Feng Shui (The 510 Experiment) (Pics fixed through page 7..)

[fortyPSI]

I guess I have to start saving money for the bushings...

[Josh K.]

Hey Guys,

I haven't had anytime to work on the car or the Spherical Bearings, I have lot of stuff going on right now. At this point I'm not sure I will have time to do a full run of the Sphericals, I might just run off 5 sets. I'll make a decision this week.

 

Today I'm going to pick up my new toe gauge and start setting up the strings for alignment.

 

Josh-

[Josh K.]

Finally got the toe gauge and started doing a rough alignment.

 

Seems there is a problem. With the "toe-out" maxed out on the Byron Brackets I'm still WAY off. Like 3/4" of toe in! This is with the bracket hitting the cross member, I can't even get the bolts in at this point. I'm not sure if the car is too low for these brackets to be effective or what. I haven't even checked the camber but it appears the a-arm is hitting the upper bolt of the Byron Bracket which limits anymore camber correction and will need to be addressed just to get full up travel.

 

Here's the pics.

 

Strings:

 

 

Ride Height:

 

 

Outer Mount:

 

 

Inner Mount:

 

 

Front Toe Gauge:

 

 

Rear Toe Gauge:

 

 

I'm not sure what to do at this point.

[Josh K.]

Looks like it's at -3Deg Camber.

[datsuntech]

I would try slotting your outer bracket to see if you can get enough adjustment. If so, then you can weld up the slot and you are good to go. If not then you need to either make longer outer brackets or make the control arm longer at the outer pivot.

 

Brock

[Josh K.]

I spent $300 to avoid engineering a solution. At this point I might as well sell these brackets and start from scratch.

 

I welded the bearing tubes in the exact location as the bushing tubes. I'm not sure how these work unless the car is only "slightly" lowered.

[Josh K.]

I could move the inner tube back to get more toe and slope the top of the control arm down more to get up travel clearance.

[Byron510]

I spent $300 to avoid engineering a solution. At this point I might as well sell these brackets and start from scratch.

 

I welded the bearing tubes in the exact location as the bushing tubes. I'm not sure how these work unless the car is only "slightly" lowered.

 

 

Hi Josh,

 

Just got your PM - thanks you for dropping me a line, it's been a while since I dropped in here at Ratsun.

 

I'm looking at the photos and all looks good so far, yet I can see no reason for the lack of adjustment. These brackets were designed to work on low cars. My car is 2 1/2" off the ground at the front K member, and sits pretty level. So your ride height isn’t the issue. The brackets were designed to give from 1/4" toe out to way more toe in that you'd ever need. Most guys run their cars from zero to 1/4" toe in at the rear, depending on the cars intended use. I actually run the ¼” toe in setting on R compound tires, it works well. And I still have lots of adjustment left; more than enough to take the settings past zero to toe out is I choose. This is what is puzzling me on your application.

 

I’m going to look through your build thread, and get back to you…

 

Byron

[datsuntech]

I could move the inner tube back to get more toe and slope the top of the control arm down more to get up travel clearance.

 

That would also work, on second thought probably better than my solution.

Have you checked the passenger side? Is it possible your crossmember is warped/twisted?

[Josh K.]

Thanks Byron.

 

I haven't fit the other side. I do believe I have a non bearing arm left that I could try tommorow.

[Byron510]

Back again Josh,

 

 

 

This is the first time I’ve been on your build thread – nice job on the rear LCA bushings! I need to go through the rest of your build. However what I have found so far:

 

-Your ride height at the rocker is comparable to my car, so ride height is definitely not the issue.

-Is your rear X member against the floor? It shouldn’t matter that much as my car still has adjustment left at the same height, and should more than compensate even if the X member were in its stock location.

-You’re right about the spherical bushes – the first set were in my car for 20 years, I just replaced them in 2005 because I thought I should, not really because they needed to be replaced.

 

There are over 60 sets of these brackets out there, and this is the first time I have heard of an issue with not enough adjustment. There must be something we are missing here, or possibly a combination of things. I can see that you took care to weld the new bushing tubes in the right place; it is possible they are off. I have to admit, the mod you have done I have not seen before. However your photos show your method – it looks good, but I fear something got missed somehow.

I have build a number of spherical bushing sets myself for my own projects as well as others - utilizing com10 bushes only sleeving the stock LCA holes. Three other guys come immediately to mind locally as well, all doing similar mods and using my brackets. I know that one guy (Ash510 on the realm) is running zero toe on the rear of his car without concern. There should be enough adjustment. When utilizing the stock LCA, it’s the arm itself bottoming against the bracket which limits the travel. If all else was equal, it would appear that your set up should have more ajsutment in the regard as it appears your tubes may be thinner in cross section – the radius from the center of the spherical bush to the OD of the tube. So there must be something else in the geometry of the set up that has changed.

 

As commented above, relocating the inner tube pivot point on the LCA could also work, but what a pain in the but to do this twice.

Your comment above is spot on as to why we should use spherical bushes when correcting the suspension geometry on really low 510’s – the angels do get really extreme. Guys ask all the time if they can use poly bushes with these adjustable set ups – can you imagine the stress on the parts?

