[blkfrd]

The following link goes to a blog post I made on our website today. I've finally completed a prototype of combined LCA and strut rod. I'm struggling with the name so if you have suggestions i'd like to hear about it. It's been about 9 months since I first thought about this product. I vacillated back and forth with the design, but this one looks like a winner. There a still a few things to work out, but it's close. I'm hoping that we go into production in July. The blog is about the 65/66 Mustang version, but there will be a version that will fit later Fords as well.

There are similar products out there but my price will not be anywhere as high...probably in the $475 per pair range. If you try to buy aftermarket strut rods and LCAs separately, you'll pay more...even for our stuff and I try to keep our prices reasonable let alone other vendors who are higher.

I'd like to hear your feedback!

http://www.pacificthunderperformanc...prototype-is-here-dual-link-lower-control-arm

 

[PSIG]

I like the engineering that went into it. Very function-focused. Any thought of making it jointed at the arm to minimize rotation on the arc?

David

Just kidding! Though it is better than the Y-Knot

:

 

[blkfrd]

I like the engineering that went into it. Very function-focused. Any thought of making it jointed at the arm to minimize rotation on the arc?

David

Just kidding! Though it is better than the Y-Knot

:

Yea...the PP from PTP Engineering! :crying:

Can you elaborate on the jointed comment? Thx

 

[PSIG]

You have two intersecting arcs of travel. One established by the upper control arm (transmitting to the lower), and one established by the strut anchor. The two arcs do not follow the same path, and so interfere with each other, creating a third arc (forward) in the LCA. While this cannot be avoided by fixed end-point anchors; the twisting of the LCA relative to the UCA arc due to the strut arc can be minimized with a joint at the LCA/strut interface. One effect can be minimizing angular changes in the steering due to spindle rotation, to reduce bump steer at greater travel. Just thinking out-loud.

David

 

[blkfrd]

You have two intersecting arcs of travel. One established by the upper control arm (transmitting to the lower), and one established by the strut anchor. The two arcs do not follow the same path, and so interfere with each other, creating a third arc (forward) in the LCA. While this cannot be avoided by fixed end-point anchors; the twisting of the LCA relative to the UCA arc due to the strut arc can be minimized with a joint at the LCA/strut interface. One effect can be minimizing angular changes in the steering due to spindle rotation, to reduce bump steer at greater travel. Just thinking out-loud.

David

I understand now. Twisting of the LCA is occurring with stock setup. It also occurs with aftermarket adjustable strut rods that are rigid except at the point where the end mounts to the frame hole. As the suspension travels the strut angle changes and thus the LCA angle changes with it. One of the things I had to overcome was the frame clearance as the LCA traveled up. First I had a vertical bend in the LCA tube that mimicked the 15 degree angle you see in stock LCAs at the small end. This resulted in complex bends in two planes and was too difficult to reliably repeat and it didn't leave enough straight section to thread. So, I found the urethane bushing and placed the threaded stud at the bottom of the bushing. This resulted in the frame clearance I needed. When I said that there are some minor tweaks I still needed to work out, one of them was to look into using a spherical bearing in place of the urethane bushing...this doesn't address the twisting you mentioned but it would be smoother and less resistance when it twisted.

Good conversation!