 2009, 04:56 AM

Sorry I was late to the party, I was driving back to Ohio for most of the day. The aluminum PHB discussion has been relocated here:

http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/index.php?showtopic=12718

Posted by: KCC455 Mar 11 2009, 02:18 AM

How difficult is the Watts Link to setup?

I may have to upgrade my PHB from a poly end / rod end to a double rod end PHB to run 17x 11's and 315 35's. I figured if I am going to need new parts, should I jump in with both feet and just get the Watts Link? But if it requires the use of a Flux Capacitor and a PHD in Suspension Engineering to setup the Watts Link, then I may stick with the simple PHB and it's limitations.
Thank you.

Posted by: sgarnett Mar 11 2009, 03:26 AM

I used an electronic level for the setup, which helped a lot, or at least allowed me to pursue precision as far as it would go. The hardest part of the job for me was just cutting off the brake line clips. They have to be ground down flush, since they will be covered by the clamps. Disconnecting the shocks to get better access would have made that go quicker. There were a few other minor installation headaches, but nothing major. The setup isn't hard, just take you time.

I do think you need to have ramps available. It would be tough to get it right on jackstands.

Posted by: Sam Strano Mar 11 2009, 04:22 PM

I just cut some notches in the spacers that go inside the clamps and pounded the tab flat. Worked great.

I used an angle finder like you'd use when setting up a torque arm. Cheap, had it, and it works. Same deal as Sean. Nothing major, just a few things you'd expect with a completely different setup. Handled all myself with normal shop tools. I had to hog out one hole a touch, and cut off some washers so I could reuse two bolts as the heads of the replacements were too big.

Posted by: sgarnett Mar 11 2009, 05:39 PM

I didn't have to hog out any holes. I just deviated a bit from the instructions. On the passenger side, I just ran the bolts through without installing the nut. Then I pulled it into line with the holes on the other side, and walked them down evenly, then went back and installed the nuts on the driver side. I had a heads up from CrouseEEE (thanks!) about the bolts beforehand, so I ordered socket head bolts with a non-plated zinc coating (instead of the usual black, which rusts, or plated, which is subject to hydrogen embrittlement in hardened grades). I think I posted the part number for the bolts earlier in this thread.

I did have to just lightly clean up the edge of a weld on the body with a Dremel (got a heads up on that too).

Posted by: Sam Strano Mar 12 2009, 05:56 AM

Note that my car was in a big accident and had to be pulled and took a big shot to the LR. Anything I had to do to line it up is in no way an indication of the Watts itself.

Posted by: Sam Strano Mar 23 2009, 06:56 PM

I think this might also be approprate for the Chassis/suspension section as well, fwiw....

I ran my first even with the Watts link on my Camaro. I was using some take off tires Brian (BigEnos) gave me dating back to '07. My Auburn Racers is pretty well used up (ask anyone at the event). Worked well, car was a little looser than I'd like in high speed transition, but that's easily put down to not great tires and a weak limited slip. None the less the Watts link was very good, and with some dialing in will get nothing but better.

I ran FTD over some other very capable cars and drivers, including some SS and ASP C5 and C6's as well as a some fully setup Shelby's in FS (expect to run them on raw time, paxed them too pretty handily. Even by '08 PAX index for FS.

I just took an educated guess on rear bar and slapped a 24mm on it. I think it's a touch too much, and will be going to an adjustable 22 for my own car shorly.

And to address the "how much lateral movement does the Watts cut out" discussion.... At least 10mm each way. How do I know? Well, I took 10mm of spacer out of each side on the rear and never rubbed the inside--and still would with a PHB and the spacers before, though not all the time. I'm not disappointed, and it'll only get better the more I understand it, work with it, and use better tires and differential that's less worn (this one dates from before Nationals '06).

Posted by: Applejack Mar 24 2009, 01:39 AM

Does the 'little loose' comment apply to slaloms?

What shocks were you running on the rear?

Posted by: sgarnett Mar 24 2009, 03:41 AM

Which pivot hole did you use with that 24mm bar? Is it solid or hollow? Which pivot position(s) did you try?

If it is solid, and has stock-length arms, it should be just slightly (3~4%) softer than the Hotchkiss bar. On old tires with a weak diff, I'd expect hole 3 (1" from the top) to be pretty decent (maybe hole 4 if the tires and diff were really bad). Regardless, it might be interesting to see how low you have to drop the pivot with that bar before swapping it out.

