SlickTrackGod

What I personal;ly think they are failing on with their engineering mindset is making the same ol extended strut mounts like everyone else.

What they should have done is built flat strut mounts and make a redesigned strut with a smaller body to increase travel clearance while retaining shorter length for camber and caster purposes.

Tibo

iTrader: (15)

No off the shelf strut fits that Bill currently?

TEDSgrad

iTrader: (4)

The DSE mounts are flatter than Spohn's or others, but they are extended as you say. DSE's JRi struts do have the strut bracket that is threaded on the strut body for some fine tune adjustment - probably not as much, again. And they are designed with a 2" drop in mind.

Dean, if you have any suggestions or measurements, please post 'em up. I'm spending the next 2 weeks gathering info and I will be ordering custom struts from RideTech.

SlickTrackGod

12 years ago Hunter Motorsports made a limited production run on aftermarket strut mounts- they were the first of anyone to make some other than OEM. With that said, they offered two height versions, One with slightly more clearance than OEM, and another with twice the clearance of the first (a medium version and a tall version). Spohn copied the full height version but made them in steel rather than what HMS did out of billet aluminum.

I think I was the only one out of the entire 15 or 20 production run that opted for the medium height units because I knew with a ride height at 24 3/4" fender lip I would contact the OEM strut mount and needed just a tad more clearance on my lightweight nosed V6 car (which is 250lbs lighter then the typical V8 counterpart). That left me with 2" travel clearance. My car was very stuffly sprung at 825lb rates and sitting on Koni Yellows. I had a measured 1" normal wheel travel, and a max ever travel under harsh pothole, RR tracks etc condition of only 1 1/2" strut travel. My car NEVER grounded out because of the light weight motor. With that said, I have yet to see a heacvier V8 car (even with an LS) duplicate that limited travel, every car I've seen close to that low will travel over 2" if not 3-3 1/2" max conditions because of the vehicle weight up front.

SO...what is needed is a shorter strut body to be able to be used with a OEM-to- mid range strut mount height. This will reduce the OEM length of the strut operating range and allow for a shorter distance between the ball joint and the strut mount pivot. WHy is this needed? to gain favorable dynamic increase in camber and caster settings, as well as gain favorable static settings.

SlickTrackGod

Nope, all are OEM specs

SlickTrackGod

Guys, also keep in mind when I talk about weight- not only did I have low chassis weight (sprung weight), but I also had a lot lower suspension weight (unsprung weight) then anyone here. My front wheels were factory IROC "Rears" which are only a 16x8 and a tire that combined was 43 lbs if I recall correctly( most are running heavier larger and wider stuff at 10lbs+ per side then what I had), and a radial brake package that was massive and extremely light with alum hats, alum custom hubs, and alum calipers/brackets (Much lighter than OEM stuff ). This makes a HUGE difference in how much upward thrust "momentum" a wheel/suspension assembly will have of travel and upsetting a chassis.

Again, my car only traveled 1" under most normal hard performance conditions- the OEM strut body length only worked at that ride height COMBINED WITH reduced geometry in my favor because I was so light weight in both sprung AND unsprung weights. A heavier car will not duplicate this with an OEM spec strut body.My static distance was shorter then anyone elses geometry.

https://www.thirdgen.org/g/picture/3034975

Have them make you a sturt with a body 1" shorter then the OEM design. This will allow for a shorter strut mount with a lowered car.

TEDSgrad

iTrader: (4)

How do drop spindles figure into the same geometry discussion?

I'm a big believer in unsprung weight - even at the cost of larger wheels. Paul said he was coming out with a 17X8 at #18.xx
Wheel see (pun) if he brings 'em to market.

paul_huryk

Correct, we will be offering 17" x 8" wheels sometime in the future - the next order we make from the foundry in fact. Target is around 18.5lbs, but we will see where they end up.

Honestly I think that the 4 to 5lb difference saved by moving down to a 245-45-17 tire on a 8" wheel is negated by the grip increase of the 275-40-17 tire. I have race telemetry of a customer who moved up to 275-40-17 rubber who picked up grip in all 4 directions - even though his old 16" wheels and 245-50-16 rubber were 6lbs less per assembly (identical tires). All in, the change was worth about 1s per lap in his CMC races, enough to put him into the winner's circle at every race he did not have a mechanical issue. Some less experienced racers picked up several seconds per lap based on higher grip feeding more aggressive driving, dropping lap times by a huge margin.

On the street you can definitely feel the increase in grip - something on the order of 5% more at the minimum. Those who have moved from 245 to 275 tires can give their opinions on their experiences...

SlickTrackGod

Drop spindles increase scrub radius because the wheel moves upward And the imaginary line hits more inward on the footprint.