235 replies to this topic

[Bench Racer]

Seeing parents alone covers a great reason to be FL bound. Mom and Dad Webb, sorry for suggesting your son is a Bull$hiter, but then you'd know him better than me.

[davew]

After reading all the arguements for the slot, I stand firmly against. But we are all entitled too our opinion.

 

I will give a little more info on my jigs. I built the first version out of some scrap metal we had laying around the shop. They are ugly and not something I would want to sell to anyone. I came up with a version that could be retailed. But the cost to manufacture was very high, $800. I have a new fabricator in the shop, we started talking about new projects and the jigs came up first. We experimented with a few versions and finally came up with what you see in the video. My point here, is that these where not made to coincide with what happened at Indy. These have been many years in the planning stages.

 

My original jigs have measured hundreds of control arms, new, used, rusty and shiney. They are still repeatable when checked against a new arm. My new jigs are made out of steel with precision slots cut on the CNC to insure accurate positioning of the tabs. We then use an all steel fixture that duplicates the factory arms without the rubber bushing. This way bushing slop is taken out of the equation. The jigs use the factory bolts to line up the bushings. They either fit or they don't. There is no measuring involved. Unless you physically bend the base plate or a tab, they will never go out of "calibration".

 

Again, I have measured hundreds of arms. I have never found one to be bent in the proper direct that was not also twisted beyond use.

 

NASA approved lower ball joints. I have 1 non-SM car running them. After 6 weekends I have replaced one side once and the other side twice, due to play in the joint. I was sent no charge replacements by the manufacturer, but I am still a little apprehensive. This kinda goes back to my theory on testing anything; tires, wheel bearings, ball joints, etc. We need to test with all the variables; fast drivers, slow drivers, unfunded drivers who do no maintenance. Look at the debacle of the old Toyo tires, or even the SM6 tire. Even the Global Cup car has has some issues due to only being tested by pro drivers who are extremely easy on equipment (although very fast). Do real world testing. Not laboratory tests.

 

Todd, yes I want to sell my jigs. But that is not why I am against the slots. 

 

Steve, thanks for confirming the value of the slot. If allowed we will see people running 4.5+ camber with straight parts and a slot.

 

Having spent 5 years on the SMAC, I know how the system works. Many ideas are brought to the SMAC, that sound good at the start. But when you really think about them, they are bad long term for the class. IMHO

 

Dave

[Tom Sager]

Someone who gets it... What a refreshing concept!

 

Florida Trip:  Seeing my parents for the third time in a year, fun with all my florida friends, Not sure about the Cuban food????, Beer oh boy I cant wait, racing in SMSE a group we dont even need to have.  Cant freaking wait!!!!!

Not to mention the slightly better weather and the tranquility of a long tow.  Enjoy your holiday and the event. 

[LarryKing]

 

I cant wait, racing in SMSE a group we dont even need to have.

 

You are aware that you can enter as SM, right?

[Caveman-kwebb99]

You are aware that you can enter as SM, right?

But why I'm in a 1.6?

[Bench Racer]

Has anyone come up with significantly different results or see a flaw in mine?

Yes indeed, doing a similar hard measure process as yours. Positioned lower control arm to normal ride height, removed .357 diameter bolt from upper control arm outer end, replaced bolt with a .157 gauge pin. .357 bolt diameter - .157 gauge pin diameter = hole increased by .200 inch to form a slut. Angle change = 1.5* plus using a digital level. I say plus because there was horizontal slop after closing the hub hole against the gauge pin against the control arm hole attempting to pinch the .157 gauge pin.

 

Steve, I may misunderstand you. If the proposed slut is not to accommodate OEM manufacturing tolerances, your not suggesting the slut is to accommodate bent parts are you. 

 

Ralph, no argument, please use real numbers when SMAC discussion and when talking with SM drivers/owners.

 

Ron, with new sub-frames and new control arms I couldn't get negative 3.5* at each corner..................................

 

To Brandon's comment, might the suggestion be there's some serious logic why some classes have a maximum negative camber.

 

IIRC, it's been previously stated, if the individual control arms had a wild variance in tolerances, the parts wouldn't fit Dave's gauges.

