Gen1 Watts Link input for a ‘66 coupe

[Dave_W]

Cobra Automotive in Wallingford, CT is another source of information on racing/tuning early Mustangs.

 

[navseng]

Here's a nicely done car, No Watts

Full-Tilt Road-Race Mustang

Harley Padilla’s “baby” is a full-tilt 1965 Mustang built to decimate road courses.

www.mustangandfords.com

Thats got a 4 link on it...... Cannot compare that to a leaf sprung car that wants to add a watts link. Plus, if you are going to go through the trouble of building something like that, go with a 3 link. Having an adjustable rear RC is a great tuning tool.....

Edit: Ah, very old thread my bad! Crickets in the vintage mustang sub.. HAha!

 

[blacksheep-1]

Thats got a 4 link on it...... Cannot compare that to a leaf sprung car that wants to add a watts link. Plus, if you are going to go through the trouble of building something like that, go with a 3 link. Having an adjustable rear RC is a great tuning tool.....

Edit: Ah, very old thread my bad! Crickets in the vintage mustang sub.. HAha!

I can't imagine anyone putting a watts in any car, regardless of the suspension. The point I was trying to make is this guy could've built anything he wanted, he opted out of using a watts.

 

[navseng]

I can't imagine anyone putting a watts in any car, regardless of the suspension. The point I was trying to make is this guy could've built anything he wanted, he opted out of using a watts.

You lost me there. Why would you not use a watts link ?

That's a triangulated 4 link much liike a fox / sn etc, so no watts link in that config...

 

[blacksheep-1]

You lost me there. Why would you not use a watts link ?

That's a triangulated 4 link much liike a fox / sn etc, so no watts link in that config...

Essentially, because they are heavy, problematic, and show no improvement over a panhard bar.
This guy could've built any suspension scheme he wanted, what he didn't want is a watts.

 

[navseng]

Essentially, because they are heavy, problematic, and show no improvement over a panhard bar.
This guy could've built any suspension scheme he wanted, what he didn't want is a watts.

Someone feels strongly about this one. Haha .... Well in my opinion a watts is slightly better by design. But yes, slightly heavier ... A watts link with a proper 3 link or TA setup is still far better than a non adjustable 4 link ...
Problematic? Maybe if it isn't built properly, but I've never had a problem with them .

 

[Norm Peterson]

Someone feels strongly about this one. Haha .... Well in my opinion a watts is slightly better by design. But yes, slightly heavier ... A watts link with a proper 3 link or TA setup is still far better than a non adjustable 4 link ...
Problematic? Maybe if it isn't built properly, but I've never had a problem with them .

What I see is that a Watts link represents different compromises that aren't necessarily better in an absolute sense. The usual Watts link talking point goes to PHB arc deviation from the vertical, which for most normal amounts of suspension movement gets lost in the noise of lateral tire deformation. Nobody is trying to claim that Ford's PHB setup is perfect - though the S197 Mustang's PHB does tend get close to level with the driver and some amount of passenger/cargo load aboard (very likely Ford's intention).

There are some geometric differences between the two WL configurations and a PHB, but in any car that's got some asymmetry to begin with, the right answer just might be to introduce a little compensating asymmetry in the suspension. Right side chassis PHB mount vs left side chassis PHB mount could provide this.


Norm

 

[blacksheep-1]

here you go..

Blacksheep Hates Watts Linkages

Sticky as requested. :D@blacksheep-1

trackmustangsonline.com

 

[Grant 302]

Someone feels strongly about this one. Haha ...

And it predates the thread I started above.

 

[navseng]

here you go..

Blacksheep Hates Watts Linkages

Sticky as requested. :D@blacksheep-1

trackmustangsonline.com

Based on this thread it is saying there was no adjustment of watts location. So there really should not be any improvement because your roll center is going to be in the same spot. Panhard or watts... Really either setup works just fine if built properly.

Not all watts links mount to a bolted diff cover.. Hell, real axles don't have a diff cover

 

[blacksheep-1]

Based on this thread it is saying there was no adjustment of watts location. So there really should not be any improvement because your roll center is going to be in the same spot. Panhard or watts... Really either setup works just fine if built properly.

Not all watts links mount to a bolted diff cover.. Hell, real axles don't have a diff cover

Kind of depends on what you're building, one by a specific rules set, or one without.

 

[Time Warp]

well, if you must have a watts, and I personally think they are a waste of money, then you need to go with the full zuit coil spring deal, which leads to coil overs..which leads to rebuilding them every 20K miles, it's just a pit at that point. I would run an electric power steering rack, and you really really need to lower those upper control arms and weld in those braces for the front.

http://www.mustangandfords.com/how-...-buck-handling-tech-how-to-do-the-shelby-drop.

View attachment 15557

View attachment 15558

View attachment 15559

that right there, with an export brace, will transform that car

https://www.cjponyparts.com/flaming-river-rack-and-pinion-power-steering-cradle-kit-with-column-pump-right-hand-drive-small-block-v8-1965-1970/p/FR328PWRH-V/?msclkid=f07b3d3ee9841d7770456384c8b3d293&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=New%20Bing%20Shopping%20Ads&utm_term=1101201852196&utm_content=All%20Products#221=2042&year=1966

Or you can get 1 inch drop spindles. I have them on mine that keep the upper in the stock location but drops everything an inch. What that does is not bind up the upper ball joint and lets it articulate better.

