Relocating shocks to Spring location?

Whiskey11

SCCA Autoscrosser #23 STU
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Posts
1,644
Reaction score
2
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to prove. All I was saying is you don't need a huge tire size to perform very well (like the 302S and 302R).

My point was that they are performing well in spite of rules they have imposed on them. Imagine what would happen if they had 315's all around. You think the 700lbs of weight and restrictor are all they would be hit with? :p

I’m no AutoX expert, I’m not even a beginner. I watched about 10min of one once though.

But I would think that unless I was playing with a MASSIVE amount of power (500+) stuffing 315’s on the rear would get the job done and I would be focusing on how I was going to get some 315’s on the front. It looks like AutoX is real “Front Endy” to me???

By "Front Endy" do you mean that cars tend to be balanced more towards oversteer than a roadcourse car? Yeah, getting a car to turn around tight corners, especially one with a long wheelbase like the Mustang requires a car that would probably be a handful on a roadcourse. Two very different car set ups. 315's up front are no problem if you are willing to do some measuring and have coilovers. More than enough ESP guys running 315's on all 4 corners without cutting fender wells on these cars.
 

DILYSI Dave

forum member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Posts
721
Reaction score
0
Location
Braselton, GA
Yeah, 315's up front is going to happen. Just was hoping for more than that out back. The current long term powertrain plan is a Coyote at 13:1 on E85, so yeah - 500+HP.

And yeah the front end is more important than the rear. A car with a gazzilion HP that can't turn is useless. But I have a pretty solid plan for up front already, not for the 500 HP. :)

And finally, to Whiskey's point, an autox car is generally going to be more tossable than a track car. I'm planning on doing track stuff with mine as well, though I won't be surprised if doing so necessitates some setup changes. A car that is optimized to be tossable at 40-60mph can become terrifying at triple digits.
 

Vorshlag-Fair

Official Site Vendor
Official Vendor
Joined
Nov 12, 2010
Posts
1,592
Reaction score
107
Location
Dallas, TX
Great thread and very relevant to my own S197 build(s). I have a few data points that I can share that we've learned from our 2011 GT, that we autocross, run in NASA TT, and street drive.

DSC0459-M.jpg


We have been exploring the maximum tire and wheel widths inside the untouched S197 rear fender/chassis restrictions for the past year, and we think we have found the absolute limit without any cutting to be a 12" wide rear wheel. The rear wheel and autocross tire on our red GT is shown below. I usually track on a different tire with these exact wheels, a 315/35/18 Kumho V170

DSC4785-M.jpg


That 12" wheel is a very tight fit in many places, and will rub on a chassis protrusion at full droop if it is located inboard far enough, so you have to pull the wheels before you can let the axle go to full droop (on the square of metal that protrudes with the elongated tie down hole, shown below). Not a huge PITA, but something you have to remember.

DSC4648-M.jpg


That picture above was after I tried to move the wheels inboard the maximum amount, because for an autocross car you want the LEAST track width possible, especially at the rear. This is after removing the stock rear swaybar restriction, which is the first thing it will hit. As you can see itss now rubbing on 4 places... the shock mount (eye-to-eye Moton doubles on a FRPP eye-to-pin mount) at the top, the rubberized cover at the back there, and all along the front of the inboard chassis. After this picture was taken we added a 1/8" wider wheel spacer and it cleared perfectly, and the tire barely stayed inboard at the fender to not rub outboard. There was not room for another 10mm of tire or a 1/2" of wheel without cutting something.

DSC4613-3-M.jpg


We went to these extreme lengths and tested many tires and track widths because a narrow track is always faster in slaloms, and autocross always has one or more slaloms. This is the opposite of a road course car, where a wider track helps add grip (but has a tradeoff of making passes more difficult and adding some aero drag). There are never slaloms on a road course, of course.

DSC4762-M.jpg


The axle also deflects laterally under load. A LOT. Even after switching from a Panhard to a Watts we are still seeing "some" deflection. This is something I want to test under load, with a video camera mounted at the rear fender with some sort of scale.