 

Shh, is there a sound of measuring I hear. 

[Steve Scheifler]

Close enough Bench, not a significant difference with respect to the decisions at hand I think. As stated, my point was only to confirm that the stated value was WAY the heck off, not provide an exact one in its place, which I clearly did. Your more precise (I trust) effort moves it up from 5x to 6x, which validates my approximations if not quite matching calculations. Thanks.

[38bfast]

i am glad some decided to actual measure. So  a .2 slot will get you well over -1.0 in camber. Just goes to show how little can make such a change in camber. Now if you add up all the variation and tolerance in the subframe (4 Point), Upper A-arm (x3 points),  upright (x2 points), Lower A-Arm (x4 points), bushings (x7), Bolt clearance (x7) this can quickly add up in your favor or not. Not to mention a or all parts with a very slight tweak in them. 

[Andy Mitchell]

What's the maximum camber you can get using offset bushings on the front? I bought some, but I'm embarrassed to say I never put them in as I already had as much as I thought I needed. But is it equally 'over the top' at normal ride heights as the slots produce? You'd need to have comparable amounts of available adjustment at both ends to make experimenting with higher ride heights attractive.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Someone who gets it... What a refreshing concept!

Florida Trip: Seeing my parents for the third time in a year, fun with all my florida friends, Not sure about the Cuban food????, Beer oh boy I cant wait, racing in SMSE a group we dont even need to have. Cant freaking wait!!!!!

You better be nice to that car because the previous owner never hit anything in it !

Plus it wasn't rotting away, I used it for some parking lot drifting,donuts and some rally cross when he wasn't looking ! Lol

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

What's the maximum camber you can get using offset bushings on the front? I bought some, but I'm embarrassed to say I never put them in as I already had as much as I thought I needed. But is it equally 'over the top' at normal ride heights as the slots produce? You'd need to have comparable amounts of available adjustment at both ends to make experimenting with higher ride heights attractive.

Every car will probably be diff but I was only able to get 2.5 and 2.6 out of the front before the bushings. Now I can get over 3.5

[Bench Racer]

Shh, is there a sound of measuring I hear. 

 

i am glad some decided to actual measure. So  a .2 slot will get you well over -1.0 in camber. Just goes to show how little can make such a change in camber. Now if you add up all the variation and tolerance in the subframe (4 Point), Upper A-arm (x3 points),  upright (x2 points), Lower A-Arm (x4 points), bushings (x7), Bolt clearance (x7) this can quickly add up in your favor or not. Not to mention a or all parts with a very slight tweak in them. 

Damn, I ain't as old as y'all thought I was. I did hear someone measuring. Was that you measuring Ralph or are you taking us at our word.

 

Ralph, I'm pretty sure the sub-frames are via the control arm holes and other stuff fixture for welding. Yup, I understand the hindrance f manufacturing in this process.  OEM chassis manufacturing folks/engineers????

 

Please don't be including "parts with a very slight tweak in them". Don't go there, that'd be called an excuse to support some peoples slippery rule thought process.

[38bfast]

Bench I have caluculated thioredical gain. Mocked up a prototype and physically measured well before any of this hit fast track.

My reference was I was happy to see others do their own homework to see for themselves how extremely small movement yields camber gain.

I agree bench I am sure they used fixtures. No argument. Now the question is how robust are or did they have to be. All manufactured parts come with a tollance. The tighter the tollance the higher the price of the component. So it was toleranced to be as good as it needed at a cost to match the demand. Even if something is fixtured and welded does not mean it remains the same once out of the fixture. Thermal stress plays a big part in part stability. You do know I spent 30 years of my life in the OE industry designing parts just like this. If I got a weldment subframe within +/- 1.0 mm we were very happy. Could the part be made to tighter tolerances, yes. But it did not need to be so why spend the extra money. Actually if I designed it to be +/- .1mm I would have been fired for wasting time and money. And if I did need it to be stable within +/- .1m the design would not have been a stamping weldment. It would have been an aluminum or mag casting. Oh and we won’t even get into tool / fixture upkeep / mantanace.

So bottom line is get it close, cheap, and let the cams take up the tolerance stack.

