The Mustang Forum for Track & Racing Enthusiasts

Taking your Mustang to an open track/HPDE event for the first time? Do you race competitively? This forum is for you! Log in to remove most ads.

  • Welcome to the Ford Mustang forum built for owners of the Mustang GT350, BOSS 302, GT500, and all other S550, S197, SN95, Fox Body and older Mustangs set up for open track days, road racing, and/or autocross. Join our forum, interact with others, share your build, and help us strengthen this community!

2015 official pics leaked

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Grant 302

basic and well known psychic
Grant 302 said:
I don't think the tension link will be able to adjust camber gain with the tension link, but it will change the bumpsteer characteristics.

Been thinking about this a lot and what I said above was just wrong. :( The dual ball joints will have a virtual pivot point that is farther out than a single ball joint can achieve. In other words, the virtual pivot point could be in the rotor or even on the outside of it. Caster and camber will change throughout the range of steering. Interesting stuff, and I still need to get my head around most of it...especially the effects of the virtual pivot on camber gain. Also noticed from some of my pics that the lateral arm is pointed a bit down...so there should be a fair amount of camber gain just from slight compression. I'm really curious about what the static caster/camber/toe settings are going to be.



Grant 302 said:
Camber gain might be changed by the strut angle, and the increased distance between the lateral ball joint and the axis of the strut.

Well...at least some part of that was correct...via the virtual pivot point.




And good luck getting the suspension dialed in right if you want to lower the car...
 
367
1
Grant 302 said:
Been thinking about this a lot and what I said above was just wrong. :( The dual ball joints will have a virtual pivot point that is farther out than a single ball joint can achieve. In other words, the virtual pivot point could be in the rotor or even on the outside of it. Caster and camber will change throughout the range of steering. Interesting stuff, and I still need to get my head around most of it...especially the effects of the virtual pivot on camber gain. Also noticed from some of my pics that the lateral arm is pointed a bit down...so there should be a fair amount of camber gain just from slight compression. I'm really curious about what the static caster/camber/toe settings are going to be.



Well...at least some part of that was correct...via the virtual pivot point.




And good luck getting the suspension dialed in right if you want to lower the car...

You are bang on with that comment (virtual pivot point). It's a pretty common setup.
Camaro's use this, and BMW has been doing it for a while. No major issues with lowering--just more camber. And as with all strut cars, there is an ideal range with regards to how low you can go before roll center adjustment anyways. The camber curve will always end up being compromised when a car is lowered past a certain point. The general rule for this would be that the lower arms are parallel to the ground. Any lower and we run into big compromises.

I like this setup on the S550. but too bad it now has double the ball joints to replace and look after (for those that will take this to the track) :(
 

Grant 302

basic and well known psychic
boro92 said:
You are bang on with that comment (virtual pivot point). It's a pretty common setup.
Camaro's use this, and BMW has been doing it for a while. No major issues with lowering--just more camber. And as with all strut cars, there is an ideal range with regards to how low you can go before roll center adjustment anyways. The camber curve will always end up being compromised when a car is lowered past a certain point. The general rule for this would be that the lower arms are parallel to the ground. Any lower and we run into big compromises.

I like this setup on the S550. but too bad it now has double the ball joints to replace and look after (for those that will take this to the track) :(

Just wish I could have read it somewhere instead of figuring it out for myself! I don't think the double joints should be all that bad for wear, as the loads will somewhat be spread between the two.

My comment for issues with lowering was for not having the ability to use 'tall' ball joints anymore since the two are mounting in opposite directions. I don't see an easy solution for the equivalent of a 'shorter' ball joint. Maybe it's not as big an issue as I'm thinking...
 
367
1
Grant 302 said:
Just wish I could have read it somewhere instead of figuring it out for myself! I don't think the double joints should be all that bad for wear, as the loads will somewhat be spread between the two.

My comment for issues with lowering was for not having the ability to use 'tall' ball joints anymore since the two are mounting in opposite directions. I don't see an easy solution for the equivalent of a 'shorter' ball joint. Maybe it's not as big an issue as I'm thinking...

True - I guess it only gets more expensive. Options would be different pickup points on the subframe... I wonder how modern bmw race cars tackle this (e90).
 

TMO Supporting Vendors

Top