Tony Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 Another example of subframe optimization Nothing is imposable if you know how Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CIH Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 You didn't get a shot of the secondary angles too did you ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted January 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 You didn't get a shot of the secondary angles too did you ? No, only because they where unremarkable.... The only change was minutes in the SAI and a few mm in the wheel base. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Like to see them do that at the local 'tracking' place! Do you know if it made much difference to how the car handles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted January 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Like to see them do that at the local 'tracking' place! Do you know if it made much difference to how the car handles? Totally sorted... I don't deny this sort of correction smothers the real reason for the complaint ie: a bent component, but it does display the chassis can be corrected without the need to replace damaged/ bent chassis components. This type of correction is not wise for all circumstances, sometimes it's a case "it's bent" replace it, but within reason discretion can be used to optimize the chassis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CIH Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 I'm guessing it pulled to one side but can't decide which way. I'd say the O/S was "stronger" so would it pull that way ? Or to the left because the N/S was "lacking/weaker" ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted January 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 I'm guessing it pulled to one side but can't decide which way. I'd say the O/S was "stronger" so would it pull that way ? Or to the left because the N/S was "lacking/weaker" ?? On this car there are six anchor points.... wheels down we released them and shunted the NSF forward, as you can see the NSF moved whereas the OSF just rotated around it's anchor. Point to remember about this type of correction is that cars are not so surgically built as we are lead to believe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juzzyp Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 Is this the car I saw where you had to "jounce" the chassis - I love the Americans just for phrases like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted February 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 Is this the car I saw where you had to "jounce" the chassis - I love the Americans just for phrases like that. Not the same car but the same process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike1 Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 That's quite interesting. The caster on a Sierra is normally non-adjustable ( unless you have top mount caster/camber adjustment or compression strut set-up rather than the front ARB locating the TCAs ). Have you ever managed to bring about any adjustment on one with the standard set-up when the left/right measurement differs markedly? Or is it not worth worrying over? I have heard of people using very thin shims on the ARB/TCA junction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted May 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 That's quite interesting. The caster on a Sierra is normally non-adjustable ( unless you have top mount caster/camber adjustment or compression strut set-up rather than the front ARB locating the TCAs ). Have you ever managed to bring about any adjustment on one with the standard set-up when the left/right measurement differs markedly? Or is it not worth worrying over? I have heard of people using very thin shims on the ARB/TCA junction? Can't say i've been in the position to do this to a Sierra.... If i recall they have a tie rod so adjustment could be achieved there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike1 Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 That's quite interesting. The caster on a Sierra is normally non-adjustable ( unless you have top mount caster/camber adjustment or compression strut set-up rather than the front ARB locating the TCAs ). Have you ever managed to bring about any adjustment on one with the standard set-up when the left/right measurement differs markedly? Or is it not worth worrying over? I have heard of people using very thin shims on the ARB/TCA junction? Can't say i've been in the position to do this to a Sierra.... If i recall they have a tie rod so adjustment could be achieved there. Well I think the front wheel location is achieved by the ARB that locates into the track control arm. If you were to put some sort of shim/spacer at the back interface of the TCA and the ARB it would effectively push the front wheel forward slightly in the arch ( the ARB is mounted behind the TCAs ). I guess this would be useful to equalise caster from one side to the other although I don't know the effect of differing settings on one side compared to the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted May 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Looking at the design, yes it would.... Obviously if you move it to far there will be some compliance issues with the bushing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.