Dam it Bench, this is why I got out of the OE indutrry.

I don’t have enough puppets or crayons to discuss this any further.

[BNaumann]

I wouldn't want to pretend that designing stamped steel control arms for a Japanese OEM isn't way out of my pay scale.  All the numbers in this thread are pointless.  Gussy it up however you want Trebek, the only question is can I haz more cambers?  #stancenation

 

Thanks for the feedback on the durability of the ELBJs davew - the only useful info I got out of this thread.

 

https://youtu.be/Y79Vb_CJYHY?t=51s

[Ron Alan]

.

 

 

Again, I have measured hundreds of arms. I have never found one to be bent in the proper direct that was not also twisted beyond use.

 

NASA approved lower ball joints. I have 1 non-SM car running them. After 6 weekends I have replaced one side once and the other side twice, due to play in the joint. I was sent no charge replacements by the manufacturer, but I am still a little apprehensive. This kinda goes back to my theory on testing anything; tires, wheel bearings, ball joints, etc. We need to test with all the variables; fast drivers, slow drivers, unfunded drivers who do no maintenance. Look at the debacle of the old Toyo tires, or even the SM6 tire. Even the Global Cup car has has some issues due to only being tested by pro drivers who are extremely easy on equipment (although very fast). Do real world testing. Not laboratory tests.

 

 

Steve, thanks for confirming the value of the slot. If allowed we will see people running 4.5+ camber with straight parts and a slot.

 

Having spent 5 years on the SMAC, I know how the system works. Many ideas are brought to the SMAC, that sound good at the start. But when you really think about them, they are bad long term for the class. IMHO

 

Dave

Couple things Dave...

 

Based on the first sentence above when things get a little bent they tend not to benefit the setup correct? Would it be a fair statement to say if something is bent you would not use it? But does this mean said part is not safe? Would it be a fair statement to say that you and maybe others that oppose feel everyone should be buying new parts until they get set-up numbers they like(Steve touched on this)?You are opposed to one of the current SMAC's reasons of lower budget cost as not a viable reason to allow the slot?

 

Based on your experience with the extended ball joints...what portion of the ball joint failed? Did it become sloppy on the tapered shaft? Or did the bottom of the taper.."the ball" become sloppy inside the factory seal?

 

Is there something bad about someone running -4,5 camber? I say let them! If it is found to be some magic speed secret then we can fulfill bench's dream of having a camber limit! 

 

No doubt while you and other former SMAC members(that have commented) served your terms...you had opposition to changes you proposed. Some of those changes passed and some didn't. All of them you felt were right at the time but based on your statement time proved you had a change of heart? So if you had a crystal ball what would you have done different? I for one appreciate yours and others past knowledge who served but I dont like to see former SMAC members and current SMAC members SMACKING each other!

 

 

Slippery slope, rules creep, and buy new parts...just are weak arguments for the opposition so far...IMHO 

 

AND BENCH...for what its worth I own and use a pyrometer every weekend! But that wont change your mind which is ok...we will agree to disagree! Story of this thread! And shit...10 pages for a measly .2"

 

And I dont like buying new parts(because I have a pile in my back yard )so I am funding your cause Dave with an order! 

[Steve Scheifler]

You think that determining the actual amount of camber gain available from the proposed rule change is pointless? That giving people, who may be about to send their opinion to the CRB, accurate facts is pointless? I understand that you may not care about every detail but surely you don’t believe this entire discussion is pointless.

[Steve Scheifler]

FWIW, Hoosier says that these tires are optimal at around 3 degrees negative. I’m not fond of such blanket statements because I realize there are always factors to be considered, but I’m inclined to doubt that there is a lot to be gained at the 4.5 some have mentioned. But I’m not saying it isn’t possible.

Bench, for someone who has run the same cars, tires and tracks for years there is limited value in taking tire temps every session.

[BNaumann]

You think that determining the actual amount of camber gain available from the proposed rule change is pointless? That giving people, who may be about to send their opinion to the CRB, accurate facts is pointless? I understand that you may not care about every detail but surely you don’t believe this entire discussion is pointless.

