· Premium Member
Thoughts? I think someone else figured out the geometry.
Have you looked at @Shaun @ Street or Track coilover setup and his dropped spindles? There are a lot of users here that sound satisfied. I posted that video to further the discussion and get more feedback, from all sides.I’ll be the first to admit I don’t have much experience with a lot of different suspension systems for these old mustangs, but after installing MMIs Mod 1 front end, I’ll take Mike’s word on pretty much anything. Hard to imagine any other system feeling much better.
I have seen his stuff and I have no doubt it’s great. I wouldn’t even pretend to have an opinion on the engineering pros/cons of the different systems out there. I just have personal experience with Mike and his products and trust his word. The ‘70 big pin spindles he suggested worked perfectly with my Dynapros and I didn’t need to roll my fenders or worry about wheel size or clearance issues at all.
The bumpsteer kits earlier sold by Pro-Motorsports did shorten the steering arms with like an 1" by moving the tie rods mounting location with an bracket bolted to the steering arm. I believe it removed ½ turn lock to lock... it would be nice if there was a standard spindle option out there with a shorter steering arm to maybe overcome RTC issues.
Well that’s interesting. That might be just the ticket but it seems like finding one of those kits is gonna be tricky these days. I’m surprised this design didn’t stick around. Off down another rabbit hole I go!The bumpsteer kits earlier sold by Pro-Motorsports did shorten the steering arms with like an 1" by moving the tie rods mounting location with an bracket bolted to the steering arm. I believe it removed ½ turn lock to lock.
Probably a combination of price and not looking cool. Despite it's a 2 in 1 solution, bump steer correction and faster steering in one easily bolt-on modification. I believe the kit was also advertised as making an slight optimizing on the ackermann anglesI’m surprised this design didn’t stick around.
Thank you for adding to the conversation. I’m looking forward to hearing more after you get your new spindles installed and some miles under them.I ran the CSRP 1.5" drop spindles that MM was talking about for 2 autocross seasons before I swapped them out for CSRP stock hight big pin spindles. They weren't unstable or dangerous but I wanted to try the original geometry to see if it helped the car racing and it did a bit that I noticed. My friend Nick who is a much better driver than me didn't notice a difference. MM chopped up the steering arms on his spindles to shorten them as seen in the picture below.
View attachment 877420
I don't know what math he used when he shortened the arms?
I don't know how old the video in the original post is? Was it made before Shaun came out with his drop spindles, or is he taking a swipe at a direct competitors product that he has probably never tried? I hope not.
With my underwhelming experience with my first set of drop spindles I wasn't first in line for the new SoT spindles, but with the need of faster steering and more tire I bought a set a few weeks ago. I won't know how they work until April or May but I've bought a bunch of Shauns stuff and it has always been of excellent quality and works very well! Shaun didn't hack his spindles up in his garage they were designed on a computer using modern software by people who do that sort of thing for a living. I'm hoping that makes the difference.
View attachment 877424
We can see that pretty clearly here. Moving the upper ball joint down is going to extend out what's called the "front view swing arm" which basically just means you get less camber variation in travel. Additionally, the lower ball joint is effectively staying in the same spot while the tire is moving "up". This is going to effectively flatten the angle of the "n-line" or the line from the instant-center to the contact patch approximate center. Flatter n-line means the point at which your force acts on the chassis is going to migrate less vertically as the chassis moves/rolls, which leads to more stability in the corner. The tradeoff to this is that you might need more anti-roll bar because you're also taking "anti" geometry out of the car, or there's less "jacking forces".
I agree, it’s just that how the video is presented, it doesn’t make that clear. And as with the majority of things on the internet, it may well be taken as gospel and applied to all drop spindles. I appreciate that he came forward and put the information out there, as much as I appreciate Shaun and the information he contributes.I wonder if we should view the above video as Mike saying we shouldn't buy HIS dropped spindles. Some of the very first design attempts at dropped spindles JUST moved the pin. While this is nice, everything affects everything else. I think Sean's spindles, because they are designed with help from people in Detroit, may indeed work better than Mike's. Nothing against Mike, I have lots of his Dad's stuff. But my suspicion is that the Sean spindles are better, geometry wise, because more variables were considered. Sean has access to people in the industry that California people just can't get. That said, I haven't yet bought spindles from anyone. But I have a pair of '70 big pin drum spindles, and the 4 piston Galaxie calipers, waiting for a budget infusion. And I know SoT makes the brackets I need,........ LSG
That's also going to be difficult since the video as I hear it, is an answer on why he do not sell drop spindles.I wonder if we should view the above video as Mike saying we shouldn't buy HIS dropped spindles.
Nobody needs drop spindles, until you get into other necessary spindle design changes, dropped spindles are mainly a "looks" thing.Watching the MM video above and others I find it interesting what he considers a stock style fender. I believe old blue was running his fathers 2" flare fiberglass front fenders at the time, maybe more, and in the video above he makes it sound like you can run 275's with regular spindles and stock-ish fenders on a 65-66 and that is just not possible without a 20" wheel. I'm running 245/40/17's up front with negative 3 degrees camber and I don't think there is room for anything bigger. I assume most people don't want to cut up their cars for bigger tires and you can't do that up front without the tire/wheel going over the UCA and steering arm. MM seems to preach on the diminishing returns of moving the tire inboard and then you look at almost every modern car front or rear wheel drive and they all have a positive offset wheel. I realize the cars are designed for that offset. In a full on competition car like old blue the widest track available is going to be advantageous and the looks of the car secondary, not that it doesn't look cool for a race car! I guess what MM was trying to say was you don't need drop spindles to run big tires on your race or race type car with big flared fenders?
I'm always talking, texting, and sharing threads from VMF with much more experienced friends that I race with and appreciate their feedback, and that feedback has been important in my buying decisions.
Every few times I open up RCVD, its always amazing to me how "old" the principles are. There's been some additional insight but the base ideas and concepts are nothing new. Any time I look at the information compiled by Doug Milliken or any of his contemporaries, its mind boggling how much extra work had to be done prior to widespread availability of CAD. You guys were nuts and we've got it easy now, especially with something as complex as suspension geometry.Shaun's effort is an indication of the lengths you need to go to in order to get to the answer of "better."
We worked on a taller spindle design for the 67-69 Camaro when there was about zero design and modeling