Metric Street Stocks

[Truck99]

With all the negative BS that tends to permiate these boards these days, I thought maybe we could talk about something real and constructive.

 

I think everyone agrees that the old leaf spring cars (Camaros and Novas) are becoming harder and harder to find. It also seems hard to argue that the stock 4-link/metric cars have a hard time being competive in our SS/Sportsman classes where a stock suspension is mandated. Basically, if the suspension mounting points must remain stock, the leaf spring cars will dominate (at least on ashpalt.)

 

I'm curious what everyone's thoughts are on what it would take to allow the metric cars to be competitive without giving them too much.

 

I'll start out with what seems like the obvious to me - the rear suspension. Would it be too much of an advantage to let these guys run a 3-link rear with solid links and panhard bar? Can a 3-link be used effectively without weight jacks?

[The Shrimp]

The CCMS rules allow 3rd link and panhard bar. Those cars are coming around becoming competitive. There are some different lower a-arms and front suspension things to make them even better. The car madracing 19 has for sale has all of these things done to it.

These cars just take a little longer to get them set-up compared to the camaros, but there are alot more adjustment points to help you get and stay fast.

[SSCHUCK]

I think with the panard bar and 3rd link the metric cars

would be able to run on asphalt with the leaf spring cars.

[jp17]

I ran a metric street stock at HMP for a number of years and was definitely not at a disadvantage. We even did pretty good with it in the THR LLM class back in `99. A three link with panhard bar using the stock lower mounts works fine. The front geometry on a metric car isn’t as good as a Camaro though. Letting the metric cars run Camaro spindles would be a step in the right direction. jp

[Truck99]

I ran a metric street stock at HMP for a number of years and was definitely not at a disadvantage. We even did pretty good with it in the THR LLM class back in `99. A three link with panhard bar using the stock lower mounts works fine. The front geometry on a metric car isn’t as good as a Camaro though. Letting the metric cars run Camaro spindles would be a step in the right direction. jp

JP, are you saying that you were allowed to run it in that form - stock lowers with an aftermarket upper link? Did they allow weight jacks?

[jp17]

We ran the stock lowers but boxed them and put in better bushings if I recall correctly. Last couple of years I ran the car we just used tubular ones with rod ends because it was legal and easier. We were allowed weight jacks and after market uppers in front also.

[SSCHUCK]

JP is that the car you wadded up and broke your leg?

[jp17]

That was it. The Camaro's we were running against could have weight jacks and tubular uppers as well so it was pretty even. I'd think that without them you'd at the very least need to allow some sort of spring adjuster.

[Truck99]

That was it. The Camaro's we were running against could have weight jacks and tubular uppers as well so it was pretty even. I'd think that without them you'd at the very least need to allow some sort of spring adjuster.

That's why I asked about weight jacks in the original post. I wondered if a 3 link could be made to work well without them.

 

I guess the leaf cars could be allowed adjustable shackles in the rear to even that one out, sort-of.

[becka29]

The sportsman car i had at SAS was always a fast car and it was coil spring 4 link no panhard bar and no weight jacks

[poorboy]

If the camaros are allowed adjustable rear shackles and are allowed to use different lowering blocks then they already have weight jacks and are allowed to adjusted rear roll center. I feel the metrics should definitely be allowed panhard bars and rear weight jacks.

[jp17]

I don't know much about spring adjusters hidden or otherwise but I'd say they could be made to work. That's one thing I've really never understood about some street stock classes that don't allow weight jacks. They aren't expensive to buy or install, WB shocks are the same price as stock mount ones and bolts allow for much easier tuning. I can understand not allowing alot of stuff from a cost perspective but weight jacks seem to be one of those things that are cheap to begin with and you end up spending 3 times as much money and alot more time trying to get the same result while complying with rules that don't allow them. jp

[Truck99]

If the camaros are allowed adjustable rear shackles and are allowed to use different lowering blocks then they already have weight jacks and are allowed to adjusted rear roll center. I feel the metrics should definitely be allowed panhard bars and rear weight jacks.

I can only speak for THR, but we are not allowed to use adjustable shackles, or I should say we are not allowed to have shackles of different lengths. We can run different sized lowering blocks, but that is not the same as a weight jack from a "quick adjustment" perspective. The metric cars can use different size spring spacers as well, so the playing field is already level in that respect.