DSC0999-M.jpg


We have tested a lot of tire sizes on our Mustang, in both street compounds and R compounds as well. With the R's we've used 275, 305. 315, and 345mm tires. The widest that fits front and rear without rub is a 315, but a sticky R compound 315mm tire is NOT enough to avoid wheelspin on this car, in autocross or on a road course. Our 5.0 car only makes 430 whp, but its enough to overpower a 315, from what I have seen. More easily in an autocross, where maneuvers are violent and you are on and off the throttle a lot, but even on a road course in slower corners it could use more rear tire.

DSC1017-M.jpg


Earlier this year we tested a 345/35/18 Hoosier, but it stuck out past the fender and rubbed everywhere under load. This has a 13.9" section width, so it is a frakkin big tire. Inboard, outboard, it didn't matter where we located the wheel relative to the hub, it rubbed terribly. Big clouds of smoke...

DSC1075-M.jpg


That's the tire rub on 345s. It was pretty bad. But damn, it could put the power down! The first places you will see tire rub if you use a BIG wheel and tire, if space the rear wheels inboard to avoid the fenders, is at the swaybar mounting location on the axle. This bent pieces sticks right where the inside sidewall will hit first...

1093536448_Pthc8-M.jpg


That portion of the antiroll bar below the blue mounting link is where the tire will rub first. We went to the Whiteline rear swaybar, which re-routes the bar completely and removes this restriction. Once that location is gone the next places are all over the chassis, in my first picture of this post. If your class rules allow you to cut/modify these areas you can go inboard even more, but most of the time that is heavy fab work that the rules don't allow for. In our case we cannot touch the inboard section, so we're left moving the wheel outboard, cutting the fenders, and adding flares.

DSC4856-M.jpg


That's what I plan to do to my 2013 GT, which I bought last week. My wife won't let me cut on her red 2011 GT, and I know it will be quicker on the 345 tire, so we will cut on this black one and flare it. And we'll use 335s up front to try to keep the front to rear grip balanced. Already sent a PM to 908ssp about the flared AIX Mustang posted earlier in this thread. Finding the source for those flares would save us a lot of time. :thumb:

Speaking of these two cars, we've asked the owner of this forum if we can post our build thread on this forum. We aren't a "supporting vendor" but tried to be (he is not taking more at this time), but we'd still like to share our 2011 + 2013 builds on this thread. If you liked the tech in this thread, there's probably 100 more posts on our 2 year old project that I could bring here. Just need permission...

Thanks,
 
Last edited:

Whiskey11

SCCA Autoscrosser #23 STU
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Posts
1,644
Reaction score
2
Terry an inch laterally with a watts link is A LOT of axle movement. Sounds like the whiteline watts has some pretty soft bushings in it to allow that much movement. Watts geometry only allows lateral displacement at extremes of travel and not an inch if designed right. I take it Delrin or sphericals are going to replace the poly bushings sometime soon? ;)
 

Vorshlag-Fair

Official Site Vendor
Official Vendor
Joined
Nov 12, 2010
Posts
1,592
Reaction score
107
Location
Dallas, TX
Terry an inch laterally with a watts link is A LOT of axle movement. Sounds like the whiteline watts has some pretty soft bushings in it to allow that much movement. Watts geometry only allows lateral displacement at extremes of travel and not an inch if designed right. I take it Delrin or sphericals are going to replace the poly bushings sometime soon? ;)
OK, I admit that this 1" number was a total guess. I will edit that post to mention that. I will post video with real measurements when we can get a vidcam mounted to a suction cup at a future event.
 

Whiskey11

SCCA Autoscrosser #23 STU
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Posts
1,644
Reaction score
2
OK, I admit that this 1" number was a total guess. I will edit that post to mention that. I will post video with real measurements when we can get a vidcam mounted to a suction cup at a future event.

I was going to say! ;) I wonder if the feeling could be C-clip and diff related though? One thing I did notice after installing my Watts was in some corners it felt like the axle moved laterally under the car. It took a video recording from under Tue car to confirm it was actually throttle oversteer... To prevent further derailment of this thread I will wait until you post it up in another thread for further comment! :). I know how much you value my comments! (Not!). :)
 

908ssp

forum member
Joined
May 22, 2010
Posts
1,123
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan
The axles move about .015" in and out. Enough that you have to worry about knock back with non floating brakes not enough that you have to worry about tire rub if you have clearance to start with. I wouldn't doubt the Rube Goldberg devices some companies sell as Watts links move a lot more. I doubt the Whiteline or Cortex move much. And for a track car I'd run PTFE lined ball joints not urethane or rubber joints. I am running ball joints on my street car and can't honest report any increase in NVH.