 

Keep me posted on the stock LCA, see if there is any change. This should tell us were we need to look. Please stay in touch; I’ll follow up through your thread. There must be an answer that is pretty strait forward.

 

Byron

[Josh K.]

Thanks Byron. I have a stock passenger arm that I'll put on tomorrow. It seems that a huge amount of toe adjustment is lost the more you go towards neutral camber.

 

I'll report back tomorrow with the results from my stock arm.

 

Josh-

[Byron510]

Just to add to the thread a bit, on my car (The Bronze), I run 1/2 degree negative camber in the rear; it's barely visible to the eye even on 7" wide rims with 205 tires. Here are a couple shots of my car after the 15's were put on this year - I didn't change any suspension settings from the 13's I'd always previously run, but in the one photo from the rear at an angle, you can see that the front has about 1 degree negative, where the rear has .5 degrees. In the shot directly from the rear the tire looks perpendicular - but it is at 1/2 degree negative.

I'll check back tomorrow, see what you have found out.

 

 

 

Byron

[Duke]

Josh, in an earlier post you said that you planned on moving the outer pivot back .25" to help with the issue of excessive toe out when our cars are lowered. Did you end up doing this? Could be an explanation for the excessive toe in that you are getting. I have a set of Byrons brackets on my car and have not had a problem with running out of adjustment, and my ride height is about 1" lower than yours (4.5" at the pinch weld) with 205-50 R15 tires. I do have the rear crossmember pushed up as high as it will go which does help a little with geometry, but even if this wasn't the case, I don't think I would have any problems.

 

I'm interested to see what you come up with for this problem, as you always seem to have very well thought out solutions to the problems you come up against.

[Ant-dat]

interested in see what happens with this, I'm thinking of getting a set of these soon.

[Josh K.]

Hey Duke,

I didn't move them back at all from the stock location. I started with that thought and then promptly scrapped the first arm.......

 

I brought a stock arm to work. Just need to press in the stock bushings and I can check it tonight.

 

Josh-

[Josh K.]

Ok.... I mounted up a stock arm. I had a poly bushing on the inside and a stock bushing on the outside (it was easiest).

 

Here's the results.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maxed out at -1.5DEG Camber, 1/2" Toe in. The difference it seems is just the pivot points of the bearings vs. bushings.

[Josh K.]

 

-Is your rear X member against the floor? It shouldn’t matter that much as my car still has adjustment left at the same height, and should more than compensate even if the X member were in its stock location.

 

 

If all else was equal, it would appear that your set up should have more ajsutment in the regard as it appears your tubes may be thinner in cross section – the radius from the center of the spherical bush to the OD of the tube. So there must be something else in the geometry of the set up that has changed.

 

 

 

 

Byron,

My cross member is in the stock location and the spherical bushing tubes are the same diameter as stock.

 

Josh-

 

 

[Byron510]

Byron,

My cross member is in the stock location and the spherical bushing tubes are the same diameter as stock.

 

Josh-

 

 

Hi Josh,

 

I have placed a photo of the brackets on my car - rear is at just under 1/2 negative camber and you can still see adjustment left on the brackets – more than enough to bring the camber in to positive territory. My car is low, it was under 5” at the rocker - so comparable to yours for sure. And there is enough toe adjustment to bring that to zero as well. You can see here that the adjustment is close to the front, but it’s not all the way. I wish I had better photos on hand.

 

I've been looking at your thread trying to figure out what is different on your set up. There have been over 50 sets sold, and I've had feedback on at least half of them - all positive. This is the first time I’ve hear of a problem. I'm sure there is an easy answer. I've just shot you a PM, we'll get in touch on the phone and talk soon.

Byron

[Josh K.]

Thanks for the phone call Byron. I'll try a few things we discussed tomorrow and report back my results. I'm thinking I'm going to have to flip them and swap sides for whatever reason . We'll figure it out.

 

Josh

[Josh K.]

Ok guys. There's no explanation for why the Brackets are not giving the adjustment I need. I guess at this point I just need to make it work and move on.

 

I flipped the brackets and turned them up side down. This puts me at -1.25DEG Camber at about halfway and about the same toe. I can correct the toe by shortening the inside leg of the control arms. This should will put me in the mid range of the toe adjustment also.

 

 

 

 

[Josh K.]

I took 1/4" off the inside leg and things seem to be better. Might need a little more..

 

 

 

 

1/4" Wheel Spacer. 2.5" of wheel travel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Started on the other flare.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[fisch]

Nice. It will be interesting to see how much faster this one goes on with the experience garnered in the first.

[bonvo]

sexy

[Byron510]

Good morning Josh,

 

That’s an interesting way to make it work on your car. With a 1/4" off the side plates, how much clearance is there between the U bracket and the X-member at the pivot bolt?

Also, in your application with the new pivot tubes welded to the LCA, how much space do you have between this point and the U bracket itself? Can we gain some more toe adjustment here if I were to make you a new set? Effectively moving the slot closer to the X member.

 

Keep in touch.

 

Byron