[poorboy]

I noticed the camaros can arch or de arch springs. by doing this and the use of lowering blocks the rear roll center can be changed, I know it's not a quick adjustment but it is an adjustment the the metric car in the stock

state doesn't have. The metric cars at THR may be as competitive as the camaros but at CC they were not even close untill we were allowed to change to 3 link and a panhard bar. And I do agree weight jacks don't cost much, sure is alot easier to do the same thing we were doing with hidden couplers and shims .

[Truck99]

Poorboy, I think you're exactly right. The metrics at THR are NOT competitive compared to the leaf cars. The rear roll center is certainly part of the problem. Billy Becka's 29 car, as he mentioned, was fast at SAS, but THR and SAS are very different beasts. Your statement that the 3-link is what the metrics needed to level the playing field is the type of feedback that tech. men need when considering these types of changes.

 

Maybe if Billy would be more specific about how he made his stock setup work we could learn even more.

[poorboy]

I think that since SAS is more of a momentum track and the metric cars may not have such a disadvantage. That's just a thought, i don't know that for sure

[TBSSS01]

the metric cars at THR are at a big disadvantage in terms of track width, ride height, and rear suspension but if they were to be able to use a third link and panhard bar they can be very competitive even without weight jacks. I drove the #01 ss for two years and tried everything I could think of within the rules and it was a hard job to keep the car in control because of the binding of the rear suspension. The last time I drove that car I put a short third link (11 inches long) and a long panhard bar after that any adjustment I did to the car it did what it was supposed to do. That was the only time that car was really fun to drive even though I opted not to go to tech because it was not legal for THR rules.

Terry Tschoerner

[97car]

The cameros have been better then the metric cars at SAS for years,they used to let the metric cars raise the spring pockets in the rear if I remember right,I don't remember what else they were allowed to do though to be competitive.

[NickHolt]

I believe ss99 has the right idea.

 

Metrics can be competitive IF they are permitted to address their four-point rear suspension problems. IMHO they should be able to remove the two upper rear control arms and replace them with a single, fabricated, adjustable upper control arm (top link). However, they should be required to run he two stock lower rear trailing arms in their stock locations. They should also be able to run any panhard bar.

 

I followed the progress of the THR #01 SS very closely and when Terry says he tried everything legally possible to get that rear end to quit binding up during body roll, he's not exagerating. It was either cheat or park it until the rules change. And, of course, Terry chose to park it.

 

I also vote for weight jackers in ALL SS or Sportsman level cars simply because they're so cheap and make life so much easier for the teams. Not that you can't get the same handling results with shims, etc., but it's a whole lot easier to adjust the handling of the car with weigh jackers.

 

Nick Holt

[44SS]

It would be nice if we could change the rear suspension, I have done a lot of research on it and have found some info, there is just not a lot legally that can be done with it. We have done a lot with the front roll center and cant wait to see how it does, after that, i found some legal stuff for the rear that we will try.

[jp17]

Aug 24th 2005. Nick and I agree on something!

[Truck99]

Aug 24th 2005. Nick and I agree on something!

Then it's done! Every year, Jack asks drivers for input regarding rules changes for the following year. I think I'll make a proposal along these lines. I think Terry has already tried, but we'll try again.

 

Don't get me wrong, I like our leaf car for obvious reasons, but it would be cool to see a bunch of metrics out there running well also.

[DEEDDUDE]

Chase, great topic.

I once drove a metric on both dirt and asphalt. The problem on dirt is the high rear roll center. I measured ours at close to 20". The cars with the stock metric 4 link all seem to go into a four wheel drift and are always loose on exit. With allot of experimenting I found a way to really get the car to hook up. I set the car up a particular way last year and won a heat race with my street stock in the late model class at HRP. After the race I had people come to our pit area and ask “how did you get a metric car to lift the left front off the ground?" One guy said it come up off the ground two feet. ; this was with all four stock trailing arms. The set-up really planted the RR tire.

 

I never got to the experimenting stage on asphalt. I had a very experienced racer come out and help us one time and he said the problem he saw with the car is the rear end looked as if it was shifting to the left by a couple inches. I think if I had the opportunity I could make the 4-link work on asphalt using a similar set-up that I used on dirt.

[Pappy_GT13]

Since mustangs have a similar rear suspension would these same mods work? How about just adding a panhard bar to the stock four-link setup?

[jp17]

Nick might be a better theory guy but I don't think that just adding a panhard bar will get you there. I haven't plotted it all out but four links, none of which are at the axis of rotation, would tend to fight each other as body rolls. I'm thinking that a panhard bar would eliminate side to side motion but little else. What do you think Nick?