 

[blacksheep-1]

Or you can get 1 inch drop spindles. I have them on mine that keep the upper in the stock location but drops everything an inch. What that does is not bind up the upper ball joint and lets it articulate better.

the reason has nothing to do with drop, it was a modification on the Gt350R Shelbys that were used for competition, it changes the roll center

 

[Time Warp]

the reason has nothing to do with drop, it was a modification on the Gt350R Shelbys that were used for competition, it changes the roll center

I fully agree it was done for change the roll center. But using 1" drop spindles accomplish the same without binding up the upper ball joint. From my understanding Shelby broke a lot of ball joints while racing and eventually stop doing the drop.

 

[xr7]

I fully agree it was done for change the roll center. But using 1" drop spindles accomplish the same without binding up the upper ball joint. From my understanding Shelby broke a lot of ball joints while racing and eventually stop doing the drop.

What you are missing is the Shelby drop changes the angle of the upper control arm which changes the roll center, the 1" drop spindle only lowers the car, doesn't change the suspension geometry.

 

[Norm Peterson]

What you are missing is the Shelby drop changes the angle of the upper control arm which changes the roll center, the 1" drop spindle only lowers the car, doesn't change the suspension geometry.

Doesn't change the geometry - I'm talking camber gain here.

But drop spindles do drop the front roll center (by somewhat less than the inch of spindle drop).


Norm

 

[PatrickStapler]

What you have read might be somewhat misleading. Cars that were experiencing broken parts had several other factors at play. First, they likely had more than the standard Arning drop. Some up to 1.75”. That’s when the ball joint gets into bind. It also places a tremendous amount of additional stress on the shock tower. Up to 1.5” is good. Actually, between 1.375 and 1.5 is ideal and produces the best camber curve. Second, and likely more important, you can mitigate any possible UCA problems by reinforcing the UCA by boxing it. I would also suggest this on the LCA. I also highly recommend fully rollerized parts for the UCA, LCA, spring perches, and steering idler arm.

If you are not familiar with Opentracker Racing Products, I highly recommend them.

 

[Time Warp]

What you have read might be somewhat misleading. Cars that were experiencing broken parts had several other factors at play. First, they likely had more than the standard Arning drop. Some up to 1.75”. That’s when the ball joint gets into bind. It also places a tremendous amount of additional stress on the shock tower. Up to 1.5” is good. Actually, between 1.375 and 1.5 is ideal and produces the best camber curve. Second, and likely more important, you can mitigate any possible UCA problems by reinforcing the UCA by boxing it. I would also suggest this on the LCA. I also highly recommend fully rollerized parts for the UCA, LCA, spring perches, and steering idler arm.

If you are not familiar with Opentracker Racing Products, I highly recommend them.

I am very familiar with Opentracker. Getting my steering linkage from them. I don't disagree with the benefit of the drop. I was saying the drop spindles do more than drop the car. It provides the same roll control and effect on the wheels and allows the geometry of the front suspension to not be changed. It wasn't the suspension geometry of the shelby drop that was ideal but the effect it had on the wheels. Provide the same effect on the wheels but not bind up the suspension its a double win.

Take a look at my build thread I have pics of my suspension parts there.

 

[Norm Peterson]

The Shelby/Arning drop raised the front roll center.


Norm

 

[blacksheep-1]

Understanding Shelby/Arning Drop Changes​

By Darrian Wedding

12/6/2017

Tags: Tech, Chassis and Suspension
Every car enthusiast I’ve ever met can agree on one thing. Old cars don’t handle very well. It’s pretty easy to see from the small hollow sway bars to the odd steering / suspension geometry. Now for the time this was quite advanced but let’s be honest, the technology at the time was limited. Now prior to the late 60s the auto manufacturers were all focused on one thing when it came to suspension, comfort. That was the selling point that most car makers tried to push, that their ride was the best ride. Then along came the great muscle car era, the late 60s. Auto manufacturers could tell that the consumers wanted something different then your cozy little Sunday cruiser they wanted power and good looks too. So, designs changed the cars got faster and much better looking, according to my standards, but a lot of these vehicles still handled like a 30-year-old bus. Then along came a man whose name quickly became associated with fast fords, Carroll Shelby. Carroll saw that handling was lacking and this wouldn’t do. So, he turned to one of the engineers at Ford who had come up with an idea on how to help this issue, Klaus Arning. Klaus’s worked with Carroll on the GT350’s and GT500’s specifically on the suspension, he should Carroll his idea the so-called Shelby / Arning drop. This idea was simple yet effective. Lower the upper control arm and bring it rearward. This novel idea did three things, it lowered the vehicles center of gravity, it reduced body roll by nearly 10% and it greatly improved the camber curve of the vehicles. Now that this brief little history lesson is over let’s get into the theory behind this modification.

full article..

Understanding Shelby/Arning Drop Changes

Darrian explains the process of Shelby/Arning drop changes and how that affects your car.

www.speedwaymotors.com