What does it matter if it gets you to -4.5 or -7? Supposedly we're already at the cusp of any advantage anyhow. That and everybody saying "I get X am I supposed to get Y?" has a different gauge, ride height, measurement method, etc.

[Steve Scheifler]

Agreed, but at one point we were told the net gains were tiny which would impact arguments both ways. Clearing that up was not pointless. With that settled sure, exact numbers and the rest is just entertaining ourselves.

Sorry, I should have just let it slide.

Folks, if you give a crap about this either way, send your thoughts to the CRB. If you aren’t sure which way it should go, ask some questions first. If they don’t get significant input soon it will just die for lack of interest.

[davew]

Phylisofical arguement: Every year, it seems, somebody gets caught going outside the rules. Modified fuel regulators, short turn radius heads, bent front spindles and now rear slots (or sluts as Dewey calls them  ). Then we argue over the internet and the rules creep goes on. Every rules change costs money. As a business owner, that is usually good for me. But putting personal profits/feelings aside. It is the job of the CURRENT rules makers to decide what is in the best interest of the class. That is what my generation of the SMAC (Fowler, Drago, Meathead, Wheeler) did during our term.

 

Reality: If the slot is allowed, you know the Dragos, Steyns, Voyteks of the world will run straight arms and slots. Testing (spending) away to find the optimum setup. Maybe it will be the current legal "max" of about 3.75*. Maybe it will be the new legal "max" of 5*. If you can only get 2.1*, plus the slot of 1.2*, you still are not at the supposed magic number of 3.75*. Closer, yes. But still not there. And if the optimum turns out to be 4.5*, you still are behind and need to replace the bent parts.

 

Build tolerances: As far as I know, I am the only person to have a set of jigs to measure these parts. Nobody else has stepped up and said they can do it. As I said above, I have had jigs for at least 5 years and have measured hundreds of arms. I have never found an arm that did not fit in the jig due to manufacturer tolerances. Ralph, you may have a background in oem manufacturing. But I have a lot of experience in measuring these parts. If there is a magic control arm out there, it is hanging around the neck of a Unicorn. let me reiterate, I have never found a control arm that did not fit in my jigs that was bent in the correct direction to offer an advantage.

 

How to make your car handle: I think the Mazda engineers did a pretty good job on the suspension. If the bushings on the control arms are not lined up, you get a weird handling car. (Mr. Sager?) So why would you want to run with bent arms that put the bushings out of their proper allignment.

 

Safety; Granted, a slight tweek in a stamped steel arm is not a real safety issue. A tweek to the rear upright neck (cast piece) is a safety issue. That is why the powers to be did not want bent front spindles. Again, AFAIK I am the only person to measure these components. The most common bend point is the neck of the rear uprights. Ralph, you replace hubs anytime there is contact to a rear wheel. Yet you are willing to let a bent upright continue to run?

 

Enforcement: If the rule is 0.600", what happens at 0.601". Who is going to be accurate enough with a Dremel tool to stay withing the legal limit. Max camber rules suck. I have dealt with it in Touring cars. When we won T4 at Laguna, my only concern in tech was camber. I would be in favor of the slot, over max camber rules

 

Cost; Yes, this will allow the budget guy to get the allignment numbers he thinks he wants. This does not take into account the other issues caused by the bent parts But let's face it, is an extra degree of camber going to bring him closer to the front, probably not. It just makes him feel better. Full or proper prep has been discussed many times on this forum. part of that prep is making sure every component on the car is as it should be. Running with bent parts is not proper prep.

 

Fair playing field: Having a stable rule set is the most important thing. Every time an  individual gets caught outside the rules we change to make the non-compliant, compliant. I am pretty sure, Danny did not slot his arms as a cost containment issue. He did it because he wanted more camber than he could get legally. That is my assumption, I am not speaking for anyone involved. The front subframe gussets had to be from a single source, supposedly to keep anyone from modifying their front suspension geometry, yet some want to modify the rear suspension geometry. Can we have some consistency in our thought process?  Having everyone use stock, unmodified components is the best way to insure a level playing field.

 

That is my best Perry Mason type closing arguements.

Thanks for listening

dave