hummm....after scrutiny, could my interest be waning?
some preliminary issues? maybe, maybe not, but this board exists for just this reason. let me preface this by stating that the car will be a good one. and that i am an idealist. but i think constant shares that reputation, so i will proceed.
- the droop screws are a bit close to the hingpins often resulting in a coarse adjustment. (talk to xray guys about that issue!) yes, the xray uses gay, coarse screws which compound the problem, but the distance is not to be ignored.
- the lower shock position appears to be fixed (unless you opt for the add on aluminum pieces). it is too far toward the chassis. it's nearing a 2:1 ratio between wheel travel and piston travel. again, this exploits poorly built shocks, poorly matched springs, and might limit the amount of spring choices for stiff setups. i love the idea of symetrical suspension front to rear, but i feel that the option should exist to get away from it in the rear w/o bolt on adapters.
- i feel the car should have composite knuckles. the aluminum carriers are perfect as they keep from twisting, which will relieve the cvd's from getting hyperextended in an impact. but the knuckles should be softer/composite. metal to metal contact will transfer the impact to the arms, cause even the metal carriers to bend, and the arms will continue to be the weak point. typically the effective method of dampening impact uses a design that utilizes elastic components at the extremities, and more rigid core materials nearer the foundation/base.
- i would like to see the rear hub ears lopped off, and vertical holes drilled in the flat section that they currently rise from. no big deal, but a comment nontheless. and it would be an easy change to make on the current cad drawing/cnc code.
- eccentric diff cams??? i had just assumed that at this point in the game, the external tensioners were a thing of the past. i can't effectively see how the diffs are held in place, but the sighting of the tensioners, and slots in the rear layshaft mount imply to me that the diffs are fixed. are you kidding me? a low cg design should not include a big tensioner poking off of the top deck nearly as high as the shock towers. it just looks less than clean, adds weight, and friction. it does, however, allow for adjustment of either belt within seconds, and without any breakdown of the car. which do you prefer?
- rear body mount? more weight and now the body posts will flex more due to the length. too easy to hang a fender. it's not a bad thing, but the rear shock tower should leave the option to go from there if desired. it appears that the assassin tower solves that?? please, include that in the kit instead of two front towers.
running on carpet, we get less excess weight to play around with for tuning (we run at 50ozs). i don't like to have most of that wrapped up in ineffecient ways of doing things. i will surely scrap both front and rear c/f body post stays, and try to bring that weight in nearer the yaw center.
and no, i actually don't use drugs.
ps - glad to hear of the revised diffs. also note that most of my original comments weeks ago were positive. the car is a sight, that's for sure, but minor issues plague my brain.