DSCN3959.jpg


Sorry don't know where those flares come from.
 
Last edited:

Whiskey11

SCCA Autoscrosser #23 STU
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Posts
1,644
Reaction score
2
Is that .015" with fresh or worn clutch packs? When my diff was completely worn it felt like a hell of a pot more than .015".

As for those Rube Goldberg watts links comparing to Cortex and Whiteline, it should he pointed out that Terry is running the Whiteline unit. I can't say there is ANY lateral displacement in my Fays2 unit nor any increase in NVH with the rod ends used in my Rube Goldberg watts link. ;) Not for any lack of trying to get lateral displacement being done on my part through a years worth of street driving and autocross events.
 

908ssp

forum member
Joined
May 22, 2010
Posts
1,123
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan
.015" was virtually new rear end. I think if there is flex in the brackets clamped with muffler clamps to the rear end axle tubes it will only be measurable under force. You'll notice in my set up there is no long arms clamped anywhere. I am not sure about the way Whiteline and Cortex drop the mounting point on the drivers side but I assume they found it to be suitably stable. Sorry I just don't like the Fays or Steeda Watts links.
 

psfracer

billy badass
S197 Team Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Posts
10,917
Reaction score
82
Location
Valencia, CA
I'm trying to create room in the rear wheelwells. One thing that looks like a good candidate is the shock. Has anyone relocated the shock to the spring location, with a coilover setup?

Great information in this thread. I did not catch, however, what wheel size the OP intends on running---as the situation changes from a 15 inch, 18 inch, and 20 inch wheel. Tire height also makes a huge difference (as I know everyone who has already posted in this thread knows) -- I just didn't see anywhere what the OP intends to run wheel and tire height wise. When I was running a 325 on a 17 inch wheel, all I needed to do was remove the shock dust cover for clearance.

For drag racing, when you are running a 29.5 slick with a 15 inch wheel, shock relocation does make a big difference. I run 29.5 X 10.5W X 15s, which had a section width of 13.6 inches on only a 10 wide wheel. Because of the tire height, the inside rear corner of the passenger side wheel well becomes an issue at launch to the 60 foot mark because of suspension travel. Interesting enough, the driver rear is no issue at all, because the wheel well extends further back because of the gas fill tube. You also need to grind off the shock mounts that are in the wheel well. Other then that, no clearance issues as long as you have the right offset. I found that 8 inch offset was just a tad too much, so I went with 7 7/8.

StrangeShocksinweb.jpg


Car08192011G.jpg


T105W.jpg


Now, with all that being said, I have no idea if you would even want to consider this shock relocation for road racing. But for drag racing, moving the shocks inboard is pretty common place for 4 link big tire cars, and this set up works for me with 1.3X 60' times.

SCSN74.jpg


IMG_7182-vi.jpg
 
Last edited:

DILYSI Dave

forum member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Posts
721
Reaction score
0
Location
Braselton, GA
Great information in this thread. I did not catch, however, what wheel size the OP intends on running---as the situation changes from a 15 inch, 18 inch, and 20 inch wheel. Tire height also makes a huge difference (as I know everyone who has already posted in this thread knows) -- I just didn't see anywhere what the OP intends to run wheel and tire height wise.
IMG_7182-vi.jpg

Ideal - 345/35/18 on 18 x 12
Less Ideal - 335/30/18 on 18 x 12
Less Ideal, but proven by Vorshlag - 315/30/18 on 18x12
 

psfracer

billy badass
S197 Team Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Posts
10,917
Reaction score
82
Location
Valencia, CA
oh, ok---post 23 then was a pretty awesome post for your question -- had some great information.
 

DILYSI Dave

forum member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Posts
721
Reaction score
0
Location
Braselton, GA
Yeah. Terry / Vorshlag has been a great source of info. They'll probably be selling me some Forgestars at some point as reward. :)
 
Last edited:

Support us!

Support Us - Become A Supporting Member Today!

Click Here For Details

Sponsor Links

Banner image
Back
Top