STR Prep - Suspension and Alignment
02-01-2012, 06:39 AM
#131
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Pewaukee, WI
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You might want to verify that, Colin.
Wasn't the illegal part in ST the Ingals joints which are located at the body side (as opposed to knuckle side) of the upper control arm and didn't they effectively drop the location of the pick up point relative to stock? Isn't that why people were scrambling to get the Skunk2 upper arms?
It doesn't matter if the control arm is vertical, horizontal or pointing in any other direction. The control arm could be shaped like a boomerang or a bowl of chili. The only thing that will influence the suspension is the location of the center of the ball joints and the centers of the regular control arm joints. The lines that are projected to determine suspension motions are drawn through the center of the joints. The angle of the control arm has nothing to do with where the center of the joints are.
Wasn't the illegal part in ST the Ingals joints which are located at the body side (as opposed to knuckle side) of the upper control arm and didn't they effectively drop the location of the pick up point relative to stock? Isn't that why people were scrambling to get the Skunk2 upper arms?
It doesn't matter if the control arm is vertical, horizontal or pointing in any other direction. The control arm could be shaped like a boomerang or a bowl of chili. The only thing that will influence the suspension is the location of the center of the ball joints and the centers of the regular control arm joints. The lines that are projected to determine suspension motions are drawn through the center of the joints. The angle of the control arm has nothing to do with where the center of the joints are.
02-01-2012, 07:00 AM
#132
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winnie? Is that someone who wins? I hope to be a winnie.
I don't see how the SPC ball joint is illegal. The ball joint is in the same place as stock and of course the upper arm continues to mount in the stock location. That's it. 3 points all of which are identical to stock. Now, if the ball joint sat higher up on the knuckle it would be illegal because it would alter the location of the joint. The extra material between the ball joint and the upper control arm that makes the arm sit at a steeper incline does not effect the relationship of the any of the suspension components. The plane formed by the three connection points of the joints is the same as it ever was regardless of the position of the UCA.
Right?
I don't see how the SPC ball joint is illegal. The ball joint is in the same place as stock and of course the upper arm continues to mount in the stock location. That's it. 3 points all of which are identical to stock. Now, if the ball joint sat higher up on the knuckle it would be illegal because it would alter the location of the joint. The extra material between the ball joint and the upper control arm that makes the arm sit at a steeper incline does not effect the relationship of the any of the suspension components. The plane formed by the three connection points of the joints is the same as it ever was regardless of the position of the UCA.
Right?
02-01-2012, 10:03 AM
#133
Registered User
If you go to your accountant's, and he tells you you owe money on your taxes, do you throw a fit and call him a "winnie"?
Do you often deal with your life problems by throwing a fit and calling the messenger a "winnie"?
Personally, I think that someone who realizes that a part may be illegal, and mentions it in a broad public forum, is doing the community a favor. That way research can be done, a consensus opinion can be formed, and corrective action can be taken if necessary, *before* it matters. Would you rather he sat on the information until someone got DSQ-ed from a big event without even realizing they were running an illegal part?
02-01-2012, 10:46 AM
#135
I think half the answer for this is the same answer for 99 questions out of 100. Money. When this option was made known a few years ago I was setting my car up on a tight budget (compared to most on this board) and at the time it was also thought to give the fender more clearance so that a roll wouldent be needed. The other half of the answer was thr fact that every supplier in the country was out of stock on the j's part indefinitely which made it the only option.
02-01-2012, 11:05 AM
#137
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Pewaukee, WI
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pinkertonpunk' timestamp='1328108595' post='21372888
Either way though I think the lower ball joints is such a better option I'm not sure why everyone wouldn't go that route anyway?
02-01-2012, 11:06 AM
#138
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Pewaukee, WI
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