I went to a test-n-tune yesterday with the prototype Hellwig 1" bar. I was at a slick site that never really gets the tires warm, though the sun was out all day and the grip was better than usual for that site (which isn't saying much).

I started at the softest setting, which is roughly 37% stiffer than the Hotchiss bar due to being solid and having slightly shorter arms (stiffness proportional to arm length squared). The Watts pivot was in hole 5 (1" from bottom). The car felt really good and stable with that combination. Getting power down was no problem at all, and on any other day I'd have been content to leave it like that. This could be a "set it and forget it" combo.

Solely because I was at a TnT with untested adjustments, I tried going to the medium setting on the bar, which is quite stiff. I also moved the Watts pivot to hole 6 (1/2" from bottom). The bar adjustment is coarser than the Watts adjustment. I expected that combination to be a little loose, and it was. It actually felt great in slaloms and high speed transitions. The tail felt just slightly twitchy under full throttle, but not enough that I had to lift, and it was easy to control. There was just a little wheelspin at the corner exits, but that was offset by being able to get on the power sooner without pushing out. It turned out to be faster, at least for that course. I don't know if I'll leave it that stiff or not yet, but it is a useful combination to have "in the toolbox", at least for a smooth course.

Philosophically, I have no intention of ever trying to dial it in with the bottom hole on a dry day; that's reserved for rain. As the roll center becomes better controlled (Watts+lowered), the car can tolerate a looser setup, up to a point. On the last run of the day, I had a very fast run going but went into the last turn kind of wild. I lost the tail coming out, but was able to hang on and fishtail my way through the finish for a clean run and my fastest of the day, and as far as I know, the fastest run for anything above 2300 pounds and all but three or so drivers. Not bad for my first event of the season. The point is not that it broke loose (I screwed up) but how easy it was to save.

"On paper" (Jon's roll rate spreadsheet), the setup I started with should have been looser than what I've normally run in the past, and the last setup should have been a LOT looser. In practice, it wasn't. Without the ever-changing balance of a "stockish" setup, you can get closer to the edge without falling over. That's why I only made a small roll center change to compensate for a big bar change, which was the main point of the experiment.

BTW, the 24mm bar (assuming it has stock length arms) should be just slightly softer than the middle hole on that 22mm adjustable bar (assuming it is the one you sell ).

Posted by: sgarnett Mar 24 2009, 12:38 PM

BTW, along with redesigning their bar to fit with the Watts, Hellwig has now redesigned the mounts to clear without spacers. I test-fit the prototypes a few weeks ago. I have some pictures, but probably won't have a chance to get them up for a few days.

Posted by: shortbus Mar 24 2009, 03:57 PM

Sean, great update.

Posted by: Sam Strano Mar 24 2009, 06:26 PM

Wasn't really a true slalom. And it was directly related to wheelspin (as it was fine when I wasn't igniting a tire). And the fastest part of the course was over a rise which of course made wheelspin more prevelent. Car was predictable any time I tossed it. Only when the obviously toasted LSD was the issue was the car moving around what I'd consider too much.

Bear in mind this was one course, one day, on old tires, with a not perfect LSD, and at a completely new surface that I've never run before. I can make some judgements based on driving other know commodity cars on the surface and feel comfortable with knowing what the car was doing due to surface vs. setup.

FWIW, I trailered my Camaro and made some fun runs in the Mustang. It seemed to get faster based on other's times than it had been when I was running. None the less I could not run the time I had put down in the Camaro in the Shelby (which had better tires and a better differential). And since I ran the Mustang later when numerous folks when tangibly faster in the same cars vs. 2nd heat comp runs I think that's a pretty good indication we're on the right track.

Posted by: kookamunga Mar 25 2009, 08:29 AM

thanx Sam for the write up. guess I'll be ordering one during our 3 month break as you have shown that a well driven and setuo car CAN FTD.

Posted by: axoid Apr 4 2009, 11:49 PM

Finished installing the watts link on my car today. I still have more work to do on the front of the car so it's not ready to be driven yet. Hopefully by next weekend.

Posted by: Sam Strano Apr 8 2009, 09:55 PM

Ran my car again with the Watts. Same crappy tires. Coned away my fastest run, and still playing around (hey it was only my 5-8th runs with it on my car). I ran FTD, but the event wasn't exactly filled with super fast cars and drivers. But the one benchmark was a well setup (by me) National Championship winner driven Shelby. I coned my fastest that would have had me PAXing around .4 off.

Dialing in will continue as time/events allow, but for a while my car will be back-burnered because the National events are coming and I need to tune up in the car I'm running all year.