notice how much lower the mounting point would have to be. that is TOO much angle to where it would be just as bad as were they originally were if not worse (i think it would be worse).
really, what should happen is that the chassis mounting point should be moved up that way the links attach ABOVE the rear end where they should to equally offset the lower link mounting points.
make sense everyone?
the only options would be to either raise the car back up to stock height OR to cut in/add to the cabin/chassis.
if you don't want to cut into the cabin then new chassis mounting points would have to be welded on and shorter link sleeves would need to be employed.
ga_goosh wrote:i havent used them but what they do is change the anti squat by changing the angle of the 4 link lower arm so when the rear end twists it pushes on the chasis. as a result the tires grip more. it is like adding more weight to the rear of tha car with out the weight.
chohdog wrote:Traction Brackets:
Lowered AE86's move the original suspension geometry out of alignment. For the same reason roll center adjusters move the lower arms under the front spindle back into place for less "bump steer", traction brackets move the outer rear links down closer to their original position to apply downward force on acceleration, and any downward force for the rear axles increases traction.
In drifting situations, you will find many different opinions on this part. There's a few people I've spoken with who don't like the traction brackets. After all, they increase the forces on the rear of the car, which technically makes it more difficult to slide the rear. This can be viewed as a down side. Inversely however, some people view traction brackets as a welcome addition. While technically they increase traction, this also allows the user to have greater controll with "lesser" tires. I've heard one friend refer to them as turning his "garbage tires" into "decent" tires. Upon speculation, you could also deduct that this is how those crazy Japanese drivers are able to perform full throttle blasts through turns and keep it pegged for almost the entirety of their run, only lifting for transitions. with the added traction, one can theoretically stay on the throttle longer for added "man with big testicles" appeal while other far more powerful vehicles have to modulate their throttles to keep from spinning out.
after following that link on c4ag and reading everything that guy wrote...Damn i feel like i just read a artical on suspension written by a pro drifter.
dr.occa wrote:notice how much lower the mounting point would have to be. that is TOO much angle to where it would be just as bad as were they originally were if not worse (i think it would be worse).
really, what should happen is that the chassis mounting point should be moved up that way the links attach ABOVE the rear end where they should to equally offset the lower link mounting points.
make sense everyone?
the only options would be to either raise the car back up to stock height OR to cut in/add to the cabin/chassis.
if you don't want to cut into the cabin then new chassis mounting points would have to be welded on and shorter link sleeves would need to be employed.
that makes sence but i am just not sure about shorter arms. it is something to think about tho
DjSpecter wrote:after following that link on c4ag and reading everything that guy wrote...Damn i feel like i just read a artical on suspension written by a pro drifter.
i know he has obviously read a couple of books i had to use is words as an example it is pretty clear and to the point
+1 i love how tie rods give you more angle, angle = gansta.
[img]http://i9.tinypic.com/832gfm9.jpg[/img]
"Now their greatest enemy is chlamydia, a disease also found in humans. This disease is transmitted by sexual contact, and it has killed over three thousand koalas in the last year."
